Report text available as:

(PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip?



113th Congress     }                                    {          Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session        }                                    {         113-711

======================================================================
 
    STRENGTHENING FISHING COMMUNITIES AND INCREASING FLEXIBILITY IN 
                        FISHERIES MANAGEMENT ACT

                                _______
                                

 December 22, 2014.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
            the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

 Mr. Hastings of Washington, from the Committee on Natural Resources, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 4742]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred 
the bill (H.R. 4742) to amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
Conservation and Management Act to provide flexibility for 
fishery managers and stability for fishermen, and for other 
purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon 
with an amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do 
pass.
    The amendment is as follows:
  Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

  This Act may be cited as the ``Strengthening Fishing Communities and 
Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act''.

SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.

  The table of contents for this Act is the following:

Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Table of contents.

 TITLE I--AMENDMENTS TO THE MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND 
                             MANAGEMENT ACT

Sec. 101. Definitions.
Sec. 102. References.
Sec. 103. Flexibility in rebuilding fish stocks.
Sec. 104. Modifications to the annual catch limit requirement.
Sec. 105. Distinguishing between overfished and depleted.
Sec. 106. Transparency and public process.
Sec. 107. Limitation on future catch share programs.
Sec. 108. Report on fee.
Sec. 109. Data collection and data confidentiality.
Sec. 110. Cooperative research and management program.
Sec. 111. Council jurisdiction for overlapping fisheries.
Sec. 112. Gulf of Mexico fisheries cooperative research and red snapper 
management.
Sec. 113. North Pacific fishery management clarification.
Sec. 114. Ensuring consistent management for fisheries throughout their 
range.
Sec. 115. Limitation on harvest in North Pacific directed pollock 
fishery.
Sec. 116. Recreational fishing data.
Sec. 117. Stock assessments used for fisheries managed under Gulf of 
Mexico Council's Reef Fish Management Plan.
Sec. 118. Estimation of cost of recovery from fishery resource 
disaster.
Sec. 119. Deadline for action on request by Governor for determination 
regarding fishery resource disaster.
Sec. 120. Prohibition on considering red snapper killed during removal 
of oil rigs.
Sec. 121. Prohibition on considering fish seized from foreign fishing.
Sec. 122. Subsistence fishing.
Sec. 123. Inter-sector trading of commercial catch share allocations in 
the Gulf of Mexico.
Sec. 124. Authorization of appropriations.

     TITLE II--REVITALIZING THE ECONOMY OF FISHERIES IN THE PACIFIC

Sec. 201. Short title.
Sec. 202. Findings; purpose.
Sec. 203. Refinancing of Pacific Coast groundfish fishing capacity 
reduction loan.

 TITLE I--AMENDMENTS TO THE MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND 
                             MANAGEMENT ACT

SEC. 101. DEFINITIONS.

  Any term used in this title that is defined in section 3 of the 
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 
1802) shall have the same meaning such term has under that section.

SEC. 102. REFERENCES.

  Except as otherwise specifically provided, whenever in this title an 
amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal 
of, a provision, the reference shall be considered to be made to a 
provision of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 
Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.).

SEC. 103. FLEXIBILITY IN REBUILDING FISH STOCKS.

  (a) General Requirements.--Section 304(e) (16 U.S.C. 1854(e)) is 
amended--
          (1) in paragraph (4)--
                  (A) in subparagraph (A)(i), by striking ``possible'' 
                and inserting ``practicable'';
                  (B) by amending subparagraph (A)(ii) to read as 
                follows:
                          ``(ii) may not exceed the time the stock 
                        would be rebuilt without fishing occurring plus 
                        one mean generation, except in a case in 
                        which--
                                  ``(I) the biology of the stock of 
                                fish, other environmental conditions, 
                                or management measures under an 
                                international agreement in which the 
                                United States participates dictate 
                                otherwise;
                                  ``(II) the Secretary determines that 
                                the cause of the stock being depleted 
                                is outside the jurisdiction of the 
                                Council or the rebuilding program 
                                cannot be effective only by limiting 
                                fishing activities;
                                  ``(III) the Secretary determines that 
                                one or more components of a mixed-stock 
                                fishery is depleted but cannot be 
                                rebuilt within that time- frame without 
                                significant economic harm to the 
                                fishery, or cannot be rebuilt without 
                                causing another component of the mixed-
                                stock fishery to approach a depleted 
                                status;
                                  ``(IV) the Secretary determines that 
                                recruitment, distribution, or life 
                                history of, or fishing activities for, 
                                the stock are affected by informal 
                                transboundary agreements under which 
                                management activities outside the 
                                exclusive economic zone by another 
                                country may hinder conservation and 
                                management efforts by United States 
                                fishermen; and
                                  ``(V) the Secretary determines that 
                                the stock has been affected by unusual 
                                events that make rebuilding within the 
                                specified time period improbable 
                                without significant economic harm to 
                                fishing communities;'';
                  (C) by striking ``and'' after the semicolon at the 
                end of subparagraph (B), by redesignating subparagraphs 
                (B) and (C) as subparagraphs (C) and (D), and by 
                inserting after subparagraph (A) the following:
                  ``(B) take into account environmental condition 
                including predator/prey relationships;''; and
                  (D) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph 
                (D) (as so redesignated) and inserting ``; and'', and 
                by adding at the end the following:
                  ``(E) specify a schedule for reviewing the rebuilding 
                targets, evaluating environmental impacts on rebuilding 
                progress, and evaluating progress being made toward 
                reaching rebuilding targets.''; and
          (2) by adding at the end the following:
          ``(8) A fishery management plan, plan amendment, or proposed 
        regulations may use alternative rebuilding strategies, 
        including harvest control rules and fishing mortality-rate 
        targets to the extent they are in compliance with the 
        requirements of this Act.
          ``(9) A Council may terminate the application of paragraph 
        (3) to a fishery if the Council's scientific and statistical 
        committee determines and the Secretary concurs that the 
        original determination that the fishery was depleted was 
        erroneous, either--
                  ``(A) within the 2-year period beginning on the 
                effective date a fishery management plan, plan 
                amendment, or proposed regulation for a fishery under 
                this subsection takes effect; or
                  ``(B) within 90 days after the completion of the next 
                stock assessment after such determination.''.
  (b) Emergency Regulations and Interim Measures.--Section 305(c)(3)(B) 
(16 U.S.C. 1855(c)(3)(B)) is amended by striking ``180 days after'' and 
all that follows through ``provided'' and inserting ``1 year after the 
date of publication, and may be extended by publication in the Federal 
Register for one additional period of not more than 1 year, if''.

SEC. 104. MODIFICATIONS TO THE ANNUAL CATCH LIMIT REQUIREMENT.

  Section 302 (16 U.S.C. 1852) is amended by adding at the end the 
following:
  ``(m) Considerations for Modifications to Annual Catch Limit 
Requirements.--
          ``(1) Consideration of ecosystem and economic impacts.--In 
        establishing annual catch limits a Council may, consistent with 
        section 302(h)(6), consider changes in an ecosystem and the 
        economic needs of the fishing communities.
          ``(2) Limitations to annual catch limit requirement for 
        special fisheries.--Notwithstanding subsection (h)(6), a 
        Council is not required to develop an annual catch limit for--
                  ``(A) an ecosystem component species;
                  ``(B) a fishery for a species that has a life cycle 
                of approximately 1 year, unless the Secretary has 
                determined the fishery is subject to overfishing; or
                  ``(C) a stock for which--
                          ``(i) more than half of a single-year class 
                        will complete their life cycle in less than 18 
                        months; and
                          ``(ii) fishing mortality will have little 
                        impact on the stock.
          ``(3) Relationship to international fishery efforts.--Each 
        annual catch limit may, consistent with section 302(h)(6), take 
        into account--
                  ``(A) management measures under international 
                agreements in which the United States participates;
                  ``(B) informal transboundary agreements under which 
                fishery management activities by another country 
                outside the exclusive economic zone may hinder 
                conservation efforts by United States fishermen for a 
                fish species for which any of the recruitment, 
                distribution, life history, or fishing activities are 
                transboundary; and
                  ``(C) in instances in which no transboundary 
                agreement exists, activities by another country outside 
                the exclusive economic zone that may hinder 
                conservation efforts by United States fisherman for a 
                fish species for which any of the recruitment, 
                distribution, life history, or fishing activities are 
                transboundary.
          ``(4) Authorization for multispecies complexes and multiyear 
        annual catch limits.--For purposes of subsection (h)(6), a 
        Council may establish--
                  ``(A) an annual catch limit for a stock complex; or
                  ``(B) annual catch limits for each year in any 
                continuous period that is not more than three years in 
                duration.
          ``(5) Ecosystem component species defined.--In this 
        subsection the term `ecosystem component species' means a stock 
        of fish that is a nontarget, incidentally harvested stock of 
        fish in a fishery, or a nontarget, incidentally harvested stock 
        of fish that a Council or the Secretary has determined--
                  ``(A) is not subject to overfishing, approaching a 
                depleted condition or depleted; and
                  ``(B) is not likely to become subject to overfishing 
                or depleted in the absence of conservation and 
                management measures.''.

SEC. 105. DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN OVERFISHED AND DEPLETED.

  (a) Definitions.--Section 3 (16 U.S.C. 1802) is amended--
          (1) in paragraph (34), by striking ``The terms `overfishing' 
        and `overfished' mean'' and inserting ``The term `overfishing' 
        means''; and
          (2) by inserting after paragraph (8) the following:
          ``(8a) The term `depleted' means, with respect to a stock of 
        fish or stock complex, that the stock or stock complex has a 
        biomass that has declined below a level that jeopardizes the 
        capacity of the stock or stock complex to produce maximum 
        sustainable yield on a continuing basis.''.
  (b) Substitution of Term.--The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation 
and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) is amended by striking 
``overfished'' each place it appears and inserting ``depleted''.
  (c) Clarity in Annual Report.--Section 304(e)(1) (16 U.S.C. 
1854(e)(1)) is amended by adding at the end the following: ``The report 
shall distinguish between fisheries that are depleted (or approaching 
that condition) as a result of fishing and fisheries that are depleted 
(or approaching that condition) as a result of factors other than 
fishing. The report shall state, for each fishery identified as 
depleted or approaching that condition, whether the fishery is the 
target of directed fishing.''.

SEC. 106. TRANSPARENCY AND PUBLIC PROCESS.

  (a) Advice.--Section 302(g)(1)(B) (16 U.S.C. 1852(g)(1)(B)) is 
amended by adding at the end the following: ``Each scientific and 
statistical committee shall develop such advice in a transparent manner 
and allow for public involvement in the process.''.
  (b) Meetings.--Section 302(i)(2) (16 U.S.C. 1852(i)(2)) is amended by 
adding at the end the following:
          ``(G) Each Council shall make available on the Internet Web 
        site of the Council--
                  ``(i) to the extent practicable, a Webcast, an audio 
                recording, or a live broadcast of each meeting of the 
                Council, and of the Council Coordination Committee 
                established under subsection (l), that is not closed in 
                accordance with paragraph (3); and
                  ``(ii) audio, video (if the meeting was in person or 
                by video conference), or a searchable audio or written 
                transcript of each meeting of the Council and of the 
                meetings of committees referred to in section 
                302(g)(1)(B) of the Council by not later than 30 days 
                after the conclusion of the meeting.
          ``(H) The Secretary shall maintain and make available to the 
        public an archive of Council and scientific and statistical 
        committee meeting audios, videos, and transcripts made 
        available under clauses (i) and (ii) subparagraph (G).''.
  (c) Fishery Impact Statements.--
          (1) Requirement.--Section 303 (16 U.S.C. 1853) is amended--
                  (A) in subsection (a), by striking paragraph (9) and 
                redesignating paragraphs (10) through (15) as 
                paragraphs (9) through (14), respectively; and
                  (B) by adding at the end the following:
  ``(d) Fishery Impact Statement.--
          ``(1) Any fishery management plan (or fishery management plan 
        amendment) prepared by any Council or by the Secretary pursuant 
        to subsection (a) or (b), or proposed regulations deemed 
        necessary pursuant to subsection (c), shall include a fishery 
        impact statement which shall assess, specify and analyze the 
        likely effects and impact of the proposed action on the quality 
        of the human environment.
          ``(2) The fishery impact statement shall describe--
                  ``(A) a purpose of the proposed action;
                  ``(B) the environmental impact of the proposed 
                action;
                  ``(C) any adverse environmental effects which cannot 
                be avoided should the proposed action be implemented;
                  ``(D) a reasonable range of alternatives to the 
                proposed action;
                  ``(E) the relationship between short-term use of 
                fishery resources and the enhancement of long-term 
                productivity;
                  ``(F) the cumulative conservation and management 
                effects; and
                  ``(G) economic, and social impacts of the proposed 
                action on--
                          ``(i) participants in the fisheries and 
                        fishing communities affected by the proposed 
                        action;
                          ``(ii) participants in the fisheries 
                        conducted in adjacent areas under the authority 
                        of another Council, after consultation with 
                        such Council and representatives of those 
                        participants; and
                          ``(iii) the safety of human life at sea, 
                        including whether and to what extent such 
                        measures may affect the safety of participants 
                        in the fishery.
          ``(3) A substantially complete fishery impact statement, 
        which may be in draft form, shall be available not less than 14 
        days before the beginning of the meeting at which a Council 
        makes its final decision on the proposal (for plans, plan 
        amendments, or proposed regulations prepared by a Council 
        pursuant to subsection (a) or (c)). Availability of this 
        fishery impact statement will be announced by the methods used 
        by the council to disseminate public information and the public 
        and relevant government agencies will be invited to comment on 
        the fishery impact statement.
          ``(4) The completed fishery impact statement shall accompany 
        the transmittal of a fishery management plan or plan amendment 
        as specified in section 304(a), as well as the transmittal of 
        proposed regulations as specified in section 304(b).
          ``(5) The Councils shall, subject to approval by the 
        Secretary, establish criteria to determine actions or classes 
        of action of minor significance regarding subparagraphs (A), 
        (B), (D), (E), and (F) of paragraph (2), for which preparation 
        of a fishery impact statement is unnecessary and categorically 
        excluded from the requirements of this section, and the 
        documentation required to establish the exclusion.
          ``(6) The Councils shall, subject to approval by the 
        Secretary, prepare procedures for compliance with this section 
        that provide for timely, clear, and concise analysis that is 
        useful to decisionmakers and the public, reduce extraneous 
        paperwork and effectively involve the public, including--
                  ``(A) using Council meetings to determine the scope 
                of issues to be addressed and identifying significant 
                issues related to the proposed action;
                  ``(B) integration of the fishery impact statement 
                development process with preliminary and final Council 
                decisionmaking in a manner that provides opportunity 
                for comment from the public and relevant government 
                agencies prior to these decision points; and
                  ``(C) providing scientific, technical, and legal 
                advice at an early stage of the development of the 
                fishery impact statement to ensure timely transmittal 
                and Secretarial review of the proposed fishery 
                management plan, plan amendment, or regulations to the 
                Secretary.
          ``(7) Actions taken in accordance with the procedures of this 
        section shall constitute fulfillment of the requirements the 
        National Environmental Policy Improvement Act of 1970 (42 
        U.S.C. 4371 et seq.) and all related implementing 
        regulations.''.
          (2) Evaluation of adequacy.--Section 304(a)(2) (16 U.S.C. 
        1854(a)(2)) is amended by striking ``and'' after the semicolon 
        at the end of subparagraph (B), striking the period at the end 
        of subparagraph (C) and inserting ``; and'', and by adding at 
        the end the following:
                  ``(D) evaluate the adequacy of the accompanying 
                fishery impact statement as basis for fully considering 
                the environmental impacts of implementing the fishery 
                management plan or plan amendment.''.
          (3) Review of regulations.--Section 304(b) (16 U.S.C. 
        1854(b)) is amended by striking so much as precedes 
        subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
  ``(b) Review of Regulations.--
          ``(1) Upon transmittal by the Council to the Secretary of 
        proposed regulations prepared under section 303(c), the 
        Secretary shall immediately initiate an evaluation of the 
        proposed regulations to determine whether they are consistent 
        with the fishery management plan, plan amendment, this Act and 
        other applicable law. The Secretary shall also immediately 
        initiate an evaluation of the accompanying fishery impact 
        statement as a basis for fully considering the environmental 
        impacts of implementing the proposed regulations. Within 15 
        days of initiating such evaluation the Secretary shall make a 
        determination 
        and--''.
          (4) Effect on time requirements.--Section 305(e) (16 U.S.C. 
        1855(e)) is amended by inserting ``the National Environmental 
        Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.),'' after ``the 
        Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)''.

SEC. 107. LIMITATION ON FUTURE CATCH SHARE PROGRAMS.

  (a) Catch Share Defined.--Section 3 (16 U.S.C. 1802) is amended by 
inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
          ``(2a) The term `catch share' means any fishery management 
        program that allocates a specific percentage of the total 
        allowable catch for a fishery, or a specific fishing area, to 
        an individual, cooperative, community, processor, 
        representative of a commercial sector, or regional fishery 
        association established in accordance with section 303A(c)(4), 
        or other entity.''.
  (b) Catch Share Referendum Pilot Program.--
          (1) In general.--Section 303A(c)(6)(D) (16 U.S.C. 
        1853a(c)(6)(D)) is amended to read as follows:
                  ``(D) Catch share referendum pilot program.--
                          ``(i) The New England, Mid-Atlantic, South 
                        Atlantic, and Gulf of Mexico Councils may not 
                        submit a fishery management plan or amendment 
                        that creates a catch share program for a 
                        fishery, and the Secretary may not approve or 
                        implement such a plan or amendment submitted by 
                        such a Council or a secretarial plan or 
                        amendment under section 304(c) that creates 
                        such a program, unless the final program has 
                        been approved, in a referendum in accordance 
                        with this subparagraph, by a majority of the 
                        permit holders eligible to participate in the 
                        fishery. For multispecies permits in the Gulf 
                        of Mexico, any permit holder with landings from 
                        within the sector of the fishery being 
                        considered for the catch share program within 
                        the 5-year period preceding the date of the 
                        referendum and still active in fishing in the 
                        fishery shall be eligible to participate in 
                        such a referendum. If a catch share program is 
                        not approved by the requisite number of permit 
                        holders, it may be revised and submitted for 
                        approval in a subsequent referendum.
                          ``(ii) The Secretary may, at the request of 
                        the New England Fishery Management Council, 
                        allow participation in such a referendum for a 
                        fishery under the Council's authority, by 
                        fishing vessel crewmembers who derive a 
                        significant portion of their livelihood from 
                        such fishing.
                          ``(iii) The Secretary shall conduct a 
                        referendum under this subparagraph, including 
                        notifying all permit holders eligible to 
                        participate in the referendum and making 
                        available to them--
                                  ``(I) a copy of the proposed program;
                                  ``(II) an estimate of the costs of 
                                the program, including costs to 
                                participants;
                                  ``(III) an estimate of the amount of 
                                fish or percentage of quota each permit 
                                holder would be allocated; and
                                  ``(IV) information concerning the 
                                schedule, procedures, and eligibility 
                                requirements for the referendum 
                                process.
                          ``(iv) For the purposes of this subparagraph, 
                        the term `permit holder eligible to 
                        participate' only includes the holder of a 
                        permit for a fishery under which fishing has 
                        occurred in 3 of the 5 years preceding a 
                        referendum for the fishery, unless sickness, 
                        injury, or other unavoidable hardship prevented 
                        the permit holder from engaging in such 
                        fishing.
                          ``(v) The Secretary may not implement any 
                        catch share program for any fishery managed 
                        exclusively by the Secretary unless first 
                        petitioned by a majority of those permit 
                        holders eligible to participate in the 
                        fishery.''.
          (2) Limitation on application.--The amendment made by 
        paragraph (1) shall not apply to a catch share program that is 
        submitted to, or proposed by, the Secretary of Commerce before 
        the date of enactment of this Act.
          (3) Regulations.--Before conducting a referendum under the 
        amendment made by paragraph (1), the Secretary of Commerce 
        shall issue regulations implementing such amendment after 
        providing an opportunity for submission by the public of 
        comments on the regulations.

SEC. 108. REPORT ON FEE.

  Section 304(d)(2) (16 U.S.C. 1854(d)(2)) is amended by adding at the 
end the following:
          ``(D) The Secretary shall report annually on the amount 
        collected under this paragraph from each fishery and detail how 
        the funds were spent in the prior year on a fishery-by-fishery 
        basis, to--
                  ``(i) Congress; and
                  ``(ii) each Council from whose fisheries the fee 
                under this paragraph were collected.''.

SEC. 109. DATA COLLECTION AND DATA CONFIDENTIALITY.

  (a) Electronic Monitoring.--
          (1) Issuance of regulations.--
                  (A) Requirement.--The Secretary shall issue 
                regulations governing the use of electronic monitoring 
                for the purposes of monitoring fisheries that are 
                subject to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation 
                and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.).
                  (B) Content.--The regulations shall--
                          (i) distinguish between monitoring for data 
                        collection and research purposes and monitoring 
                        for compliance and enforcement purposes; and
                          (ii) include minimum criteria, objectives, or 
                        performance standards for electronic 
                        monitoring.
                  (C) Process.--In issuing the regulations the 
                Secretary shall--
                          (i) consult with the Councils and fishery 
                        management commissions;
                          (ii) publish the proposed regulations; and
                          (iii) provide an opportunity for the 
                        submission by the public of comments on the 
                        proposed regulations.
          (2) Implementation of monitoring.--
                  (A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), and 
                after the issuance of the final regulations, a Council, 
                or the Secretary for fisheries referred to in section 
                302(a)(3) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation 
                and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1852(a)(3)), may, in 
                accordance with the regulations, on a fishery-by-
                fishery basis and consistent with the existing 
                objectives and management goals of a fishery management 
                plan and the Act for a fishery issued by the Council or 
                the Secretary, respectively, amend such plan--
                          (i) to incorporate electronic monitoring as 
                        an alternative tool for data collection and 
                        monitoring purposes or for compliance and 
                        enforcement purposes (or both); and
                          (ii) to allow for the replacement of a 
                        percentage of on-board observers with 
                        electronic monitoring.
                  (B) Comparability.--Subparagraph (A) shall apply to a 
                fishery only if the Council or Secretary, respectively, 
                determines that such monitoring will yield comparable 
                data collection and compliance results.
          (3) Pilot projects.--Before the issuance of final 
        regulations, a Council, or the Secretary for fisheries referred 
        to in section 302(a)(3), may, subject to the requirements of 
        the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 
        on a fishery-by-fishery basis, and consistent with the existing 
        objectives and management goals of a fishery management plan 
        for a fishery issued by the Council or the Secretary, 
        respectively, conduct a pilot project for the use of electronic 
        monitoring for the fishery.
          (4) Deadline.--The Secretary shall issue final regulations 
        under this subsection by not later than 12 months after the 
        date of enactment of this Act.
  (b) Video and Acoustic Survey Technologies.--The Secretary shall work 
with the Regional Fishery Management Councils and nongovernmental 
entities to develop and implement the use pursuant to the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et 
seq.) of video survey technologies and expanded use of acoustic survey 
technologies.
  (c) Confidentiality of Information.--
          (1) In general.--Section 402(b) (16 U.S.C. 1881a(b)) is 
        amended--
                  (A) in paragraph (1)--
                          (i) by amending subparagraph (B) to read as 
                        follows:
                  ``(B) to State or Marine Fisheries Commission 
                employees as necessary for achievement of the purposes 
                of this Act, subject to a confidentiality agreement 
                between the State or Commission, respectively, and the 
                Secretary that prohibits public disclosure of the 
                identity of any person and of confidential 
                information;'';
                          (ii) in subparagraph (E), by striking 
                        ``limited access'' and inserting ``catch 
                        share''; and
                          (iii) in subparagraph (G), by striking 
                        ``limited access'' and inserting ``catch 
                        share'';
                  (B) in paragraph (2)--
                          (i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), 
                        by inserting ``, and information obtained 
                        through a vessel monitoring system or other 
                        technology used onboard a fishing vessel for 
                        enforcement or data collection purposes,'' 
                        after ``information'';
                          (ii) by striking ``or'' after the semicolon 
                        at the end of subparagraph (B); and
                          (iii) by striking subparagraph (C) and 
                        inserting the following:
                  ``(C) as authorized by any regulations issued under 
                paragraph (6) allowing the collection of observer 
                information, pursuant to a confidentiality agreement 
                between the observers, observer employers, and the 
                Secretary prohibiting disclosure of the information by 
                the observers or observer employers, in order--
                          ``(i) to allow the sharing of observer 
                        information among observers and between 
                        observers and observer employers as necessary 
                        to train and prepare observers for deployments 
                        on specific vessels; or
                          ``(ii) to validate the accuracy of the 
                        observer information collected; or
                  ``(D) to other persons if the Secretary has obtained 
                written authorization from the person who submitted 
                such information or from the person on whose vessel the 
                information was collected, to release such information 
                for reasons not otherwise provided for in this 
                subsection.'';
                  (C) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (6); 
                and
                  (D) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
          ``(3) Any information submitted to the Secretary, a State 
        fisheries management agency, or a Marine Fisheries Commission 
        by any person in compliance with the requirements of this Act, 
        including confidential information, may only be used for 
        purposes of fisheries management and monitoring and enforcement 
        under this Act.
          ``(4) The Secretary may enter into a memorandum of 
        understanding with the heads of other Federal agencies for the 
        sharing of confidential information to ensure safety of life at 
        sea or for fisheries enforcement purposes, including 
        information obtained through a vessel monitoring system or 
        other electronic enforcement and monitoring systems, if--
                  ``(A) the Secretary determines there is a compelling 
                need to do so; and
                  ``(B) the heads of the other Federal agencies agree--
                          ``(i) to maintain the confidentiality of the 
                        information in accordance with the requirements 
                        that apply to the Secretary under this section; 
                        and
                          ``(ii) to use the information only for the 
                        purposes for which it was shared with the 
                        agencies.
          ``(5) The Secretary may not provide any vessel-specific or 
        aggregate vessel information from a fishery that is collected 
        for monitoring and enforcement purposes to any person for the 
        purposes of coastal and marine spatial planning under Executive 
        Order 13547, unless the Secretary determines that providing 
        such information is important for maintaining or enhancing 
        national security or for ensuring fishermen continued access to 
        fishing grounds.''.
          (2) Confidential information defined.--Section 3 (16 U.S.C. 
        1802) is further amended by inserting after paragraph (4) the 
        following:
          ``(4a) The term `confidential information' means--
                  ``(A) trade secrets;
                  ``(B) proprietary information;
                  ``(C) observer information; and
                  ``(D) commercial or financial information the 
                disclosure of which is likely to result in harm to the 
                competitive position of the person that submitted the 
                information to the Secretary.''.
  (d) Increased Data Collection and Actions To Address Data-Poor 
Fisheries.--Section 404 (16 U.S.C. 1881c) is amended by adding at the 
end the following:
  ``(e) Use of the Asset Forfeiture Fund for Fishery Independent Data 
Collection.--
          ``(1) In general.--
                  ``(A) The Secretary, subject to appropriations, may 
                obligate for data collection purposes in accordance 
                with prioritizations under paragraph (3) a portion of 
                amounts received by the United States as fisheries 
                enforcement penalties.
                  ``(B) Amounts may be obligated under this paragraph 
                only in the fishery management region with respect to 
                which they are collected.
          ``(2) Included purposes.--The purposes referred to in 
        paragraph (1) include--
                  ``(A) the use of State personnel and resources, 
                including fishery survey vessels owned and maintained 
                by States to survey or assess data-poor fisheries for 
                which fishery management plans are in effect under this 
                Act; and
                  ``(B) cooperative research activities authorized 
                under section 318 to improve or enhance the fishery 
                independent data used in fishery stock assessments.
          ``(3) Data-poor fisheries priority lists.--Each Council 
        shall--
                  ``(A) identify those fisheries in its region 
                considered to be data-poor fisheries;
                  ``(B) prioritize those fisheries based on the need of 
                each fishery for up-to-date information; and
                  ``(C) provide those priorities to the Secretary.
          ``(4) Definitions.--In this subsection:
                  ``(A) The term `data-poor fishery' means a fishery--
                          ``(i) that has not been surveyed in the 
                        preceding 5-year period;
                          ``(ii) for which a fishery stock assessment 
                        has not been performed within the preceding 5-
                        year period; or
                          ``(iii) for which limited information on the 
                        status of the fishery is available for 
                        management purposes.
                  ``(B) The term `fisheries enforcement penalties' 
                means any fine or penalty imposed, or proceeds of any 
                property seized, for a violation of this Act or of any 
                other marine resource law enforced by the Secretary.
          ``(5) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
        to be appropriated to the Secretary for each fiscal year to 
        carry out this subsection up to 80 percent of the fisheries 
        enforcement penalties collected during the preceding fiscal 
        year.''.

SEC. 110. COOPERATIVE RESEARCH AND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.

  Section 318 (16 U.S.C. 1867) is amended--
          (1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``(1)'' before the first 
        sentence, and by adding at the end the following:
  ``(2) Within one year after the date of enactment of the 
Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in 
Fisheries Management Act, and after consultation with the Councils, the 
Secretary shall publish a plan for implementing and conducting the 
program established in paragraph (1). Such plan shall identify and 
describe critical regional fishery management and research needs, 
possible projects that may address those needs, and estimated costs for 
such projects. The plan shall be revised and updated every 5 years, and 
updated plans shall include a brief description of projects that were 
funded in the prior 5-year period and the research and management needs 
that were addressed by those projects.''; and
          (2) in subsection (c)--
                  (A) in the heading, by striking ``Funding'' and 
                inserting ``Priorities''; and
                  (B) in paragraph (1), by striking all after 
                ``including'' and inserting an em dash, followed on the 
                next line by the following:
                  ``(A) the use of fishing vessels or acoustic or other 
                marine technology;
                  ``(B) expanding the use of electronic catch reporting 
                programs and technology; and
                  ``(C) improving monitoring and observer coverage 
                through the expanded use of electronic monitoring 
                devices.''.

SEC. 111. COUNCIL JURISDICTION FOR OVERLAPPING FISHERIES.

  Section 302(a)(1) (16 U.S.C. 1852(a)) is amended--
          (1) in subparagraph (A), in the second sentence--
                  (A) by striking ``18'' and inserting ``19''; and
                  (B) by inserting before the period at the end ``and a 
                liaison who is a member of the Mid-Atlantic Fishery 
                Management Council to represent the interests of 
                fisheries under the jurisdiction of such Council''; and
          (2) in subparagraph (B), in the second sentence--
                  (A) by striking ``21'' and inserting ``22''; and
                  (B) by inserting before the period at the end ``and a 
                liaison who is a member of the New England Fishery 
                Management Council to represent the interests of 
                fisheries under the jurisdiction of such Council''.

SEC. 112. GULF OF MEXICO FISHERIES COOPERATIVE RESEARCH AND RED SNAPPER 
                    MANAGEMENT.

  (a) Repeal.--Section 407 (16 U.S.C. 1883), and the item relating to 
such section in the table of contents in the first section, are 
repealed.
  (b) Reporting and Data Collection Program.--The Secretary of Commerce 
shall--
          (1) in conjunction with the States, the Gulf of Mexico 
        Fishery Management Council, and the recreational fishing 
        sectors, develop and implement a real-time reporting and data 
        collection program for the Gulf of Mexico red snapper fishery 
        using available technology; and
          (2) make implementation of this subsection a priority for 
        funds received by the Secretary and allocated to this region 
        under section 2 of the Act of August 11, 1939 (commonly known 
        as the ``Saltonstall-Kennedy Act'') (15 U.S.C. 713c-3).
  (c) Fisheries Cooperative Research Program.--The Secretary of 
Commerce--
          (1) shall, in conjunction with the States, the Gulf States 
        Marine Fisheries Commission and the Atlantic States Marine 
        Fisheries Commission, the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic 
        Fishery Management Councils, and the commercial, charter, and 
        recreational fishing sectors, develop and implement a 
        cooperative research program authorized under section 318 for 
        the fisheries of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic regions, 
        giving priority to those fisheries that are considered data-
        poor; and
          (2) may, subject to the availability of appropriations, use 
        funds received by the Secretary under section 2 of the Act of 
        August 11, 1939 (commonly known as the ``Saltonstall-Kennedy 
        Act'') (15 U.S.C. 713c-3) to implement this subsection.
  (d) Stock Surveys and Stock Assessments.--The Secretary of Commerce, 
acting through the National Marine Fisheries Service Regional 
Administrator of the Southeast Regional Office, shall for purposes of 
the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 
1801 et seq.)--
          (1) develop a schedule of stock surveys and stock assessments 
        for the Gulf of Mexico Region and the South Atlantic Region for 
        the 5-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of 
        this Act and for every 5-year period thereafter;
          (2) direct the Southeast Science Center Director to implement 
        such schedule; and
          (3) in such development and implementation--
                  (A) give priority to those stocks that are 
                commercially or recreationally important; and
                  (B) ensure that each such important stock is surveyed 
                at least every 5 years.
  (e) Use of Fisheries Information in Stock Assessments.--The Southeast 
Science Center Director shall ensure that fisheries information made 
available through fisheries programs funded under Public Law 112-141 is 
incorporated as soon as possible into any fisheries stock assessments 
conducted after the date of the enactment of this Act.
  (f) State Fisheries Management in the Gulf of Mexico With Respect to 
Red Snapper.--Section 306(b) (16 U.S.C. 1856(b)) is amended by adding 
at the end the following:
  ``(4) Notwithstanding section 3(11), for the purposes of managing the 
recreational sector of the Gulf of Mexico red snapper fishery, the 
seaward boundary of a coastal State in the Gulf of Mexico is a line 9 
miles seaward from the baseline from which the territorial sea of the 
United States is measured.''.
  (g) Funding of Stock Assessments.--The Secretary of Commerce and the 
Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Bureau of Ocean Energy 
Management, shall enter into a cooperative agreement for the funding of 
stock assessments that are necessitated by any action by the Bureau 
with respect to offshore oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico that adversely 
impacts red snapper.

SEC. 113. NORTH PACIFIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT CLARIFICATION.

  Section 306(a)(3)(C) (16 U.S.C. 1856(a)(3)(C)) is amended--
          (1) by striking ``was no'' and inserting ``is no''; and
          (2) by striking ``on August 1, 1996''.

SEC. 114. ENSURING CONSISTENT MANAGEMENT FOR FISHERIES THROUGHOUT THEIR 
                    RANGE.

  (a) In General.--The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) is amended by inserting after 
section 4 the following:

``SEC. 5. ENSURING CONSISTENT FISHERIES MANAGEMENT UNDER CERTAIN OTHER 
                    FEDERAL LAWS.

  ``(a) National Marine Sanctuaries Act and Antiquities Act of 1906.--
In any case of a conflict between this Act and the National Marine 
Sanctuaries Act (16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.) or the Antiquities Act of 1906 
(16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.), this Act shall control.
  ``(b) Fisheries Restrictions Under Endangered Species Act of 1973.--
To ensure transparency and consistent management of fisheries 
throughout their range, any restriction on the management of fish in 
the exclusive economic zone that is necessary to implement a recovery 
plan under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) 
shall be implemented--
          ``(1) using authority under this Act; and
          ``(2) in accordance with processes and time schedules 
        required under this Act.''.
  (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in the first section 
is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 4 the 
following:

``Sec. 5. Ensuring consistent fisheries management under certain other 
Federal laws.''.

SEC. 115. LIMITATION ON HARVEST IN NORTH PACIFIC DIRECTED POLLOCK 
                    FISHERY.

  Section 210(e)(1) of the American Fisheries Act (title II of division 
C of Public Law 105-277; 16 U.S.C. 1851 note) is amended to read as 
follows:
          ``(1) Harvesting.--
                  ``(A) Limitation.--No particular individual, 
                corporation, or other entity may harvest, through a 
                fishery cooperative or otherwise, a percentage of the 
                pollock available to be harvested in the directed 
                pollock fishery that exceeds the percentage established 
                for purposes of this paragraph by the North Pacific 
                Council.
                  ``(B) Maximum percentage.--The percentage established 
                by the North Pacific Council shall not exceed 24 
                percent of the pollock available to be harvested in the 
                directed pollock fishery.''.

SEC. 116. RECREATIONAL FISHING DATA.

  (a) Recreational Data Collection.--Section 401(g) (16 U.S.C. 1881(g)) 
is amended by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5), and by 
inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
          ``(4) Federal-state partnerships.--
                  ``(A) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish 
                partnerships with States to develop best practices for 
                implementation of State programs established pursuant 
                to paragraph (2).
                  ``(B) Guidance.--The Secretary shall develop 
                guidance, in cooperation with the States, that details 
                best practices for administering State programs 
                pursuant to paragraph (2), and provide such guidance to 
                the States.
                  ``(C) Biennial report.--The Secretary shall submit to 
                the Congress and publish biennial reports that 
                include--
                          ``(i) the estimated accuracy of the registry 
                        program established under paragraph (1) and of 
                        State programs that are exempted under 
                        paragraph (2);
                          ``(ii) priorities for improving recreational 
                        fishing data collection; and
                          ``(iii) an explanation of any use of 
                        information collected by such State programs 
                        and by the Secretary, including a description 
                        of any consideration given to the information 
                        by the Secretary.
                  ``(D) States grant program.--The Secretary shall make 
                grants to States to improve implementation of State 
                programs consistent with this subsection. The Secretary 
                shall prioritize such grants based on the ability of 
                the grant to improve the quality and accuracy of such 
                programs.''.
  (b) Study on Recreational Fisheries Data.--Section 401(g) (16 U.S.C. 
1881(g)) is further amended by adding at the end the following:
          ``(6) Study on program implementation.--
                  ``(A) In general.--Not later than 60 days after the 
                enactment of this paragraph, the Secretary shall enter 
                into an agreement with the National Research Council of 
                the National Academy of Sciences to study the 
                implementation of the programs described in this 
                section. The study shall--
                          ``(i) provide an updated assessment of 
                        recreational survey methods established or 
                        improved since the publication of the Council's 
                        report `Review of Recreational Fisheries Survey 
                        Methods (2006)';
                          ``(ii) evaluate the extent to which the 
                        recommendations made in that report were 
                        implemented pursuant to paragraph (3)(B); and
                          ``(iii) examine any limitations of the Marine 
                        Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey and the 
                        Marine Recreational Information Program 
                        established under paragraph (1).
                  ``(B) Report.--Not later than 1 year after entering 
                into an agreement under subparagraph (A), the Secretary 
                shall submit a report to Congress on the results of the 
                study under subparagraph (A).''.

SEC. 117. STOCK ASSESSMENTS USED FOR FISHERIES MANAGED UNDER GULF OF 
                    MEXICO COUNCIL'S REEF FISH MANAGEMENT PLAN.

  (a) In General.--Title IV (16 U.S.C. 1881 et seq.) is amended by 
adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 409. STOCK ASSESSMENTS USED FOR FISHERIES MANAGED UNDER GULF OF 
                    MEXICO COUNCIL'S REEF FISH MANAGEMENT PLAN.

  ``(a) In General.--The Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission shall 
conduct all fishery stock assessments used for management purposes by 
the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council for the fisheries managed 
under the Council's Reef Fish Management Plan.
  ``(b) Use of Other Information and Assets.--
          ``(1) In general.--Such fishery assessments shall--
                  ``(A) incorporate fisheries survey information 
                collected by university researchers; and
                  ``(B) to the extent practicable, use State, 
                university, and private assets to conduct fisheries 
                surveys.
          ``(2) Surveys at artificial reefs.--Any such fishery stock 
        assessment conducted after the date of the enactment of the 
        Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in 
        Fisheries Management Act shall incorporate fishery surveys 
        conducted, and other relevant fisheries information collected, 
        on and around natural and artificial reefs.
  ``(c) Constituent and Stakeholder Participation.--Each such fishery 
assessment shall--
          ``(1) emphasize constituent and stakeholder participation in 
        the development of the assessment;
          ``(2) contain all of the raw data used in the assessment and 
        a description of the methods used to collect that data; and
          ``(3) employ an assessment process that is transparent and 
        includes--
                  ``(A) includes a rigorous and independent scientific 
                review of the completed fishery stock assessment; and
                  ``(B) a panel of independent experts to review the 
                data and assessment and make recommendations on the 
                most appropriate values of critical population and 
                management quantities.''.
  (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in the first section 
is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 408 the 
following:

``Sec. 409. Stock assessments used for fisheries managed under Gulf of 
Mexico Council's Reef Fish Management Plan.''.

SEC. 118. ESTIMATION OF COST OF RECOVERY FROM FISHERY RESOURCE 
                    DISASTER.

   Section 312(a)(1) (16 U.S.C. 1861a(1)) is amended--
          (1) by inserting ``(A)'' after ``(1)'';
          (2) by redesignating existing subparagraphs (A) through (C) 
        as clauses (i) through (iii), respectively, of subparagraph (A) 
        (as designated by the amendment made by paragraph (1)); and
          (3) by adding at the end the following:
  ``(B) The Secretary shall publish the estimated cost of recovery from 
a fishery resource disaster no later than 30 days after the Secretary 
makes the determination under subparagraph (A) with respect to such 
disaster.''.

SEC. 119. DEADLINE FOR ACTION ON REQUEST BY GOVERNOR FOR DETERMINATION 
                    REGARDING FISHERY RESOURCE DISASTER.

  Section 312(a) (16 U.S.C. 1861a(a)) is amended by redesignating 
paragraphs (2) through (4) as paragraphs (3) through (5), and by 
inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
  ``(2) The Secretary shall make a decision regarding a request from a 
Governor under paragraph (1) within 90 days after receiving an estimate 
of the economic impact of the fishery resource disaster from the entity 
requesting the relief.''.

SEC. 120. PROHIBITION ON CONSIDERING RED SNAPPER KILLED DURING REMOVAL 
                    OF OIL RIGS.

  Any red snapper that are killed during the removal of any offshore 
oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico shall not be considered in determining 
under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 
U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) whether the total allowable catch for red snapper 
has been reached.

SEC. 121. PROHIBITION ON CONSIDERING FISH SEIZED FROM FOREIGN FISHING.

  Any fish that are seized from a foreign vessel engaged in illegal 
fishing activities in the Exclusive Economic Zone shall not be 
considered in determining under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) the total 
allowable catch for that fishery.

SEC. 122. SUBSISTENCE FISHING.

  (a) Definition.--Section 3 (16 U.S.C. 1802) is amended by inserting 
after paragraph 43 the following:
          ``(43a)(A) The term `subsistence fishing' means fishing in 
        which the fish harvested are intended for customary and 
        traditional uses, including for direct personal or family 
        consumption as food or clothing; for the making or selling of 
        handicraft articles out of nonedible byproducts taken for 
        personal or family consumption, for barter, or sharing for 
        personal or family consumption; and for customary trade.
          ``(B) In this paragraph--
                  ``(i) the term `family' means all persons related by 
                blood, marriage, or adoption, or any person living 
                within the household on a permanent basis; and
                  ``(ii) the term `barter' means the exchange of a fish 
                or fish part--
                          ``(I) for another fish or fish part; or
                          ``(II) for other food or for nonedible items 
                        other than money if the exchange is of a 
                        limited and noncommercial nature.''.
  (b) Council Seat.--Section 302(b)(2) (16 U.S.C. 1852(b)(2)) is 
amended--
          (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``or recreational'' and 
        inserting ``, recreational, or subsistence fishing''; and
          (2) in subparagraph (C), in the second sentence, by inserting 
        ``, and in the case of the Governor of Alaska with the 
        subsistence fishing interests of the State,'' after ``interests 
        of the State''.
  (c) Purpose.--Section 2(b)(3) (16 U.S.C. 1801(b)(3)) is amended by 
striking ``and recreational'' and inserting ``, recreational, and 
subsistence''.

SEC. 123. INTER-SECTOR TRADING OF COMMERCIAL CATCH SHARE ALLOCATIONS IN 
                    THE GULF OF MEXICO.

  Section 301 (16 U.S.C. 1851) is amended by adding at the end the 
following:
  ``(c) Inter-sector Trading of Commercial Catch Share Allocations in 
the Gulf of Mexico.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
any commercial fishing catch share allocation in a fishery in the Gulf 
of Mexico may only be traded by sale or lease within the same 
commercial fishing sector.''.

SEC. 124. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

  Section 4 (16 U.S.C. 1803) is amended--
          (1) by striking ``this Act'' and all that follows through 
        ``(7)'' and inserting ``this Act''; and
          (2) by striking ``fiscal year 2013'' and inserting ``each of 
        fiscal years 2014 through 2018''.

     TITLE II--REVITALIZING THE ECONOMY OF FISHERIES IN THE PACIFIC

SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

  This title may be cited as the ``Revitalizing the Economy of 
Fisheries in the Pacific Act'' or the ``REFI Pacific Act''.

SEC. 202. FINDINGS; PURPOSE.

  (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
          (1) In 2000, the Secretary of Commerce declared the West 
        Coast groundfish fishery a Federal fisheries economic disaster 
        due to low stock abundance, an overcapitalized fleet, and 
        historically overfished stocks.
          (2) Section 212 of the Department of Commerce and Related 
        Agencies Appropriations Act, 2003 (title II of division B of 
        Public Law 108-7; 117 Stat. 80) was enacted to establish a 
        Pacific Coast groundfish fishing capacity reduction program, 
        also known as a buyback program, to remove excess fishing 
        capacity.
          (3) In 2003, Congress authorized the $35,700,000 buyback 
        loan, creating the Pacific Coast groundfish fishing capacity 
        reduction program through the National Marine Fisheries Service 
        fisheries finance program with a term of 30 years. The interest 
        rate of the buyback loan was fixed at 6.97 percent and is paid 
        back based on an ex-vessel fee landing rate not to exceed 5 
        percent for the loan.
          (4) The groundfish fishing capacity reduction program 
        resulted in the removal of limited entry trawl Federal fishing 
        permits from the fishery, representing approximately 46 percent 
        of total landings at the time.
          (5) Because of an absence of a repayment mechanism, 
        $4,243,730 in interest accrued before fee collection procedures 
        were established in 2005, over 18 months after the groundfish 
        fishing capacity reduction program was initiated.
          (6) In 2011, the West Coast groundfish fishery transitioned 
        to an individual fishing quota fishery, which is a type of 
        catch share program.
          (7) By 2015, West Coast groundfish fishermen's expenses are 
        expected to include fees of approximately $450 per day for 
        observers, a 3-percent cost recovery fee as authorized by the 
        Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 
        U.S.C. 1801) for catch share programs, and a 5-percent ex-
        vessel landings rate for the loan repayment, which could reach 
        18 percent of their total gross revenue.
          (8) In 2012, the West Coast groundfish limited entry trawl 
        fishery generated $63,000,000, an increase from an average of 
        $45,000,000 during the years 2006 to 2011. This revenue is 
        expected to continue to increase post-rationalization.
  (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this title is to refinance the Pacific 
Coast groundfish fishery fishing capacity reduction program to protect 
and conserve the West Coast groundfish fishery and the coastal 
economies in California, Oregon, and Washington that rely on it.

SEC. 203. REFINANCING OF PACIFIC COAST GROUNDFISH FISHING CAPACITY 
                    REDUCTION LOAN.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary of Commerce, upon receipt of such 
assurances as the Secretary considers appropriate to protect the 
interests of the United States, shall issue a loan to refinance the 
existing debt obligation funding the fishing capacity reduction program 
for the West Coast groundfish fishery implemented under section 212 of 
the Department of Commerce and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 
2003 (title II of division B of Public Law 108-7; 117 Stat. 80).
  (b) Applicable Law.--Except as otherwise provided in this section, 
the Secretary shall issue the loan under this section in accordance 
with subsections (b) through (e) of section 312 of the Magnuson-Stevens 
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1861a) and sections 
53702 and 53735 of title 46, United States Code.
  (c) Loan Term.--
          (1) In general.--Notwithstanding section 53735(c)(4) of title 
        46, United States Code, a loan under this section shall have a 
        maturity that expires at the end of the 45-year period 
        beginning on the date of issuance of the loan.
          (2) Extension.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1) and if there is 
        an outstanding balance on the loan after the period described 
        in paragraph (1), a loan under this section shall have a 
        maturity of 45 years or until the loan is repaid in full.
  (d) Limitation on Fee Amount.--Notwithstanding section 312(d)(2)(B) 
of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 
U.S.C. 1861a(d)(2)(B)), the fee established by the Secretary with 
respect to a loan under this section shall not exceed 3 percent of the 
ex-vessel value of the harvest from each fishery for where the loan is 
issued.
  (e) Interest Rate.--
          (1) In general.--Notwithstanding section 53702(b)(2) of title 
        46, United States Code, the annual rate of interest an obligor 
        shall pay on a direct loan obligation under this section is the 
        percent the Secretary must pay as interest to borrow from the 
        Treasury the funds to make the loan.
          (2) Subloans.--Each subloan under the loan authorized by this 
        section--
                  (A) shall receive the interest rate described in 
                paragraph (1); and
                  (B) may be paid off at any time notwithstanding 
                subsection (c)(1).
  (f) Ex-Vessel Landing Fee.--
          (1) Calculations and accuracy.--The Secretary shall set the 
        ex-vessel landing fee to be collected for payment of the loan 
        under this section--
                  (A) as low as possible, based on recent landings 
                value in the fishery, to meet the requirements of loan 
                repayment;
                  (B) upon issuance of the loan in accordance with 
                paragraph (2); and
                  (C) on a regular interval not to exceed every 5 years 
                beginning on the date of issuance of the loan.
          (2) Deadline for initial ex-vessel landings fee 
        calculation.--Not later than 60 days after the date of issuance 
        of the loan under this section, the Secretary shall recalculate 
        the ex-vessel landing fee based on the most recent value of the 
        fishery.
  (g) Authorization.--There is authorized to be appropriated to the 
Secretary of Commerce to carry out this section an amount equal to 1 
percent of the amount of the loan authorized under this section for 
purposes of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (2 U.S.C. 661 et 
seq.).

                          Purpose of the Bill

    The purpose of H.R. 4742 is to amend the Magnuson-Stevens 
Fishery Conservation and Management Act to provide flexibility 
for fishery managers and stability for fishermen.

                  Background and Need for Legislation

    The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 
Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), initially passed in 1976, is the 
primary law dealing with fisheries resources and fishing 
activities in Federal waters which, are defined as those waters 
extending from the edge of state waters to the 200-mile limit.
    The Secretary of Commerce, working through the National 
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) within the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), has the responsibility for 
implementing the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
    The Act not only provides the structure for commercial and 
recreational fishermen to harvest a federal natural, renewable 
resource, but also provides economic activity and opportunities 
for coastal communities and especially for fishery-dependent 
communities through fishing, processing jobs, and other related 
businesses. In addition to jobs and economic activity, the 
Magnuson-Steven Act is the statute that regulates the harvest 
of a sustainable, healthy food source. Finally, the Act allows 
access to a large number of recreationally-important species 
for the for-hire industry and for private saltwater anglers. 
Both commercial and recreational fishing activities provide 
significant economic ripple effects for coastal communities. 
All of these activities require healthy fish populations, but 
they also require that management regulations not be so 
inflexible that the activities--and the benefits of those 
activities--cannot be realized.
    The key themes of the Act include: regional flexibility 
that allows each region the ability to create unique management 
solutions to regional challenges; the optimum use of the 
Nation's fishery resources; prevention of overfishing and the 
rebuilding of overfished fisheries; science-based management; 
and a transparent, public process that allows both managers and 
those who are most affected by the management decisions to have 
a seat at the table when these management decisions are made. 
For management to be effective, the scientific underpinnings 
must be accurate, up-to-date, transparent, and understandable.
    Federal fisheries that are managed under the Act provide 
not only recreational opportunities for anglers, and economic 
engines for coastal communities, but also provide a significant 
food source for both the United States and the world. According 
to NOAA's ``Fisheries Economics of the U.S., 2012'' report, 
U.S. commercial and recreational saltwater fishing activities 
generated more than $199 billion in sales in 2012. According to 
the report, the U.S. seafood industry--which includes the 
commercial harvest sector, seafood processors and dealers, 
seafood wholesalers and distributors, importers, and seafood 
retailers--supported approximately 1.3 million full-time and 
part-time jobs and generated $141 billion in sales impacts, $39 
billion in income impacts, and $59 billion in value-added 
impacts. During this period, U.S. commercial fishermen landed 
9.6 billion pounds of finfish and shellfish (with an ex-vessel 
value of $5.1 billion). In addition, there were approximately 
11 million recreational saltwater anglers across the U.S. who 
took 72 million saltwater fishing trips around the country. 
These anglers spent $4.6 billion on fishing trips and $20 
billion on durable fishing-related equipment. These 
expenditures contributed $58 billion in sales impacts to the 
U.S. economy, generated $30 billion in value-added impacts, and 
supported over 381,000 jobs.

Background

    The primary goals at the time of enactment of the Fishery 
Conservation and Management Act (the original name of the Act 
now known as the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
Management Act) were the conservation and management of U.S. 
fishery resources, the development of U.S. domestic fisheries, 
and the phasing-out of foreign fishing activities within the 
200-mile fisheries conservation zone adjacent to the U.S. 
coastline. This area became known as the Exclusive Economic 
Zone (EEZ) following a 1983 proclamation by President Ronald 
Reagan.
    The Magnuson-Stevens Act created eight Regional Fishery 
Management Councils. These Councils are charged with 
implementing the goals of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (in 
coordination with NMFS), including the 10 National Standards 
which are the guiding principles for the conservation and 
management of the domestic fishery resources. In addition to 
managing the fisheries resources for conservation purposes, 
Councils are responsible for allocating resources among various 
and often competing users.
    According to the Act, ``each Council shall reflect the 
expertise and interest of the several constituent States in the 
ocean area over which such Council is granted authority.'' The 
Act specifies which states are under the jurisdiction of each 
Council, specifies the number of seats on each Council, and 
which of those seats will be selected from nominations by the 
Governors.
    These Councils are comprised of: a state representative 
from the state agency with the responsibility for marine 
fisheries management for each affected state; representatives 
of NOAA and other appropriate Federal agencies (the regional 
director of the Fish and Wildlife Service for the region, the 
commandant of the Coast Guard for the region, the executive 
director of the Marine Fisheries Commission for the region, and 
a representative of the State Department serve as non-voting 
members of each Council); and individuals from the commercial 
and recreational fishing industry or individuals with other 
fishery expertise.
    These private individuals are nominated by the Governors of 
the affected states and are appointed by the Secretary of 
Commerce. Governors submit a roster of three names for each 
open seat, and the Secretary is required to choose from these 
lists. Individuals serve three year terms and may not serve 
more than three consecutive terms. The Councils allow 
stakeholders and those with direct knowledge of the fisheries 
and the marine environment to be involved in creating the rules 
for managing the fisheries in federal waters. While the 
Councils provide the venue for these discussion and decisions 
to be made, any actions taken by the Councils must be approved 
or disapproved by the Secretary of Commerce.
    Councils are charged with implementing the Act, in 
coordination with NMFS, and in accordance with the 10 National 
Standards mentioned above. National Standard 1 requires that 
conservation and management measures prevent overfishing while 
achieving the optimum yield from each fishery. This requires a 
balancing act between the conservation of the Nation's fishery 
resources and providing the optimum yield for the domestic 
fishing industry which translates to economic activity for 
fishery-dependent businesses and many coastal communities. In 
addition, National Standard 2 of the Act requires Councils to 
establish conservation and management measures based on ``the 
best scientific information available.''
    To meet these National Standards, Councils prepare a 
fishery management plan (FMP) for each fishery (except for 
Atlantic highly migratory species--tunas, swordfish, marlins, 
etc.--which are managed by the Secretary). FMPs are often 
developed for more than one stock of fish. As an example, the 
Bering Sea groundfish FMP covers more than 19 stocks of fish. 
These FMPs require scientific assessments of the fishery 
resources and then the issuance of allocations of catch for the 
domestic fishing fleet--often requiring separate allocations 
between different sectors of the fishing industry (commercial, 
recreational, and charter sectors).
    In addition to the National Standards, the Act includes 15 
conservation and management measures that each FMP must 
contain. The Act also includes 14 discretionary authorities for 
measures that a Council may include in each FMP. Each FMP is 
required, among other things, to include: a description of the 
fishery, including, but not limited to, the number of vessels 
involved, the type and quantity of fishing gear used, the 
species of fish involved and their location; the cost likely to 
be incurred in management; actual and potential revenues from 
the fishery; any recreational interest in the fishery; a 
description and identification of essential fish habitat; a 
description of the commercial, recreational, and charter 
fishing sectors which participate in the fishery, including its 
economic impact; and a mechanism for specifying annual catch 
limits in the plan (including a multiyear plan) at a level such 
that overfishing does not occur in the fishery, and which must 
include measures to ensure accountability. Many FMPs have been 
modified numerous times; for example, the Bering Sea groundfish 
FMP has been amended more than 90 times.
    Following the development of FMP, a Council forwards the 
plan to the Secretary of Commerce. The Secretary must approve 
the plan, disapprove the plan, or partially disapprove the 
plan. If the Secretary disapproves or partially disapproves a 
plan, it is sent back to the Council for further consideration. 
If the plan is approved, NMFS then issues regulations to 
implement the plan.
    There are currently 46 fishery management plans that cover 
528 individual fish stocks or stock complexes.

Overview of the 2006/2007 amendments

    The Magnuson-Stevens Act was last reauthorized at the end 
of the 109th Congress in 2006 and was signed into law in early 
2007. Appropriations for the Act are currently authorized 
through Fiscal Year 2013.
    The main provisions of the 2006/2007 reauthorization 
included: a requirement that Councils not set harvest levels 
above the level recommended by the Council's Science and 
Statistical Committee (SSC); that each fishery management plan 
have, by 2011, a mechanism for setting an Annual Catch Limit 
(ACL) at a level to ensure overfishing is not taking place; 
that the fishery management plans also have measures for 
ensuring accountability (Accountability Measures or AMs); and 
guidelines for the development of Limited Access Privilege 
Programs (LAPPs). The 2006/2007 amendments also required NOAA 
to establish a program to improve the quality and accuracy of 
information generated by the Marine Recreational Fishery 
Statistics Survey no later than January 1, 2009.
    The 2006/2007 amendments were intended to require Councils 
to base harvest levels on the advice of scientists, set annual 
harvest levels for each fishery, and establish methods for 
ensuring accountability so that the harvest levels were not 
exceeded. While these amendments have improved fisheries 
conservation and management in many fisheries, in some regions 
the information necessary to adequately implement these new 
requirements is not available. In these data-poor fisheries and 
regions, these new requirements are viewed as being too rigid 
and this lack of flexibility is creating economic hardship.

Current reauthorization

    While the Magnuson-Stevens Act is a national law, it 
delegates a significant amount of decision-making to the 
regions and to the states and stakeholders through the Regional 
Fishery Management Councils. These Councils allow the states 
and the people who are affected by the fishery management plans 
to use their expertise and on-the-water knowledge of the 
fisheries and the marine environment to create management plans 
that are reasonable, effective, and enforceable. The Magnuson-
Stevens Act provides the broad framework while allowing each 
region to react to its own challenges and conditions. This is 
the key to the Act and one that must be maintained while 
updating this important law.
    Since 2011, ten Full Committee or Subcommittee hearings 
related either to the reauthorization of the Act or to Federal 
fisheries management have been held: July 26, 2011, Oversight 
hearing on ``NOAA's Fishery Science: Is the Lack of Basic 
Science Costing Jobs?,'' Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, 
Oceans and Insular Affairs; December 1, 2011, Legislative 
hearing on H.R. 594, H.R. 1013, H.R. 1646, H.R. 2304, H.R. 
2610, H.R. 2753, H.R. 2772 and H.R. 3061, Full Committee; March 
22, 2012, Oversight hearing on ``Empty Hooks: The National 
Ocean Policy is the Latest Threat to Access for Recreational 
and Commercial Fishermen,'' Subcommittee on Fisheries, 
Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs; August 25, 2012, 
Oversight field hearing on ``Fishing = Jobs: How Strengthening 
America's Fisheries Strengthens Our Economy,'' Full Committee; 
March 13, 2013, Oversight hearing on the reauthorization of the 
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, Full 
Committee; May 21, 2013, Oversight hearing on data collection 
issues in relation to the reauthorization of the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, Subcommittee 
on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs; June 27, 
2013, Oversight hearing on the management of Red Snapper in the 
Gulf of Mexico under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation 
and Management Act, Full Committee; September 11, 2013, 
Oversight hearing on the reauthorization of the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, Full 
Committee; February 4, 2014, and February 28, 2014, Legislative 
hearing on H.R. _ (Chairman's Discussion Draft), Full 
Committee; and April 3, 2014, Legislative hearing on H.R. 69, 
H.R. 2646, and H.R. _, Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, 
Oceans and Insular Affairs.
    The Committee heard from 99 total witnesses (74 non-
governmental/25 Federal or state governmental witnesses) and 83 
different witnesses (63 non-governmental/20 Federal or state 
governmental witnesses) which included Members of Congress, 
Federal and state governmental witnesses, representatives from 
the regional fishery management councils and the interstate 
fisheries commissions, representatives from the commercial, 
recreational, charter and processing sectors, academics, 
environmentalists, and others with an interest in federal 
fisheries management.
    In addition to these hearings, a number of factors 
contributed to the development of this reauthorization 
legislation. In addition to the Managing Our Nation's Fisheries 
conference and the National Academies of Sciences report 
(discussed below), recommendations from a number of papers and 
conferences also were considered by Members of the Committee in 
developing H.R. 4742.

Managing Our Nation's Fisheries, advancing sustainability

    In May 2013, the third Managing Our Nation's Fisheries 
conference was convened (previous Managing Our Nation's 
Fisheries conferences had been held in 2003 and 2005). This 
conference was hosted by the eight regional fishery management 
councils and focused specifically on issues for the 
reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation 
and Management Act. Each of the eight Councils submitted a list 
of the conservation and management requirements and activities 
that work well in their geographic region, a list of those 
conservation and management requirements and activities that do 
not work in their region, and recommendations for changes to 
the Act which would improve conservation and management 
measures while achieving optimum yield from the Nation's 
fishery resources. The conference resulted in 128 ``findings'' 
and many of these were recommendations for statutory changes to 
the Act.

National Academies of Sciences

    The Ocean Studies Board of the National Academy of Sciences 
convened an ad hoc committee to develop a report titled 
``Evaluating the Effectiveness of Stock Rebuilding Plans of the 
2006 Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act.'' 
The ad hoc committee was charged with undertaking an analysis 
of the effects of the Magnuson-Stevens Act mandate to rebuild 
overfished stocks, including an evaluation of success in stock 
rebuilding, and the identification of changes made to fisheries 
management in response to rebuilding requirements. The report 
was issued on September 5, 2013, and concluded that:
    The current implementation of the MSFMCA relies on a 
prescriptive approach that has resulted in demonstrated 
successes in identifying and rebuilding overfished stocks. 
Fishing mortality has generally been reduced, and stock biomass 
has generally increased, for stocks that were placed under a 
rebuilding plan. Where they have been estimated, the long-term 
net economic benefits of rebuilding appear to be generally 
positive. Stocks that rebuilt or whose biomass increased 
appreciably were, in almost all cases reviewed, experiencing 
fishing mortalities below FMSY [the level of fishing mortality 
that results in the maximum sustainable yield], and often lower 
than 75% of FMSY. More extreme reductions in target fishing 
mortalities have been implemented in situations in which 
rebuilding progress was slower than anticipated when the 
rebuilding plan was adopted, or the target year for rebuilding 
was approaching. In some cases rebuilding plans have failed to 
reduce fishing mortality as much as intended, either due to 
overestimation of stock sizes or implementation issues, and 
rebuilding has been slow or has not occurred.
    The legal and prescriptive nature of rebuilding mandates 
forces difficult decisions to be made, ensures a relatively 
high level of accountability, and can help prevent protracted 
debate over whether and how stocks should be rebuilt. Setting 
rebuilding times is useful for specifying target fishing 
mortality rates for rebuilding and for avoiding delays in 
initiating rebuilding plans, which would otherwise require more 
severe management responses. However, the focus on trying to 
achieve a rebuilding target by a given time places unrealistic 
demands on the science, and forces reliance on forecasts and 
estimates of biomass-based reference points, which may be very 
uncertain. Emphasis on meeting fishing mortality targets rather 
than on exact schedules for attaining biomass targets may 
result in strategies that are more robust to assessment 
uncertainties, natural variability and ecosystem 
considerations, and less prone to rapid changes in management 
measures, which have social and economic impacts that may be 
more severe than more gradual changes. The choice between a 
rapid or gradual response involves tradeoffs between economic 
and social impacts and ecological/resource risks, which should 
be evaluated. The current approach is designed for the nations' 
most valuable, high-volume stocks, but over half of the 
nation's stocks have not been assessed and their status is 
unknown, rendering application of FMSY-based control rules 
unrealistic. Alternate paradigms should be considered for these 
data-poor stocks.
    The Committee offers comments on major issues of rebuilding 
with a long-term view at further improving the efficiency of 
the current approach to stock rebuilding. These issues directly 
or indirectly relate to the overarching issue of what is the 
appropriate balance between prescription and flexibility in 
stock rebuilding. Many of our comments could serve as 
suggestions for research and application to future revisions of 
National Standard Guidelines to improve the overall performance 
of stock rebuilding programs and thereby enhance the benefits 
derived from fisheries in the future.
    In addition, the report provided the following findings:
    The mixed outcomes of rebuilding plans have added to 
concerns about the significant social and economic costs 
associated with the implementation of time-constrained 
rebuilding plans. To address these rebuilding challenges, the 
committee highlights the following key findings for 
consideration by scientists, managers, and policy makers:
          1. Harvest control rules that promptly, but gradually 
        reduce fishing mortality as estimated stock size falls 
        below BMSY [the biomass of a stock of fish necessary to 
        produce maximum sustainable yield] could result in a 
        lower likelihood of a stock becoming overfished and 
        provide an approach for rebuilding if necessary;
          2. Fishing mortality reference points seem to be more 
        robust to uncertainty than biomass reference points 
        both in the context of rebuilding and more generally;
          3. Rebuilding plans that focus more on meeting 
        selected fishing mortality targets than on exact 
        schedules for attaining biomass targets may be more 
        robust to assessment uncertainties, natural variability 
        and ecosystem considerations, and have lower social and 
        economic impact.
                  a. The rate at which a fish stock rebuilds 
                depends on ecological and other environmental 
                conditions, in addition to the fishing-induced 
                mortality
                  b. A rebuilding strategy that maintains 
                reduced fishing mortality for an extended 
                period (e.g., longer than the mean generation 
                time) would rebuild the stock's age structure 
                and be less dependent on environmental 
                conditions than one that requires rebuilding to 
                pre-specified biomass targets, and
                  c. When rebuilding is slower than expected, 
                keeping fishing mortality at a constant level 
                below FMSY may forgo less yield and have fewer 
                social and economic impacts than a rule that 
                requires ever more severe controls to meet a 
                predetermined schedule for reaching a biomass 
                target.
          4. In the case of data-poor stocks for which 
        analytical assessments are not available and catch 
        limits are therefore difficult to establish, empirical 
        rebuilding strategies that rely on input controls to 
        reduce fishing mortality may be more effective and 
        defensible than strategies based on annual catch limits 
        and BMSY targets.
          5. Retrospective reviews of the socioeconomic impacts 
        of rebuilding plans are rare, in part due to data 
        availability. Such reviews would help in refining 
        rebuilding plans and objectives and ameliorating for 
        the consequences of such actions.

    H.R. 4742, THE STRENGTHENING FISHING COMMUNITIES AND INCREASING 
                FLEXIBILITY IN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT ACT

    The Magnuson-Stevens Act is based on a few fundamental 
policies--that the management of fisheries needs to be governed 
by broad, general principles (embodied in the 10 National 
Standards) and that the Act needs to be implemented at the 
regional level by those who best understand the fisheries. The 
Act needs to remain flexible enough that the regional 
differences and challenges can be addressed by each region. In 
addition, the Act requires a balance between achieving the 
optimum yield from the Nation's fishery resources and the need 
to prevent overfishing.
    In addition to reauthorizing this important natural 
resource statute, this legislation provides a number of 
important changes to ensure that this law remains a science-
driven, transparent, regionally flexible, and responsive 
statute that recognizes the need to conserve and manage the 
fisheries while at the same time provide economic activity and 
jobs for coastal communities and a sustainable source of food 
for the Nation.

Flexibility

    One of the key factors in the success of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act is the regional flexibility that the Act provides. 
Differing ocean conditions, different types of fisheries, 
different harvest methods, and different community impacts are 
all taken into account by the Councils. The 2006 amendments 
attempted to create a uniform, science-based management system 
that required sound scientific advice and accountability from 
fishermen. This required the Councils to have a significantly 
increased level of information--both on the biology of the 
fishery resources, and on the harvest activities of the managed 
sectors.
    With this in mind, the 2006 amendments to the Act attempted 
to impose the ``Alaska Model'' of fisheries management on the 
other seven Regional Fishery Management Councils. The ``Alaska 
Model'' had been very successful in the management and 
utilization of the fisheries in both the Bering Sea/Aleutian 
Islands and in the Gulf of Alaska. The key components of the 
2006 amendments were a requirement that harvest levels be set 
based on scientific recommendations, that annual catch limits 
be set for fisheries and sectors, and that there be 
accountability measures in place to ensure that the annual 
catch limits were adhered to.
    The National Standard 1 Guidelines, written by NOAA to 
implement the new provisions of the 2006 amendments, included 
provisions detailing how Councils and their Scientific and 
Statistical Committees (SSC) should factor uncertainty into the 
development of harvest levels. These Guidelines requires the 
SSCs to incorporate precautionary buffers in cases where either 
scientific or management uncertainty existed. In some 
fisheries, this resulted in multiple levels of buffers being 
incorporated and harvest levels set artificially low which 
resulted in economic instability to communities dependent on 
these fisheries. This became particularly difficult for regions 
where landing information, stock surveys, and stock assessments 
were either inadequate or out-of-date. As noted above, this 
management concept was based on the ``Alaska Model'' of 
fisheries conservation and management developed by the North 
Pacific Fishery Management Council. This Council was able to 
use decades of annual surveys as well as a high level of on-
board observer data to meet these goals. Unfortunately, 
testimony heard by the Natural Resources Committee indicated 
that this high level of information was not available in other 
regions and for other Councils. This has made compliance with 
the 2006 amendments difficult and, in some regions, has caused 
hardship for fishermen and fishery-dependent communities.
    In particular, the requirement to rebuild overfished 
fisheries within specific timelines, combined with inadequate 
data and the imposition of uncertainty buffers, became one of 
the most often discussed concerns with the current Act. As 
noted above, this issue was examined by the National Academy of 
Sciences and the Committee heard testimony and recommendations 
from Councils, States, communities, and fishermen suggesting 
additional flexibility in the rebuilding requirements of the 
Act.
    While flexibility in the rebuilding provisions would allow 
Councils to extend the timeframe for rebuilding overfished/
depleted fisheries and lessen the economic impact on 
communities, in making the change the bill would not change the 
requirement in current law that requires harvest levels be 
based on science and at a level that overfishing will not 
occur.
    It is important to note that according to the ``2013 Annual 
Report on the Status of U.S. Fisheries,'' 83 percent of the 
managed stocks or stock complexes are not overfished, and in 91 
percent of those stocks or stock complexes, overfishing is not 
taking place. So while this bill would allow flexibility in 
rebuilding some fisheries, the number of fisheries affected is 
limited.
    While some have opposed any changes in the current 
rebuilding requirement, in 2006 Congress recognized that some 
fisheries might not be able to meet the 10-year rebuilding 
timeframe even if the biology of the species indicated that it 
should be able to. At that time, the summer flounder fishery 
was undergoing rebuilding. The biomass was increasing, the 
spawning biomass was increasing, and the fishing effort had 
decreased. Despite these positive trends, the fishery was 
unlikely to meet the rebuilding deadline. Recognizing this, the 
2006 amendments to the Act specifically extended the time for 
rebuilding this fishery. At the time the House passed the 2006 
amendments, Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA), noted that while 
Congress was addressing this rebuilding timeframe problem for 
this one fishery, this was not likely to be an isolated 
experience.
    In addition to requiring that most fisheries be rebuilt 
within 10 years, the current Act also requires that overfished 
fisheries be rebuilt in a time period that is ``as short as 
possible'' while taking into account certain factors. This 
requirement has, in some cases, caused unnecessary harvest 
restrictions. In one case, the Pacific Council's SSC 
recommended several harvest alternatives for the 2002 
groundfish fishery which would result in rebuilding an 
overfished fishery while providing a reasonable, science-based 
harvest. In a decision regarding those alternatives, the 
Federal 9th Circuit Court required the Pacific Council to pick 
the lower harvest level recommended by the Council's SSC 
despite the fact that the lower harvest level would cause 
economic harm. In other words, the Council was forced to take 
an action that harmed the fishing industry when the alternative 
advocated by the Council was biologically acceptable and would 
not have adversely affected rebuilding.
    Although this court decision was made years ago, its effect 
continues to cause economic harm. According to a witness at one 
of the Committee's hearings, ``This has led to absurdities 
where the Council has been forced to choose lower harvest 
limits even though analysis provided by its Scientific and 
Statistical Committee shows that a higher limit would allow 
rebuilding in the same year, albeit a few months later than the 
lower limit. In two cases involving harvest levels for 2013--
canary rockfish and darkblotched rockfish--this was a 
difference of 30 metric tons''. These species are caught 
incidentally in the West Coast groundfish fishery and as 
incidental species, they affect how much of the target species 
can be caught. The 30-metric tons represent 75% of the 
incidental harvest limit for the fishery and could severely 
limit the amount of the target species that could be caught--
causing unnecessary economic harm to West Coast fishermen.
    The bill would replace the word ``possible'' with 
``practicable'' to allow Councils the flexibility to choose 
harvest levels that will minimize economic harm as long as 
rebuilding will continue within the statutory time constraints. 
This change would not impose a new legal standard in the Act 
and would not undermine rebuilding efforts. In fact, the word 
``practicable'' is already used 28 times in the Act--including 
in six of the ten National Standards. It is not a new concept 
or one that the agency will not know how to interpret. Nor will 
this provision allow Councils to ignore the need to rebuild 
overfished fisheries.
    Finally, the bill provides some flexibility in how the 
requirement to set Annual Catch Limits may be implemented by 
Councils.

Science-based management and the need for increased information

    A recurring theme in the Committee's hearings on the 
reauthorization was the need for better data on which 
management decisions are made. This bill attempts to address 
this concern by focusing scarce resources within regions toward 
those fisheries that are considered data poor while at the same 
time recognizing the need to continue to fund data collection 
programs for commercially-important and recreationally-
important fisheries.
    The bill would require Councils to identify data-poor 
fisheries, encourage the use of electronic monitoring and other 
emerging technologies and electronic catch reporting programs, 
identify critical regional fishery management and research 
needs, require partnerships with states for increased 
recreational data collection, and encourage the use of 
cooperative research to address any identified research needs.
    In addition, the bill would require specific measures to 
meet the Gulf of Mexico fisheries' research and data collection 
needs and to require that new information collected through 
RESTORE Act (Subtitle F of Division A of Public Law 112-141) 
funding be incorporated into stock assessments as soon as 
possible.

Data collection and confidentiality

    In 2006, Congress recognized that the NOAA's recreational 
data collection program was inadequate and lacked the 
confidence of fishermen and many fishery managers. The 2006/
2007 amendments required that the Secretary, within 24 months 
and in consultation with representatives of the recreational 
fishing industry and experts in statistics, technology, and 
other appropriate fields, to improve the quality and accuracy 
of information generated by the Marine Recreational Fishery 
Statistics Survey, with a goal of achieving acceptable accuracy 
and utility for each individual fishery. The amendments also 
required that the program take into consideration and implement 
the recommendations of the National Research Council in its 
report Review of Recreational Fisheries Survey Methods (2006).
    Unfortunately, in 2014, many of the same criticisms of data 
collection remain. In the Gulf of Mexico red snapper fishery, 
the recreational data collection program's inadequacies have 
resulted in greatly reduced harvest seasons, conflicts between 
states, and lawsuits. In the last two years, two states have 
undertaken data collection programs which have proven to be 
more timely and more accurate than the federal data collection 
programs for the recreational sector. The Committee continues 
to be concerned with the recreational data collection programs, 
and this bill includes requirements that the Secretary work 
with the Gulf of Mexico states to develop and implement a real-
time recreational data collection program. In addition, the 
bill would transfer the authority for providing stock 
assessments for the Gulf reef fish fishery management plan to 
the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission.
    In addition to the need for better data collection 
programs, the Committee also heard testimony concerning the 
need to protect the confidentiality of data that is provided to 
fishery managers for fishery conservation and management 
purposes. NOAA has been increasing the types and amount of 
data--including proprietary data--collected from fishermen and 
processors in an attempt to provide fishery managers with more 
socio-economic information. In some cases, NOAA has been 
requesting information on product types, pricing information, 
and markets. This information, if disclosed, could put U.S. 
fishermen and seafood processors at a competitive disadvantage 
both in U.S. markets and in international markets. In addition, 
NOAA's confidentiality regulations do not necessarily apply to 
information that is being collected using new technologies such 
as electronic monitoring.
    Many fisheries are now monitored through the use of on-
board observers, electronic logbooks, fish tickets, shore-side 
observers and other methods. The Committee recognizes that 
emerging technologies may offer better data collection 
alternatives and provide more cost effective options for 
fishermen; however, it is important that the information 
provided to fishery managers through these new sources also be 
protected.
    Although NOAA has begun the process of updating the data 
confidentiality regulations, the Committee notes that 
increasing sources of data and increasing data requirements by 
fishery managers require that confidentiality regulations keep 
pace with technology and not place fishermen or other 
components of the seafood industry at a disadvantage due to the 
release of proprietary and sensitive information. While the 
Committee recognizes NOAA's efforts to update the 
confidentiality regulations, statutory changes are necessary 
for the Act to keep pace with data provided through emerging 
technologies and increasing information needs of fishery 
managers.
    Enforcement of the Magnuson-Stevens Act is done by NOAA, 
the Coast Guard and some state agencies through Joint 
Enforcement Agreements. These require that a certain amount of 
information collected by NOAA for fishery management purposes 
will be shared with these other enforcement entities. The bill 
requires that these other enforcement entities follow the same 
confidentiality standards that NOAA is required to follow.

The Magnuson-Stevens Act and the relationship to other Federal statutes

    In 2006, both houses of Congress agreed that there was a 
problem with the way the National Environmental Policy Act 
(NEPA) requirements interacted with the Magnuson-Stevens Act 
requirements, and both houses agreed that the Secretary of 
Commerce needed to fix this conflict.
    The 2006/2007 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Act 
required the Secretary to: consult with the regional fishery 
management councils and the Council on Environmental Quality 
(CEQ); update NOAA's procedures for complying with NEPA; 
conform the timelines for review and approval of fishery 
management plans and amendments under section 304 of the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act; integrate the environmental analytical 
procedures (including the timeframes for public input) with the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act procedures for the preparation and 
dissemination of fishery management plans and plan amendments; 
provide for timely, clear and concise analysis that is useful 
to decision-makers and the public; reduce extraneous paperwork; 
effectively involve the public; and ensure that the updated 
agency procedures would be the ``sole environmental impact 
assessment procedure'' for fishery management plans or plan 
amendments or other actions taken or approved under the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act. This provision clearly intended that the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act procedures and timelines would be 
sufficient to meet the requirements of NEPA once the Secretary 
issued the revised procedures.
    The Secretary was given six months to propose revised 
procedures and was required to finalize the procedures within 
12 months (beginning on January 12, 2007). Within the initial 
six-month period, the Secretary was to provide 90 days for 
public review and comment and to involve the public in 
cooperation with the Councils and CEQ through workshops or 
other appropriate means.
    It is now 2014 and NOAA has published proposals for 
complying with this requirement twice. In both cases, the 
proposal did not fully comply with the statutory requirements 
and in both cases, the agency subsequently withdrew the 
proposal.
    In addition, the creation of a policy directive in 2013--
seven years after the requirement to fix this conflict was 
enacted into law and created without the input of either the 
Councils or the CEQ--is insufficient. The policy directive, 
which merely restates existing practices, does nothing to 
streamline the NEPA process, nor does it incorporate the NEPA 
regulatory timelines into the Magnuson-Stevens Act statutory 
timelines. Therefore the actions taken by the Secretary do not 
meet the statutory requirements of the 2006 amendments. Merely 
telling the Secretary to start the process again as has been 
suggested, when it has not been done correctly in seven years, 
is also not sufficient.
    In addition to the concerns with the relationship between 
NEPA and the Magnuson-Stevens Act, conflicts between Endangered 
Species Act implementation and the Magnuson-Stevens Act 
requirements have been raised in testimony before the 
Committee. Under current law, if a fishery is determined to 
cause jeopardy to any endangered species, changes to that 
fishery's conservation and management measures must be made. As 
the Magnuson-Stevens Act delegates the creation of conservation 
and management measures through the fishery management plan and 
plan amendment process to the Regional Fishery Management 
Councils, any changes required to be made to a fishery 
management plan should be done through the Council process. 
Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Secretary is required to 
determine whether a fishery management plan or plan amendment 
is consistent with ``any other applicable law.'' This ensures 
that any action taken by a Council to amend a fishery 
management plan, including modifying activities authorized 
through the plan which have been identified as likely to 
jeopardize the ``continued existence'' of an endangered 
species, will be adequate to remove the likelihood of jeopardy 
as a result of those fishing activities. If the Council action 
does not, the Secretary could not approve it. The Magnuson-
Stevens Act is the appropriate authority to conserve and manage 
fishery resources through the Council process--ensuring 
adequate transparency and public participation. The Magnuson-
Stevens Act also provides the Secretary with ample authority to 
disapprove any action taken by a Council that is not consistent 
with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Endangered Species Act, or 
any other applicable federal law.
    Finally, conflicts between the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the 
National Marine Sanctuaries Act over fishery regulations have 
occurred in certain sanctuaries. In addition, the increasing 
use of the Antiquities Act in the marine environment has raised 
questions regarding the management of fishery resources and 
fishing activities within these marine monuments. There are 
currently 13 National Marine Sanctuaries and four Marine 
National Monuments that encompass more than 170,000 square 
miles. These were created under the National Marine Sanctuaries 
Act, the Antiquities Act, or through individual act of 
Congress.
    The Administration is proposing to expand three of the 
existing marine sanctuaries--including expanding the Thunder 
Bay National Marine Sanctuary from 448 square miles to 4,300 
square miles--which could increase the conflicts over fisheries 
management in some of these sanctuaries. NOAA has also 
announced that it will begin the nomination process for 
additional national marine sanctuaries to be created through 
the administrative process, potentially creating similar 
fishery management conflicts in additional regions of the 
country.
    In addition to the proposed expansion of a number of marine 
sanctuaries, in June 2014, President Obama announced a proposal 
to increase the size of the Pacific Remote Islands Marine 
National Monument from approximately 87,000 square miles to 
nearly 782,000 square miles, and to prohibit a number of 
activities within the Monument including fishing.
    At the time of the announcement, only the limited 
information provided by the White House was available. This 
included a lack of information available from NOAA--the agency 
which is responsible for the conservation and management of 
living marine resources. No information on the number of 
fisheries affected, the number of U.S. fishing vessels to be 
affected, or the economic impact of the proposed additional 
closures was available at the time of the announcement. There 
was no scientific explanation for the additional closed areas 
to be included within the monument, and certainly no scientific 
basis for banning fishing within the increased monument area. 
In fact, at the same time the President was announcing the 
closure of this area to fishing activities, including those by 
U.S. tuna fleet, the U.S. State Department was negotiating 
changes to the South Pacific Tuna Treaty that would allow 
access to other countries' exclusive economic zones, and 
require the U.S. government to pay more than $20 million per 
year for that access. At the same time the Administration is 
attempting to commit Federal taxpayer dollars so that our tuna 
fleet can fish in foreign waters, the President is announcing 
that we are kicking the same U.S. fishing fleet out of U.S. 
waters--and with no scientific justification.
    Administration officials have been quoted in the press that 
the Antiquities Act authority was going to be used increasingly 
in the remainder of the Obama Administration. With the ban on 
fishing in the latest announcement, fishermen and fishing 
communities are concerned that the increased use of the 
Antiquities Act will result in the closure of productive 
fishing grounds with little or no public input and with little 
or no scientific basis.
    For all of these reasons, it is important that the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act, which requires that fisheries 
conservation and management measures be developed in a 
transparent manner and based on science, be the controlling 
authority for fisheries management in any marine national 
monument or national marine sanctuary.

Revitalizing the Economy of Fisheries in the Pacific Act

    In an effort to reduce pressure on West Coast groundfish 
stocks in the 1990s, NMFS implemented large spatial closures 
and trip limits as well a license limitation program in the 
West Coast groundfish fishery that covered water offshore 
Washington, Oregon and California. Despite these measures, in 
2000, the Secretary of Commerce declared the West Coast 
Groundfish fishery a disaster and in 2003 initiated a buyback 
program to further reduce fishing capacity. To fund the buyback 
program, a $30 million loan was authorized by Congress and 
financed by the NMFS Fisheries Finance Program. The program 
resulted in the removal of 91 vessels and permits that 
represented 50% of total landings at the time.
    The 2003 federal buy back loan period was set at 30 years 
with an interest rate of 6.95% (Treasury Rate + 2%). 
Unfortunately, the federal Fisheries Finance Program did not 
establish a mechanism to collect loan payments for this buyback 
program until 2005, allowing over $4 million dollars in 
interest to accrue before the fleet was able to start paying 
down the loan with a 5% assessment of the ex-vessel value of 
the catch at the dock. The result was that in the last seven 
years, the industry has made almost $24 million in loan 
payments that have not kept pace with even the interest 
obligations, let alone the principal balance of the loan. As a 
result, the fleet has been making payments on the loan for 
eight years and yet currently owes the U.S. government over $32 
million on a $30 million loan.
    In addition, as a result of the transition to an Individual 
Fishing Quota (IFQ) management system, 100% accountability was 
required beginning in 2011. This accountability meant that 
fishermen were facing the expense of carrying a federal 
observer on every trip in addition to a 3% cost recovery fee to 
support the IFQ program. While the federal government is 
subsidizing the approximately $450 per day observer expense 
until 2015, the costs of the at-sea observers will become the 
responsibility of the vessel owners. This means that the fleet 
is now required to pay for the loan repayment based on a 6.95% 
interest rate, the NOAA-imposed observer fee requirements, and 
the cost recovery fee for the catch share program. This is 
placing a burden on the West Coast groundfish fleet that would 
be reduced by bringing the loan payment terms to a more 
realistic and manageable level while ensuring that the federal 
government will see a return for the buyback loan.

                            Committee Action

    H.R. 4742 was introduced on May 23, 2014, by Congressman 
Doc Hastings (R-WA) and was referred to the Committee on 
Natural Resources. On May 29, 2014, the Natural Resources 
Committee met to consider the bill. Congressman Bradley Byrne 
(R-AL) offered an amendment designated .005 to the bill; the 
amendment was adopted by voice vote. Congressman Don Young (R-
AK) offered an amendment designated .097 to the bill; the 
amendment was adopted by voice vote. Congressman Steve 
Southerland (R-FL) offered an amendment designated .019 to the 
bill; the amendment was adopted by voice vote. Congressman 
Southerland offered an amendment designated .022 to the bill; 
the amendment was adopted by voice vote. Congressman 
Southerland offered an amendment designated .024 to the bill; 
the amendment was withdrawn. Congressman Southerland offered an 
amendment designated .029 to the bill; the amendment was 
adopted by voice vote. Congressman Southerland offered an 
amendment designated .030 to the bill; the amendment was 
adopted by voice vote. Congressman Jon Runyan (R-NJ) offered an 
amendment designated .037 to the bill; the amendment was 
adopted by voice vote. Congressman Frank Pallone (D-NJ) offered 
an amendment designated .039 to the bill; the amendment was 
adopted by voice vote. Congressman Southerland offered an 
amendment designated .026 to the bill; the amendment was 
adopted by voice vote. Congressman Peter DeFazio (D-OR) offered 
an amendment designated .001 to the bill; the amendment was not 
adopted by voice vote. Congressman Rush Holt (D-NJ) offered an 
amendment designated .007 to the bill; the amendment was not 
adopted by a roll call vote of 18 to 20, as follows:


    Delegate Madeleine Bordallo (D-GU) offered an amendment 
designated .004 to the bill; the amendment was adopted by voice 
vote. Delegate Gregorio Sablan (D-MP) offered an amendment 
designated .002 to the bill; the amendment was not adopted by 
voice vote. Congresswoman Niki Tsongas (D-MA) offered an 
amendment designated .003 to the bill; the amendment was not 
adopted by voice vote. Congressman Alan Lowenthal (D-CA) 
offered an amendment designated .005 to the bill; the amendment 
was not adopted by a roll call vote of 18 to 23, as follows:


    Congressman Joe Garcia (D-FL) offered an amendment 
designated .041 to the bill; the amendment was adopted by voice 
vote. No further amendments were offered and the bill, as 
amended, was then adopted and ordered favorably reported to the 
House of Representatives by a bipartisan roll call vote of 24 
to 17, as follows:


                      Section-by-Section Analysis


 TITLE I--AMENDMENTS TO THE MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND 
                             MANAGEMENT ACT

Section 101. Definitions

    This section clarifies that terms used in the bill have the 
same meaning as those terms are defined by section 3 of the 
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 
U.S.C. 1802).

Section 102. References

    This section clarifies that unless otherwise specified, the 
amendments made by the bill are made to the Magnuson-Stevens 
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et 
seq.).

Section 103. Flexibility in rebuilding fish stocks

    The bill would remove the language requiring a 10-year time 
frame for rebuilding overfished/depleted fisheries and replace 
it with a requirement that the rebuilding timeframe be the time 
it would take for the fishery to rebuild without any fishing 
occurring plus one mean generation time. The bill would also 
allow Councils to phase in a rebuilding plan for highly dynamic 
fisheries over a three-year period to lessen the economic harm 
to fishing communities. In addition, the bill would remove the 
term ``possible'' and replace it with ``practicable'' in the 
requirement that rebuilding period ``be as short as possible.'' 
This phrase has already been cited in a court decision that 
required the Pacific Council to adopt the shorter of several 
timeframes being considered, resulting in economic harm.
    The bill would also provide flexibility in the rebuilding 
timeframe for fisheries if the fishery is one component of a 
multi-species complex. As an example, the Northeast groundfish 
fishery is made up of 19 species--if one component is 
overfished, the harvest of all of the other species might be 
severely limited to allow the one component to rebuild, causing 
unnecessary economic harm. In addition, the bill would provide 
flexibility for fisheries which are transboundary or managed 
under an international treaty, for fisheries for which the 
cause of the overfished/depleted condition is outside the 
jurisdiction of the Council, and for those fisheries for which 
the Secretary determines have been affected by unusual events 
that make rebuilding the fishery within the specified timeframe 
improbable without significant economic harm to fishing 
communities.
    The bill would allow Councils to take into account 
environmental conditions and predator/prey relationships when 
developing rebuilding plans.
    The bill would also require that the fishery management 
plan for any fishery that is considered overfished/depleted 
must specify a schedule for reviewing the rebuilding targets, 
evaluating environmental impacts on rebuilding progress, and 
evaluating the progress that is being made toward reaching the 
rebuilding targets.
    The bill would allow a fishery management plan for any 
fishery that is considered overfished/depleted to use 
alternative rebuilding strategies, including harvest control 
rules and fishing mortality rate targets.
    The bill would allow a Council to terminate any rebuilding 
plan for a fishery that was initially determined to be 
overfished/depleted and then found not to be overfished/
depleted within two years or at the next stock assessment.
    Finally, current law allows the Secretary to implement 
emergency interim measures for fisheries in which overfishing 
is taking place. If the action is taken for a fishery that is 
under a fishery management plan, the interim measure may only 
remain in place for 180 days; however, the measure may then be 
extended for an additional 186 days (with the extension, this 
allows the Secretary to implement interim measures for a year 
and a day). The bill would modify this authority to allow the 
Secretary to implement the interim measures for one year with 
the ability to extend for a second year. Current law allows a 
Council to take up to two years to prepare and implement a 
fishery management plan or plan amendment to address a fishery 
that is overfished, yet current law only allows interim measure 
to be implemented for one year (assuming the extension is 
granted). This provision would allow the interim measures 
authority to be consistent with the time period allowed for a 
Council to prepare and implement a rebuilding plan for a 
fishery identified as overfished.

Section 104. Modifications to the Annual Catch Limit requirements

    The bill would allow Councils to consider changes in the 
ecosystem and the economic needs of the fishing communities 
when setting Annual Catch Limits (ACLs). This will allow 
flexibility but not allow Councils to set ACLs at a level that 
allows overfishing.
    The bill would also add a new exception to the requirement 
that Councils set an ACL for ``ecosystem component species''--
those species of fish that are not targeted and are caught 
incidentally as long as that stock of fish is not subject to 
overfishing and is not likely to become subject to overfishing. 
The bill includes a definition of ``ecosystem component 
species'' based on NOAA's National Standard #1 Guidelines. The 
bill would also provide an exemption for those short-lived 
stocks of fish for which a single year class will complete 
their lifecycle in less than 18 months as long as fishing 
mortality will have little impact on the stock.
    The bill would also require that Councils, when setting 
ACLs, take into account management measures under international 
agreements and treaties and informal transboundary agreements 
under which fishing by foreign fishermen outside the U.S. 
Exclusive Economic Zone might hinder conservation efforts by 
U.S. fishermen.
    While the current Act implies that ACLs will be set for 
each managed species each year and for only one year, the bill 
would clarify that Councils may establish ACLs for multi-
species stock complexes (such as New England groundfish) and 
may set ACLs for up to three years.

Section 105. Distinguishing between overfished and depleted

    The bill would replace the term ``overfished'' with the 
term ``depleted'' throughout the Act and add a definition of 
``depleted''.
    The bill would require the Secretary, when issuing the 
annual report on the status of fisheries, note if a stock was 
``depleted'' as a result of something other than fishing.
    The bill would require that when the Secretary reports 
annually to Congress on the status of fisheries and identifies 
fisheries that are overfished or approaching a condition of 
being overfished, the report will distinguish between fisheries 
that are depleted (or approaching a condition of being 
depleted) as a result of fishing and those fisheries that are 
depleted (or approaching a condition of being depleted) as a 
result of factors other than fishing. The bill would also 
require that the report state, for each fishery identified as 
depleted, whether the fishery is a target of directed fishing.

Section 106. Transparency and public process.

    The bill would require that Scientific and Statistical 
Committees (SSCs) develop the scientific advice provided to the 
Councils in a transparent manner and to allow for public 
involvement in the process.
    The bill would also require that each Council, to the 
extent practicable, provide a webcast, an audio recording or a 
live broadcast of each Council meeting and impose the same 
requirements for the Council Coordination Committee meetings. 
In addition, the bill would require audio, video, searchable 
audio or written transcript for each Council and SSC meeting on 
the Council's website not more than 30 days after the 
conclusion of the meeting. The bill would require that the 
Secretary maintain these audios, videos and transcripts and 
make them available to the public.
    Current law requires that each fishery management plan 
contain a fishery impact statement which is required to assess, 
specify, and analyze the likely effects, if any, including 
cumulative conservation, economic, and social impacts, of the 
conservation and management measures on and possible mitigation 
measures for participant and fishing communities affected by 
the plan, participants in fisheries conducted in adjacent 
areas, and safety of human life at sea and to what extent the 
measures in the plan may affect the safety of participants in 
the fishery.
    The bill would require that any fishery management plan, 
plan amendment or proposed regulations include a fishery impact 
statement that would, in addition to the existing requirements, 
now also include: the purpose of the proposed action, the 
environmental impact of the proposed action, any adverse 
environmental effects which cannot be avoided, a reasonable 
range of alternatives, and the relationship between short-term 
use of the fishery resources and the enhancement of long-term 
productivity.
    The bill would require that a ``substantially complete'' 
fishery impact statement be available not less than 14 days 
before the beginning of the meeting at which the Council makes 
its final decision on the proposal. The bill would require that 
the availability of this fishery impact statement be announced 
by the same methods currently used by Councils to disseminate 
public information and that relevant government agencies and 
the public be invited to comment on the fishery impact 
statement.

Section 107. Limitation on future Catch Share Programs

    The bill would define the term ``catch share'' and create a 
pilot program for four Councils--the New England, Mid-Atlantic, 
South Atlantic, and Gulf of Mexico Councils--which would 
prohibit those Councils from submitting to the Secretary and 
prohibit the Secretary from approving or implementing any new 
catch share program from those Councils unless the program has 
been approved in a referendum. The bill would also require that 
prior to the referendum, the Secretary must provide all 
eligible permit holders with a copy of the proposed program, an 
estimate of the costs of the program (including the costs to 
participants), an estimate of the amount of fish or percentage 
of the quota each permit holder would be allocated, and 
information on the schedule, procedures and eligibility 
criteria for the referendum. The bill defines ``permit holder 
eligible to participate'' in a referendum as a permit holder 
who has fished in at least three of the five years preceding 
the referendum unless sickness, injury or other unavoidable 
hardship prevented the permit holder from fishing. The bill 
clarifies that the requirement for the referendum does not 
apply to any catch share program that is submitted to or 
proposed by the Secretary before the date of enactment of the 
bill.
    The bill would allow the Secretary at the request of the 
New England Council to include crew members who derive a 
significant portion of their livelihood from fishing to 
participate in a referendum.
    The bill would also prevent the Secretary from implementing 
a catch share program for any fishery managed by the Secretary 
(highly migratory species) unless first petitioned by a 
majority of those eligible to participate in the fishery.
    The bill would require the Secretary to issue regulations 
and provide for public comment on a referendum prior to 
conducting any such referendum.

Section 108. Report on fee

    The bill would require the Secretary to report annually--to 
both Congress and each of the Councils from whose fisheries fee 
were paid--on the amount collected from each of the fisheries 
managed under a limited access privilege program and community 
development quota program and detail how the funds were spent, 
on a fishery-by-fishery basis.

Section 109. Data collection and data confidentiality

    The bill would require the Secretary to issue regulations 
governing the use of electronic monitoring. The bill would 
require that the regulations distinguish between monitoring for 
data collection and research purposes and monitoring for 
compliance and enforcement purposes. The bill would require 
that the regulations also include minimum criteria, objectives, 
or performance standards for electronic monitoring. The bill 
would require the Secretary to issue the final regulations no 
later than 12 months after the enactment of this Act.
    The bill would require that in issuing the regulations, the 
Secretary consult with the Councils and fishery management 
commissions, publish the proposed regulations, and provide an 
opportunity for public comment on the proposed regulations.
    The bill would allow the Councils, on a fishery-by-fishery 
basis, consistent with the objectives and management goals of 
the fishery management plan and the Act, and after the final 
regulations are issued, to incorporate electronic monitoring as 
an alternative tool for data collection and monitoring purposes 
or for compliance and enforcement purposes and replace a 
percentage of on-board observers with electronic monitoring if 
the Councils and the Secretary determine that such monitoring 
will yield comparable data collection and compliance results.
    The bill would allow Councils, prior to the issuance of the 
final regulations, to conduct pilot projects for the use of 
electronic monitoring on a fishery-by-fishery basis as long as 
the projects are consistent with the objectives and management 
goals of the fishery management plan and the Act.
    The bill would also require the Secretary to work with the 
Councils and non-governmental organizations to develop and 
implement the use of video survey technologies and to expand 
the use of acoustic survey technologies.
    The Act currently contains provisions dealing with the 
confidentiality of data collected by fisheries managers. The 
bill would update the existing confidentiality provisions of 
the Act. In particular, the bill would replace the term 
``limited access program'' with ``catch share program.'' The 
bill would clarify that information submitted to the Secretary, 
a State fisheries management agency, or a Marine Fisheries 
Commission under the requirements of this Act (including 
confidential information) may only be used for the purposes of 
fisheries management, monitoring and enforcement under this 
Act. The bill would clarify that the Secretary may release 
information to a Council or a state if the person submitting 
the information authorizes the Secretary to do so in writing. 
The bill clarifies that the Secretary may enter into a 
memoranda of understanding with the heads other Federal 
agencies for sharing confidential information necessary to 
ensure the safety of life at sea or for fisheries management 
purposes if there is a compelling need to do so and if the 
other agencies maintain the confidentiality of the information 
and use the information only for the purposes for which it was 
shared. The bill would clarify that observer information, 
information collected by a Vessel Monitoring System or other 
vessel tracking technology, or other on-board data collection 
or enforcement programs shall be considered confidential. The 
bill would define the terms ``confidential information'' and 
``observer information.''
    The bill would prohibit the Secretary from providing any 
vessel-specific or aggregate vessel information from a fishery 
that is collected for monitoring and enforcement purposes for 
the use by any person for coastal and marine spatial planning 
under Executive Order 13547 unless the Secretary determines 
that providing such information is important for maintaining or 
enhancing national security or for ensuring fishermen continued 
access to fishing grounds.
    The bill would require each Council to identify those 
fisheries that are considered data-poor in their region and 
prioritize those fisheries based on the need for up-to-date 
information. Each Council is required to submit those 
priorities to the Secretary. The terms ``data-poor'' and 
``fisheries enforcement penalties'' are defined.
    The bill would allow the Secretary, subject to the 
availability of appropriations, to obligate up to 80 percent of 
the fishery fines and penalties collected under any marine 
resource law enforced by the Secretary to be used by states to 
survey or assess data-poor fisheries for which a fishery 
management plan is in place or for cooperative research 
activities to improve or enhance fishery independent data used 
in stock assessments. The funds obligated may only be used in 
the region where the fines and penalties were collected.

Section 110. Cooperative research and management program

    The bill would amend section 318 of the Act to require the 
Secretary, within one year of the enactment of this Act and 
after consulting with the Councils, to publish a plan for 
implementing and conducting a cooperative research and 
management program. The bill would require that the plan 
identify and describe critical regional fishery management and 
research needs, possible projects to address the identified 
needs, and the estimated costs for such projects.
    The bill would require that the plan be updated every five 
years and each update must include a description of projects 
that were funded during the previous five years and which 
management and research needs were addressed by those projects.
    The bill would add would also amend current language to 
give priority to projects that use fishing vessels or acoustic 
or other marine technology, expand the use of electronic catch 
reporting programs and technology, and improve monitoring and 
observer coverage through the expanded use of electronic 
monitoring devices.

Section 111. Council jurisdiction for overlapping fisheries

    The bill would add one voting seat to the New England 
Council to provide a liaison--who is a member of the Mid-
Atlantic Council--to represent the interests of fisheries under 
the jurisdiction of the Mid-Atlantic Council, and add one 
voting seat to the Mid-Atlantic Council to provide a liaison--
who is a member of the New England Council--to represent the 
interests of fisheries under the jurisdiction of the New 
England Council.

Section 112. Gulf of Mexico cooperative research and red snapper 
        management

    The bill would strike section 407 in the current Act. These 
provisions have been superseded by the Annual Catch Limit 
provisions adopted in the 2006/2007 amendments and by 
provisions in the bill which would establish the requirements 
for a referendum for any new catch share plan or amendment for 
the Gulf of Mexico region.
    The bill would require the Secretary of Commerce--in 
conjunction with the Gulf States, the Gulf of Mexico Council, 
and the charter and recreational fishing sectors--to develop 
and implement a real-time reporting and data collection program 
for the Gulf of Mexico red snapper fishery using available 
technology. The Secretary is required to make this a priority 
for funds received by NOAA through the Saltonstall-Kennedy Act 
(15 U.S.C. 713c-3).
    The bill would also require the Secretary--in conjunction 
with the Gulf States, the Gulf of Mexico and the South Atlantic 
Councils, and the commercial, charter and recreational fishing 
sectors--to develop and implement a cooperative research 
program for fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico and the South 
Atlantic regions giving priority to those fisheries that are 
considered data poor. The Secretary would be authorized, 
subject to the availability of appropriations, to make funds 
received by NOAA from the Saltonstall-Kennedy Act available for 
the research for this region.
    The bill would require the Secretary, acting through the 
NMFS Regional Administrator of the Southeast Region, to develop 
a schedule of stock surveys and stock assessments for the Gulf 
of Mexico region and the Southeast region for the five-year 
period beginning on the date of enactment and for every five-
year period thereafter, giving priority to those stocks that 
are commercially or recreationally important and ensuring that 
each important stock is surveyed at least once every five 
years. The Secretary is required to direct the Science Center 
Director of the Southeast region to implement the schedule of 
stock surveys and stock assessments.
    The bill also would require that the Science Center 
Director of the Southeast region ensure that the information 
gathered as a result of research funded through the RESTORE Act 
(Public Law 112-141) be incorporated as soon as possible into 
any stock assessments conducted after the date of enactment.
    The bill would extend state management out to nine nautical 
miles for the recreational sector of the Gulf of Mexico red 
snapper fishery.

Section 113. North Pacific Fishery Management clarification

    The bill would remove the citation of a specific date that 
is currently in the Act. The Act allows certain actions to be 
authorized if there was a fishery management plan in place on 
that date that did not delegate management of the fishery. The 
inclusion of the date has caused confusion in the 
implementation of the North Pacific Fishery Management 
Council's salmon fishery management plan.

Section 114. Ensuring consistent management for fisheries throughout 
        their range

    The bill would clarify that the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
Conservation and Management Act would be the controlling 
fishery management authority in the case of any conflict within 
a national marine sanctuary or an area designated under the 
Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.).
    To ensure transparency and consistent management for 
fisheries throughout their range, the bill would clarify that 
if any restrictions on the management of fish in the exclusive 
economic zone are required to implement a recovery plan under 
the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), 
the restrictions would be implemented under the authorities, 
processes, and timelines of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
Conservation and Management Act.

Section 115. Limitation on harvest in North Pacific Directed Pollock 
        Fishery

    The bill would allow the North Pacific Council to change 
the harvest limitation under the American Fisheries Act for 
entities engaged in the directed pollock fishery as long as 
that percentage does not exceed 24%.

Section 116. Recreational fishing data

    The bill would require the Secretary to establish 
partnerships with states to develop best practices for 
implementing state recreational fisheries programs. The bill 
would require the Secretary to develop guidance, in cooperation 
with the states, that detail best practices for administering 
state programs and to provide the guidance to the states.
    The bill would require the Secretary to submit a biennial 
report to Congress on the estimated accuracy of the Federal 
recreational registry program, priorities for improving 
recreational fishing data collection programs, and explain the 
use of information collected by state programs and by the 
Secretary.
    The bill would require a grant program to states to improve 
implementation of state recreational data collection programs 
and requires the Secretary to prioritize the grants based on 
the ability of the grant to improve the quality and accuracy of 
the data collection programs.
    The bill would require the Secretary, within 60 days, to 
enter into an agreement with the National Research Council 
(NRC) to study the implementation of the existing recreational 
data collection programs. The study must provide an updated 
assessment of recreational survey methods, an evaluation of the 
extent to which the 2006 NRC's recommendations have been 
implemented, and an examination of any limitations to the 
previous and current NOAA recreational data collection 
programs.
    Finally, the bill would require the Secretary to submit a 
report to Congress on the result of the NRC study within one 
year of entering into the agreement with the NRC.

Section 117. Stock assessments used for fisheries managed under Gulf of 
        Mexico Council's Reef Fish Management Plan

    The bill would create a new section 409 in the Act to 
require the States located on the Gulf of Mexico, acting 
through the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission, to act as 
the entity responsible for providing the stock assessment 
information for the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council 
for fisheries managed under the Reef Fish Plan. The bill would 
require that the stock assessments incorporate fisheries survey 
information collected by university researchers and, to the 
extent practicable, use state, university, and private assets 
to conduct fisheries surveys. The bill would require that any 
stock assessments: incorporate fisheries surveys and other 
relevant information collected on and around natural and 
artificial reefs; emphasize constituent and stakeholder 
participation; contain all of the raw data used in the 
assessment and a description of the methods used to collect the 
data; and employ a transparent process that includes an 
independent scientific review and review by a panel of 
independent experts of the data and assessments.

Section 118. Estimation of cost of recovery from fishery resource 
        disaster

    The bill would require the Secretary to publish the 
estimated cost of recovery from a fishery resource disaster 
within 30 days from the time the Secretary makes the disaster 
determination.

Section 119. Deadline for action on request by Governor for 
        determination regarding fishery resource disaster

    The bill would require the Secretary of Commerce to make a 
decision regarding a disaster assistance request--submitted 
under the provisions of section 312(a) of the Magnuson-Stevens 
Act--within 90 days of receiving an estimate of the economic 
impact of the fishery resource disaster from the entity seeking 
the disaster declaration.

Section 120. Prohibition on considering red snapper killed during 
        removal of oil rigs

    The bill would prohibit the Secretary of Commerce from 
counting red snapper mortality that is a result of the removal 
of offshore oil rigs against the total allowable catch of that 
fish and prohibits the Secretary from counting those fish 
toward the quota for U.S. fishermen for the purposes of closing 
the fishery when the quota has been reached.

Section 121. Prohibition on considering fish seized from foreign 
        fishing

    The bill would prohibit the Secretary of Commerce from 
counting any fish seized from a foreign vessel engaging in 
illegal fishing in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone against the 
total allowable catch for U.S. fishermen.

Section 122. Subsistence fishing

    The bill would define ``subsistence fishing'' and require 
the Governor of Alaska, when submitting nominations for the 
North Pacific Council, to consult with subsistence fishing 
interests of the State. In addition, the bill would add the 
knowledge of subsistence fishing as a qualification that could 
be required of Council appointees. In addition, the bill would 
amend the purposes section of the Act to add the promotion of 
subsistence fishing as a purpose of the Act.

Section 123. Inter-sector trading of commercial catch share allocations 
        in the Gulf of Mexico

    The bill would prohibit any commercial quota shares 
allocated under a catch share program in the Gulf of Mexico 
from being traded--by sale or lease--for use by the 
recreational fishing sector, including any charter-for-hire 
vessel, head boat, or private recreational fisherman.

Section 124. Authorization of appropriations

    The bill would authorize appropriations for the Act for 
Fiscal Years 2014 through 2018 at the existing authorized 
level.

     TITLE II--REVITALIZING THE ECONOMY OF FISHERIES IN THE PACIFIC

Section 201. Short title

    This section provides that this title may be cited as the 
``Revitalizing the Economy of Fisheries in the Pacific Act'' or 
the ``REFI Pacific Act''.

Section 202. Findings; purpose

    The bill contains a number of findings related to the 
existing Pacific Coast groundfish fishing capacity reduction 
program and the loan obligations incurred as a result of that 
program.
    The bill notes that it is the purpose of this title to 
refinance the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery fishing capacity 
reduction program, to protect and conserve the West Coast 
groundfish fishery and the coastal economies in California, 
Oregon, and Washington that rely on the groundfish fishery.

Section 203. Refinancing of Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishing Capacity 
        Reduction Loan

    The bill would require the Secretary of Commerce (upon 
receipt of such assurances as the Secretary considers 
appropriate to protect the interests of the United States) to 
issue a loan to refinance the existing debt obligation funding 
the fishing capacity reduction program for the West Coast 
groundfish fishery implemented under the Department of Commerce 
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2003.
    The bill would require that the loan to have a maturity 
that expires 45 years after the date of issuance, subject to 
extension if there is an outstanding balance after such period.
    The bill would prohibit the fee with respect to such loan 
from exceeding 3% of the ex-vessel value of the harvest from 
each fishery for which the loan is issued.
    The bill would set forth requirements for direct loan 
interest rates, subloans, the calculation of the ex-vessel 
landing fee to be collected for payment of such loan, and 
allows any subloan to be paid off early.
    The bill would require the Secretary to recalculate the ex-
vessel landing fee within 60 days after the issuance of the 
loan based on the most recent value of the fishery.
    The bill authorizes an amount equal to 1% of the amount of 
the loan to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this 
section for the purposes of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 
1990.

            Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations

    Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the 
Committee on Natural Resources' oversight findings and 
recommendations are reflected in the body of this report.

                    Compliance With House Rule XIII

    1. Cost of Legislation. Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives requires an estimate and 
a comparison by the Committee of the costs which would be 
incurred in carrying out this bill. However, clause 3(d)(2)(B) 
of that rule provides that this requirement does not apply when 
the Committee has included in its report a timely submitted 
cost estimate of the bill prepared by the Director of the 
Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974. Under clause 3(c)(3) of rule 
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 
403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has 
received the following cost estimate for this bill from the 
Director of the Congressional Budget Office:

H.R. 4742--Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility 
        in Fisheries Management Act

    Summary: H.R. 4742 would amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
Conservation and Management Act (MSA) and authorize the 
appropriation of $1.6 billion through 2018 to carry out that 
act. The bill also would direct the Secretary of Commerce, upon 
an affirmative vote in a referendum, to amend the terms for 
repayment of an advance made in 2003 to buy back fishing 
permits in the Pacific Coast fishery for groundfish. Finally, 
the legislation would set a new limit on fees that are assessed 
on members of the affected fishery to repay the advance.
    CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 4742 would cost $1.5 
billion over the 2015-2019 period and $72 million after 2019, 
assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts. CBO estimates 
that implementing the bill would increase direct spending by $7 
million over the 2015-2024 period; therefore, pay-as-you-go 
procedures apply. Enacting the bill would not affect revenues.
    H.R. 4742 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 
and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal 
governments.
    Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated 
budgetary effect of H.R. 4742 is shown in the following table. 
The costs of this legislation fall within budget functions 300 
(natural resources and environment) and 370 (commerce and 
housing credit).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                By fiscal year, in millions of dollars----
                                                         -------------------------------------------------------
                                                            2015     2016     2017     2018     2019   2015-2019
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
 
Authorization Level.....................................      397      397      397      397        0     1,588
Estimated Outlays.......................................      258      337      385      397      139     1,516
 
                                           CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING
 
Estimated Budget Authority..............................        7        0        0        0        0         7
Estimated Outlays.......................................        7        0        0        0        0        7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 4742 would have no effect on direct spending in the 2020-2024 period.

    Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that the 
legislation will be enacted by the end of 2014 and that the 
authorized amounts will be appropriated for each fiscal year.

Spending subject to appropriation

    H.R. 4742 would authorize the appropriation of $1.6 billion 
over the 2015-2018 period to carry out activities under the 
MSA. CBO estimates that implementing the legislation would cost 
about $1.5 billion over the 2015-2019 period and $72 million 
after 2019, assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts.
    Title I of the bill would authorize the appropriation of 
$397 million a year over the 2015-2018 period to carry out 
activities under the MSA. That act requires the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to preserve 
sustainable fish populations in waters off the coasts of the 
United States using various methods, including limiting the 
amount of fish that can be harvested annually and enforcing 
laws that prohibit foreign fishing. In 2014, NOAA received 
appropriations totaling $507 million to carry out activities 
under the MSA.
    Title I also would make amendments to the MSA, including 
provisions that would create new guidelines for establishing or 
modifying annual catch limits, require regional fishery 
management councils to make publicly-available audio or video 
recordings of their meetings, and direct NOAA to issue new 
regulations related to the collection of data from fisheries.
    Title II would direct the Secretary of Commerce to conduct 
a referendum that would allow members of the affected fishery 
to agree to a new, lower assessment rate to repay the advance. 
Based on information from the National Marine Fisheries Service 
(NMFS), CBO estimates that the costs of conducting that 
referendum would not be significant.

Direct spending

    H.R. 4742 would direct the Secretary of Commerce to hold a 
referendum that would allow eligible members of a Pacific Coast 
fishery to vote to assess themselves at a lower rate to repay 
an advance that the government made in 2003. At that time, NMFS 
provided $46 million in funds to buy out certain fishing 
permits in an effort to remove excess fishing capacity in the 
fishery. Of that amount, $36 million was considered a loan to 
the remaining members of the Pacific Coast fishery, which was 
made after a referendum in which eligible members of the 
fishery agreed to assess themselves to repay the advance based 
on the value of the catch (``ex-vessel'' value) in the affected 
fishery.
    Assuming that the lower rate for assessments would be 
approved in the referendum, and based on information from NMFS, 
CBO expects that enacting H.R. 4742 would result in a change in 
cash flows associated with the advance made to fishery members 
in 2003. Under current law, CBO expects the members of the 
fishery to remit about $2.5 million per year to fully repay the 
advance under the original terms. Under H.R. 4742, CBO expects 
the annual assessment would fall to about $1.5 million and that 
the advance would be repaid over the next 45 years (compared 
with 30 years under current law).
    Consistent with the way the original advance and subsequent 
repayments have been treated in the budget, CBO considers those 
effects to be a modification to the terms of an existing 
loan.\1\ Hence, the net cost to the government is measured as 
the difference between the discounted present value of the 
stream of assessment payments anticipated under current law and 
the stream of payments that would occur under the bill. Because 
the payments would be stretched out over a longer period of 
time, their value to the government on a present-value basis 
would be smaller. Therefore, CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 
4742 would increase the cost of the original advance by $7 
million, which would be recorded in the budget in the year of 
enactment. Because the modification to the repayment agreement 
can be made without a subsequent appropriation, the cost of 
this legislation would be an increase in direct spending.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Although the original advance was treated as a loan in the 
budget, CBO considers that treatment inappropriate. Under the Federal 
Credit Reform Act, a direct loan is defined as a disbursement of funds 
to a nonfederal borrower under a contract that requires repayment. A 
disbursement by the government should not be considered a direct loan, 
however, if the duty to repay the government arises from an exercise of 
sovereign power, tort liability, or some other noncontractual 
obligation.
    Therefore, in CBO's view, such an advance should be recorded as an 
outlay when it is made, and the subsequent stream of annual repayments 
should be shown in the budget on a cash basis as federal revenues 
because the requirement to pay the assessment is compulsory. The 
government's sovereign power is used to establish and enforce this 
assessment, which must be paid by all members of the fishery regardless 
of how they voted in the referendum. If the 2003 advance had been 
recorded in the budget to reflect these circumstances, then the 
proposed change to the repayment schedule under H.R. 4742 would be 
reflected in the budget as a change in revenues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Pay-As-You-Go considerations: The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go 
Act of 2010 establishes budget-reporting and enforcement 
procedures for legislation affecting direct spending or 
revenues. The net changes in revenues that are subject to those 
pay-as-you-go procedures are shown in the following table.

          CBO ESTIMATE OF PAY-AS-YOU-GO EFFECTS FOR H.R. 4742, AS ORDERED REPORTED BY THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES ON MAY 29, 2014
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
                                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        2014   2015   2016   2017   2018   2019   2020   2021   2022   2023   2024  2014-2019  2014-2024
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               NET INCREASE IN THE DEFICIT
 
Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Impact.......................      0      7      0      0      0      0      0      0      0      0      0         7          7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 4742 
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as 
defined in UMRA. The bill would benefit states by reauthorizing 
a number of programs that support fish conservation and 
management initiatives. Any costs they might incur would result 
from complying with conditions for receiving federal 
assistance.
    Previous CBO estimate: On September 8, 2014, CBO 
transmitted a cost estimate for S. 1275, the Revitalizing the 
Economy of Fisheries in the Pacific Act (REFI Pacific Act), as 
ordered reported by the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation on April 9, 2014. S. 1275 is similar to the 
provisions in title II of H.R. 4742, and the CBO cost estimates 
for those provisions are the same.
    Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Susan Willie and Jeff 
LaFave; Impact on state, local, and tribal governments: Jon 
Sperl; Impact on the private sector: Amy Petz.
    Estimate approved by: Theresa A. Gullo, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.
    2. Section 308(a) of Congressional Budget Act. As required 
by clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives and section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget 
Act of 1974, this bill does not contain any new budget 
authority, credit authority, or an increase or decrease in 
revenues or tax expenditures. CBO estimates that implementing 
H.R. 4742 would cost $1.5 billion over the 2015-2019 period and 
$72 million after 2019, assuming appropriation of the 
authorized amounts. CBO estimates that implementing the bill 
would increase direct spending by $7 million over the 2015-2024 
period; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. Enacting the 
bill would not affect revenues.
    3. General Performance Goals and Objectives. As required by 
clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general performance goal or 
objective of this bill is to amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
Conservation and Management Act to provide flexibility for 
fishery managers and stability for fishermen.

                           Earmark Statement

    This bill does not contain any Congressional earmarks, 
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined 
under clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI of the rules of 
the House of Representatives.

                    Compliance With Public Law 104-4

    This bill contains no unfunded mandates.

                       Compliance With H. Res. 5

    Directed Rule Making. The Chairman estimates that this bill 
directs the Secretary of the Interior to conduct two 
rulemakings.
    Duplication of Existing Programs. This bill does establish 
or reauthorize a program of the federal government known to be 
duplicative of another federal program. Such program was not 
included in a report from the Government Accountability Office 
to Congress pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139 but 
was identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic 
Assistance published pursuant to the Federal Program 
Information Act (Public Law 95-220, as amended by Public Law 
98-169) as relating to other programs. Specifically, this 
program is the Fisheries Development and Utilization Research 
and Development Grants and Cooperative Agreements Program. In 
addition, for habitat conservation, the related programs are 
Coastal Zone Management Administration Awards, Financial 
Assistance for National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, 
Regional Fishery Management Councils, Chesapeake Bay Studies, 
and Congressionally Identified Awards and Projects. However, 
this bill's reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act also 
provides new focus and guidance to ensure that fisheries are 
managed more appropriately, effectively and efficiently.

                Preemption of State, Local or Tribal Law

    This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local or 
tribal law.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

  In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

        MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT





           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
                            TABLE OF CONTENTS

     * * * * * * *
Sec. 5. Ensuring consistent fisheries management under certain other 
          Federal laws.
     * * * * * * *

                TITLE IV--FISHERY MONITORING AND RESEARCH

     * * * * * * *
[Sec. 407. Gulf of Mexico red snapper research.]
     * * * * * * *
Sec. 409. Stock assessments used for fisheries managed under Gulf of 
          Mexico Council's Reef Fish Management Plan.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 2. FINDINGS, PURPOSES AND POLICY.

  (a) Findings.--The Congress finds and declares the following:
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (6) A national program for the conservation and 
        management of the fishery resources of the United 
        States is necessary to prevent overfishing, to rebuild 
        [overfished] depleted stocks, to insure conservation, 
        to facilitate long-term protection of essential fish 
        habitats, and to realize the full potential of the 
        Nation's fishery resources.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (b) Purposes.--It is therefore declared to be the purposes of 
the Congress in this Act--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (3) to promote domestic commercial [and 
        recreational], recreational, and subsistence fishing 
        under sound conservation and management principles, 
        including the promotion of catch and release programs 
        in recreational fishing;

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

  As used in this Act, unless the context otherwise requires--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (2a) The term ``catch share'' means any fishery 
        management program that allocates a specific percentage 
        of the total allowable catch for a fishery, or a 
        specific fishing area, to an individual, cooperative, 
        community, processor, representative of a commercial 
        sector, or regional fishery association established in 
        accordance with section 303A(c)(4), or other entity.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (4a) The term ``confidential information'' means--
                  (A) trade secrets;
                  (B) proprietary information;
                  (C) observer information; and
                  (D) commercial or financial information the 
                disclosure of which is likely to result in harm 
                to the competitive position of the person that 
                submitted the information to the Secretary.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (8a) The term ``depleted'' means, with respect to a 
        stock of fish or stock complex, that the stock or stock 
        complex has a biomass that has declined below a level 
        that jeopardizes the capacity of the stock or stock 
        complex to produce maximum sustainable yield on a 
        continuing basis.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (33) The term ``optimum'', with respect to the yield 
        from a fishery, means the amount of fish which--
                  (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                  (C) in the case of an [overfished] depleted 
                fishery, provides for rebuilding to a level 
                consistent with producing the maximum 
                sustainable yield in such fishery.
          (34) [The terms ``overfishing'' and ``overfished'' 
        mean] The term ``overfishing'' means a rate or level of 
        fishing mortality that jeopardizes the capacity of a 
        fishery to produce the maximum sustainable yield on a 
        continuing basis.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (43a)(A) The term ``subsistence fishing'' means 
        fishing in which the fish harvested are intended for 
        customary and traditional uses, including for direct 
        personal or family consumption as food or clothing; for 
        the making or selling of handicraft articles out of 
        nonedible byproducts taken for personal or family 
        consumption, for barter, or sharing for personal or 
        family consumption; and for customary trade.
          (B) In this paragraph--
                  (i) the term ``family'' means all persons 
                related by blood, marriage, or adoption, or any 
                person living within the household on a 
                permanent basis; and
                  (ii) the term ``barter'' means the exchange 
                of a fish or fish part--
                          (I) for another fish or fish part; or
                          (II) for other food or for nonedible 
                        items other than money if the exchange 
                        is of a limited and noncommercial 
                        nature.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

  There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to 
carry out the provisions of [this Act--
          [(1) $337,844,000 for fiscal year 2007;
          [(2) $347,684,000 for fiscal year 2008;
          [(3) $357,524,000 for fiscal year 2009;
          [(4) $367,364,000 for fiscal year 2010;
          [(5) $377,204,000 for fiscal year 2011;
          [(6) $387,044,000 for fiscal year 2012; and]
          [(7)] this Act $396,875,000 for [fiscal year 2013] 
        each of fiscal years 2014 through 2018.

SEC. 5. ENSURING CONSISTENT FISHERIES MANAGEMENT UNDER CERTAIN OTHER 
                    FEDERAL LAWS.

  (a) National Marine Sanctuaries Act and Antiquities Act of 
1906.--In any case of a conflict between this Act and the 
National Marine Sanctuaries Act (16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.) or the 
Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.), this Act shall 
control.
  (b) Fisheries Restrictions Under Endangered Species Act of 
1973.--To ensure transparency and consistent management of 
fisheries throughout their range, any restriction on the 
management of fish in the exclusive economic zone that is 
necessary to implement a recovery plan under the Endangered 
Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) shall be 
implemented--
          (1) using authority under this Act; and
          (2) in accordance with processes and time schedules 
        required under this Act.

TITLE I--UNITED STATES RIGHTS AND AUTHORITY REGARDING FISH AND FISHERY 
                               RESOURCES

SEC. 102. HIGHLY MIGRATORY SPECIES.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Promotion of Stock Management.--If a relevant 
international fisheries organization does not have a process 
for developing a formal plan to rebuild a depleted stock, an 
[overfished] depleted stock, or a stock that is approaching a 
condition of being [overfished] depleted, the provisions of 
this Act in this regard shall be communicated to and promoted 
by the United States in the international or regional fisheries 
organization.

     TITLE II--FOREIGN FISHING AND INTERNATIONAL FISHERY AGREEMENTS

             TITLE III--NATIONAL FISHERY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

SEC. 301. NATIONAL STANDARDS FOR FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT.

  (a) In General.--Any fishery management plan prepared, and 
any regulation promulgated to implement any such plan, pursuant 
to this title shall be consistent with the following national 
standards for fishery conservation and management:
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (8) Conservation and management measures shall, 
        consistent with the conservation requirements of this 
        Act (including the prevention of overfishing and 
        rebuilding of [overfished] depleted stocks), take into 
        account the importance of fishery resources to fishing 
        communities by utilizing economic and social data that 
        meet the requirements of paragraph (2), in order to (A) 
        provide for the sustained participation of such 
        communities, and (B) to the extent practicable, 
        minimize adverse economic impacts on such communities.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Inter-sector Trading of Commercial Catch Share 
Allocations in the Gulf of Mexico.--Notwithstanding any other 
provision of this Act, any commercial fishing catch share 
allocation in a fishery in the Gulf of Mexico may only be 
traded by sale or lease within the same commercial fishing 
sector.

SEC. 302. REGIONAL FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCILS.

  (a) Establishment.--(1) There shall be established, within 
120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, eight 
Regional Fishery Management Councils, as follows:
          (A) New england council.--The New England Fishery 
        Management Council shall consist of the States of 
        Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and 
        Connecticut and shall have authority over the fisheries 
        in the Atlantic Ocean seaward of such States (except as 
        provided in paragraph (3)). The New England Council 
        shall have [18] 19 voting members, including 12 
        appointed by the Secretary in accordance with 
        subsection (b)(2) (at least one of whom shall be 
        appointed from each such State) and a liaison who is a 
        member of the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council 
        to represent the interests of fisheries under the 
        jurisdiction of such Council.
          (B) Mid-atlantic council.--The Mid-Atlantic Fishery 
        Management Council shall consist of the States of New 
        York, New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Maryland, 
        Virginia, and North Carolina and shall have authority 
        over the fisheries in the Atlantic Ocean seaward of 
        such States (except North Carolina, and as provided in 
        paragraph (3)). The Mid-Atlantic Council shall have 
        [21] 22 voting members, including 13 appointed by the 
        Secretary in accordance with subsection (b)(2) (at 
        least one of whom shall be appointed from each such 
        State) and a liaison who is a member of the New England 
        Fishery Management Council to represent the interests 
        of fisheries under the jurisdiction of such Council.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (b) Voting Members.--(1) * * *
  (2)(A) The members of each Council required to be appointed 
by the Secretary must be individuals who, by reason of their 
occupational or other experience, scientific expertise, or 
training, are knowledgeable regarding the conservation and 
management, or the commercial [or recreational], recreational, 
or subsistence fishing harvest, of the fishery resources of the 
geographical area concerned. Within nine months after the date 
of enactment of the Fishery Conservation Amendments of 1990, 
the Secretary shall, by regulation, prescribe criteria for 
determining whether an individual satisfies the requirements of 
this subparagraph.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (C) The Secretary shall appoint the members of each Council 
from a list of individuals submitted by the Governor of each 
applicable constituent State. A Governor may not submit the 
names of individuals to the Secretary for appointment unless 
the Governor has determined that each such individual is 
qualified under the requirements of subparagraph (A) and unless 
the Governor has, to the extent practicable, first consulted 
with representatives of the commercial and recreational fishing 
interests of the State, and in the case of the Governor of 
Alaska with the subsistence fishing interests of the State, 
regarding those individuals. Each such list shall include the 
names and pertinent biographical data of not less than three 
individuals for each applicable vacancy and shall be 
accompanied by a statement by the Governor explaining how each 
such individual meets the requirements of subparagraph (A). The 
Secretary shall review each list submitted by a Governor to 
ascertain if the individuals on the list are qualified for the 
vacancy on the basis of such requirements. If the Secretary 
determines that any individual is not qualified, the Secretary 
shall notify the appropriate Governor of that determination. 
The Governor shall then submit a revised list or resubmit the 
original list with an additional explanation of the 
qualifications of the individual in question. An individual is 
not eligible for appointment by the Secretary until that 
individual complies with the applicable financial disclosure 
requirements under subsection (k).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (g) Committees and Advisory Panels.--
          (1)(A) * * *
          (B) Each scientific and statistical committee shall 
        provide its Council ongoing scientific advice for 
        fishery management decisions, including recommendations 
        for acceptable biological catch, preventing 
        overfishing, maximum sustainable yield, and achieving 
        rebuilding targets, and reports on stock status and 
        health, bycatch, habitat status, social and economic 
        impacts of management measures, and sustainability of 
        fishing practices. Each scientific and statistical 
        committee shall develop such advice in a transparent 
        manner and allow for public involvement in the process.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (i) Procedural Matters.--(1) * * *
  (2) The following guidelines apply with respect to the 
conduct of business at meetings of a Council, and of a Council, 
of the Council coordination committee established under 
subsection (l), and of the scientific and statistical 
committees or other committees or advisory panels established 
under subsection (g):
          (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (G) Each Council shall make available on the Internet 
        Web site of the Council--
                  (i) to the extent practicable, a Webcast, an 
                audio recording, or a live broadcast of each 
                meeting of the Council, and of the Council 
                Coordination Committee established under 
                subsection (l), that is not closed in 
                accordance with paragraph (3); and
                  (ii) audio, video (if the meeting was in 
                person or by video conference), or a searchable 
                audio or written transcript of each meeting of 
                the Council and of the meetings of committees 
                referred to in section 302(g)(1)(B) of the 
                Council by not later than 30 days after the 
                conclusion of the meeting.
          (H) The Secretary shall maintain and make available 
        to the public an archive of Council and scientific and 
        statistical committee meeting audios, videos, and 
        transcripts made available under clauses (i) and (ii) 
        subparagraph (G).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (m) Considerations for Modifications to Annual Catch Limit 
Requirements.--
          (1) Consideration of ecosystem and economic 
        impacts.--In establishing annual catch limits a Council 
        may, consistent with section 302(h)(6), consider 
        changes in an ecosystem and the economic needs of the 
        fishing communities.
          (2) Limitations to annual catch limit requirement for 
        special fisheries.--Notwithstanding subsection (h)(6), 
        a Council is not required to develop an annual catch 
        limit for--
                  (A) an ecosystem component species;
                  (B) a fishery for a species that has a life 
                cycle of approximately 1 year, unless the 
                Secretary has determined the fishery is subject 
                to overfishing; or
                  (C) a stock for which--
                          (i) more than half of a single-year 
                        class will complete their life cycle in 
                        less than 18 months; and
                          (ii) fishing mortality will have 
                        little impact on the stock.
          (3) Relationship to international fishery efforts.--
        Each annual catch limit may, consistent with section 
        302(h)(6), take into account--
                  (A) management measures under international 
                agreements in which the United States 
                participates;
                  (B) informal transboundary agreements under 
                which fishery management activities by another 
                country outside the exclusive economic zone may 
                hinder conservation efforts by United States 
                fishermen for a fish species for which any of 
                the recruitment, distribution, life history, or 
                fishing activities are transboundary; and
                  (C) in instances in which no transboundary 
                agreement exists, activities by another country 
                outside the exclusive economic zone that may 
                hinder conservation efforts by United States 
                fisherman for a fish species for which any of 
                the recruitment, distribution, life history, or 
                fishing activities are transboundary.
          (4) Authorization for multispecies complexes and 
        multiyear annual catch limits.--For purposes of 
        subsection (h)(6), a Council may establish--
                  (A) an annual catch limit for a stock 
                complex; or
                  (B) annual catch limits for each year in any 
                continuous period that is not more than three 
                years in duration.
          (5) Ecosystem component species defined.--In this 
        subsection the term ``ecosystem component species'' 
        means a stock of fish that is a nontarget, incidentally 
        harvested stock of fish in a fishery, or a nontarget, 
        incidentally harvested stock of fish that a Council or 
        the Secretary has determined--
                  (A) is not subject to overfishing, 
                approaching a depleted condition or depleted; 
                and
                  (B) is not likely to become subject to 
                overfishing or depleted in the absence of 
                conservation and management measures.

SEC. 303. CONTENTS OF FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLANS.

  (a) Required Provisions.--Any fishery management plan which 
is prepared by any Council, or by the Secretary, with respect 
to any fishery, shall--
          (1) contain the conservation and management measures, 
        applicable to foreign fishing and fishing by vessels of 
        the United States, which are--
                  (A) necessary and appropriate for the 
                conservation and management of the fishery, to 
                prevent overfishing and rebuild [overfished] 
                depleted stocks, and to protect, restore, and 
                promote the long-term health and stability of 
                the fishery;

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          [(9) include a fishery impact statement for the plan 
        or amendment (in the case of a plan or amendment 
        thereto submitted to or prepared by the Secretary after 
        October 1, 1990) which shall assess, specify, and 
        analyze the likely effects, if any, including the 
        cumulative conservation, economic, and social impacts, 
        of the conservation and management measures on, and 
        possible mitigation measures for--
                  [(A) participants in the fisheries and 
                fishing communities affected by the plan or 
                amendment;
                  [(B) participants in the fisheries conducted 
                in adjacent areas under the authority of 
                another Council, after consultation with such 
                Council and representatives of those 
                participants; and
                  [(C) the safety of human life at sea, 
                including whether and to what extent such 
                measures may affect the safety of participants 
                in the fishery;]
          [(10)] (9) specify objective and measurable criteria 
        for identifying when the fishery to which the plan 
        applies is [overfished] depleted (with an analysis of 
        how the criteria were determined and the relationship 
        of the criteria to the reproductive potential of stocks 
        of fish in that fishery) and, in the case of a fishery 
        which the Council or the Secretary has determined is 
        approaching an [overfished] depleted condition or is 
        [overfished] depleted, contain conservation and 
        management measures to prevent overfishing or end 
        overfishing and rebuild the fishery;
          [(11)] (10) establish a standardized reporting 
        methodology to assess the amount and type of bycatch 
        occurring in the fishery, and include conservation and 
        management measures that, to the extent practicable and 
        in the following priority--
                  (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          [(12)] (11) assess the type and amount of fish caught 
        and released alive during recreational fishing under 
        catch and release fishery management programs and the 
        mortality of such fish, and include conservation and 
        management measures that, to the extent practicable, 
        minimize mortality and ensure the extended survival of 
        such fish;
          [(13)] (12) include a description of the commercial, 
        recreational, and charter fishing sectors which 
        participate in the fishery, including its economic 
        impact, and, to the extent practicable, quantify trends 
        in landings of the managed fishery resource by the 
        commercial, recreational, and charter fishing sectors;
          [(14)] (13) to the extent that rebuilding plans or 
        other conservation and management measures which reduce 
        the overall harvest in a fishery are necessary, 
        allocate, taking into consideration the economic impact 
        of the harvest restrictions or recovery benefits on the 
        fishery participants in each sector, any harvest 
        restrictions or recovery benefits fairly and equitably 
        among the commercial, recreational, and charter fishing 
        sectors in the fishery and;
          [(15)] (14) establish a mechanism for specifying 
        annual catch limits in the plan (including a multiyear 
        plan), implementing regulations, or annual 
        specifications, at a level such that overfishing does 
        not occur in the fishery, including measures to ensure 
        accountability.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (d) Fishery Impact Statement.--
          (1) Any fishery management plan (or fishery 
        management plan amendment) prepared by any Council or 
        by the Secretary pursuant to subsection (a) or (b), or 
        proposed regulations deemed necessary pursuant to 
        subsection (c), shall include a fishery impact 
        statement which shall assess, specify and analyze the 
        likely effects and impact of the proposed action on the 
        quality of the human environment.
          (2) The fishery impact statement shall describe--
                  (A) a purpose of the proposed action;
                  (B) the environmental impact of the proposed 
                action;
                  (C) any adverse environmental effects which 
                cannot be avoided should the proposed action be 
                implemented;
                  (D) a reasonable range of alternatives to the 
                proposed action;
                  (E) the relationship between short-term use 
                of fishery resources and the enhancement of 
                long-term productivity;
                  (F) the cumulative conservation and 
                management effects; and
                  (G) economic, and social impacts of the 
                proposed action on--
                          (i) participants in the fisheries and 
                        fishing communities affected by the 
                        proposed action;
                          (ii) participants in the fisheries 
                        conducted in adjacent areas under the 
                        authority of another Council, after 
                        consultation with such Council and 
                        representatives of those participants; 
                        and
                          (iii) the safety of human life at 
                        sea, including whether and to what 
                        extent such measures may affect the 
                        safety of participants in the fishery.
          (3) A substantially complete fishery impact 
        statement, which may be in draft form, shall be 
        available not less than 14 days before the beginning of 
        the meeting at which a Council makes its final decision 
        on the proposal (for plans, plan amendments, or 
        proposed regulations prepared by a Council pursuant to 
        subsection (a) or (c)). Availability of this fishery 
        impact statement will be announced by the methods used 
        by the council to disseminate public information and 
        the public and relevant government agencies will be 
        invited to comment on the fishery impact statement.
          (4) The completed fishery impact statement shall 
        accompany the transmittal of a fishery management plan 
        or plan amendment as specified in section 304(a), as 
        well as the transmittal of proposed regulations as 
        specified in section 304(b).
          (5) The Councils shall, subject to approval by the 
        Secretary, establish criteria to determine actions or 
        classes of action of minor significance regarding 
        subparagraphs (A), (B), (D), (E), and (F) of paragraph 
        (2), for which preparation of a fishery impact 
        statement is unnecessary and categorically excluded 
        from the requirements of this section, and the 
        documentation required to establish the exclusion.
          (6) The Councils shall, subject to approval by the 
        Secretary, prepare procedures for compliance with this 
        section that provide for timely, clear, and concise 
        analysis that is useful to decisionmakers and the 
        public, reduce extraneous paperwork and effectively 
        involve the public, including--
                  (A) using Council meetings to determine the 
                scope of issues to be addressed and identifying 
                significant issues related to the proposed 
                action;
                  (B) integration of the fishery impact 
                statement development process with preliminary 
                and final Council decisionmaking in a manner 
                that provides opportunity for comment from the 
                public and relevant government agencies prior 
                to these decision points; and
                  (C) providing scientific, technical, and 
                legal advice at an early stage of the 
                development of the fishery impact statement to 
                ensure timely transmittal and Secretarial 
                review of the proposed fishery management plan, 
                plan amendment, or regulations to the 
                Secretary.
          (7) Actions taken in accordance with the procedures 
        of this section shall constitute fulfillment of the 
        requirements the National Environmental Policy 
        Improvement Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4371 et seq.) and 
        all related implementing regulations.

SEC. 303A. LIMITED ACCESS PRIVILEGE PROGRAMS.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Requirements for Limited Access Privileges.--
          (1) In general.--Any limited access privilege program 
        to harvest fish submitted by a Council or approved by 
        the Secretary under this section shall--
                  (A) if established in a fishery that is 
                [overfished] depleted or subject to a 
                rebuilding plan, assist in its rebuilding;

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (6) Program initiation.--
                  (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                  [(D) New england and gulf referendum.--
                          [(i) Except as provided in clause 
                        (iii) for the Gulf of Mexico commercial 
                        red snapper fishery, the New England 
                        and Gulf Councils may not submit, and 
                        the Secretary may not approve or 
                        implement, a fishery management plan or 
                        amendment that creates an individual 
                        fishing quota program, including a 
                        Secretarial plan, unless such a system, 
                        as ultimately developed, has been 
                        approved by more than \2/3\ of those 
                        voting in a referendum among eligible 
                        permit holders, or other persons 
                        described in clause (v), with respect 
                        to the New England Council, and by a 
                        majority of those voting in the 
                        referendum among eligible permit 
                        holders with respect to the Gulf 
                        Council. For multispecies permits in 
                        the Gulf of Mexico, only those 
                        participants who have substantially 
                        fished the species proposed to be 
                        included in the individual fishing 
                        quota program shall be eligible to vote 
                        in such a referendum. If an individual 
                        fishing quota program fails to be 
                        approved by the requisite number of 
                        those voting, it may be revised and 
                        submitted for approval in a subsequent 
                        referendum.
                          [(ii) The Secretary shall conduct a 
                        referendum under this subparagraph, 
                        including notifying all persons 
                        eligible to participate in the 
                        referendum and making available to them 
                        information concerning the schedule, 
                        procedures, and eligibility 
                        requirements for the referendum process 
                        and the proposed individual fishing 
                        quota program. Within 1 year after the 
                        date of enactment of the Magnuson-
                        Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
                        Management Reauthorization Act of 2006, 
                        the Secretary shall publish guidelines 
                        and procedures to determine procedures 
                        and voting eligibility requirements for 
                        referenda and to conduct such referenda 
                        in a fair and equitable manner.
                          [(iii) The provisions of section 
                        407(c) of this Act shall apply in lieu 
                        of this subparagraph for an individual 
                        fishing quota program for the Gulf of 
                        Mexico commercial red snapper fishery.
                          [(iv) Chapter 35 of title 44, United 
                        States Code, (commonly known as the 
                        Paperwork Reduction Act) does not apply 
                        to the referenda conducted under this 
                        subparagraph.
                          [(v) The Secretary shall promulgate 
                        criteria for determining whether 
                        additional fishery participants are 
                        eligible to vote in the New England 
                        referendum described in clause (i) in 
                        order to ensure that crew members who 
                        derive a significant percentage of 
                        their total income from the fishery 
                        under the proposed program are eligible 
                        to vote in the referendum.
                          [(vi) In this subparagraph, the term 
                        ``individual fishing quota'' does not 
                        include a sector allocation.]
                  (D) Catch share referendum pilot program.--
                          (i) The New England, Mid-Atlantic, 
                        South Atlantic, and Gulf of Mexico 
                        Councils may not submit a fishery 
                        management plan or amendment that 
                        creates a catch share program for a 
                        fishery, and the Secretary may not 
                        approve or implement such a plan or 
                        amendment submitted by such a Council 
                        or a secretarial plan or amendment 
                        under section 304(c) that creates such 
                        a program, unless the final program has 
                        been approved, in a referendum in 
                        accordance with this subparagraph, by a 
                        majority of the permit holders eligible 
                        to participate in the fishery. For 
                        multispecies permits in the Gulf of 
                        Mexico, any permit holder with landings 
                        from within the sector of the fishery 
                        being considered for the catch share 
                        program within the 5-year period 
                        preceding the date of the referendum 
                        and still active in fishing in the 
                        fishery shall be eligible to 
                        participate in such a referendum. If a 
                        catch share program is not approved by 
                        the requisite number of permit holders, 
                        it may be revised and submitted for 
                        approval in a subsequent referendum.
                          (ii) The Secretary may, at the 
                        request of the New England Fishery 
                        Management Council, allow participation 
                        in such a referendum for a fishery 
                        under the Council's authority, by 
                        fishing vessel crewmembers who derive a 
                        significant portion of their livelihood 
                        from such fishing.
                          (iii) The Secretary shall conduct a 
                        referendum under this subparagraph, 
                        including notifying all permit holders 
                        eligible to participate in the 
                        referendum and making available to 
                        them--
                                  (I) a copy of the proposed 
                                program;
                                  (II) an estimate of the costs 
                                of the program, including costs 
                                to participants;
                                  (III) an estimate of the 
                                amount of fish or percentage of 
                                quota each permit holder would 
                                be allocated; and
                                  (IV) information concerning 
                                the schedule, procedures, and 
                                eligibility requirements for 
                                the referendum process.
                          (iv) For the purposes of this 
                        subparagraph, the term ``permit holder 
                        eligible to participate'' only includes 
                        the holder of a permit for a fishery 
                        under which fishing has occurred in 3 
                        of the 5 years preceding a referendum 
                        for the fishery, unless sickness, 
                        injury, or other unavoidable hardship 
                        prevented the permit holder from 
                        engaging in such fishing.
                          (v) The Secretary may not implement 
                        any catch share program for any fishery 
                        managed exclusively by the Secretary 
                        unless first petitioned by a majority 
                        of those permit holders eligible to 
                        participate in the fishery.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 304. ACTION BY THE SECRETARY.

  (a) Review of Plans.--
          (1) * * *
          (2) In undertaking the review required under 
        paragraph (1), the Secretary shall--
                  (A) * * *
                  (B) consult with the Secretary of State with 
                respect to foreign fishing; [and]
                  (C) consult with the Secretary of the 
                department in which the Coast Guard is 
                operating with respect to enforcement at sea 
                and to fishery access adjustments referred to 
                in section 303(a)(6)[.]; and
                  (D) evaluate the adequacy of the accompanying 
                fishery impact statement as basis for fully 
                considering the environmental impacts of 
                implementing the fishery management plan or 
                plan amendment.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(b) Review of Regulations.--]
          [(1) Upon transmittal by the Council to the Secretary 
        of proposed regulations prepared under section 303(c), 
        the Secretary shall immediately initiate an evaluation 
        of the proposed regulations to determine whether they 
        are consistent with the fishery management plan, plan 
        amendment, this Act and other applicable law. Within 15 
        days of initiating such evaluation the Secretary shall 
        make a determination and--]
  (b) Review of regulations.--
          (1)Upon transmittal by the Council to the Secretary 
        of proposed regulations prepared under section 303(c), 
        the Secretary shall immediately initiate an evaluation 
        of the proposed regulations to determine whether they 
        are consistent with the fishery management plan, plan 
        amendment, this Act and other applicable law. The 
        Secretary shall also immediately initiate an evaluation 
        of the accompanying fishery impact statement as a basis 
        for fully considering the environmental impacts of 
        implementing the proposed regulations. Within 15 days 
        of initiating such evaluation the Secretary shall make 
        a determination and--
                  (A) if that determination is affirmative, the 
                Secretary shall publish such regulations in the 
                Federal Register, with such technical changes 
                as may be necessary for clarity and an 
                explanation of those changes, for a public 
                comment period of 15 to 60 days; or
                  (B) if that determination is negative, the 
                Secretary shall notify the Council in writing 
                of the inconsistencies and provide 
                recommendations on revisions that would make 
                the proposed regulations consistent with the 
                fishery management plan, plan amendment, this 
                Act, and other applicable law.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (d) Establishment of Fees.--(1) * * *
          (2)(A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (D) The Secretary shall report annually on the amount 
        collected under this paragraph from each fishery and 
        detail how the funds were spent in the prior year on a 
        fishery-by-fishery basis, to--
                  (i) Congress; and
                  (ii) each Council from whose fisheries the 
                fee under this paragraph were collected.
  (e) Rebuilding Overfished Fisheries.--
          (1) The Secretary shall report annually to the 
        Congress and the Councils on the status of fisheries 
        within each Council's geographical area of authority 
        and identify those fisheries that are [overfished] 
        depleted or are approaching a condition of being 
        [overfished] depleted. For those fisheries managed 
        under a fishery management plan or international 
        agreement, the status shall be determined using the 
        criteria for overfishing specified in such plan or 
        agreement. A fishery shall be classified as approaching 
        a condition of being [overfished] depleted if, based on 
        trends in fishing effort, fishery resource size, and 
        other appropriate factors, the Secretary estimates that 
        the fishery will become [overfished] depleted within 
        two years. The report shall distinguish between 
        fisheries that are depleted (or approaching that 
        condition) as a result of fishing and fisheries that 
        are depleted (or approaching that condition) as a 
        result of factors other than fishing. The report shall 
        state, for each fishery identified as depleted or 
        approaching that condition, whether the fishery is the 
        target of directed fishing.
          (2) If the Secretary determines at any time that a 
        fishery is [overfished] depleted, the Secretary shall 
        immediately notify the appropriate Council and request 
        that action be taken to end overfishing in the fishery 
        and to implement conservation and management measures 
        to rebuild affected stocks of fish. The Secretary shall 
        publish each notice under this paragraph in the Federal 
        Register.
          (3) Within 2 years after an identification under 
        paragraph (1) or notification under paragraphs (2) or 
        (7), the appropriate Council (or the Secretary, for 
        fisheries under section 302(a)(3)) shall prepare and 
        implement a fishery management plan, plan amendment, or 
        proposed regulations for the fishery to which the 
        identification or notice applies--
                  (A) * * *
                  (B) to prevent overfishing from occurring in 
                the fishery whenever such fishery is identified 
                as approaching an [overfished] depleted 
                condition.
          (4) For a fishery that is [overfished] depleted, any 
        fishery management plan, amendment, or proposed 
        regulations prepared pursuant to paragraph (3) or 
        paragraph (5) for such fishery shall--
                  (A) specify a time period for rebuilding the 
                fishery that shall--
                          (i) be as short as [possible] 
                        practicable, taking into account the 
                        status and biology of any [overfished] 
                        depleted stocks of fish, the needs of 
                        fishing communities, recommendations by 
                        international organizations in which 
                        the United States participates, and the 
                        interaction of the [overfished] 
                        depleted stock of fish within the 
                        marine ecosystem; and
                          [(ii) not exceed 10 years, except in 
                        cases where the biology of the stock of 
                        fish, other environmental conditions, 
                        or management measures under an 
                        international agreement in which the 
                        United States participates dictate 
                        otherwise;]
                          (ii) may not exceed the time the 
                        stock would be rebuilt without fishing 
                        occurring plus one mean generation, 
                        except in a case in which--
                                  (I) the biology of the stock 
                                of fish, other environmental 
                                conditions, or management 
                                measures under an international 
                                agreement in which the United 
                                States participates dictate 
                                otherwise;
                                  (II) the Secretary determines 
                                that the cause of the stock 
                                being depleted is outside the 
                                jurisdiction of the Council or 
                                the rebuilding program cannot 
                                be effective only by limiting 
                                fishing activities;
                                  (III) the Secretary 
                                determines that one or more 
                                components of a mixed-stock 
                                fishery is depleted but cannot 
                                be rebuilt within that time- 
                                frame without significant 
                                economic harm to the fishery, 
                                or cannot be rebuilt without 
                                causing another component of 
                                the mixed-stock fishery to 
                                approach a depleted status;
                                  (IV) the Secretary determines 
                                that recruitment, distribution, 
                                or life history of, or fishing 
                                activities for, the stock are 
                                affected by informal 
                                transboundary agreements under 
                                which management activities 
                                outside the exclusive economic 
                                zone by another country may 
                                hinder conservation and 
                                management efforts by United 
                                States fishermen; and
                                  (V) the Secretary determines 
                                that the stock has been 
                                affected by unusual events that 
                                make rebuilding within the 
                                specified time period 
                                improbable without significant 
                                economic harm to fishing 
                                communities;
                  (B) take into account environmental condition 
                including predator/prey relationships;
                  [(B)] (C) allocate both overfishing 
                restrictions and recovery benefits fairly and 
                equitably among sectors of the fishery; [and]
                  [(C)] (D) for fisheries managed under an 
                international agreement, reflect traditional 
                participation in the fishery, relative to other 
                nations, by fishermen of the United States[.]; 
                and
                  (E) specify a schedule for reviewing the 
                rebuilding targets, evaluating environmental 
                impacts on rebuilding progress, and evaluating 
                progress being made toward reaching rebuilding 
                targets.
          (5) If, within the 2-year period beginning on the 
        date of identification or notification that a fishery 
        is [overfished] depleted, the Council does not submit 
        to the Secretary a fishery management plan, plan 
        amendment, or proposed regulations required by 
        paragraph (3)(A), the Secretary shall prepare a fishery 
        management plan or plan amendment and any accompanying 
        regulations to stop overfishing and rebuild affected 
        stocks of fish within 9 months under subsection (c).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (8) A fishery management plan, plan amendment, or 
        proposed regulations may use alternative rebuilding 
        strategies, including harvest control rules and fishing 
        mortality-rate targets to the extent they are in 
        compliance with the requirements of this Act.
          (9) A Council may terminate the application of 
        paragraph (3) to a fishery if the Council's scientific 
        and statistical committee determines and the Secretary 
        concurs that the original determination that the 
        fishery was depleted was erroneous, either--
                  (A) within the 2-year period beginning on the 
                effective date a fishery management plan, plan 
                amendment, or proposed regulation for a fishery 
                under this subsection takes effect; or
                  (B) within 90 days after the completion of 
                the next stock assessment after such 
                determination.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (i) International Overfishing.--The provisions of this 
subsection shall apply in lieu of subsection (e) to a fishery 
that the Secretary determines is [overfished] depleted or 
approaching a condition of being [overfished] depleted due to 
excessive international fishing pressure, and for which there 
are no management measures to end overfishing under an 
international agreement to which the United States is a party. 
For such fisheries--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 305. OTHER REQUIREMENTS AND AUTHORITY.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Emergency Actions and Interim Measures.--(1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (3) Any emergency regulation or interim measure which changes 
any existing fishery management plan or amendment shall be 
treated as an amendment to such plan for the period in which 
such regulation is in effect. Any emergency regulation or 
interim measure promulgated under this subsection--
          (A) * * *
          (B) shall, except as provided in subparagraph (C), 
        remain in effect for not more than [180 days after the 
        date of publication, and may be extended by publication 
        in the Federal Register for one additional period of 
        not more than 186 days, provided] 1 year after the date 
        of publication, and may be extended by publication in 
        the Federal Register for one additional period of not 
        more than 1 year, if the public has had an opportunity 
        to comment on the emergency regulation or interim 
        measure, and, in the case of a Council recommendation 
        for emergency regulations or interim measures, the 
        Council is actively preparing a fishery management 
        plan, plan amendment, or proposed regulations to 
        address the emergency or overfishing on a permanent 
        basis;

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (e) Effect of Certain Laws on Certain Time Requirements.--The 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C 601 et seq.), the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), and 
Executive Order Numbered 12866, dated September 30, 1993, shall 
be complied with within the time limitations specified in 
subsections (a), (b), and (c) of section 304 as they apply to 
the functions of the Secretary under such provisions.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 306. STATE JURISDICTION.

  (a) In General.--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (3) A State may regulate a fishing vessel outside the 
        boundaries of the State in the following circumstances:
                  (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                  (C) The fishing vessel is not registered 
                under the law of the State of Alaska and is 
                operating in a fishery in the exclusive 
                economic zone off Alaska for which there [was 
                no] is no fishery management plan in place [on 
                August 1, 1996], and the Secretary and the 
                North Pacific Council find that there is a 
                legitimate interest of the State of Alaska in 
                the conservation and management of such 
                fishery. The authority provided under this 
                subparagraph shall terminate when a fishery 
                management plan under this Act is approved and 
                implemented for such fishery.
  (b) Exception.--(1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (4) Notwithstanding section 3(11), for the purposes of 
managing the recreational sector of the Gulf of Mexico red 
snapper fishery, the seaward boundary of a coastal State in the 
Gulf of Mexico is a line 9 miles seaward from the baseline from 
which the territorial sea of the United States is measured.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 312. TRANSITION TO SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES.

  (a) Fisheries Disaster Relief.--(1) (A) At the discretion of 
the Secretary or at the request of the Governor of an affected 
State or a fishing community, the Secretary shall determine 
whether there is a commercial fishery failure due to a fishery 
resource disaster as a result of--
          [(A)] (i) natural causes;
          [(B)] (ii) man-made causes beyond the control of 
        fishery managers to mitigate through conservation and 
        management measures, including regulatory restrictions 
        (including those imposed as a result of judicial 
        action) imposed to protect human health or the marine 
        environment; or
          [(C)] (iii) undetermined causes.
  (B) The Secretary shall publish the estimated cost of 
recovery from a fishery resource disaster no later than 30 days 
after the Secretary makes the determination under subparagraph 
(A) with respect to such disaster.
  (2) The Secretary shall make a decision regarding a request 
from a Governor under paragraph (1) within 90 days after 
receiving an estimate of the economic impact of the fishery 
resource disaster from the entity requesting the relief.
  [(2)] (3) Upon the determination under paragraph (1) that 
there is a commercial fishery failure, the Secretary is 
authorized to make sums available to be used by the affected 
State, fishing community, or by the Secretary in cooperation 
with the affected State or fishing community for assessing the 
economic and social effects of the commercial fishery failure, 
or any activity that the Secretary determines is appropriate to 
restore the fishery or prevent a similar failure in the future 
and to assist a fishing community affected by such failure. 
Before making funds available for an activity authorized under 
this section, the Secretary shall make a determination that 
such activity will not expand the size or scope of the 
commercial fishery failure in that fishery or into other 
fisheries or other geographic regions.
  [(3)] (4) The Federal share of the cost of any activity 
carried out under the authority of this subsection shall not 
exceed 75 percent of the cost of that activity.
  [(4)] (5) There are authorized to be appropriated to the 
Secretary such sums as are necessary for each of the fiscal 
years 2007 through 2013.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 314. NORTHWEST ATLANTIC OCEAN FISHERIES REINVESTMENT PROGRAM.

  (a) Program.--(1) Not later than October 1, 1993, the 
Secretary shall establish a Northwest Atlantic Ocean Fisheries 
Reinvestment Program for the purposes of--
          (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (E) helping to restore [overfished] depleted New 
        England groundfish stocks through aquaculture or 
        hatchery programs.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 318. COOPERATIVE RESEARCH AND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.

  (a) In General.--(1) The Secretary of Commerce, in 
consultation with the Councils, shall establish a cooperative 
research and management program to address needs identified 
under this Act and under any other marine resource laws 
enforced by the Secretary. The program shall be implemented on 
a regional basis and shall be developed and conducted through 
partnerships among Federal, State, and Tribal managers and 
scientists (including interstate fishery commissions), fishing 
industry participants (including use of commercial charter or 
recreational vessels for gathering data), and educational 
institutions.
  (2) Within one year after the date of enactment of the 
Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in 
Fisheries Management Act, and after consultation with the 
Councils, the Secretary shall publish a plan for implementing 
and conducting the program established in paragraph (1). Such 
plan shall identify and describe critical regional fishery 
management and research needs, possible projects that may 
address those needs, and estimated costs for such projects. The 
plan shall be revised and updated every 5 years, and updated 
plans shall include a brief description of projects that were 
funded in the prior 5-year period and the research and 
management needs that were addressed by those projects.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c)  [Funding] Priorities.--In making funds available the 
Secretary shall award funding on a competitive basis and based 
on regional fishery management needs, select programs that form 
part of a coherent program of research focused on solving 
priority issues identified by the Councils, and shall give 
priority to the following projects:
          (1) Projects to collect data to improve, supplement, 
        or enhance stock assessments, including [the use of 
        fishing vessels or acoustic or other marine 
        technology.] --
                  (A) the use of fishing vessels or acoustic or 
                other marine technology;
                  (B) expanding the use of electronic catch 
                reporting programs and technology; and
                  (C) improving monitoring and observer 
                coverage through the expanded use of electronic 
                monitoring devices.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


               TITLE IV--FISHERY MONITORING AND RESEARCH

SEC. 401. REGISTRATION AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (g) Recreational Fisheries.--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (4) Federal-state partnerships.--
                  (A) Establishment.--The Secretary shall 
                establish partnerships with States to develop 
                best practices for implementation of State 
                programs established pursuant to paragraph (2).
                  (B) Guidance.--The Secretary shall develop 
                guidance, in cooperation with the States, that 
                details best practices for administering State 
                programs pursuant to paragraph (2), and provide 
                such guidance to the States.
                  (C) Biennial report.--The Secretary shall 
                submit to the Congress and publish biennial 
                reports that include--
                          (i) the estimated accuracy of the 
                        registry program established under 
                        paragraph (1) and of State programs 
                        that are exempted under paragraph (2);
                          (ii) priorities for improving 
                        recreational fishing data collection; 
                        and
                          (iii) an explanation of any use of 
                        information collected by such State 
                        programs and by the Secretary, 
                        including a description of any 
                        consideration given to the information 
                        by the Secretary.
                  (D) States grant program.--The Secretary 
                shall make grants to States to improve 
                implementation of State programs consistent 
                with this subsection. The Secretary shall 
                prioritize such grants based on the ability of 
                the grant to improve the quality and accuracy 
                of such programs.
          [(4)] (5) Report.--Within 24 months after 
        establishment of the program, the Secretary shall 
        submit a report to Congress that describes the progress 
        made toward achieving the goals and objectives of the 
        program.
          (6) Study on program implementation.--
                  (A) In general.--Not later than 60 days after 
                the enactment of this paragraph, the Secretary 
                shall enter into an agreement with the National 
                Research Council of the National Academy of 
                Sciences to study the implementation of the 
                programs described in this section. The study 
                shall--
                          (i) provide an updated assessment of 
                        recreational survey methods established 
                        or improved since the publication of 
                        the Council's report ``Review of 
                        Recreational Fisheries Survey Methods 
                        (2006)'';
                          (ii) evaluate the extent to which the 
                        recommendations made in that report 
                        were implemented pursuant to paragraph 
                        (3)(B); and
                          (iii) examine any limitations of the 
                        Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics 
                        Survey and the Marine Recreational 
                        Information Program established under 
                        paragraph (1).
                  (B) Report.--Not later than 1 year after 
                entering into an agreement under subparagraph 
                (A), the Secretary shall submit a report to 
                Congress on the results of the study under 
                subparagraph (A).

SEC. 402. INFORMATION COLLECTION.

  (a) * * *
  (b) Confidentiality of Information.--
          (1) Any information submitted to the Secretary, a 
        State fishery management agency, or a marine fisheries 
        commission by any person in compliance with the 
        requirements of this Act shall be confidential and 
        shall not be disclosed except--
                  (A) * * *
                  [(B) to State or Marine Fisheries Commission 
                employees as necessary to further the 
                Department's mission, subject to a 
                confidentiality agreement that prohibits public 
                disclosure of the identity of business of any 
                person;]
                  (B) to State or Marine Fisheries Commission 
                employees as necessary for achievement of the 
                purposes of this Act, subject to a 
                confidentiality agreement between the State or 
                Commission, respectively, and the Secretary 
                that prohibits public disclosure of the 
                identity of any person and of confidential 
                information;

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                  (E) when such information is used by State, 
                Council, or Marine Fisheries Commission 
                employees to verify catch under a [limited 
                access] catch share program, but only to the 
                extent that such use is consistent with 
                subparagraph (B);

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                  (G) when such information is required to be 
                submitted to the Secretary for any 
                determination under a [limited access] catch 
                share program; or

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (2) Any observer information, and information 
        obtained through a vessel monitoring system or other 
        technology used onboard a fishing vessel for 
        enforcement or data collection purposes, shall be 
        confidential and shall not be disclosed, except in 
        accordance with the requirements of subparagraphs (A) 
        through (H) of paragraph (1), or--
                  (A) * * *
                  (B) when such information is necessary in 
                proceedings to adjudicate observer 
                certifications; [or]
                  [(C) as authorized by any regulations issued 
                under paragraph (3) allowing the collection of 
                observer information, pursuant to a 
                confidentiality agreement between the 
                observers, observer employers, and the 
                Secretary prohibiting disclosure of the 
                information by the observers or observer 
                employers, in order--
                          [(i) to allow the sharing of observer 
                        information among observers and between 
                        observers and observer employers as 
                        necessary to train and prepare 
                        observers for deployments on specific 
                        vessels; or
                          [(ii) to validate the accuracy of the 
                        observer information collected.]
                  (C) as authorized by any regulations issued 
                under paragraph (6) allowing the collection of 
                observer information, pursuant to a 
                confidentiality agreement between the 
                observers, observer employers, and the 
                Secretary prohibiting disclosure of the 
                information by the observers or observer 
                employers, in order--
                          (i) to allow the sharing of observer 
                        information among observers and between 
                        observers and observer employers as 
                        necessary to train and prepare 
                        observers for deployments on specific 
                        vessels; or
                          (ii) to validate the accuracy of the 
                        observer information collected; or
                  (D) to other persons if the Secretary has 
                obtained written authorization from the person 
                who submitted such information or from the 
                person on whose vessel the information was 
                collected, to release such information for 
                reasons not otherwise provided for in this 
                subsection.
          (3) Any information submitted to the Secretary, a 
        State fisheries management agency, or a Marine 
        Fisheries Commission by any person in compliance with 
        the requirements of this Act, including confidential 
        information, may only be used for purposes of fisheries 
        management and monitoring and enforcement under this 
        Act.
          (4) The Secretary may enter into a memorandum of 
        understanding with the heads of other Federal agencies 
        for the sharing of confidential information to ensure 
        safety of life at sea or for fisheries enforcement 
        purposes, including information obtained through a 
        vessel monitoring system or other electronic 
        enforcement and monitoring systems, if--
                  (A) the Secretary determines there is a 
                compelling need to do so; and
                  (B) the heads of the other Federal agencies 
                agree--
                          (i) to maintain the confidentiality 
                        of the information in accordance with 
                        the requirements that apply to the 
                        Secretary under this section; and
                          (ii) to use the information only for 
                        the purposes for which it was shared 
                        with the agencies.
          (5) The Secretary may not provide any vessel-specific 
        or aggregate vessel information from a fishery that is 
        collected for monitoring and enforcement purposes to 
        any person for the purposes of coastal and marine 
        spatial planning under Executive Order 13547, unless 
        the Secretary determines that providing such 
        information is important for maintaining or enhancing 
        national security or for ensuring fishermen continued 
        access to fishing grounds.
          [(3)] (6) The Secretary shall, by regulation, 
        prescribe such procedures as may be necessary to 
        preserve the confidentiality of information submitted 
        in compliance with any requirement or regulation under 
        this Act, except that the Secretary may release or make 
        public any such information in any aggregate or summary 
        form which does not directly or indirectly disclose the 
        identity or business of any person who submits such 
        information. Nothing in this subsection shall be 
        interpreted or construed to prevent the use for 
        conservation and management purposes by the Secretary, 
        or with the approval of the Secretary, the Council, of 
        any information submitted in compliance with any 
        requirement or regulation under this Act or the use, 
        release, or publication of bycatch information pursuant 
        to paragraph (2)(A).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 404. FISHERIES RESEARCH.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (e) Use of the Asset Forfeiture Fund for Fishery Independent 
Data Collection.--
          (1) In general.--
                  (A) The Secretary, subject to appropriations, 
                may obligate for data collection purposes in 
                accordance with prioritizations under paragraph 
                (3) a portion of amounts received by the United 
                States as fisheries enforcement penalties.
                  (B) Amounts may be obligated under this 
                paragraph only in the fishery management region 
                with respect to which they are collected.
          (2) Included purposes.--The purposes referred to in 
        paragraph (1) include--
                  (A) the use of State personnel and resources, 
                including fishery survey vessels owned and 
                maintained by States to survey or assess data-
                poor fisheries for which fishery management 
                plans are in effect under this Act; and
                  (B) cooperative research activities 
                authorized under section 318 to improve or 
                enhance the fishery independent data used in 
                fishery stock assessments.
          (3) Data-poor fisheries priority lists.--Each Council 
        shall--
                  (A) identify those fisheries in its region 
                considered to be data-poor fisheries;
                  (B) prioritize those fisheries based on the 
                need of each fishery for up-to-date 
                information; and
                  (C) provide those priorities to the 
                Secretary.
          (4) Definitions.--In this subsection:
                  (A) The term ``data-poor fishery'' means a 
                fishery--
                          (i) that has not been surveyed in the 
                        preceding 5-year period;
                          (ii) for which a fishery stock 
                        assessment has not been performed 
                        within the preceding 5-year period; or
                          (iii) for which limited information 
                        on the status of the fishery is 
                        available for management purposes.
                  (B) The term ``fisheries enforcement 
                penalties'' means any fine or penalty imposed, 
                or proceeds of any property seized, for a 
                violation of this Act or of any other marine 
                resource law enforced by the Secretary.
          (5) Authorization of appropriations.--There is 
        authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary for each 
        fiscal year to carry out this subsection up to 80 
        percent of the fisheries enforcement penalties 
        collected during the preceding fiscal year.

SEC. 405. INCIDENTAL HARVEST RESEARCH.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Collection and Assessment of Specific Stock 
Information.--For stocks of fish identified pursuant to 
subsection (b), with priority given to stocks which (based upon 
the best available scientific information) are considered to be 
[overfished] depleted, the Secretary shall conduct--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


[SEC. 407. GULF OF MEXICO RED SNAPPER RESEARCH.

  [(a) Independent Peer Review.--(1) Within 30 days of the date 
of enactment of the Sustainable Fisheries Act, the Secretary 
shall initiate an independent peer review to evaluate--
          [(A) the accuracy and adequacy of fishery statistics 
        used by the Secretary for the red snapper fishery in 
        the Gulf of Mexico to account for all commercial, 
        recreational, and charter fishing harvests and fishing 
        effort on the stock;
          [(B) the appropriateness of the scientific methods, 
        information, and models used by the Secretary to assess 
        the status and trends of the Gulf of Mexico red snapper 
        stock and as the basis for the fishery management plan 
        for the Gulf of Mexico red snapper fishery;
          [(C) the appropriateness and adequacy of the 
        management measures in the fishery management plan for 
        red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico for conserving and 
        managing the red snapper fishery under this Act; and
          [(D) the costs and benefits of all reasonable 
        alternatives to a limited access privilege program for 
        the red snapper fishery in the Gulf of Mexico.
  [(2) The Secretary shall ensure that commercial, 
recreational, and charter fishermen in the red snapper fishery 
in the Gulf of Mexico are provided an opportunity to--
          [(A) participate in the peer review under this 
        subsection; and
          [(B) provide information to the Secretary concerning 
        the review of fishery statistics under this subsection 
        without being subject to penalty under this Act or 
        other applicable law for any past violation of a 
        requirement to report such information to the 
        Secretary.
  [(3) The Secretary shall submit a detailed written report on 
the findings of the peer review conducted under this subsection 
to the Gulf Council no later than one year after the date of 
enactment of the Sustainable Fisheries Act.
  [(b) Prohibition.--In addition to the restrictions under 
section 303(d)(1)(A), the Gulf Council may not, prior to 
October 1, 2002, undertake or continue the preparation of any 
fishery management plan, plan amendment or regulation under 
this Act for the Gulf of Mexico commercial red snapper fishery 
that creates an individual fishing quota program or that 
authorizes the consolidation of licenses, permits, or 
endorsements that result in different trip limits for vessels 
in the same class.
  [(c) Referendum.--
          [(1) On or after October 1, 2002, the Gulf Council 
        may prepare and submit a fishery management plan, plan 
        amendment, or regulation for the Gulf of Mexico 
        commercial red snapper fishery that creates a limited 
        access privilege program or that authorizes the 
        consolidation of licenses, permits, or endorsements 
        that result in different trip limits for vessels in the 
        same class, only if the preparation of such plan, 
        amendment, or regulation is approved in a referendum 
        conducted under paragraph (2) and only if the 
        submission to the Secretary of such plan, amendment, or 
        regulation is approved in a subsequent referendum 
        conducted under paragraph (2).
          [(2) The Secretary, at the request of the Gulf 
        Council, shall conduct referendums under this 
        subsection. Only a person who held an annual vessel 
        permit with a red snapper endorsement for such permit 
        on September 1, 1996 (or any person to whom such permit 
        with such endorsement was transferred after such date) 
        and vessel captains who harvested red snapper in a 
        commercial fishery using such endorsement in each red 
        snapper fishing season occurring between January 1, 
        1993, and such date may vote in a referendum under this 
        subsection. The referendum shall be decided by a 
        majority of the votes cast. The Secretary shall develop 
        a formula to weigh votes based on the proportional 
        harvest under each such permit and endorsement and by 
        each such captain in the fishery between January 1, 
        1993, and September 1, 1996. Prior to each referendum, 
        the Secretary, in consultation with the Council, 
        shall--
                  [(A) identify and notify all such persons 
                holding permits with red snapper endorsements 
                and all such vessel captains; and
                  [(B) make available to all such persons and 
                vessel captains information about the schedule, 
                procedures, and eligibility requirements for 
                the referendum and the proposed individual 
                fishing quota program.
  [(d) Catch Limits.--Any fishery management plan, plan 
amendment, or regulation submitted by the Gulf Council for the 
red snapper fishery after the date of enactment of the 
Sustainable Fisheries Act shall contain conservation and 
management measures that--
          [(1) establish separate quotas for recreational 
        fishing (which, for the purposes of this subsection 
        shall include charter fishing) and commercial fishing 
        that, when reached, result in a prohibition on the 
        retention of fish caught during recreational fishing 
        and commercial fishing, respectively, for the remainder 
        of the fishing year; and
          [(2) ensure that such quotas reflect allocations 
        among such sectors and do not reflect any harvests in 
        excess of such allocations.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 409. STOCK ASSESSMENTS USED FOR FISHERIES MANAGED UNDER GULF OF 
                    MEXICO COUNCIL'S REEF FISH MANAGEMENT PLAN.

  (a) In General.--The Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission 
shall conduct all fishery stock assessments used for management 
purposes by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council for 
the fisheries managed under the Council's Reef Fish Management 
Plan.
  (b) Use of Other Information and Assets.--
          (1) In general.--Such fishery assessments shall--
                  (A) incorporate fisheries survey information 
                collected by university researchers; and
                  (B) to the extent practicable, use State, 
                university, and private assets to conduct 
                fisheries surveys.
          (2) Surveys at artificial reefs.--Any such fishery 
        stock assessment conducted after the date of the 
        enactment of the Strengthening Fishing Communities and 
        Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act 
        shall incorporate fishery surveys conducted, and other 
        relevant fisheries information collected, on and around 
        natural and artificial reefs.
  (c) Constituent and Stakeholder Participation.--Each such 
fishery assessment shall--
          (1) emphasize constituent and stakeholder 
        participation in the development of the assessment;
          (2) contain all of the raw data used in the 
        assessment and a description of the methods used to 
        collect that data; and
          (3) employ an assessment process that is transparent 
        and includes--
                  (A) includes a rigorous and independent 
                scientific review of the completed fishery 
                stock assessment; and
                  (B) a panel of independent experts to review 
                the data and assessment and make 
                recommendations on the most appropriate values 
                of critical population and management 
                quantities.
                              ----------                              


                         AMERICAN FISHERIES ACT



           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
TITLE II--FISHERIES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Subtitle II--Bering Sea Pollock Fishery

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 210. FISHERY COOPERATIVE LIMITATIONS.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (e) Excessive Shares.--
          [(1) Harvesting.--No particular individual, 
        corporation, or other entity may harvest, through a 
        fishery cooperative or otherwise, a total of more than 
        17.5 percent of the pollock available to be harvested 
        in the directed pollock fishery.]
          (1) Harvesting.--
                  (A) Limitation.--No particular individual, 
                corporation, or other entity may harvest, 
                through a fishery cooperative or otherwise, a 
                percentage of the pollock available to be 
                harvested in the directed pollock fishery that 
                exceeds the percentage established for purposes 
                of this paragraph by the North Pacific Council.
                  (B) Maximum percentage.--The percentage 
                established by the North Pacific Council shall 
                not exceed 24 percent of the pollock available 
                to be harvested in the directed pollock 
                fishery.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                            DISSENTING VIEWS

    H.R. 4742 would reauthorize and amend the Magnuson-Stevens 
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), the law that 
governs fishing in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). We 
oppose this legislation because it would roll back important 
elements of the law which are critical to making fisheries and 
the fishing industry in the United States economically and 
environmentally sustainable.
    Congress first enacted the Fishery Conservation and 
Management Act in 1976 with two main goals in mind: put an end 
to unregulated fishing by foreign fleets in U.S. waters, and 
develop domestic fleets that could reap the economic benefit of 
our considerable fishery resources. It also set up eight 
regional fishery management councils (Councils) tasked with 
developing fishery management plans and conservation and 
management measures for fisheries in their waters. The law 
worked well at phasing out foreign fishing, and after an 
initial respite from the enormous pressure of foreign factory 
trawlers, many fish stocks rebounded and provided jobs and 
income for American fishermen.
    However, significant financial investment in the 
development of the U.S. fishing fleet and a failure to limit 
entry into fisheries by U.S. fishermen, or to set catch limits 
based on what scientists knew the stocks could sustain, meant 
that domestic fishing soon replaced foreign in overexploiting 
U.S. fisheries. By the mid-1980s, many stocks were in decline, 
and by the early 1990s a number had collapsed, devastating 
fishing communities from coast to coast. Taxpayers have found 
themselves on the hook ever since, doling out hundreds of 
millions of dollars in assistance over the past two decades for 
fishery disasters, many of which could have been prevented with 
more effective fishery management.
    Recognizing these failures, Congress amended the MSA in 
1996 in an attempt to end overfishing, and to promote 
rebuilding of overfished stocks, protection of fish habitat, 
improvement of fisheries science, and minimization of bycatch. 
Some Councils took this direction from Congress to heart, 
putting in place plans to rebuild stocks and manage fisheries 
based on the best available science. Others, however, continued 
to view the law as advisory. Instead of making the tough 
choices necessary to stabilize and recover the fishing 
economies in their regions, they succumbed to political 
pressure and allowed their fisheries to further deteriorate, to 
the detriment of fishermen and their families.
    It was not until 2007, a mere seven years ago, that 
Congress first required all Councils to set science-based 
annual catch limits (ACLs) to prevent overfishing, and to put 
in place accountability measures ensuring that exceeding an ACL 
meant a reduction in harvest the following year. In addition, 
in cases where a fishery may still become overfished, Councils 
are now required to end overfishing immediately. These changes, 
coupled with the 1996 reforms, have succeeded in ending 
overfishing in nearly all fisheries, and putting overfished 
stocks on a path to rebuilding. Most important, they have 
helped insulate the Councils from pressure to make politically-
driven management decisions that hurt fishing communities in 
the long run.
    While the MSA is not perfect, H.R. 4742 is an overreaction 
to the complaints of those in the industry who need the 
requirements of the law the most. Under the guise of providing 
``flexibility'' for fishery managers, H.R. 4742 would undermine 
the rebuilding requirements in current law. These rollbacks in 
particular are job-killers. NOAA estimates that fully rebuilt 
fisheries would add an estimated $31 billion to the economy and 
create 500,000 new jobs--increases of 17 percent and 33 
percent, respectively. Rebuilding overfished stocks is the key 
to improving fishing economies, and we must not delay that 
process. Of further concern, the bill would eliminate the 
requirement to set ACLs for dozens of vulnerable stocks, and 
shield fisheries data not just from public view, but also from 
use by federal agencies that manage other ocean resources.
    Because weakening fisheries policy is apparently not 
enough, H.R. 4742 also attacks bedrock environmental laws such 
as the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered 
Species Act, the Antiquities Act, and the National Marine 
Sanctuaries Act by making the MSA superior to those statutes 
and establishing fisheries management and fishing as a higher 
priority than other marine conservation and management goals. 
This new campaign in the Republican crusade to weaken these 
laws ignores the fact that extractive activities are not the 
only legitimate uses of the oceans, nor are they the only 
economically important ones. This Republican effort also 
ignores scientific evidence showing that protecting habitat and 
biodiversity in ocean ecosystems leads to more productive 
fisheries, and therefore to more income for fishermen.
    H.R. 4742 also fails to address a number of issues that 
should be handled in the next MSA reauthorization. The original 
law passed in 1976 used the terms ``science'' and ``ecosystem'' 
a grand total of zero times. It mentioned ``habitat'' once. 
Subsequent reauthorizations have remedied this to some degree, 
but management has not kept pace with what we know about fish 
and their surroundings. Science tells us that productive 
fisheries require healthy food webs and high quality habitat. 
It also tells us that global warming and shorter-term changes 
in ocean conditions will affect fisheries, but exactly how and 
when is unclear. We do not know how every interaction will play 
out, but that should not stop us from moving toward 
incorporating new data and new scientific understanding of 
ocean ecosystems into fisheries management. H.R. 4742 uses 
uncertainty as an excuse for inaction; we should use it as an 
opportunity for improvement.
    Finally, even though marine recreational fishing 
contributed more than $100 million in total economic impacts to 
the U.S. economy in 2012, it is largely ignored in H.R. 4742. 
We have heard from numerous anglers and related businesses that 
better data, improved stock assessments, and more responsive 
management are needed, but this bill does little to address 
these issues. Collecting the information needed to manage 
recreational fisheries effectively--and separately from 
commercial fisheries--will require creative solutions and 
significant additional funding.
    Democratic members offered a number of amendments to H.R. 
4742 at markup, and we were pleased that Republicans agreed 
with us that data collected by fishermen should be available to 
help protect fishing grounds from haphazard seismic testing, 
oil drilling, and other ill-conceived ocean uses. However, we 
were disappointed that they rejected our commonsense proposal 
to harmonize environmental review of fishing activities without 
weakening NEPA. We also find it unfortunate that Committee 
Republicans dismissed our amendments to retain science-based 
annual catch limits and rebuilding requirements for fish 
stocks, and to resolve conflicts between the MSA and other 
marine resources conservation laws through the existing 
framework of the National Ocean Policy.
    While we have many healthy fisheries in the United States, 
we also have many that remain in dangerously depleted states or 
are only beginning their recovery. We have heard consistently 
from commercial and recreational fishermen, fishery managers, 
and the conservation community that the Magnuson-Stevens Act is 
working, and that the massive overhaul envisioned by this bill 
is not warranted. Without keeping strong conservation measures 
in place and continuing to improve management through better 
science, we will never realize the full potential of our 
fishery resources for sustainable economic development. For 
these reasons, we oppose H.R. 4742 as reported.
                                   Peter DeFazio.
                                   Rauul M. Grijalva.
                                   Rush Holt.
                                   Niki Tsongas.
                                   Jared Huffman.
                                   Grace F. Napolitano.
                                   Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan.
                                   Alan Lowenthal.
                                   Katherine M. Clark.
                                   Madeleine Z. Bordallo.
                                   Matt Cartwright.