[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 32 (Thursday, February 27, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2940-S2941]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Ms. COLLINS (for herself and Ms. SNOWE):
  S. 483. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Army to carry out a 
project for the mitigation of shore damages attributable to the project 
for navigation, Saco River, Maine; to the Committee on Environment and 
Public Works.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce two pieces of 
legislation that will improve the lives of our Nation's fishermen who 
are struggling to make a living on the sea.
  Fishing is more than just a profession in New England. Fishing is a 
culture and a way of life. This way of life is being threatened, 
however, by excessive regulation and unnecessary litigation. Despite 
scientific evidence of a rebound in fish stocks, New England's 
fishermen are suffering under ever more burdensome restrictions. 
Everyday, I hear from fishermen who struggle to support their families 
because they have been deprived of their right to make an honest living 
on the seas. The ``working waterfronts'' of our communities are in 
danger if disappearing, likely to be replaced by development. When that 
happens, a part of Maine's heritage is lost forever.
  Today, I am introducing a package of amendments to the Magnuson-
Stevens Act that will deliver a resource management strategy that is 
balanced, responsive, and sensible. It recognizes the fishermen's 
strong commitment to conserving the stocks, and acknowledges fishermen 
as partners in fisheries management.
  The Fisheries Science and Management Improvement Act of 2003 will 
address much needed improvements in the science and regulatory 
standards of fisheries management. The Nation's fisheries management 
system, as it is currently designed, is broken. If anyone doubts this 
is the case, I want to point out that more than 100 lawsuits are 
currently pending against the Department of Commerce involving 
fisheries management plans.
  Litigation is no way to manage one of our Nation's most important 
ecological and economic resources. The fact is, the courts are simply 
not well-suited to making biological and regulatory decisions. 
Fisheries management is best left to those who know the subject best: 
the fishermen, scientists, and regulators working together 
cooperatively.

  No one in the country knows this better than New England 
groundfishermen. Over the last two years, a court case has thrown New 
England's groundfishing industry into a crisis. The case ended when a 
Federal judge ordered severe restrictions on groundfishing, including a 
20-percent

[[Page S2941]]

cut in Days-at-Sea. The effect of this court order has been simply 
catastrophic for New England's groundfishing industry--an industry made 
up of small, independently-owned, and often family-owned, businesses.
  These severe restrictions were ordered despite the fact that the 
science clearly demonstrates that the biomass for New England 
groundfish has increased every year since 1996. If the biomass is 
increasing, and the stock is clearly rebuilding, it makes no sense to 
enforce an arbitrarily structured and unscientifically based timeframe 
on the rebuilding process. This is especially true when the survival of 
a culture is at stake.
  My legislation would inject consistency and common-sense standards 
into the fisheries management process: it addresses the importance of 
solid and reliable science in fisheries management. It strengthens the 
definition of ``best scientific information available'' and requires 
scientific data, including all stock assessments, to be peer-reviewed 
and to include the consideration of anecdotal information gathered from 
the people who know fishing best--the fishermen themselves. My bill 
ensures that the process of rebuilding stocks is based on rational and 
comprehensive science. Under current law, when fisheries are classified 
as overfished, the Councils are required to implement rebuilding plans 
to attain a historic high level of abundance within ten years, 
regardless of whether or not the current state of the marine 
environment can sustain such an abundance level. My bill redefines the 
concept of ``overfishing'' to take into consideration natural 
fluctuations in the marine environment. It also eliminates the ten-year 
rebuilding requirement--a requirement that has no foundation in 
science--and requires rebuilding periods to take into consideration the 
biology of the fish stock and the economic impact on fishing 
communities.
  The legislation also addresses problems with the current conception 
of Essential Fish Habitat. Currently, the entire Exclusive Economic 
Zone has been defined as Essential Fish Habitat instead of more 
discrete units of habitat as originally conceived. Further, current law 
allows the Councils to regulate the impacts of fishing activity on 
Essential Fish Habitat, while the Councils cannot regulate other 
commercial activities--such as mining and coastal development and the 
laying of telecommunications cables--that affect these areas. My bill 
focuses the management of these areas on ``Habitat Areas of Particular 
Concern''--more discrete units of fish habitat that are more consistent 
with the congressional intent behind the Essential Fish Habitat 
concept.

  My proposal treats the fishing industry as a legitimate interest in 
fisheries management by acknowledging the important role that 
commercial fishing plays in food security and healthy food consumption. 
My bill also ensures that the cumulative economic and social impacts of 
fisheries management decisions are considered, rather than assessed in 
isolation from one another.
  Finally, the legislation would reduce the litigation burden on the 
fisheries management system. My proposal ensures that fishery 
management plans are pre-determined to be compliant with NEPA 
requirements, thereby preventing NEPA law from being used in an 
incorrect way to regulate fisheries. It would still require fishery 
management plans to meet all the other conservation provisions, 
including those governing rebuilding of overfished stocks, set out in 
the law. The Nation's Councils have asked for this protection from 
lawsuits so they may resume their proper role as a regulatory body.
  I want to acknowledge the important role that my colleagues Senators 
Snowe and Kerry, Chair and Ranking Member of the Oceans and Fisheries 
Subcommittee, are playing in addressing the problems of Magnuson-
Stevens. My hope is that my proposal will help propel a discussion in 
the upcoming months as their committee moves forward with their own 
ideas.
  The second piece of legislation I am offering is the Commercial 
Fishermen Safety Act of 2003, a bill to help fishermen purchase the 
life-saving safety equipment they need to survive when disaster 
strikes. I am pleased to be joined by my good friend from 
Massachusetts, Senator Kerry, in introducing this legislation. Senator 
Kerry has been a leader in the effort to sustain our fisheries and to 
maintain the proud fishing tradition that exists in his state and 
throughout the country.
  The release of the movie The Perfect Storm provided millions of 
Americans with a glimpse of the challenges and dangers associated with 
earning a living in the fishing industry. While based on a true story, 
the movie merely scratches the surface of what it is like to be a 
modern-day fisherman. Everyday, members of our fishing communities 
struggle to cope with the pressures of running a small business, 
complying with extensive regulations, and maintaining their vessels and 
equipment. Added to these challenges are the dangers associated with 
fishing, where disaster can strike in conditions that are far less 
extreme than those depicted by the movie.
  Year-in and year-out, commercial fishing is among the nation's most 
dangerous occupations. According to data compiled by the Coast Guard 
and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 536 fishermen have lost their lives 
at sea since 1994. In fact, with an annual fatality rate of about 150 
deaths per 100,000 workers, fishing is 30 times more dangerous than the 
average occupation.
  The year 2000 will always be remembered in Maine's fishing 
communities as a year marked by tragedy. All told, nine commercial 
fishermen lost their lives off the coast of Maine in the year 2000, 
exceeding the combined casualties of the three previous years.
  Yet as tragic as the year was, it could have been worse. Heroic acts 
by the Coast Guard and other fishermen resulted in the rescue of 13 
commercial fishermen off the coast of Maine in the year 2000. In most 
of these circumstances, these fishermen were returned to their families 
because they had access to safety equipment that made the difference 
between life and death.
  Coast Guard regulations require all fishing vessels to carry safety 
equipment. The requirements vary depending on factors such as the size 
of the vessel, the temperature of the water, and the distance the 
vessel travels from shore to fish.
  When an emergency arises, safety equipment is priceless. At all other 
times, the cost of purchasing or maintaining this equipment must 
compete with other expenses such as loan payments, fuel, wages, 
maintenance, and insurance. Meeting all of these obligations is made 
more difficult by a regulatory framework that uses measures such as 
trip limits, days at sea, and gear alterations to manage our marine 
resources.
  The Commercial Fishermen Safety Act of 2003 lends a hand to fishermen 
attempting to prepare in case disaster strikes. My bill provides a tax 
credit equal to 75 percent of the amount paid by fishermen to purchase 
or maintain required safety equipment. The tax credit is capped at 
$1500. Items such as EPIRBs and immersion suits cost hundreds of 
dollars, while life rafts can reach into the thousands. The tax credit 
will make life-saving equipment more affordable for more fishermen, who 
currently face limited options under the federal tax code.
  I believe these two bills will assist our Nation's fishermen as they 
struggle to make their living on the seas. Fishing is a legitimate 
profession that deserves to be treated with the common-sense and 
consistency that we treat other professions. The legislation I am 
introducing gives these communities the tools they need to safely make 
their living in a way that still protects the resource.
                                 ______