[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 110 (Wednesday, August 10, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 10, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
   LEGISLATION CONCERNING NEGOTIATED RULEMAKING AND THE NEW ENGLAND 
                          GROUNDFISH INDUSTRY

                                 ______


                         HON. OLYMPIA J. SNOWE

                                of maine

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, August 10, 1994

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. Speaker, over the past 6 months, the national press 
has been full of stories about the decline of the New England 
groundfish populations. The stories generally follow a similar pattern: 
The groundfish have been terribly overfished, tough regulations to 
eliminate overfishing have finally been approved, and the fishermen are 
resisting them prior to losing their jobs. The stories offer a distinct 
and clear picture in black and white. But this kind of portrayal, while 
accurate in some respects, contains a critical flaw: The groundifsh 
issue is actually more muddled. It contains different shades of gray as 
well as black and white.
  Few people in New England will doubt that the groundfish stocks are 
down and that substantive measures to conserve and rebuild the stocks 
are in order. The question is not the end but the means. Fishermen 
think that they know something about the means. As inheritors and 
practitioners of a 300 year tradition--perhaps the oldest industry in 
New England--they argue that their experience and knowledge of the 
fishery resource can yield important insights into the resource that 
will aid considerably in the development of a fishery management plan 
for groundfish.
  A fishery management plan, amendment 5 to the Northeast Multispecies 
Fishery Management Plan, has indeed been developed and approved by the 
New England Fishery Management Council and the Commerce Department, but 
the fishermen believe that it will unnecessarily put many members of 
the industry out of work without achieving its conservation objectives. 
The council held public hearings throughout New England prior to 
completing amendment 5, but the final amendment incorporates only a few 
of their recommendations. Its central provision will reduce the number 
of days that fishermen can fish by 50 percent over 5 years--a provision 
that was bitterly opposed by the industry during the hearing period.
  One thing is certain about amendment 5: A lot of people will lose 
jobs in Maine and other New England States. But most of the job losses 
will probably not occur until year 3 of the program, in 1996. In the 
meantime, there is an opportunity to make every effort to ensure, 
before the Federal Government forces people out of the fishing 
industry, that no other, less disruptive set of fishery management 
alternatives to the controversial provisions of amendment 5 exists.
  I have introduced two bills designed to bring the fishermen, the 
Commerce Department, and other stakeholders to the table to try to find 
some common ground on less costly management alternatives before it's 
too late. This process is known as negotiated rulemaking, and it was 
authorized for Federal agencies under the Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 
1990. It provides a collaborative, consensus-based dispute resolution 
tool that agencies can use to develop potentially controversial 
regulations. Representatives of all interests with a stake in a 
particular issue sit down and negotiate with the aid of a facilitator 
over a set time period. If consensus is reached, the head of the agency 
can then propose that consensus document as a new rule.
  My first bill gives the Secretary of Commerce the explicit authority 
to use negotiated rulemaking to develop fishery management plans or 
plan amendments. Under the Magnuson Act, the Secretary can only submit 
management plans or plan amendments under limited circumstances which 
preclude his flexibility in using this important tool. Also, negotiated 
rulemaking is specifically used to develop rules, but fishery 
management plans are not technically rules. My bill removes these 
potential obstacles and clears the way for the Secretary to use this 
dispute resolution tool.
  The second bill that I have introduced today directs the Secretary to 
use negotiated rulemaking in the specific case of the groundfish 
fishery. Alternative dispute resolution is used more and more commonly 
in lieu of the traditional adversarial regulatory process. I firmly 
believe that it needs to be tried in the case of the New England 
groundfish issue.
  My legislation does not approve or disapprove any particular 
conservation program, or impose particular management measures on the 
groundfish fishery. It only offers another route for developing 
conservation measures, a route that may produce measures that yield the 
necessary conservation gains without causing so much disruption to the 
economies and coastal communities of our region.

                          ____________________