[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 100 (Thursday, July 27, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7888-S7890]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. KERRY (for himself and Mr. Hollings):
  S. 2973. A bill to amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation 
and Management Act to improve fishery management and enforcement, and 
fisheries data collection, research, and assessment, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


              the magnuson-stevens act amendments of 2000

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Magnuson-
Stevens Act Amendments of 2000. I would like to thank Mr. Hollings for 
joining me as an original cosponsor of this legislation to reauthorize 
and update the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 
Act. As my colleagues and I well remember, we last substantially 
reauthorized the Act only four years ago with the Sustainable Fisheries 
Act--a three-year effort in itself. As in 1996, I look forward to 
working with members of the Commerce Committee as we update and improve 
this most important legislation.
  Mr. President, the fishery resources found off U.S. shores are a 
valuable national heritage. In 1998, the last year for which we have 
figures, U.S. commercial fisheries produced $3.1 billion in dockside 
revenues, contributing a total of more than $25 billion to the Gross 
National Product. By weight of catch, the United States is the world's 
fifth largest fishing nation, harvesting over 4 million tons of fish 
annually. The United States is also a significant seafood exporter, 
with exports valued at over $8 billion in 1998. In addition to 
supporting the commercial seafood industry, U.S. fishery resources 
provide enjoyment for about 9 million saltwater anglers who take home 
roughly 200 million pounds of fish each year.
  Over the past year, the Commerce Committee under Senator Snowe's 
leadership has been holding a series of hearings around the country in 
preparation for this year's reauthorization. These hearings have 
pointed to one central theme--while there is certainly room for 
improving fisheries management under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the 
sweeping changes we made in 1996 are still being implemented in each 
region. In fact, a number of regions are showing good progress, 
including New England where the yellowtail flounder and haddock stocks 
are rebounding. For this reason, I believe this year's reauthorization 
should leave in place the core conservation provisions of the Act, and 
focus on providing adequate resources, and any organizational or other 
changes necessary for NOAA Fisheries and Regional Fishery Management 
Councils to achieve the goals we set forth in the Sustainable Fisheries 
Act.
  Mr. President, the bill I introduce today outlines a proposal for 
making this a reality. While we have added increasingly complex 
technical and scientific requirements to the fisheries management 
process, we have failed in many cases to provide the resources 
necessary to meet these requirements. Effective fisheries management 
for the future will rely on committing adequate resources and direction 
to the fisheries managers as well as the fishing participants. These 
include providing necessary funding increases to both the agency and 
the Councils, creation of a national observer program, establishing a 
nationwide cooperative research program with the fishing industry, and 
ensuring that we are collecting the socioeconomic data we need to 
design management measures that

[[Page S7889]]

make sense for fishermen. This legislation aims to remedy this by 
providing a significant increase in funding, and specifying amounts 
required to support both the new initiatives and existing programs.
  Over the years, we have reauthorized the Magnuson-Stevens Act many 
times, and each time we have wrestled with the question of how to 
improve the ability of the Regional Fisheries Management Councils to 
effectively and fairly implement the requirements of the Act. This bill 
suggests ways in which to begin remedying these concerns. First, the 
bill would clarify that the Secretary of Commerce must ensure 
representation on the Council of all qualified persons who are 
concerned with fisheries conservation and management. While fishermen 
are the source of tremendous wisdom and expertise needed in managing 
these fisheries, there are others such as scientists and those with 
other relevant experience who may also provide valuable service to the 
Councils. To help the Secretary meet this requirement, the bill 
requires Governors to consult with members of recreational, commercial, 
and other fishing or conservation interests within a State before 
selecting a list of nominees to send to the Secretary. We would like to 
see all those who can provide constructive attention to our fishery 
management problems to work together to forge innovative and 
progressive solutions. In addition, we must increase independent 
scientific involvement in the Councils, and my legislation would 
provide that Councils must involve Science and Statistics Committee 
members in the development and amendment of fisheries management plans.
  I do know of the grave concerns expressed by conservation groups, 
fishermen, scientists and managers about problems with the existing 
fishery management process. I believe we need to address these 
questions, both with respect to the Councils and the Agency. I would 
like to work on this further with my colleagues as we go forward, but 
in the meantime this bill asks the National Academy of Sciences to 
bring together international and regional experts to evaluate what 
works and what may be broken in the current system, and what additional 
changes may be necessary to modernize and make more effective our 
entire fishery management process.
  In our series of hearings around the country, we have consistently 
heard a call from both industry and conservation groups for observer 
coverage in our fisheries. We have failed to adequately provide funding 
mechanisms for observer coverage; each year, federally funded observers 
are deployed in as few as five to seven fisheries, and observer 
coverage is rarely over 20 percent. Without observer coverage, there is 
little hope that we will have statistically significant data, 
particularly data on actual levels of bycatch. I have included 
provisions to ensure that each fishery management plan details observer 
coverage and monitoring needs for a fishery, and created a new National 
Observer Program. This national program would address technical and 
administrative responsibilities over regional observer programs. I have 
also included provisions to allow Councils or the Secretary to develop 
observer monitoring plans, and have established a fishery observer fund 
which would include funds appropriated for this purpose, collected as 
fines under a new bycatch incentive program, or deposited through fees 
established under this section.
  In the 1996 reauthorization, we took a first step in dealing with the 
issue of bycatch by instructing NMFS to implement a standardized 
bycatch reporting methodology. Nonetheless, I believe we have a long 
way to go in dealing with the bycatch problem in many of our fisheries. 
In addition to establishing a national observer program, my bill would 
establish a task force to recommend measures to monitor, manage, and 
reduce bycatch and unobserved fishing mortality. The Secretary would 
then be charged with implementing these recommendations. In addition, I 
have provided for the development of bycatch reduction incentive 
programs that could include a system of fines, non-transferable bycatch 
quotas, or preferences for gear types with low-bycatch rates.
  It is also time for us to move forward on ecosystem-based fishery 
management. We do not yet have the data to actually manage most of our 
fisheries on an ecosystem basis, but I still believe we must begin the 
preparation and consideration of fishery ecosystem plans. We must 
strive to understand the complex ecological and socioeconomic 
environments in which fish and fisheries exist, if we hope to 
anticipate the effects that fishery management will have on the 
ecosystem, and the effects that ecosystem change will have on 
fisheries. My legislation would require each Council to develop one 
fishery ecosystem plan for a marine ecosystem under its jurisdiction. 
Each ecosystem plan would have to include a listing of data and 
information needs identified during development of the plan, and the 
means of addressing any scientific uncertainties associated with the 
plan.
  One of the most resounding comments we heard at all of our regional 
hearings was the need to continually improve scientific information, 
and to involve the fishing industry in the collection of this 
information. My bill would establish a national cooperative research 
program, patterned after the successful cooperative research program in 
the New England scallop fishery, for projects that are developed 
through partnerships among federal and state managers, fishing industry 
participants, and academic institutions. Priority would be given to 
projects to reduce bycatch, conservation engineering projects, projects 
to identify and protect essential fish habitat or habitat area of 
particular concern, projects to collect fishery ecosystem information 
and improve predictive capabilities, and projects to compile social and 
economic data on fisheries.
  Over the years, I have heard much complaint that NMFS does not 
communicate effectively with the fishing industry or the general 
public. To remedy this, my bill calls for the establishment of a 
fisheries outreach program within NMFS to heighten public understanding 
of NMFS research and technology, train Council members on 
implementation of National Standards 1 and 8 requirements of NEPA and 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and identify means of improving quality 
and reporting of fishery-dependent data. New provisions would also 
require improvement of the transparency of the stock assessment process 
and methods, and increase access and compatibility of data relied upon 
in fishery management decisions. I have required the Secretary to 
periodically review fishery data collection and assessment methods, and 
to establish a Center for Independent Peer Review under which 
independent experts would be provided for special peer review 
functions.
  Mr. President, I have also included provisions to address one of our 
biggest problems in fisheries today--too many fishermen chasing too few 
fish. It is true that many of our fisheries are overcapitalized. A 
buyout in New England several years ago attempted to deal with this 
problem, and according to Penny Dalton, Assistant Administrator for 
Fisheries, in a recent USA Today article, the buyout ``jump started 
recovery in the New England groundfish fishery.'' A section of my bill 
would require the Secretary to evaluate overcapacity in each fishery, 
and identify measures planned or taken to reduce any such overcapacity. 
My legislation would amend the existing Act to ensure that capacity 
reduction programs also consider and address latent fishing capacity, 
and would allow the use of Capital Construction Funds and funds from 
the Fisheries Finance Program for measures to benefit the conservation 
and management of fisheries such as capacity reduction, as well as for 
gear and safety improvements.
  In 1996, we enacted a new concept in defining, and requiring 
protection and identification of, essential fish habitat (EFH). While 
there has been much outcry that essential fish habitat has been 
identified too broadly and that EFH consultation processes have 
resulted in regulatory delay, GAO reports very few real problems 
resulting from such designations. As a result, I do not feel it is 
necessary to significantly modify EFH provisions. Instead, I believe we 
can improve the current work of NMFS and the Councils to identify EFH, 
and areas within them called ``habitat areas of particular concern'' 
(HAPCs). I have added new provisions that would require Councils to 
protect and identify

[[Page S7890]]

HAPCs as part of existing requirements to identify and protect EFH. My 
bill would clarify that HAPCs are to be identified pursuant to the NMFS 
EFH guidelines, and that these areas should receive priority 
identification and protection, as they are oftentimes the areas most 
critical to fish spawning and recruitment. It is crucial that we 
improve our understanding of fisheries habitat, and my bill would 
establish pilot cooperative research projects on fishery and non-
fishery impacts to HAPCs.

  Finally, Mr. President, I would like to address the issue of 
individual fishing quotas, which have been the subject of much debate 
over the past few years. There is a moratorium on these programs in 
place until September 30, 2000, and we have been skirting consideration 
of this new management tool for too long. We must begin debate and 
consideration of the panoply of exclusive quota-based programs that 
have developed over the past several years, which must include adoption 
of legislative guidance for these programs. For this reason, the bill 
suggests a set of national criteria that would permit establishment of 
exclusive quota based programs--including community-based quotas, 
fishing cooperatives, and individual fishing quotas--but still protect 
the concerns of those who do not wish to employ these tools. I invite 
all those who are concerned about these issues to engage in a 
discussion with my colleagues and me on the appropriate way to address 
this national issue as we move forward this session.
  I understand the many concerns of small fishermen in New England 
regarding the use of these tools. First, no region would have to 
implement an exclusive quota-based program without approval of a 3/5 
majority of eligible permit holders through a referendum process. In 
addition, any exclusive quota-based program developed under my 
legislation would have to meet a set of national criteria. These 
national criteria would include provisions specifically aimed at 
protecting small fishermen such as the following: (1) ensuring that 
quota-based programs provide a fair and equitable initial allocation of 
quota (including the establishment of an appeals process for 
qualification and allocation decisions), (2) preserving the historical 
distribution of catch among vessel categories and gear sectors, (3) 
considering allocation of a portion of the annual harvest specifically 
to small fishermen and crew members; and (4) requiring programs to 
consider the effects of consolidation of quota shares and establish 
limits necessary to prevent inequitable concentration of quota share or 
significant impacts on other fisheries or fishing communities. To 
respond to the concern that we must ensure quota-based programs meet 
conservation objectives, my legislation would provide a 7-year review 
of the performance of quota holders, including fulfillment of 
conservation requirements of the Act. Finally any quota-based program 
would have to have a plan to rationalize the fishery--which in some 
cases would require a buyout of excess capacity under section 312(b) of 
the Act.
  Mr. President, I believe this legislation provides the funding, 
tools, and programs to ensure the important changes made in the 1996 
amendments are implemented effectively and improved where necessary. 
During the last reauthorization, our nation's fisheries were at a 
crossroads, and action was required to remedy our marine resource 
management problems, to preserve the way of life of our coastal 
communities, and to promote the sustainable use and conservation of our 
marine resources for future generations and for the economic good of 
the nation. We made changes in 1996 that were good for the environment, 
good for the fish, and good for the fishermen. We must stay the course, 
and this bill will help us do just that. In addition, the bill will 
provide us with innovative tools, such as exclusive quota-based 
programs and the new national observer program, to further advance 
fisheries management. Mr. President, I remain committed to the goal of 
establishing biologically and economically sustainable fisheries so 
that fishing will continue to be an important part of the culture of 
coastal communities as well as the economy of the Nation and 
Massachusetts.
                                 ______