[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 111 (Friday, August 7, 1998)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1590-E1591]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           THE ATLANTIC SWORDFISH MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENT ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. JIM SAXTON

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, August 6, 1998

  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, the effective management of Atlantic highly 
migratory species (HMS) and their fisheries is perhaps the most complex 
challenge facing the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) today. 
These species range widely throughout international waters and the 
jurisdictions of many coastal nations with diverse policies and 
perspectives on resource utilization and management. The fishing 
practices and marketing priorities for these species are equally 
diverse. Seriously compounding these challenges is that the biology of 
these species is not well known and remains difficult to determine.
  Congress has recognized the unique and difficult challenges 
associated with effective conservation and management of HMS and those 
who fish for them. Fundamental to this recognition is that effective 
management of these species and fisheries cannot be achieved on a 
unilateral basis, but instead must be pursued on a multilateral basis 
throughout their range. Unlike most other U.S. fisheries, effective 
multilateral management is the goal of U.S. HMS policy. A number of 
specific provisions in both the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation 
and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) and the Atlantic Tunas 
Convention Act (ATCA) are intended to express this policy.
  For example, Congress deliberately placed Atlantic HMS management 
authority in the hands of the Secretary of Commerce instead of the 
regional Councils for the purpose of ensuring that the U.S. maintained 
a multilateral, Atlantic-wide perspective and vision. As U.S. policy 
and law dictate, the principal purpose and obligation of domestic 
Atlantic HMS management measures is to faithfully implement and enforce 
the multilateral ICCAT measures. U.S. law requires such implementation 
to achieve but not exceed the conservation (fishing mortality) 
objectives of ICCAT measures and ensure that U.S. fishermen are 
provided a reasonable opportunity to harvest their allocation. U.S. law 
and common sense also dictate that domestic HMS management should avoid 
unnecessary regulatory burdens that serve to increase waste in the 
fisheries or disadvantage U.S. fishermen relative to their foreign 
competitors. These are some of the more important aspects of U.S. HMS 
policy.
  As a matter of general fishery policy, section 303(b)(6) of the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act authorizes the Secretary to include a limited 
access system in any fishery management plan for any fishery, subject 
to certain considerations. The establishment of a limited access system 
is of critical importance in effectively managing fisheries for which 
U.S. harvesting capacity far exceeds the available resource--
particularly if that resource requires rebuilding and is subject to 
quota reductions. Such is the case with our U.S. pelagic longline 
fisheries.
  A limited access system also provides the opportunity to reduce 
harvesting capacity in such fisheries through attrition, a buy-back 
program, phase-out of latent permits, or other means. Such capacity 
reduction measures can facilitate the establishment of other important 
management tools designed to protect nursery and spawning areas and 
reduce bycatch while minimizing the economic consequences on the 
fishermen. Current Federal regulations provide that virtually any U.S. 
citizen who can pay a small administrative fee may enter the Atlantic 
swordfish fishery. This practice of allowing a continuous stream of new 
and inexperienced fishermen into this fishery has seriously hindered 
progress in achieving a number of key management objectives.
  Although for many years the U.S. Atlantic pelagic longline community 
has petitioned NMFS to establish a limited access system, the agency 
has repeatedly failed to move beyond endless deliberation and still has 
not put such a system into place. This delay has served to exacerbate 
the problems associated with this overcapitalized industry and has 
precluded consideration of some of the more important conservation 
needs facing pelagic longline fisheries. Meanwhile, NMFS has 
established limited access systems in other overcapitalized fisheries 
leaving the pelagic longline fishery open to fishermen displaced from 
these other closed fisheries. There are a large number of unused, 
latent permits in these fisheries and many new vessels have entered in 
recent years. The pelagic longline community and fisheries are in a 
state of emergency and can no longer wait for the agency to respond.
  There are two purposes of the legislation I am introducing today. The 
first is to prevent any new fishing vessels from entering the U.S. 
Atlantic swordfish pelagic longline fishery by placing a moratorium on 
the issuance of any new fishing permits for vessels that did not hold a 
valid permit to fish in the U.S. Atlantic swordfish pelagic longline 
fishery on August 1, 1998. I would note that although this permit 
moratorium provision relates specifically to the Atlantic swordfish 
pelagic longline fishery, it is not intended to preclude or prejudice 
any possible future consideration of a similar moratorium with respect 
to other Atlantic swordfish fisheries including the drift gillnet and 
handgear fisheries.

[[Page E1591]]

  The second purpose of this legislation is to prevent those latent 
permits for the U.S. Atlantic swordfish fishery under which no 
swordfish was reported to NMFS as landed after January 1, 1987, from 
being used to fish in the U.S. Atlantic swordfish pelagic longline 
fishery. Again, I would note as before that although this latent permit 
provision relates specifically to the use of such permits in the 
Atlantic swordfish pelagic longline fishery, this is not intended to 
preclude or prejudice any future consideration of a similar latent 
permit prohibition with respect to other Atlantic swordfish fisheries 
including the drift gillnet and handgear fisheries.
  I believe the combination of these two provisions will go a long way 
toward addressing the threat of further overcapitalization within the 
swordfish pelagic longline fisheries and begin moving the fishery in 
the direction of reduced capacity. However, it is my sincere hope and 
intent that the NMFS will respond to this wake-up call and move forward 
expeditiously with the timely implementation of a comprehensive system 
of limited access for not only the Atlantic swordfish pelagic longline 
fishery, but also the closely related pelagic longline fisheries for 
Atlantic tunas and Atlantic sharks.
  On a broader note, I would like to take this opportunity to express 
my increasing concern--and that of a number of my colleagues--over the 
interpretation by NMFS of U.S. HMS policies and laws relative to the 
setting of our multilateral objectives at ICCAT, as well as in the 
context of domestic implementation of our international obligations. We 
are equally concerned about the ability and efficiency of NMFS to put 
into place sensible and practicable domestic measures that are fair and 
equitable to all U.S. fishermen. These concerns are heightened by the 
impending rebuilding requirements of the Sustainable Fisheries Act and 
the fact that fishermen are increasingly turning to the judicial branch 
for solutions.
  For example, it remains unclear how NMFS plans to implement the new 
rebuilding provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act as they relate to 
HMS. Specifically, it is unclear how NMFS plans to coordinate the 
promulgation of a rebuilding plan for bluefin tuna with the results of 
the upcoming ICCAT meeting in November which is scheduled to focus on 
bluefin tuna. Perhaps even more unsettling is how the agency plans to 
coordinate the promulgation of a rebuilding plan for swordfish with 
existing ICCAT swordfish management measures, given that ICCAT will not 
focus on swordfish again until November, 1999.
  Another concern is that in 1995, ICCAT recognized the need to further 
protect juvenile swordfish and authorized ICCAT member nations to 
prohibit the sale, including importation, of small swordfish less than 
33 pounds. This was done with the concurrence of the Office of U.S. 
Trade Representative. This initiative has been a priority of the U.S. 
swordfish industry for several years, and earlier this year, the 
President pledged to impose and fund the implementation of a ban on the 
importation of undersized swordfish. However, while the NMFS has 
succeeded in imposing and enforcing the undersize swordfish prohibition 
on U.S. fishermen, it has failed to impose or fund the enforcement of a 
equitable restriction on foreign fishermen through the import 
prohibition authorized by ICCAT and promised by the President. It 
remains unclear to this day how and when NMFS plans to implement or 
fund this crucial ICCAT recommendation.
  As one further example of concern, there is a great deal of interest 
in the use of gear modification such as circle hooks in Atlantic HMS 
fisheries as potential tools to at least partially address one of the 
most critical problems facing HMS fisheries today including: reducing 
the mortality of bycatch in commercial HMS fisheries; reducing the 
mortality of fish that are released in recreational HMS fisheries; and 
reducing the catch (and mortality) of small swordfish in the pelagic 
longline fisheries.
  Reducing bycatch and minimizing the mortality of bycatch that cannot 
be avoided is, of course, a strong statutory mandate for NMFS. But, it 
concerns me that the first and primary approach considered by NMFS for 
HMS seems to be to shut down pelagic longline fisheries during some 
rather uncertain times and in some rather uncertain areas based on some 
very uncertain scientific data. This appears to be a very disruptive 
approach with a very high cost relative to a very uncertain benefit. It 
is unclear what alternative steps NMFS plans to take to quickly and 
efficiently evaluate the benefits of circle hook use as a potentially 
more effective and certainly less disruptive measure.
  As we conclude our consideration of the reauthorization of the ATCA 
this year and begin our preparations for the reauthorization of the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act in the next Congress, it may be necessary for us 
to consider a more comprehensive package of legislative measures 
intended to improve the management of Atlantic HMS and their fisheries 
by the NMFS. The legislation I am introducing today represents a good 
start in that direction and, to the extent a larger package becomes 
necessary, I look forward to working with my colleagues, the NMFS, the 
U.S. ICCAT Commissioners, the commercial and recreational fishing 
industries and other affected parties toward achieving some of the most 
important goals of HMS fisheries management.

                          ____________________