[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 116 (Wednesday, July 11, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H6057-H6064]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 200, STRENGTHENING FISHING
COMMUNITIES AND INCREASING FLEXIBILITY IN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT ACT
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 965 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 965
Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant
[[Page H6058]]
to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into
the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union
for consideration of the bill (H.R. 200) to amend the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to
provide flexibility for fishery managers and stability for
fishermen, and for other purposes. The first reading of the
bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be
confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Natural Resources. After general
debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the
five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an
original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Committee on Natural Resources now printed
in the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order
against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute
are waived. No amendment to the committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed
in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the
order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question in the House or in
the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such
amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House
on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the
bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage
without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with
or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for
1 hour.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have
5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Alabama?
There was no objection.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 965 provides for
consideration of H.R. 200, the Strengthening Fishing Communities and
Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act.
This structured rule makes in order 11 amendments, including 4
minority and 2 bipartisan amendments.
Mr. Speaker, I was born and raised in coastal Alabama, so I have
spent my entire life experiencing the long-held tradition of fishing
off the Gulf Coast. Some of my best memories growing up were fishing
with my family, and I have carried on that same tradition with my
children. I look forward to fishing with my grandchildren once they get
a little older.
This isn't a tradition unique to the Gulf Coast. All along America's
shores, countless families and friends have made so many memories while
fishing.
No one wants to be a better steward of our Nation's fisheries than
those of us who actually enjoy fishing. No one wants a healthier fish
stock than those of us who have spent our lives on the water.
That is where H.R. 200 comes in. This bill includes commonsense
reforms to ensure that our Nation's fisheries remain strong, while also
being accessible to fishermen from every walk of life.
Now, I know this bill is about much more than just those of us who
like to fish recreationally. Commercial fishing is a major economic
engine in many of our coastal communities, so the bill also ensures
access to our oceans and ocean resources for our commercial fishermen.
Just consider these numbers that demonstrate the overall impact of
fishing on the U.S. economy:
In 2015, the fishing industry generated $208 billion in sales and
supported 1.62 million American jobs.
Approximately 11 million saltwater anglers spent a total of $60.9
million on fishing trips, which generated roughly $22.7 billion in
income.
And I want to make one other point. The underlying bill will also
ensure that all Americans have access to fresh, sustainable seafood.
That is important to our Nation's restaurants, but it is also
especially important to seafood lovers like me.
If you doubt the importance of the fishing sector, let me tell you
about red snapper fishing in my home State of Alabama. It is a major
economic driver for our coastal communities. From restaurants, to gas
stations, to bait and tackle shops, to the charter boat industry, red
snapper fishing is critically important to the economy in our coastal
communities and surrounding areas.
Unfortunately, the Federal Government has failed for years to
adequately count the number of red snapper in the Gulf. This has
resulted in ridiculously short red snapper seasons, which hurt our
fishermen and the economies in our coastal communities.
So, how bad was the Federal Government in counting red snapper? Well,
they weren't even sampling for red snapper on reefs, despite the fact
that red snapper are reef fish. It made absolutely no sense.
Colleges and universities, like the University of South Alabama, have
been able to do a much better job of assessing the health of the red
snapper stock with far fewer resources. Their data has proven to be
much more accurate and up to date.
Thankfully, along with my Gulf Coast colleagues, we have been able to
work with the Trump administration and the Commerce Department to
ensure adequate recreational red snapper seasons over the last 2 years.
But this bill includes reforms I authored to help fix the mismanagement
of red snapper for all sectors, once and for all. That means allowing
for greater State control, especially as it relates to stock
assessments and data collection.
That is one of the best things about H.R. 200. The bill eliminates
unscientific timeframes to rebuild fish stocks that unnecessarily
restrict access to fisheries. Our national fishery policy should be
based on sound, accurate data.
The bill goes against the Washington-knows-best approach that has
failed so many times in the past. By providing greater flexibility to
fishery managers, we can allow for better management strategies that
reflect regional needs and demands. We should empower people who live
and work in the local communities, instead of letting bureaucrats in
Washington decide what works best.
As I mentioned earlier, the bill will allow more Americans to have
access to fresh, sustainable seafood. Currently, around 90 percent of
seafood consumed in the United States is imported. This is especially
troubling when you consider that we have an abundance of fish right
here in our own waters. With reforms included in this bill, we can
boost access to affordable domestic fish.
Mr. Speaker, by passing H.R. 200, the House can support our Nation's
fishermen, American consumers, our coastal communities, and the overall
American economy.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting House
Resolution 965 and the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule for H.R. 200, the
Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in
Fisheries Management Act. It should be better called the empty oceans
act.
H.R. 200 really risks rolling back science-based conservation
efforts, destroying jobs, and hurting our fisheries and fish stocks. It
undermines successful sustainable fishery management put in place by
the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. That is
why so many fishermen, scientists, and business owners have come out in
opposition to the empty oceans act. Many people whose livelihood comes
from the sea have expressed reservations about the job-destroying
provisions of H.R. 200 and how it poses a threat to the commercial
fishing industry and their jobs, which rely on sustainable practices.
[[Page H6059]]
The Seafood Harvesters of America, a leading trade organization for
fishermen, authored a letter expressing their concerns with the bill.
More than 1,000 individuals and organizations have expressed their
opposition. I had a number of fishermen come by my office today,
telling me that this bill could cost them their jobs.
Since its passage, the goal of Magnuson-Stevens has never wavered:
managing fisheries to ensure sustainability while, of course, realizing
the potential of the resource. Magnuson-Stevens takes a bottom-up
approach to resource management where stakeholders on regional fishery
management councils work to meet the science-based criteria outlined by
the law.
We have some success with this approach. Since the year 2000, we have
seen 44 previously depleted fish stocks rebuilt. Currently, 84 percent
of fish stocks are no longer overfished.
In 1976, Magnuson-Stevens was passed to end unregulated fishing
predominantly by foreign fleets and to develop our own American fleets
that could benefit from our abundant fisheries. The act was
strengthened in 1996 and 2006 through bipartisan reauthorizations that
established science-based fishery management reforms.
The 1996 reauthorization of Magnuson-Stevens bolstered requirements
to prevent overfishing and rebuild fish stocks. And, in 2006, a
bipartisan authorization maintained the commitment to sustainable
fisheries, including accountability and catch limits. These bipartisan
efforts succeeded to help create the sustainable fisheries that support
coastal economies throughout America and, of course, consumers both in
America and worldwide.
Unfortunately, unlike past reauthorizations, H.R. 200 was crafted
through a partisan committee process intent on dismantling much of the
progress made by Magnuson-Stevens over the last 40 years. In fact, the
bill was reported in a party-line vote--Republicans for; Democrats
against--with the Republicans continuing to reject attempts to come up
with a broad bipartisan approach, as this bill has traditionally been
done, that supports both commercial and recreational fishing interests
and, of course, maintaining science-based reforms around
sustainability.
{time} 1315
Sadly, H.R. 200 inserts politics into how we manage our fisheries in
several crucial areas. The bill erodes the role that science plays in
managing our fisheries.
The bill guts science-based annual catch limit requirements through
the creation of many exemptions for key species. These exemptions
include many smaller fish that are absolutely critical as prey for
valuable commercial and recreational predator species as part of a
delicately balanced ecosystem. Hundreds of other species are exempted
through this bill which dramatically increases the chances that
overfishing will occur, leading to the devastation, both for sportsmen
and commercial fishermen.
Catch limits are important to help conserve fisheries and are among
the most successful provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. By eroding
those provisions, this bill would allow for a long-term depletion of
fish stocks. It can devastate the economies of local communities,
destroy jobs, and threaten the recovery and stability of our ocean
ecosystems.
This bill also weakens the data collection requirements that ensure
that data-driven, science-based management is used for our fisheries.
Data is currently collected through a broad range of sources, and the
determination of the best available data is used by NOAA Fisheries and
the regional fishery management councils. H.R. 200 would weaken data
collection processes and harm the role of science in successful
management of our fishery resources.
Weakening science-based provisions is only one of the ways that this
bill inserts politics into what should be a scientific question, the
management of our fisheries. This bill not only erodes science-based
management practices, but it rolls back meaningful accountability
requirements for recreational anglers. Large groups representing a few
members of the fishing community and businesses that sell equipment and
boats want to see that these jobs are sustained over time.
According to data from the Recreational Boating & Fishing Foundation
released in May of 2018, participation in recreational fishing has
increased for the past 2 years; 49 million Americans went fishing in
2017, an increase over the prior year. So the recreational side is
strong under the current provisions of Magnuson-Stevens.
And, of course, recreational fishermen are not the only beneficiaries
of the science-based approach. According to the National Marine
Manufacturers Association, U.S. sales of boats and marine products
increased 7 percent since the last passage in 2016.
So from 2016 to 2017, we saw a number of States: Florida, Texas,
Michigan, North Carolina, Minnesota, California, Wisconsin, South
Carolina, and Georgia, with double-digit increases in the sales of new
boats, engines, trailers, and accessories, creating good jobs for
Americans.
Recreational anglers and the businesses that rely upon their support
are doing well and thriving, and this growth is a direct result of
science-based fishery management practices fostered by Magnuson that
this very bill would systematically dismantle, destroying good American
jobs.
Instead of destroying jobs, what the Magnuson-Stevens Act does is
ensure that our maritime industries will thrive now and in the future.
And because of the success of Magnuson-Stevens, U.S. fisheries are
stabilizing and rebounding.
With the bill working as intended, it would be absurd to pass this
bill and roll back these very policies that have led to job creation
and growth, increased enjoyment for recreational fishermen, and better
sustainable practices of ecosystem management.
The Empty Oceans Act also inserts dangerous loopholes into Magnuson
and it is including exemptions to rebuilding requirements that have
helped recover successfully depleted fish stocks.
H.R. 200 potentially exempts hundreds of species from annual catch
limits. That can dramatically increase overfishing, and overfishing may
seem to some lucrative, or to some fun in the short-term, but of course
it has devastating and nonsustainable consequences for our coastal
communities that economically depend on the vital industries of
recreational fishing and sports fishing.
These exemptions increase the chance of overfishing and lengthen the
time it takes to rebuild depleted stocks to healthy levels, if ever.
These loopholes have a devastating effect as well on the commercial
fishing industry and on consumers across the country that enjoy eating
healthy fish. In 2015, commercial and recreational saltwater fishing
generated $208 billion in revenue, supported 1.6 million jobs, and
supported the healthy dining habits of hundreds of millions of American
consumers, billions worldwide.
These economic benefits not only support recreational anglers and
commercial fishing interests but entire towns and cities that rely on
sports fishermen, recreational and commercial, as the entire hub of
their economy.
If the Empty Oceans Act were to pass, the long-term prospects of so
many communities would be devastated. So I think it is important to
have a thoughtful look at how we can continue the bipartisan tradition
of building upon the progress of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, making
corrections where we need to, but making sure that we put science first
in our ocean stewardship, and making sure that we have a sustainable
approach to recreational and commercial fishing.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The gentleman referenced a letter from the Seafood Harvesters of
America. In their letter dated June 21 of 2018, this group claims that
section 12 of the bill repeals a section of the MSA. There hasn't been
a section 12 in this bill since November of 2017. There is no section
12.
The letter also claims that section 4 undermines rebuilding
timelines. Section 4 of this bill simply states that all references in
H.R. 200 are to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, unless otherwise stated;
doesn't do anything like what is claimed.
As the most egregious example, this group is so committed to opposing
this
[[Page H6060]]
bill, no matter what changes we make, they reference a bill that, for
all intents and purposes, no longer exists.
The gentleman also said something about this bill being job-
destroying.
Mr. Speaker, let me tell you about the destruction of jobs. When the
present regime was running the fishery in the Gulf of Mexico for red
snapper, they limited the number of days for fishing to such a small
number that it destroyed hundreds, if not thousands of jobs across just
my part of the Gulf Coast when people were no longer allowed to go out
and go snapper fishing.
Charter boat folks lost their jobs. People that sell ice or bait lost
their jobs. It was the Federal bureaucracy that was destroying jobs.
This bill will give us a commonsense regime that will restore jobs.
So, far from being a job-destroying bill, this bill is going to create
jobs.
The gentleman also referred to a bottoms-up approach. I have been
working on this issue for over 4 years, and I can tell you, the bottom,
which is us recreational fishermen, we haven't been listened to one
single time by the Federal bureaucracy. They closed their doors in our
face.
If you want to have a bottoms-up approach to this sort of thing, this
bill supplies it. What we have got right now certainly doesn't do it.
One of the most important things that is involved here is, who does
the science? Do you let a bunch of Federal scientists far away from
where the fisheries are make these decisions? Or do you let scientists
that are in the areas where the fisheries exist, do you let them do the
science?
I am not talking about just any Tom, Dick, or Harry out there that
calls himself a scientist. I am talking about Ph.D. scientists with
accredited universities who know the fishery. This bill would allow
that to happen, so that you could get good, accurate data, because they
don't have it today.
Let me go back to what I said initially on the red snapper issue.
The Federal scientists were sampling for red snapper on sandy bottom.
These are reef fish. You are not going to find reef fish on sandy
bottom. You find them on reefs. And if you talk to real scientists,
they will tell you there is no way you are going to get an accurate
assessment of this fish stock if you are looking for them on sandy
bottom. You have got to look for them on reefs.
Let me tell you, there are over 170 groups that have signed on to
being supportive of this bill. I do not have time to read all the names
to you, but let me just read a few. The first one is the Congressional
Sportsmen's Foundation. I go to their events up here, like many other
Members of Congress. When I was at one just recently, there were
hundreds of Members of Congress there from both parties. It couldn't
get to be any bigger, and it couldn't get to be any more bipartisan.
The Coastal Conservation Association, the Premier Recreational
Anglers Association in America, the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation
Partnership, the National Marine Manufacturers Association, which the
gentleman referred to as if they were opposed to it. They support the
bill.
The National Coalition for Fishing Communities and the Guy Harvey
Ocean Foundation. This is a very broadly, deeply supported bill among
people who are actually fishing.
Now, it may not be supported by people who don't fish and who don't
know anything about fishing; but for those of us who do fish, whether
we are commercial fishermen or recreational fishermen, we like it.
And it is time for Congress to understand that the waters of the
United States of America do not belong to the Congress, and they do not
belong to these Federal departments and agencies. They belong to the
people of America, and the people of America have a right to fish in
their waters. This bill will help restore that.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Carbajal).
Mr. CARBAJAL. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for yielding
me time to voice my opposition to the rule which provides for
consideration of H.R. 200.
As it is currently written, H.R. 200 would undermine the conservation
gains we have made over the last 2 decades under the Magnuson-Stevens
Act, MSA, to prevent overfishing and encourage sustainable fisheries
management.
Before reforms were made to the MSA in 1996 and 2006, many fisheries
lacked the sustainable quotas and requirements to rebuild depleted
stocks. As a result, countless fisheries and fishermen around the
country suffered the consequences.
Since Congress changed the law to ensure science-based quotas
applied, 44 fisheries around the country have now been restored to
healthy levels. The number of stocks that remain overfished is at an
all-time low.
H.R. 200 would weaken core sustainability provisions of the MSA. This
is a misguided attempt to provide recreational fishermen short-term
access at the needless expense of both commercial fishermen and the
long-term health of our fisheries. This hurts our coastal communities
and businesses that depend on a robust fishing industry and its
products.
Additionally, H.R. 200 fails to sufficiently fund stock assessments
to ensure effective and efficient management of our Nation's fisheries.
I offered an amendment to authorize an additional $25 million for
stock assessments. These funds would allow NOAA to conduct more fishery
surveys, which would yield better data and can help reduce the buffers
on fishing quotas.
With this funding and research, fishermen can increase their catch
rate, while decreasing the uncertainty in the sustainability of a
fishery. Unfortunately, the majority at the Rules Committee decided not
to make my amendment in order--let me repeat that--decided not to make
my amendment in order, which would have allowed the House to debate
this important issue.
Mr. Speaker, as a Representative serving the vibrant Central Coast
commercial fishing industry in California.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman from California an additional 30
seconds.
Mr. CARBAJAL. I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this rule.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I appreciate the gentleman's remarks. I want to make sure that I can
assure him and everybody in this House this bill doesn't cut funding to
anything. It's an authorization bill, and it reauthorizes the Magnuson-
Stevens Act with some changes, but those changes do not include a
reduction in funding.
But here is the thing about fishing that people that don't fish don't
understand. Those of us that fish, we care about this fishery more than
anybody else because if we overfish the stock, we don't get to fish
anymore. No one has a greater interest in making sure that the species
in our waters are maintained than those of us that fish, whether we are
commercial fishermen or recreational fishermen. So there is no interest
here that is being served to try to somehow harm our fishery.
We believe, and it has actually been demonstrated to be true, that
local communities, regional people, can better regulate, sample, bring
science to the health of these fish stock than giving it to some
bureaucrat in Washington that doesn't know one single thing about our
fishery.
We care. We care deeply, because it is a way of life for us, and the
last thing we want to do is do anything that would harm these fish
stock out there.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
As we approach another election cycle, it is very important for this
institution to do everything we can to ensure transparency and safety
in our elections and the integrity of the election system itself.
{time} 1330
Our democracy is being threatened by corporations, by special
interests, and by foreign powers who are stripping away power from our
people and our voters with dark money spending.
Secret spending in our elections has exploded since the Supreme
Court's 2010 Citizens United decision permitting super-PACs and certain
tax-exempt groups to spend unlimited sums, including, in many cases,
undisclosed funds. The result is unprecedented levels of spending and a
midterm election expected to be the most expensive ever.
[[Page H6061]]
Many of these groups don't even have to disclose their donors,
allowing wealthy corporations and individuals and illicit foreign
influencers to secretly spend unlimited dark money.
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an
amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Cicilline's
legislation, H.R. 6239, the DISCLOSE Act, which I am proud to be a
cosponsor of. This bicameral bill would require organizations spending
money in Federal elections to disclose their donors and guard against
hidden foreign interference in our democracy.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Colorado?
There was no objection.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode
Island (Mr. Cicilline) to discuss our proposal.
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, Congress is broken. Each day, more and more Americans
are losing faith that their government actually works for them. More
than 80 percent of Americans say they can't trust Washington to do what
is right for them. More than two-thirds feel like our democracy is
getting less responsive under Republican control.
And they know what is going on here. They know they are caught in a
system that is rigged against them. Their voices are ignored. Their
concerns are dismissed. They don't even get a seat at the table.
The Republicans who control this Chamber aren't going to fix it. They
have given away all the seats at the table to corporate special
interests, to billionaires, to the big banks, the big pharmaceutical
companies, and that is why the interests of working people are not
being protected. My Republican friends are advancing the interests of
powerful special interests that fund their campaigns.
The corruption of our political system in this way has become
business as usual here in Washington. In this case, business as usual
means billions of dollars in tax cuts for the wealthy and well-
connected Republican campaign donors. It means endless attacks on
workers' rights and consumer protections, and it means trying to deny
the right to vote to millions of eligible citizens while, at the same
time, letting corporations spend as much as it takes to keep
Republicans in power.
Business as usual for Republicans is a raw deal for the rest of us,
and the American people are sick and tired of the raw deal that they
have been getting. Democrats know that. We share their frustration. We
know that Congress can do better. We know that we need to clean up
Washington and get a better deal for our democracy.
Democrats are committed to delivering real reforms to our political
system that will restore government by and for the people of this great
country, and that starts with fixing the way campaigns are run in
America. We need to break the stranglehold that secret corporate
spending has on our elections, and we have a chance to do it right now.
If we defeat the previous question, we will have a chance to vote on
the DISCLOSE Act, one of the key elements of delivering a better deal
for our democracy.
The DISCLOSE Act, which I have introduced, along with 162 cosponsors
in this Chamber, will shine a light on the unlimited secret corporate
spending that has flooded American elections in recent years.
The DISCLOSE Act is simple. It requires that organizations that spend
money in Federal elections have to disclose their donors. It closes one
of the biggest loopholes that the Citizens United ruling opened,
namely, that corporations, billionaires, and even foreign governments
can secretly funnel hundreds of millions of dollars into 501(c)(4)s in
order to covertly influence our campaigns.
This is a huge problem. From 2004 to 2016, secret political spending
in our Presidential elections increased by over 3,000 percent. Special
counsel Robert Mueller is even reportedly investigating right now
whether Vladimir Putin's regime in Russia secretly funneled money
through the NRA to help elect Donald Trump.
And closer to home for all of us, just a few weeks ago, Speaker
Ryan's political fundraising group, the American Action Network,
reported receiving a single $24.6 million contribution from an
anonymous donor. I don't know who gave the American Action Network that
money. You don't know who gave them that money. But I have a feeling
that whoever did is expecting something in return.
It is no secret that the American people have lost faith in this
institution and in their government. They look to Washington and they
see a ruling party that will do whatever it takes to help their friends
on Wall Street get ahead, but they won't lift a finger for folks who
are struggling to get by.
It doesn't have to be this way. We can restore the faith that has
been lost in this institution and in our government. We can build a
government that is worthy of the people we serve. We can end the rule
of big money and begin a new era where working people get all the seats
at the table.
If we want to do that, the first thing we need to do is to make sure
that political spending happens out in the open and not in total
secret.
Let's defeat the previous question. Let's have a real debate about
fixing what is wrong in Washington, and start by passing the DISCLOSE
Act to shine some light on dark money in our politics.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, we are here today to talk about the fisheries
of America. If the folks on the other side of the aisle want to address
the issue that they just referenced, then I am sure they could
foreswear taking any corporate contributions, any anonymous
contributions to their accounts for themselves. So they could lead by
their example, and I look forward to seeing them do that.
Mr. Speaker, we are here today to talk about the fisheries of
America, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, when we defeat the previous question, I will offer Mr.
Cicilline's amendment for the DISCLOSE Act. That is why we are talking
about that bill today.
The DISCLOSE Act is an alternative to this job-destroying bill and
anticonsumer bill that we have before us. So I would encourage my
colleagues to defeat the previous question so we can shine a light on
the dark money that continues to pervade and pollute and distort our
political system. I would hope that that is something we can agree on.
I hope my Republican and Democratic friends will vote to defeat the
previous question because it doesn't matter what one's ideology is.
What matters is there should be transparency in money in politics, and
that is a basic tenet that I hope conservatives and liberals and
moderates can agree on, and we can immediately move to that. When we
defeat the previous question, I will offer that amendment based on the
bill by Mr. Cicilline, which I am honored to be a cosponsor of.
Mr. Speaker, this is the third attempt to undermine the provisions of
the Magnuson-Stevens Act that protects jobs and uses science in
decisionmaking with regard to managing our ocean resources. These
attempts failed every time, and the biggest reason they failed is the
framework of Magnuson is working.
We talked about the increase in boat sales. We talked about the
increase in jobs. We talked about the benefit to consumers. I am sure
there is some fine tuning to do, but it is not time to push the reset
button and start over down a very dangerous path that would destroy
jobs and the entire economies of many of our local communities.
This act has been essential, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, in restoring
our depleted fishing populations, helping communities devastated by
overfishing, getting them back in balance. Science-based reforms over
the last two decades have made our fisheries more profitable and
rebuilt overfished stocks and have been of great benefit to consumers.
These reforms have directly benefited recreational fishing interests,
and that is reinforced by their own data of the industry.
[[Page H6062]]
So if we continue down the path of sustainable fisheries management,
commercial and recreational fishermen will see even greater financial
gains and support in the future. In fact, NOAA estimates that fully
rebuilt fisheries would add $31 billion to our economy and create
500,000 new jobs.
We need a benchmark and a path to get there, not a pathway to the
past of unsustainable practices and job destruction, which this bill
does.
These potential jobs and revenues--$31 billion, 500,000 jobs--would
support thousands of coastal communities throughout America, consumers
across our country and the world, far outweighing any short-term
benefit from an empty oceans act.
Only through science-based fisheries management can coastal towns and
cities reap enormous environmental benefits. So, instead of throwing it
away, we should build upon the proven sustainable fisheries management
practices of Magnuson-Stevens in a bipartisan way. Unfortunately, this
bill halts decades of progress, ends the science-based approach.
Rather than approving harmful and damaging measures to weaken our
economy and harm the environment, let's start again and begin a true
bipartisan reauthorization, as this Congress did in 1996, as this
Congress did in 2006, to reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so we can move
forward with our discussion of requiring that donations into political
campaigns and allied groups have to be disclosed and to also vote
``no'' on the rule so that we begin work on a bipartisan
reauthorization of Magnuson-Stevens, building upon the tradition of
this institution and putting science in the front.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's remarks. There are
bipartisan cosponsors to this bill. This is a bipartisan bill.
What is this bill really about? It is about freedom. It is about the
freedom of the American people to be able to use their own waters, to
fish in their own waters, something the American people have done since
before we were a nation.
There is a really great book that just came out that won the Pulitzer
Prize called ``The Gulf,'' about the Gulf of Mexico. It recounts the
history of our area and how long we have been fishing in the Gulf of
Mexico and what it has meant for generations upon generations of both
commercial and recreational fishermen.
I have commercial fisherpeople in my family, and they are wonderful
people, have a great business. It is important to them and it is their
way of life. We need to make sure we do everything to preserve that way
of life.
I am a recreational fisherman, and we have been doing it in my family
for generations, and I want to preserve that as well.
My grandfather was one of the founders of the Alabama Deep Sea
Fishing Rodeo, one of the oldest and largest fishing tournaments in the
United States of America. It is really great to see, summer after
summer, generations of people who have been fishing in that tournament,
literally for three or four or five generations, come down there on
Dauphin Island and bring the fish that they catch, so proud of what
they have done.
And what have they just done? They have gone out in their own boat at
their own expense, spent a day in the open air on a beautiful summer
day, or maybe 2 or 3 days, and got some time to spend time together as
a family, with friends, and do something Americans have been able to do
without the Federal Government trying to tell them how to do it for a
couple, 300 years.
It is time for us to restore back to the American people the control
of their waters. That is what this bill does. Mr. Speaker, I again urge
my colleagues to support H. Res. 965 and the underlying bill.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 965 Offered by Mr. Polis
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
6239) to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to
provide for additional disclosure requirements for
corporations, labor organizations, Super PACs and other
entities, and for other purposes. The first reading of the
bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be
confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally
divided among and controlled by the respective chairs and
ranking minority members of the Committees on House
Administration, Ways and Means, Financial Services, and
Oversight and Government Reform. After general debate the
bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute
rule. All points of order against provisions in the bill are
waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for
amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the
House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports
that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the
next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the
third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV,
resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further
consideration of the bill.
Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 6239.
____
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a
vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous
question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an
immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no
substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''
But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the
Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in
the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,
page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous
question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally
not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
[[Page H6063]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be
followed by 5-minute votes on:
Adoption of the resolution, if ordered;
Ordering the previous question on House Resolution 985; and
Adoption of House Resolution 985, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 225,
nays 186, not voting 17, as follows:
[Roll No. 316]
YEAS--225
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cloud
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Curtis
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Garrett
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Handel
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lesko
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NAYS--186
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Smith (WA)
Soto
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--17
Amodei
Blum
Cheney
Costa
Ellison
Gallagher
Hanabusa
Harper
Jenkins (KS)
Messer
Napolitano
Perlmutter
Rush
Shuster
Speier
Walz
Weber (TX)
{time} 1408
Messrs. CAPUANO and DeFAZIO changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
Mr. BILIRAKIS changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 227,
noes 184, not voting 17, as follows:
[Roll No. 317]
AYES--227
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cloud
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Curtis
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Garrett
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Handel
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lesko
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
[[Page H6064]]
NOES--184
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Smith (WA)
Soto
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--17
Blum
Cheney
Costa
Ellison
Gallagher
Hanabusa
Harper
Jenkins (KS)
Messer
Napolitano
Perlmutter
Rush
Scott, David
Shuster
Speier
Walz
Weber (TX)
{time} 1418
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________