Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Fishery Conservation and Management Act Amendments of 2004. This bill would reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act, as…
Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Fishery Conservation and Management Act Amendments of 2004. This bill would reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act, as amended by the 1996 Sustainable Fisheries Act, and update fisheries policy to better satisfy the ever-changing needs of our Nation's fish stocks and fishing communities.
In 1976, the year in which the Magnuson-Stevens Act was written, our commercial fisheries were in grave danger of being exploited beyond their ability to recover. Passage of the Act has provided a more balanced approach in fulfilling our economic needs by also promoting responsible conservation and stewardship of our resources. Even as it sought to provide better management for the Nation's resources as a whole, this law recognized that our fisheries have vastly different regional problems. The result was the creation of a regional management council in each of the country's eight major marine fisheries. These councils, with substantial input from the local community, are responsible for creating the management plans by which their fish stocks are regulated by the National Marine Fisheries Services. This structure has been vital in allowing the active stakeholders in each region to provide meaningful input to the management process.
Since the enactment of this legislation, domestic offshore catches have increased so dramatically that our fisheries now add billions of dollars to the Nation's economy every year, according to the National Marine Fisheries Service. Because of this increase in fishing harvests and the pressure to fish more than could be sustained, in 1996 Congress passed the Sustainable Fisheries Act to amend and enhance the Magnuson- Stevens Act. The new amendments included new guidelines for conservation of both targeted fisheries and bycatch, or incidentally- caught fish and other marine life. The Act required that overfished stocks be rebuilt within a 10 year timeframe. In addition, the provisions added a requirement for the protection of all essential fish habitat for each fishery.
The overarching goal of the Sustainable Fisheries Act was to ensure prosperity for all United States fisheries by ending overfishing and rebuilding depleted stocks. This goal, and the means for achieving it, are as important today as they were in 1996. I supported the Act, because I saw in it great potential for sustaining fishing communities and the stocks upon which they depend.
In the nearly 8 years since we last renewed and reauthorized the Magnuson-Stevens Act, however, we have witnessed both prosperity and degradation in different fisheries affected by this law. According to the National Marine Fisheries Service's Annual Report in 2003, certain fisheries have thrived; for example, sea scallops on Georges Bank have increased 20-fold from 1994 to 2002, silver hake in the Northeast was declared fully rebuilt in 2002, and recovery of dozens of other stocks is well underway. The National Marine Fisheries Services' most recent survey of young Georges Bank haddock indicates a population boom with the potential to be the largest ever recorded, putting that fishery well on the road to its recovery goal. Conversely, other fisheries have not fared as well, as demonstrated by the fact that overfishing commenced in 13 U.S. fisheries between 1997 and 2002.
As Chair of the Oceans, Fisheries, and Coast Guard Subcommittee of the Commerce Committee, I have sought answers as to why the Magnuson- Stevens Act has apparently worked well for some fisheries, but not others. Representing a state with scores of fishing communities and thousands of fisheries workers, I understand the great importance of making sure that our federal fisheries laws are working for all of our Nation's fisheries.
In seeking these answers, during the 106th Congress I traveled across the country and held a series of hearings on the Magnuson-Stevens Act. In Washington, D.C. Maine, Louisiana, Alaska, Washington, and Massachusetts, I heard official testimony from over 70 witnesses. Our subcommittee received hundreds of comments, views, and recommendations from federal and state officials, regional council chairmen and members, other fisheries managers, commercial and recreational fishermen, members of the conservation community, and many others interested in fisheries management.
What the subcommittee learned during these hearing--and which continues to be reinforced by more recent fisheries events, comments, and recommendations--is that most of the shortcomings in our federal fisheries policy are products of how the Magnuson-Stevens Act has been interpreted and applied to real-life fisheries problems. While the underpinnings of the Act are sound, it has become clear that implementation of the Act has often been inconsistent with Congressional intent. That is the primary challenge before us today: to clarify how the goals of conservation and management can be achieved for our Nation's fisheries, and ensure effective implementation of the Act.
What we need is a federal fisheries policy that can be interpreted and applied in ways that recognize and respond to the unique conditions facing each individual fishery. Of the hundreds of fisheries occurring around our Nation's coastline, no two are exactly alike. The conservation measures that work in one fishery cannot always be transferred to another. The Magnuson-Stevens act must express enough flexibility to accommodate these variations, so that managers can craft unique, innovative solutions based on the conditions and needs of the fish stocks and fishing communities in question.
I first attempted to address these issues when I introduced S. 2832, the Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act of 2000, as well as bills authorizing national standards for fishing quota systems. During the last several years, the need for these amendments--as well as new amendments to meet evolving fisheries needs--has only intensified. It is this fact that underlies the bill I introduce today, the Fishery Conservation and Management Act Amendments of 2004.
This bill contains several specific measures for enhancing management flexibility. First and foremost, this bill would repeal the 10-year timeline for rebuilding fish stocks and the unnecessarily-rigid measures that stem from it. This provision of the Sustainable Fisheries Act is not based on fish population dynamics, but instead imposes a stringent and arbitrary time-frame inappropriate for the diverse needs of each individual fishery. This bill would replace it with a system that allows a more adaptive approach for determining harvest rates. I am proposing that fishing mortality rates simply be limited to the maximum sustainable yield that a stock can produce in any given year. This fishing rate would not permit overfishing; it would allow stocks to rebuild over time to a level that achieves ecosystem balance.
Another new proposal in this bill would improve managers' ability to fairly distribute access to distant-water fish stocks. As is now occurring in the New England groundfishery, fishermen from different states are unevenly impacted by management measures that treat them as if they are all from the same state. Currently, fishermen who live farther away from healthy fish stocks need to expend their extremely limited number of permitted days-at-sea simply steaming to and from these stocks, while those who live closer to the stocks can spend more of their days-at-sea actually fishing. I am proposing that regional fishery management councils analyze these impacts and, if necessary, take action to eliminate such inequities.
Other key features of this Magnuson-Stevens Act reauthorization would address essential fish habitat and areas of particular concern; authorizations for cooperative research, capacity reduction, and fishing quota systems; and
language to improve social and ecological impact assessments, data and information management, public meeting notices, and scientific peer reviews. Individually and collectively, the provisions in this bill present a way forward in improving federal fisheries management. This bill preserves the goal and intent of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, yet it enhances the abilities of managers and fishermen to apply it in a way that can better achieve the Act's objectives and actually achieve sustainability in our fisheries.
Finally, I would like to thank all those fishermen, managers, scientists, and special interest groups that contributed ideas and information to the long process of developing this reauthorization bill. Their countless contributions serve as invaluable pieces to a very complex puzzle, and I am confident that our efforts will improve the state of federal fisheries management.
I look forward to receiving additional fisheries policy comments and recommendations in the weeks and months ahead, including those from the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, and I encourage my colleagues throughout Congress to take action in support of this Magnuson-Stevens reauthorization effort. Through our collective efforts, sustainable fisheries in the United States can and will become a reality.
