Report text available as:

  • TXT
  • PDF   (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip ?
                                                     Calendar No. 316
116th Congress      }                                  {       Report
                                 SENATE
 1st Session        }                                  {      116-166
_______________________________________________________________________

                                     

                                     

                                     

            DRIFTNET MODERNIZATION AND BYCATCH REDUCTION ACT

                               __________

                              R E P O R T

                                 of the

           COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION

                                   on

                                 S. 906







              [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]







                December 5, 2019.--Ordered to be printed 
                
                               __________

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
                      
99-010                     WASHINGTON : 2019 
                
                
                
                
                
                
                
                
                
                
                
                
                
                
                
                
                
                
                
       SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
                     one hundred sixteenth congress
                             first session

                 ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi, Chairman
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota             MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
ROY BLUNT, Missouri                  AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
TED CRUZ, Texas                      RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska                BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
JERRY MORAN, Kansas                  EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska                 TOM UDALL, New Mexico
CORY GARDNER, Colorado               GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee          TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia  TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
MIKE LEE, Utah                       JON TESTER, Montana
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin               KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona
TODD C. YOUNG, Indiana               JACKY ROSEN, Nevada
RICK SCOTT, Florida
                       John Keast, Staff Director
               David Strickland, Minority Staff Director


















                                                     Calendar No. 316
116th Congress      }                                  {       Report
                                 SENATE
 1st Session        }                                  {      116-166
======================================================================



 
            DRIFTNET MODERNIZATION AND BYCATCH REDUCTION ACT

                                _______
                                

                December 5, 2019.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

       Mr. Wicker, from the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
                Transportation, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                         [To accompany S. 906]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, to 
which was referred the bill (S. 906) to improve the management 
of driftnet fishing, having considered the same, reports 
favorably thereon with an amendment and recommends that the 
bill (as amended) do pass.

                          Purpose of the Bill

    The purpose of S. 906 is to phase out the U.S. West Coast 
large-scale driftnet fishery, which primarily targets 
swordfish, and to implement a program to help the affected 
fishers transition to alternative gear types.

                          Background and Needs

    Large-scale driftnet fishing, as defined by the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), is a 
method of fishing in which a gillnet composed of a panel or 
panels of webbing, or a series of such gillnets, with a total 
length of two and one-half kilometers (just over one and one 
half statute miles) or more is placed in the water and allowed 
to drift with the currents and winds for the purpose of 
entangling fish.\1\ The only such large-scale drift gillnet 
fishery in the United States is on the west coast and primarily 
targets swordfish, but also harvests other commercially 
valuable species, such as thresher, mako shark, and opah (also 
known as moonfish).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\16 U.S.C. 1802(25).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

              BYCATCH ISSUES IN THE DRIFT GILLNET FISHERY

    The term ``bycatch'' refers to species that are harvested 
in a fishery, but are not sold or kept for personal use, and 
includes both unmarketable and regulatory discards.\2\ In the 
early 1990s, the U.S. swordfish gillnet fishery off the west 
coast killed hundreds of whales, sea turtles, and dolphins 
annually.\3\ Beginning in 1996, the National Marine Fisheries 
Service (NMFS) convened the Pacific Offshore Cetacean Take 
Reduction Team under the authority of the Marine Mammal 
Protection Act (MMPA) to develop strategies to reduce 
entanglement of protected species, which included net 
modifications and sound-emitting devices. NMFS also designated 
two large conservation areas off the west coast that are closed 
to drift gillnet fishing when endangered sea turtles are known 
to be frequently present. These measures have resulted in a 
decline of bycatch of protected species to levels comparable to 
other U.S. fisheries, including the U.S. Atlantic swordfish 
longline fishery.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\16 U.S.C. 1802(2).
    \3\NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service, ``Two Decades Later, 
Focused Efforts on Reducing Entanglements in Gillnet Fishery Still 
Paying Off,'' June 2017 (http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/
stories/2017/09_06082017_drift_gillnet.html) (accessed July 18, 2018).
    \4\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           PERMITTING HISTORY

    The MSA prohibits large-scale driftnet fishing in areas 
subject to United States jurisdiction and by U.S. vessels 
beyond the exclusive economic zone (EEZ)\5\ of any nation.\6\ 
Within the U.S. EEZ, the drift gillnet fishery on the west 
coast\7\ is co-managed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration (NOAA), the Pacific Fishery Management Council 
(PFMC), and the State of California. The fishery operates under 
a limited entry permit system\8\ with mandatory gear 
requirements and time-area closures. Federal management of the 
West Coast drift gillnet fishery occurs under the PFMC's Highly 
Migratory Species (HMS) Fishery Management Plan (FMP). NOAA 
partially approved the HMS FMP in 2004, but did not establish 
Federal permission of the draft gillnet fishery until 2018. 
Prior to 2018, the West Coast drift gillnet fishery permits 
were only issued by States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\The U.S. EEZ is a zone contiguous to the territorial sea of the 
United States, Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands, and U.S. 
overseas territories and possessions that extends 200 nautical miles 
from shore, as established by Proclamation Numbered 5030, dated March 
10, 1983. For purposes of the MSA, the inner boundary of the EEZ is a 
line coterminous with the seaward boundary of each of the coastal 
States.
    \6\16 U.S.C. 1857(1)(M).
    \7\As defined in 60 CFR 660.702, a drift gillnet is a panel of 
netting, 14 inch (35.5 cm) stretched mesh or greater, suspended 
vertically in the water by floats along the top and weights along the 
bottom. A drift gillnet is not stationary or anchored to the bottom.
    \8\NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service West Coast Region, 
``Swordfish Large Mesh Drift Gillnet'' (http://
www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/fisheries/migratory_species/
hms_DGN_gear.
html) (accessed July 18, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Originally, the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission managed 
the drift gillnet fishery for swordfish under the Developmental 
Fisheries Program. However, when Oregon removed swordfish from 
the program in 2009, the State banned permits to fish with 
drift gillnet gear off Oregon's coast, leaving California as 
the only State permitting the drift gillnet fishery.\9\ In 
September 2018, California enacted legislation to phase out the 
use of large-mesh drift gillnets and compensate permit 
holders--$10,000 for permits and $100,000 for gear.\10\ Under 
California law, a State permit is required to land swordfish 
caught with drift gillnets, even if the swordfish are caught in 
Federal waters. Thus, swordfish caught legally under Federal 
law are made illegal by California's State laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\Pacific Fishery Management Council, Current HMS SAFE Report: 
Commercial Fisheries Descriptions, May 3, 2018 (https:// 
www.pcouncil.org/highly-migratory-species/stock-assessment-and-fishery-
evaluation-safe-documents/current-hms-safe-document/commercial-
fisheries-
descriptions/#dgn) (accessed July 20, 2018).
    \10\See 2018 Cal.Stat. ch. 844.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    At the Federal level, in March 2017, the PFMC recommended 
amending the HMS FMP to implement a limited entry drift gillnet 
permit which would put the drift gillnet fishery under MSA 
authority. In March 2018, the NOAA National Marine Fisheries 
Service (NMFS) issued a final rule to create a Federal limited 
entry permit for the California/Oregon large-mesh drift gillnet 
fishery.\11\ Under the FMP as amended, the relatively few 
remaining California permit holders (the number of active 
participating vessels in the fishery has remained low, with 
under 50 vessels since 2003, and an average of only 20 active 
vessels per year from 2010 through 2015\12\) have until March 
31, 2019, to obtain their Federal permits. However, as noted 
above, recent changes in California law may render a Federal 
permit unusable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\NOAA NMFS, Fisheries Off West Coast States; Highly Migratory 
Fisheries; California Drift Gillnet Fishery; Implementation of a 
Federal Limited Entry Drift Gillnet Permit, 83 Federal Register 11146 
(Mar. 14, 2018).
    \12\NOAA NMFS West Coast Region, Final Regulatory Impact Review and 
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for the Protected Species Hard 
Caps for the California/Oregon Large-Mesh Drift Gillnet Fishery 
Proposed Rule, RIN 0648-BG23, May 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            ALTERNATIVE GEAR

    The only other gear currently authorized for targeting 
swordfish in the U.S. West Coast EEZ is harpoon gear. In 2014, 
the PFMC recommended, and in 2015 NMFS approved, the first of 
several exempted fishing permits to evaluate the success and 
economic viability of alternative gears to target swordfish in 
the Eastern Pacific Ocean.\13\ These alternative gears include 
deep-set buoys and deep-set longlines. The West Coast design 
for deep-set buoy gear uses heavy weights to lower baited hooks 
to depths of more than 1,000 feet during the day, avoiding 
unmarketable or federally protected species that reside in 
shallower waters. The buoy gear uses an electronic strike 
detection system to alert fishermen when a fish is on the line 
and allows for quick retrieval when hooked.\14\ Swordfish 
caught by deep-set buoy gear can fetch higher market prices for 
fishermen with a lower rate of bycatch of nonmarketable species 
and protected species,\15\ though it is not yet known if this 
would translate to higher market value for all permitted 
fishers if the entire fishery were to transition to deep-set 
buoy gear.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\NOAA NMFS West Coast Region, ``Status of Exempted Fishing 
Permits'' (http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/fisheries/
migratory_species/status_exempted_permits.html) (accessed February 23, 
2018).
    \14\NOAA NMFS West Coast Region, ``Innovation in Swordfish Fishery 
Fetches a Higher Market Price,'' February 2017 (http://
www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/stories/2017/
06_02062017_swordfish_efp_tagging.html).
    \15\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PREVIOUS RULEMAKING

    In 2016, the PFMC recommended that NMFS implement 
regulations for the California/Oregon large-mesh drift gillnet 
fishery to establish hard caps on the number of certain 
protected species (sea turtles, Endangered Species Act-listed 
marine mammals, bottlenose dolphins, and short-finned pilot 
whales) caught, and close the fishery for the remainder of the 
season if the caps are met or exceeded within a rolling 2-year 
period. NOAA proposed this rulemaking in October 2016,\16\ but 
later withdrew it in June 2017,\17\ having concluded that the 
proposal would have likely imposed significant new costs while 
also overlapping existing conservation measures already in 
place and therefore not providing significant conservation 
benefit.\18\ The Marine Mammal Commission found the proposed 
regulations inadequately justified, and expressed concern about 
potentially undermining the integrity of the take reduction 
process of the MMPA.\19\ On October 24, 2018, the U.S. District 
Court for the Central District of California held that NOAA's 
withdrawal of the October 2016 rulemaking exceeded the agency's 
authority under the MSA and the Administrative Procedure Act 
(APA).\20\ The court remanded the matter for further action by 
NOAA consistent with the requirements of section 304 of the MSA 
(16 U.S.C. 1854) and the APA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\NOAA NMFS, Fisheries off West Coast States; Highly Migratory 
Fisheries; California Drift Gillnet Fishery; Protected Species Hard 
Caps for the California/Oregon Large-Mesh Drift Gillnet Fishery, RIN 
0648-BG23, 81 Federal Register 70660 (October 1, 2016).
    \17\NOAA NMFS, Fisheries off West Coast States; Highly Migratory 
Fisheries; California Drift Gillnet Fishery; Protected Species Hard 
Caps for the California/Oregon Large-Mesh Drift Gillnet Fishery, RIN 
0648-BG23, 82 Federal Register 26902 (June 12, 2017).
    \18\NOAA NMFS West Coast Region, ``FAQs: West Coast Drift Gillnet 
(DGN) Fishery & Protected Species,'' June 8, 2017.
    \19\Marine Mammal Commission letter to NMFS West Coast Region Re: 
NOAA-NMFS-2016-0123. December 28, 2016 (http://www.mmc.gov/wp-content/
uploads/16-12-28Enriques-DGN-Fishery-Hard-Caps-.pdf).
    \20\See generally Order Re: Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment 
(DE 54) and Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, Oceana Inc. 
v. Ross, Case No. 2:17-cv-05146-RGK-JEM (C.D.Cal. 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         Summary of Provisions

    If enacted, S. 906, the Driftnet Modernization and Bycatch 
Reduction Act, would do the following:
   Direct the Secretary of Commerce to conduct a 
        transition program for existing driftnet permit holders 
        to facilitate the adoption of alternative fishing gear 
        and to authorize grants to affected fishers.
   Prohibit the use of large-scale driftnet fishing by 
        U.S. vessels within the U.S. EEZ not later than 5 years 
        after the date of enactment of this Act.

                          Legislative History

    S. 906, the Driftnet Modernization and Bycatch Reduction 
Act, was introduced on March 27, 2019, by Senator Feinstein 
(for herself and Senator Capito) and was referred to the 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
Senate. Senators Blumenthal, Coons, and Harris are additional 
cosponsors. On April 3, 2019, the Committee met in open 
Executive Session and, by voice vote, ordered S. 906 reported 
favorably with an amendment (in the nature of a substitute). 
Senator Sullivan offered an amendment that was adopted by voice 
vote to permit the Secretary of Commerce to collect fees from 
charter vessel operators who harvest Pacific halibut.
    A companion bill, H.R. 1979, was introduced on March 28, 
2019, by Representative Lieu (for himself and Representative 
Fitzpatrick) and was referred to the Committee on Natural 
Resources of the House of Representatives. There are six 
additional cosponsors.
    In the 115th Congress, S. 2773 was introduced on April 26, 
2018, by Senator Feinstein (for herself and Senators Capito and 
Harris) and was referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
and Transportation of the Senate. Senators Wicker and 
Blumenthal joined as cosponsors. On September 5, 2018, the 
Committee met in open Executive Session and, by voice vote, 
ordered S. 2773 reported favorably with an amendment (in the 
nature of a substitute).
    A companion bill to S. 2773, H.R. 5638, was introduced on 
April 26, 2018, by Representative Lieu (for himself) and was 
referred to the Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans of the 
Committee on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives. 
Representatives Fitzpatrick and Lofgren joined as cosponsors.

                            Estimated Costs

    In accordance with paragraph 11(a) of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate and section 403 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee provides the 
following cost estimate, prepared by the Congressional Budget 
Office:

              [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    S. 906 would require the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration (NOAA) to conduct a transition program to 
facilitate the phaseout of large-scale driftnet fishing. The 
bill would authorize NOAA to provide grants to operators of 
driftnet fishing vessels with federal permits. Those grants 
would cover the cost of permits, the forfeiture of existing 
fishing gear, and the acquisition of alternative new fishing 
gear. The bill also would allow NOAA to implement fees on 
charter vessels that harvest Pacific halibut in certain parts 
of the northern Pacific Ocean.
    According to NOAA, 56 vessels currently have driftnet 
fishing permits. CBO expects that most but not all of those 
vessels would apply for the grants authorized by S. 906. Using 
information from NOAA about the expected costs to reimburse 
fishers for the forfeited fishing gear and to purchase 
alternate gear, CBO estimates that implementing S. 906 would 
cost $4 million over the 2019-2024 period. Such spending would 
be subject to availability of appropriated funds.
    Enacting S. 906 also could affect revenues and associated 
direct spending because the bill would authorize NOAA to levy 
additional fees on certain charter vessels that harvest Pacific 
halibut. Those fees would be classified as revenues and could 
be spent without further appropriation to fund halibut 
conservation and research, administrative costs for the 
Recreational Quota Entity program, and to buy halibut quota 
shares from the International Pacific Halibut Commission.
    Using information from NOAA on the number of vessels that 
could be charged fees under the bill, CBO estimates that any 
additional fees collected would not be significant over the 
2019-2029 period. Moreover, because any fees collected would 
probably be spent soon thereafter, CBO estimates the net effect 
on the deficit would be negligible.
    S. 906 would impose private-sector mandates as defined in 
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) on certain fishing 
operations. CBO estimates that the aggregate cost to comply 
with the bill's requirements would fall below the annual 
threshold established in UMRA for private-sector mandates ($164 
million in 2019, adjusted annually for inflation).
    The bill would limit the type of nets that may be used in 
the drift gillnet (DGN) fishery off of the West Coast. Current 
law only limits driftnet length. S. 906 would amend the 
definition of large-scale driftnet fishing to include nets with 
a mesh size that is at least 14 inches. The new definition 
would effectively prohibit the use of large driftnets in the 
fishery. The cost of the mandate would be any revenue forgone 
by fishing operations whose catch decreases as a result of the 
new limitation. CBO expects that fewer than 40 entities would 
be affected, and the loss of revenue would be small.
    The bill also would require charter operators to pay fees 
on vessels that harvest Pacific halibut. Using information from 
NOAA, CBO expects those fee collections would be small.
    S. 906 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in 
UMRA.
    The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Robert Reese 
(for federal costs) and Susan Willie (for mandates). The 
estimate was reviewed by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

                      Regulatory Impact Statement

    In accordance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides the 
following evaluation of the regulatory impact of the 
legislation, as reported:

                       number of persons covered

    S. 906, as reported, would impose new regulatory 
requirements on Federal drift gillnet permit holders, which has 
numbered an average of 20 active permitted vessels per year 
from 2010 through 2015.

                            economic impact

    Enactment of this legislation is not expected to have a 
negative impact on the Nation's economy. Current permit holders 
may be able to transition to other fisheries or gear types, but 
some fishermen may not choose to transition to the new gear 
type. Existing California law may end the fishery, even in the 
absence of Federal action.

                                privacy

    The reported bill is not expected to impact the personal 
privacy of individuals.

                               paperwork

    S. 906 would not create increases in paperwork burdens if 
enacted.

                   Congressionally Directed Spending

    In compliance with paragraph 4(b) of rule XLIV of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides that no 
provisions contained in the bill, as reported, meet the 
definition of congressionally directed spending items under the 
rule.

                      Section-by-Section Analysis


Section 1. Short title.

    This section would provide that the bill may be cited as 
the ``Driftnet Modernization and Bycatch Reduction Act''.

Section 2. Definition.

    This section would amend section 3(25) of the MSA to define 
large-scale driftnet fishing to specify that it also includes 
nets with a mesh size of 14 inches or greater, aligning with 
the drift gillnet definition in the Code of Federal 
Regulations.

Section 3. Findings and policy.

    This section would amend section 206 of the MSA, the 
Driftnet Act Amendments of 1990, to add that Congress finds 
that large-scale driftnet fishing causes significant 
entanglement and mortality of living marine resources. This 
section also would amend section 206 to declare that it is the 
policy of Congress to prioritize the phase out of large-scale 
driftnet fishing in the EEZ and promote development of 
alternative gear types that reduce incidental bycatch of living 
marine resources.

Section 4. Transition program.

    This section would amend section 206 of the MSA to direct 
the Secretary of Commerce to conduct a transition program to 
facilitate the phase-out of large-scale driftnet fishing and 
make affected permit holders eligible to receive grants.

Section 5. Exception.

    This section would add an exception to section 307 of the 
MSA that would prohibit the use of large-scale driftnet fishing 
by U.S. vessels within the U.S. EEZ not later than 5 years 
after the date of enactment of this Act.

                        Changes in Existing Law

    In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, 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 
material is printed in italic, existing law in which no change 
is proposed is shown in roman):

MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



                          [16 U.S.C. 1802(25)]

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

    As used in this Act, unless the context otherwise 
requires--
          (1) * * *
          (25) The term ``large-scale driftnet fishing'' means 
        a method of fishing in which a gillnet composed of a 
        panel or panels of webbing, or a series of such 
        gillnets, with a total length of two and one-half 
        kilometers or more, or with a mesh size of 14 inches or 
        greater, is placed in the water and allowed to drift 
        with the currents and winds for the purpose of 
        entangling fish in the webbing.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                          [16 U.S.C. 1826(b)]

SEC. 206. LARGE-SCALE DRIFTNET FISHING.

  (a) Short Title.--This section incorporates and expands upon 
provisions of the Driftnet Impact Monitoring, Assessment, and 
Control Act of 1987 and may be cited as the ``Driftnet Act 
Amendments of 1990''.
  (b) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
          (1) * * *
          (6) the nations of the South Pacific have agreed to a 
        moratorium on the use of large-scale driftnets in the 
        South Pacific through the Convention for the 
        Prohibition of Fishing with Long Driftnets in the South 
        Pacific, which was agreed to in Wellington, New 
        Zealand, on November 29, 1989; [and]
          (7) increasing population pressures and new knowledge 
        of the importance of living marine resources to the 
        health of the global ecosystem demand that greater 
        responsibility be exercised by persons fishing or 
        developing new fisheries beyond the exclusive economic 
        zone of any nation[.]; and
          (8) within the exclusive economic zone, large-scale 
        driftnet fishing that deploys nets with large mesh 
        sizes causes significant entanglement and mortality of 
        living marine resources, including myriad protected 
        species, despite limitations on the lengths of such 
        nets.
  (c) Policy.--It is declared to be the policy of the Congress 
in this section that the United States should--
          (1) implement the moratorium called for by the United 
        Nations General Assembly in Resolution Numbered 44-225;
          (2) support the Tarawa Declaration and the Wellington 
        Convention for the Prohibition of Fishing with Long 
        Driftnets in the South Pacific; [and]
          (3) secure a permanent ban on the use of destructive 
        fishing practices, and in particular large-scale 
        driftnets, by persons or vessels fishing beyond the 
        exclusive economic zone of any nation[.]; and
          (4) prioritize the phase out of large-scale driftnet 
        fishing in the exclusive economic zone and promote the 
        development and adoption of alternative fishing methods 
        and gear types that minimize the incidental catch of 
        living marine resources.
  (d) * * *
  (i) Fishing Gear Transition Program.--
          (1) In general.--During the 5-year period beginning 
        on the date of enactment of the Driftnet Modernization 
        and Bycatch Reduction Act, the Secretary shall conduct 
        a transition program to facilitate the phase-out of 
        large-scale driftnet fishing and adoption of 
        alternative fishing practices that minimize the 
        incidental catch of living marine resources, and shall 
        award grants to eligible permit holders who participate 
        in the program.
          (2) Permissible uses.--Any permit holder receiving a 
        grant under paragraph (1) may use such funds only for 
        the purpose of covering--
                  (A) any fee originally associated with a 
                permit authorizing participation in a large-
                scale driftnet fishery, if such permit is 
                surrendered for permanent revocation, and such 
                permit holder relinquishes any claim associated 
                with the permit;
                  (B) a forfeiture of fishing gear associated 
                with a permit described in subparagraph (A); or
                  (C) the purchase of alternative gear with 
                minimal incidental catch of living marine 
                resources, if the fishery participant is 
                authorized to continue fishing using such 
                alternative gears.
          (3) Certification.--The Secretary shall certify that, 
        with respect to each participant in the program under 
        this subsection, any permit authorizing participation 
        in a large-scale driftnet fishery has been permanently 
        revoked and that no new permits will be issued to 
        authorize such fishing.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                         [16 U.S.C. 1857(1)(M)]

SEC. 307. PROHIBITED ACTS.

    It is unlawful--
          (1) for any person--
                  (A) * * *
                  (M) to engage in large-scale driftnet fishing 
                that is subject to the jurisdiction of the 
                United States, including use of a fishing 
                vessel of the United States to engage in such 
                fishing beyond the exclusive economic zone of 
                any nation, unless such large-scale driftnet 
                fishing--
                          (i) deploys, within the exclusive 
                        economic zone, a net with a total 
                        length of less than two and one-half 
                        kilometers and a mesh size of 14 inches 
                        or greater; and
                          (ii) is conducted within 5 years of 
                        the date of enactment of the Driftnet 
                        Modernization and Bycatch Reduction 
                        Act;

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                                  [all]