H5732 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 10, 2012 

to adjust the fees for private cabins on 

national forest lands. 

We remain concerned about the impact this legislation may have on cabin 

owners of modest means, of which 

there are many. It appears that in 

order to reduce the fees for owners in 

the highest bracket, fees on the 

middle- and lower-value cabins would 

have to increase. 

Many members of the committee do 

not object to the passage of this legislation at this time, although I wanted 

to bring up some personal concerns 

about the inequity of the new fee system. I’d like to work with the chairman and the cabin owners and the 

other body to achieve an equitable solution, and I yield back the balance of 

my time. 

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. 

Speaker, I yield back the balance of 

my time and urge adoption of the bill. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

question is on the motion offered by 

the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 

HASTINGS) that the House suspend the 

rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3397, as 

amended. 

The question was taken; and (twothirds being in the affirmative) the 

rules were suspended and the bill, as 

amended, was passed. 

A motion to reconsider was laid on 

the table. 

f 

BILLFISH CONSERVATION ACT OF 

2012 

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. 

Speaker, I move to suspend the rules 

and pass the bill (H.R. 2706) to prohibit 

the sale of billfish, as amended. 

The Clerk read the title of the bill. 

The text of the bill is as follows: 

H.R. 2706 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in 

Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Billfish Conservation Act of 2012’’. 

SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

Congress finds the following: 

(1) The United States carefully regulates 

its domestic fisheries for billfish and participates in international fishery management 

bodies in the Atlantic and Pacific. 

(2) Global billfish populations have declined significantly, however, because of 

overfishing primarily through retention of 

bycatch by non-United States commercial 

fishing fleets. 

(3) Ending the importation of foreigncaught billfish for sale in the United States 

aligns with U.S. management measures of 

billfish and protects the significant economic benefits to the U.S. economy of recreational fishing and marine commerce and 

the traditional cultural fisheries. 

SEC. 3. STATEMENT OF CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY. 

The Congress enacts this Act pursuant to 

clause 3 of section 8 of article I of the Constitution. 

SEC. 4. PROHIBITION ON SALE OF BILLFISH. 

(a) PROHIBITION.—No person shall offer for 

sale, sell, or have custody, control, or possession of for purposes of offering for sale or 

selling billfish or products containing billfish. 

(b) PENALTY.—For purposes of section 

308(a) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 

1858(a)), a violation of this section shall be 

treated as an act prohibited by section 307 of 

that Act (16 U.S.C. 1857). 

(c) EXEMPTIONS FOR TRADITIONAL FISHERIES

AND MARKETS.— 

(1) Subsection (a) does not apply to billfish 

caught by US fishing vessels and landed in 

the State of Hawaii or Pacific Insular Areas 

as defined in section 3(35) of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1802(35)). 

(2) Subsection (a) does not apply to billfish 

landed by foreign fishing vessels in the Pacific Insular Areas when the foreign caught 

billfish is exported to non-US markets or retained within Hawaii and the Pacific Insular 

Areas for local consumption. 

(d) BILLFISH DEFINED.—In this section the 

term ‘‘billfish’’— 

(1) means any fish of the species— 

(A) Makaira nigricans (blue marlin); 

(B) Kajikia audax (striped marlin); 

(C) Istiompax indica (black marlin); 

(D) Istiophorus platypterus (sailfish); 

(E) Tetrapturus angustirostris (shortbill 

spearfish); 

(F) Kajikia albida (white marlin); 

(G) Tetrapturus georgii (roundscale spearfish); 

(H) Tetrapturus belone (Mediterranean 

spearfish); and 

(I) Tetrapturus pfluegeri (longbill spearfish); and 

(2) does not include the species Xiphias 

gladius (swordfish). 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 

Washington (Mr. HASTINGS) and the 

gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. HOLT) 

each will control 20 minutes. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman 

from Washington. 

GENERAL LEAVE

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. 

Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 

all Members may have 5 legislative 

days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material 

on the bill under consideration. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there 

objection to the request of the gentleman from Washington? 

There was no objection. 

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I 

yield myself such time as I may consume. 

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

2706, the Billfish Conservation Act, authored by our colleague from Florida 

(Mr. MILLER). 

Under current law, it is illegal to import or sell Atlantic billfish. Despite 

this, the U.S. is one of the major importers of billfish in the world. While 

Pacific billfish populations in general 

are in better shape than Atlantic billfish, threats to both oceans’ billfish 

from foreign fishing fleets remain. 

As long as the U.S. allows a market 

for these fish, their population levels 

are likely to worsen. To add more protection for both the Atlantic and Pacific billfish, the legislation would 

make it illegal to sell specific billfish 

species or possess those billfish for 

sale, whether they are Atlantic or Pacific. 

Now, I note, Mr. Speaker, that concern had been raised at the June hearing that U.S. fishermen in Hawaii and 

the Pacific insular areas might be disadvantaged by these new rules and that 

the local consumption of billfish products might be made illegal. The bill 

was amended during committee consideration to address this concern; and 

the legislation, as amended, now protects these U.S. fishermen and the existing limited, traditional local consumption of billfish products while 

still providing additional and increased 

protection for billfish populations in 

the United States. 

This is good legislation. I support it. 

And I reserve the balance of my time. 

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

(Mr. HOLT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) 

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2706, 

the Billfish Conservation Act, seeks to 

ban imports of foreign-caught marlin, 

sailfish, and spearfish into the United 

States. Now, these fish, as we know 

from prized photographs of our friends 

and many of our past experiences, are 

highly valued as recreational game-fish 

and serve as the top predators in ocean 

ecosystems—the so-called lions and tigers of the sea. 

While this bill is a small step forward 

and has the support of recreational 

fishing and commercial interests, we 

can and should do much more for the 

conservation of billfish. Specifically, 

developing and using more selective 

commercial fishing gear, cracking 

down on illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing, and passing legislation, 

such as the bill recently introduced by 

our colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. 

MARKEY), to combat seafood fraud 

would provide even more protections 

for these iconic species. However, I and 

most of my colleagues, I believe, support passage of H.R. 2706; and we hope 

that it is a precursor to further action 

on this important issue. 

I reserve the balance of my time. 

b 1610 

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. 

Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 

minutes to the gentleman from Florida 

(Mr. MILLER), the author of this legislation. 

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, 

thank you for the recognition. 

I thank the gentleman from Washington, the chairman of the committee, 

for his recognition and his leadership 

on this effort, as well as Dr. JOHN

FLEMING, the subcommittee chairman, 

and all the members of the House Natural Resources Committee for their 

support of this particular piece of legislation. 

I also have to thank members of the 

sportsmen’s community, members of 

the Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus, 

and in particular, Congressmen DUNCAN

from South Carolina and WITTMAN, 

BOREN, MICHAUD, and BONNER, and my 

counterparts in the Congressional 

Sportsmen’s Caucus leadership—that 

would be Congressmen ROSS, LATTA, 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
September 10, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5733 

and SHULER—for all their efforts to 

help advance this legislation in a bipartisan effort. 

Today, I join my colleagues in support of H.R. 2706, which is the Billfish 

Conservation Act of 2012. 

As the chairman has already said, 

the United States is the largest importer of billfish products in the world. 

Our populations continue to be affected 

by foreign commercial overfishing, and 

the importing of billfish only exacerbates the problem that exists today. 

Without passage of this bill and 

strengthening of the current ban of the 

Atlantic-caught billfish to include the 

sale and harvest of all billfish—excluding, as has been already said on the 

floor today, those fisheries in the State 

of Hawaii and Pacific insular area—the 

current ban will continue to be undermined through loopholes that have 

hurt our anglers and the economy. 

By eliminating the sale in the continental U.S., passage of this bill will 

support the billfish population growth, 

a healthy ocean ecosystem, and improve recreational fishing opportunities. As a result of the increased recreational fishing opportunities, this 

bill provides a huge economic boost to 

generate billions of dollars through direct expenditures and marine-related 

jobs and sales without placing a burden 

on the U.S. seafood market and its consumers. 

I want to urge all my colleagues to 

support this very important piece of 

legislation to help conserve a very depleted fish population, preserving our 

Nation’s fishing heritage, and provide 

for economic growth during a time 

when our country needs it most. 

Mr. HOLT. May I ask the chairman if 

he has additional speakers? 

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I 

have no more requests for time. If the 

gentleman yields back, I’m prepared to 

yield back. 

Mr. HOLT. I yield back the balance 

of my time. 

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I 

yield back the balance of my time and 

urge adoption of the bill. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

question is on the motion offered by 

the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 

HASTINGS) that the House suspend the 

rules and pass the bill, H.R. 2706, as 

amended. 

The question was taken; and (twothirds being in the affirmative) the 

rules were suspended and the bill, as 

amended, was passed. 

A motion to reconsider was laid on 

the table. 

f 

NORTH TEXAS ZEBRA MUSSEL 

BARRIER ACT OF 2012 

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. 

Speaker, I move to suspend the rules 

and pass the bill (H.R. 6007) to exempt 

from the Lacey Act Amendments of 

1981 certain water transfers by the 

North Texas Municipal Water District 

and the Greater Texoma Utility Authority, as amended. 

The Clerk read the title of the bill. 

The text of the bill is as follows: 

H.R. 6007 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in 

Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘North Texas 

Zebra Mussel Barrier Act of 2012’’. 

SEC. 2. COMPLIANCE WITH LACEY ACT. 

The Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 (16 

U.S.C. 3371 et seq.) and section 42 of title 18, 

United States Code, shall not apply with respect to any water transfer by the North 

Texas Municipal Water District and the 

Greater Texoma Utility Authority using 

only closed conveyance systems from the 

Lake Texoma raw water intake structure to 

treatment facilities at which all zebra mussels are extirpated and removed from the 

water transferred. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 

Washington (Mr. HASTINGS) and the 

gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. HOLT) 

each will control 20 minutes. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman 

from Washington. 

GENERAL LEAVE

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. 

Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 

all Members may have 5 legislative 

days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material 

on the bill under consideration. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there 

objection to the request of the gentleman from Washington? 

There was no objection. 

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I 

yield myself as much time as I may 

consume. 

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of 

Chairman RALPH HALL’s bill to provide 

relief to 1.6 million people living in the 

Dallas/Fort Worth area necessitated 

because of a bizarre set of circumstances. 

In 1989, the North Texas Municipal 

Water District constructed a pumping 

station in Lake Texoma, providing up 

to 125 million gallons per day of safe 

drinking water to one of the most rapidly growing regions in the country, 

the Dallas/Fort Worth area. Sometime 

later, the enactment of a boundary adjustment resulted in a small portion of 

the pumping station being shifted from 

Texas to Oklahoma. In 2009, zebra mussels were discovered in the lake. This 

has caused a significant problem because it is in violation of the Lacey 

Act to transport zebra mussels across 

State lines. 

So, to resolve this, the Water District has proposed to construct a $300 

million, 46-mile closed pipeline that 

will transport Lake Texoma water to 

its treatment facility in Wylie, Texas. 

All zebra mussels will then be destroyed there, and the entire effort will 

be accomplished without any cost to 

Federal taxpayers. 

This project was issued a section 404 

Clean Water Act permit in May, and it 

was supported by the U.S. Wildlife 

Service district office in Arlington, 

Texas. However, as happens so many 

times, the Washington, D.C., headquarters of Fish and Wildlife is not so 

supportive and has suggested what it 

describes as a nonlegislative solution: 

an agreement with the Justice Department not to prosecute North Texas Municipal Water District for transporting 

zebra mussels. 

Now, just think about this, Mr. 

Speaker. As someone who believes that 

we are a Nation of law, I am deeply 

troubled by the notion that a Federal 

agency would suggest that it would not 

seek to prosecute, under the law, those 

who may violate the law. I just think 

that’s the wrong approach, and this approach is the right approach. 

So I urge adoption of H.R. 6007, and I 

reserve the balance of my time. 

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

(Mr. HOLT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) 

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6007, 

the North Texas Zebra Mussel Barrier 

Act, provides a very specific and necessary—we believe—exemption to the 

Lacey Act Amendments of 1981. 

The Lacey Act is vital to our Nation’s interests because it prevents the 

spread of undesirable, injurious species 

such as zebra mussels. In fact, zebra 

mussels may be a textbook example, a 

poster child for injurious introduced 

species. 

These mussels are the bane of many 

a power plant or municipal water operator. Millions are spent each year just 

to keep intake and outflow pipes clear 

of these creatures. They harm our fisheries by crowding out native species 

and taking all their food, and they’re 

driving many native mussels to extinction. 

H.R. 6007 would allow the North 

Texas Municipal Water District and 

the Greater Texoma Utility Authority 

to transport water that contains zebra 

mussels from the Oklahoma side of 

Lake Texoma to Texas. However, all 

the water would be kept in closed conveyance systems, we are assured; and 

we are further assured that all water 

would be fully treated, with all zebra 

mussels being fully removed before 

being released into any water body. 

The biologists, the limnologists, the 

hydrologists, the water engineers assure us of these things. 

I do want to emphasize that zebra 

mussels are pernicious and insidious. I 

am loathe, and I think many of my colleagues are loathe, to weaken or seek 

exemption from the Lacey Act, which 

controls invasive species. However, 

Texas needs access to this water, and 

the aforementioned entities have a 

comprehensive plan for ensuring, we 

are told, that these water transfers will 

not cause zebra mussels to spread. 

So for these reasons, and with this 

understanding, I rise in support of H.R. 

6007. I do strongly urge that this bill, 

which is put forward as a remedy for a 

very difficult and unique situation, 

should not be used to set any precedent 

for granting exemptions to the Lacey 

Act or in any way weakening our protections against invasive species. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE