Gulf of Mexico Fisheries Management

House Roll Call Vote 395

1998 Scorecard Vote

Pro-environment vote

No

Votes For

141

Votes Against

283

Not Voting

10

Bycatch reduction devices (BRDs) are trapdoors in shrimp trawl nets that reduce the incidental catch of marine animals other than shrimp by allowing them to escape. The use of the devices is considered crucial to protecting biological resources in the Gulf of Mexico. For every pound of shrimp caught in the Gulf of Mexico without use of a BRD, more than four pounds of juvenile fish and other marine organisms are discarded to die. For example, more than 80% of the Gulf ‘s juvenile red snappers are caught and discarded each year by trawlers without BRDs.

Experience on commercial shrimp boats has demonstrated that BRDs can cut bycatch in half without significant shrimp loss. In the spring of 1998, in compliance with the newly reauthorized Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the National Marine Fisheries Service issued a regulation requiring BRDs for trawling in most federally managed waters in the Gulf of Mexico.

Rep. Sonny Callahan (R-AL) introduced H.R. 3735, a bill to nullify the BRD requirement in the Gulf. Later, Rep. Callahan attached a rider to the Fiscal Year 1999 Commerce, State, Justice appropriations bill, H.R. 4276, to extend state fisheries jurisdiction from three to nine miles from shore. This would, in effect, transfer management jurisdiction over a large section of the Gulf from the federal government to the states of Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana. None of these states have BRD requirements in their waters, nor do they have the statutes, funding, or capabilities to properly manage large-scale fisheries.

On August 5, 1998, Rep. Callahan, with the support of Reps. Billy Tauzin (R-LA) and Bob Livingston (R-LA), made a motion to substitute new language for the existing rider. The new language would achieve the same purpose as the existing rider but without amending the Magnuson Act. Rep. Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD) argued against the substitute amendment because, under House procedures, he had to defeat it before being allowed to strike the original rider. On August 5, 1998, the House defeated Rep. Callahan’s substitute amendment, 141 – 283. NO is the pro-environment vote. Rep. Callahan then accepted a motion by Rep. Gilchrest to strike the original rider on a voice vote.

Votes

Show
Show
Export data (CSV)
  • Pro-environment vote
  • Anti-environment Vote
  • Missed Vote
  • Excused
  • Not Applicable

Vote Key

Sort by
Alabama
2025 State Scorecard Average

26%

Alaska
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Arizona
2025 State Scorecard Average

33%

Arkansas
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

California
2025 State Scorecard Average

78%

Colorado
2025 State Scorecard Average

51%

Connecticut
2025 State Scorecard Average

99%

Delaware
2025 State Scorecard Average

100%

Florida
2025 State Scorecard Average

28%

Georgia
2025 State Scorecard Average

34%

Hawaii
2025 State Scorecard Average

98%

Idaho
2025 State Scorecard Average

2%

Illinois
2025 State Scorecard Average

81%

Indiana
2025 State Scorecard Average

22%

Iowa
2025 State Scorecard Average

2%

Kansas
2025 State Scorecard Average

23%

Kentucky
2025 State Scorecard Average

19%

Louisiana
2025 State Scorecard Average

38%

Maine
2025 State Scorecard Average

76%

Maryland
2025 State Scorecard Average

85%

Massachusetts
2025 State Scorecard Average

99%

Michigan
2025 State Scorecard Average

44%

Minnesota
2025 State Scorecard Average

50%

Mississippi
2025 State Scorecard Average

25%

Missouri
2025 State Scorecard Average

25%

Montana
2025 State Scorecard Average

2%

Nebraska
2025 State Scorecard Average

3%

Nevada
2025 State Scorecard Average

69%

New Hampshire
2025 State Scorecard Average

97%

New Jersey
2025 State Scorecard Average

73%

New Mexico
2025 State Scorecard Average

93%

New York
2025 State Scorecard Average

72%

North Carolina
2025 State Scorecard Average

26%

North Dakota
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Ohio
2025 State Scorecard Average

33%

Oklahoma
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Oregon
2025 State Scorecard Average

82%

Pennsylvania
2025 State Scorecard Average

47%

Rhode Island
2025 State Scorecard Average

97%

South Carolina
2025 State Scorecard Average

14%

South Dakota
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Tennessee
2025 State Scorecard Average

10%

Texas
2025 State Scorecard Average

31%

Utah
2025 State Scorecard Average

1%

Vermont
2025 State Scorecard Average

100%

Virginia
2025 State Scorecard Average

58%

Washington
2025 State Scorecard Average

75%

West Virginia
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Wisconsin
2025 State Scorecard Average

25%

Wyoming
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%