[House Report 106-197]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
106th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session 106-197
======================================================================
FISHERMEN'S PROTECTIVE ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1999
_______
June 23, 1999.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Young of Alaska, from the Committee on Resources, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 1651]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Resources, to whom was referred the bill
(H.R. 1651) to amend the Fishermen's Protective Act of 1967 to
extend the period during which reimbursement may be provided to
owners of United States fishing vessels for costs incurred when
such a vessel is seized and detained by a foreign country,
having considered the same, report favorably thereon without
amendment and recommend that the bill do pass.
Purpose of the Bill
The purpose of H.R. 1651 is to amend the Fishermen's
Protective Act of 1967 to extend the period during which
reimbursement may be provided to owners of United States
fishing vessels for costs incurred when such a vessel is seized
and detained by a foreign country.
Background and Need for Legislation
The Fishermen's Protective Act of 1967 (FPA) established a
program under which the Secretary of State may compensate
fishermen for fines paid to secure the release of fishing
vessels and crew which have been illegally seized by a foreign
government. The FPA also established a voluntary insurance
program to compensate fishermen who suffer lost income as a
result of such a seizure. Section 3 of the FPA outlines how an
owner can be reimbursed for any fine, license fee, registration
fee, or any other direct charge paid to a foreign government
for a vessel seizure. Once the Secretary of State certifies
these charges, the owner can be reimbursed from the Fishermen's
Protective Fund established under Section 9. The Fishermen's
Protective Fund has an authorized appropriation of $3 million
to cover the cost of reimbursements made under Section 3. The
current unexpended balance of the Fund is $638,500. No claims
were made against the Fund in 1998. In 1996 and 1997, 258
vessels were reimbursed a total of $282,195 (approximately
$1,085 per vessel) for paying illegal transit fees to Canada.
Between 1989 and 1996, seven other claims were made on the
Fund. Out of the seven claims, three were paid and four were
denied.
The voluntary insurance program, the Fishermen's Guaranty
Fund, was established under Section 7 of the FPA. Under this
section, the Secretary of State collects fees from the owners
of U.S. commercial fishing vessels to cover administrative
costs and a reasonable portion of any payments made under this
program. If additional payments are needed, they must be
provided through appropriated funds. The Fishermen's Guaranty
Fund covers economic losses incurred by fishermen while their
vessels are seized by a foreign nation including: damage to or
destruction of the vessel, its fishing gear or other equipment;
dockage fees; the market value of fish caught and seized; and
fifty percent of gross income lost, as determined by the
Secretary of the Interior. There has only been one claim
against the Fishermen's Guaranty Fund since 1987. In 1996, four
vessels were reimbursed a total of $186,000 for a seizure made
by the Costa Rican Government in 1992.
The Fisheries Act of 1995 amended the FPA to allow vessel
owners to be reimbursed for illegal transit fees charged by the
Canadian government in 1994 from the Fishermen's Protective
Fund.
H.R. 1651 amends Section 7 of the FPA to extend from 2000
to 2003 the period for which reimbursement can be sought under
the FPA. H.R. 1651 also corrects a reference to the Secretary
of the Interior, who no longer participates in this program, to
the Secretary of Commerce.
Committee Action
H.R. 1651 was introduced on April 29, 1999, by Congressmen
Don Young (R-AK), Jim Saxton (R-NJ) and Eni Faleomavaega (D-
AS). The bill was referred to the Committee on Resources, and
within the Committee to the Subcommittee on Fisheries
Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans. On March 11, 1999, the
Subcommittee held a hearing where the Fishermen's Guaranty Fund
was discussed. The Administration testified in support of
extending the period of reimbursement from the Fund. On May 6,
1999, the Subcommittee met to mark up the bill. There were no
amendments and the bill was ordered favorably reported to the
Full Committee by voice vote. On June 9, 1999, the Full
Resources Committee met to consider the bill. No amendments
were offered and the bill was ordered favorably reported to the
House of Representatives by voice vote.
Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations
Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
Committee on Resources' oversight findings and recommendations
are reflected in the body of this report.
Constitutional Authority Statement
Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the United
States grants Congress the authority to enact this bill.
Compliance With House Rule XIII
1. Cost of Legislation.--Clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the
Rules of the House of Representatives requires an estimate and
a comparison by the Committee of the costs which would be
incurred in carrying out this bill. However, clause 3(d)(3)(B)
of that Rule provides that this requirement does not apply when
the Committee has included in its report a timely submitted
cost estimate of the bill prepared by the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
2. Congressional Budget Act.--As required by clause 3(c)(2)
of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and
section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, this
bill does not contain any new budget authority, spending
authority, credit authority, or an increase or decrease in tax
expenditures. According to the Congressional Budget Office,
enactment of this bill would insignificantly affect direct
spending by allowing spending for claims made against the
Fishermen's Guaranty Fund, which would be offset by collection
of fees from fishing vessel owners. The Congressional Budget
Office concluded, therefore, that H.R. 1651 would have ``no
significant impact on the federal budget.''
3. Government Reform Oversight Findings.--Under clause
3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives, the Committee has received no report of
oversight findings and recommendations from the Committee on
Government Reform on this bill.
4. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate.--Under clause
3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives and section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974, the Committee has received the following cost estimate
for this bill from the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, June 21, 1999.
Hon. Don Young,
Chairman, Committee on Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1651, the
Fishermen's Protective Act Amendments of 1999.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Mark Hadley.
Sincerely,
Barry B. Anderson
(For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
Enclosure.
congressional budget office cost estimate
H.R. 1651--Fisherman's Protective Act Amendments of 1999
CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 1651 would have no
significant impact on the federal budget. H.R. 1651 would
affect direct spending; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures
would apply, but any such effects would not be significant. The
bill contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates
as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would not
affect the budget of state, local, or tribal governments.
The Fisherman's Guaranty Fund pays owners of U.S. fishing
vessels for certain financial losses if their vessels are
seized by a foreign nation. Owners pay fees sufficient to cover
the cost of these payments. H.R. 1651 would authorize the fund
through 2003, allowing additional payments of fees into the
fund. (The fund has a current balance of $2.8 million.)
However, no owners have applied to participate in the program
in recent years, and the fund has paid only one claim since
1987. (That claim resulted in payments for four vessels
totaling less than $200,000.) Thus, CBO estimates that any
additional offsetting receipts from fees or spending for claims
would not be significant.
The CBO staff contact is Mark Hadley. This estimate was
approved by Robert A. Sunshine, Deputy Assistant Director for
Budget Analysis.
Compliance With Public Law 104-4
This bill contains no unfunded mandates.
Preemption of State, Local or Tribal Law
This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local or
tribal law.
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italics, existing law in which no change
is proposed is shown in roman):
SECTION 7 OF THE FISHERMEN'S PROTECTIVE ACT OF 1967
Sec. 7. (a) The Secretary, upon receipt of an application
filed with him at any time after the effective date of this
section by the owner of any vessel of the United States which
is documented or certificated as a commercial fishing vessel,
shall enter into an agreement with such owner subject to the
provisions of this section and such other terms and conditions
as the Secretary deems appropriate. Such agreement shall
provide that, if said vessel is seized by a foreign country and
detained under the conditions of section 2 of this Act, the
Secretary shall guarantee--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) the owner of such vessel and its crew for not to
exceed 50 per centum of the gross income lost as a
direct result of such seizure and detention, as
determined by the [Secretary of the Interior] Secretary
of Commerce, based on the value of the average catch
per day's fishing during the three most recent calendar
years immediately preceding such seizure and detention
of the vessel seized, or, if such experience is not
available, then of all commercial fishing vessels of
the United States engaged in the same fishery as that
of the type and size of the seized vessel.
* * * * * * *
(e) The provisions of this section shall be effective until
October 1, [2000] 2003, except that payments may be made under
this section only to such extent and in such amounts as are
provided in advance in appropriation Acts.