[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 163 (Tuesday, November 11, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Page S14445]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to draw attention to a 
looming crisis for New England's groundfishermen. Last week, the New 
England Fishery Management Council voted to adopt a set of new 
regulations, known as Amendment 13. This package of regulations will 
permanently alter the character of New England's groundfish fishery, 
and will particularly harm the fishermen in my home State of Maine. 
This sweeping change in fisheries management is largely unneeded; in 
fact, most stocks of fish in the groundfish complex are rapidly 
rebuilding. There is a much larger problem in the fishery management 
process that has subverted a system of rational management and forced 
these unnecessary changes on our fishing industry. That problem is 
excessive litigation.
  Amendment 13, like many other regulations driven by excessive 
litigation, will permanently harm Maine's fishermen and related 
businesses. Historically, numerous coastal communities in Maine have 
taken part in and benefitted from the groundfish fishery. 
Unfortunately, regulatory changes will force many of Maine's smaller 
groundfish boats out of the industry. Small fishing communities like 
Stonington, Rockland, and Port Clyde which used to be home to many 
groundfish vessels, are already suffering due to restricted access to 
fish stocks. The changes to these coastal communities clearly stem from 
regulations born of excessive litigation.
  Further, these burdensome regulations will hurt boats of all sizes. 
Many small boats will not survive due to severe cuts in fishing time 
combined with the long distances that must be traveled in order to 
access fish stocks. In addition, Maine's larger vessels are leaving our 
States, moving to southern New England ports, in an effort to survive 
this latest round of regulations. The damaging effect of such an exodus 
on Maine's fishing infrastructure, which is at a critical minimum, will 
be irreparable. As Amendment 13 is put into place, revenues will 
continue to move south, and Maine's working waterfront will vanish, to 
be replaced by coastal development.
  The drastic sacrifices demanded of our fishermen might be worthwhile 
if New England groundfish were truly at risk. However, fish stocks are 
rebounding at a tremendous rate. For example, Georges Bank haddock 
biomass figures have gone from less than 20,000 metric tons in 1994 to 
roughly 100,000 metric tons in 2002. Overall, groundfish biomass 
figures have tripled since 1994. This fishery is a success story. 
Unfortunately, litigants refuse to agree. They have stolen management 
authority away from the regional councils and given this power to the 
courts, which are particularly ill-suited to make biological decisions.
  Excessive litigation also diverts precious resources from the main 
mission of the National Marine Fisheries Service: fisheries management. 
Each year the Service spends time and money defending itself in the 
courts. In fact, this year the Senate is considering appropriating $5 
million to the National Marine Fisheries Service exclusively for the 
purpose of fighting litigation. This money could be better spent 
conducting research, if our management system was not engulfed in 
litigation.
  We all suffer when a management system is under siege from excessive 
litigation. As in the case of Amendment 13, management plans are 
developed under an aura of crisis where managers must meet court-
appointed goals before court-appointed deadlines. What we need instead, 
is fisheries management developed with measure and reason. We need a 
system where the views of stakeholders are valued.
  In 1976, Congress passed the Fishery Conservation and Management Act. 
One of the strongest aspects of this act was the creation of regional 
fishery management councils. These councils rely on the participation 
of those who know the most about our Nation's fisheries. Unfortunately, 
some advocacy groups have chosen to bypass the council system by 
proceeding straight to court. In fact, one of these groups has already 
threatened to sue the National Marine Fisheries Service if they do not 
get what they want out of Amendment 13. This is truly discouraging, 
considering these regulations have yet to be published. Excessive 
litigation should not continue to diminish the participatory nature of 
fisheries management by removing decision-making authority away from 
those most qualified to manage our Nation's fisheries.
  The Amendment 13 process is a clear example of why fisheries 
management belongs in the hands of fisheries managers. The courts 
handed our regional managers a set of impossible goals and an 
impossible time frame in which to achieve these goals. Nothing but the 
impossible can result from this situation, despite the efforts of 
regional managers to create a reasonable management plan. This entire 
process only demonstrates the weaknesses of regulation driven by 
excessive litigation, and the need to take management decisions out of 
the courts and place them back in the council system. That will require 
changes in the law.

                          ____________________