[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 18]
[Senate]
[Pages 26277-26279]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                       INDIVIDUAL FISHING QUOTAS

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, one of the most important issues we 
consider here in the U.S. Senate is how to balance our economic needs 
with our responsibility to conserve our natural resources.
  I believe we can strike the right balance. With that hope, I'd like 
to talk about America's fisheries. In the Pacific Northwest, fishing is 
more than just a way of life. It is an important part of our economy 
and contributes to our region's culture.
  Unfortunately, that way of life is becoming more difficult. Many 
fishing families are struggling because some fish stocks are at very 
low levels. For example, the West Coast salmon and groundfish and the 
Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands crab fisheries have declined dramatically 
in recent years. Washington's fishing families contribute to our 
economy and feed consumers both here and abroad, but too often they 
work within a system that threatens their safety and their livelihood. 
I've met with harvesters and processors from my region, and I've 
visited small towns in Washington state that depend on fisheries. The 
problems they face aren't limited to Washington state. They can also be 
seen in Alaska and other states.
  In an effort to recover decreasing numbers of fish in our waters, 
fisheries managers have developed complex management systems to limit 
fishing. In some cases, our current policies encourage fishers to catch 
as many fish

[[Page 26278]]

as possible over a limited period of time. This creates a dangerous and 
inefficient ``race for fish'', which requires fishermen to venture out 
in bad weather. In fact, one of the most dangerous occupations for 
young people today is to work in the Bering Sea/Aleutian Island crab 
fishery. The ``race for fish'' is one way to manage fisheries in which 
too many fishermen are competing for too few fish. However, there are 
alternatives to this management approach.
  I'm proud that there is a growing interest in an innovative 
management tool called individual fishing quotas. This creative 
approach uses the marketplace to encourage a safer, more productive, 
and more sustainable fishing industry. In some cases, it would be a 
significant improvement over the status quo.
  Individual fishing quotas or IFQs would bring some regularity to what 
are currently short-lived, intense fishing seasons. Under this system, 
each participant in a fishery would be allocated a percentage of that 
season's total fish catch. Because they are guaranteed a certain amount 
of fish, fishermen wouldn't have to ``race for fish.'' They could 
stretch their fishing out over longer, more balanced fishing seasons.
  I believe that individual fishing quotas can help fisherman, 
fisheries, conservation, and consumers. IFQs can help fishing families 
because boats won't need to go out in dangerous weather. In addition, 
because of the slower pace, fishermen would be less likely to lose 
fishing gear, a common problem in some fisheries. This new system can 
help fisheries because fishermen will be able to sell or lease quota. 
That means there will be fewer boats, which can mean cleaner, more 
efficient fisheries.
  In addition, IFQs can improve conservation. In some cases when the 
fishery slows down, fishermen take better care of their catch and are 
more careful with bycatch. Let's look at just one example of how the 
speed of the current system hurts conservation. Currently, some North 
Pacific crabs that are too small to be caught legally end up trapped in 
crab pots. Under the race for fish, these pots are harvested so quickly 
that undersized crabs don't have time to escape. Under a slower 
fishery, those small crabs would have time to crawl out of the crab 
pots and grow to maturity, thereby helping to sustain the fishery into 
the future.
  For consumers, IFQs mean they can enjoy fresh fish later in the 
seasons. For example, fresh halibut is now available more often as a 
result of a fish quota program put in place to manage halibut 
harvesting. Clearly, individual fishing quotas can be an effective 
management tool and can solve a lot of the problems facing fisheries 
today.
  I'm pleased that many of my colleagues have expressed interest in 
IFQs. In fact, a number of members would like to see a national policy 
on IFQs developed. Since 1996, I've supported fish quotas and a 
national policy, and I reiterate my support again today.
  But in the meantime, there are important steps we can take. When 
Congress reauthorized the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
Management Act in 1996, Congress placed a four-year moratorium on new 
individual fishing quota programs. The moratorium on new quota programs 
expired on September 30, 2000. Now that this ban has expired, we should 
allow fishery management councils to develop additional fish quota 
programs. Councils should have the freedom to develop and implement 
these programs. I am not advocating that Councils be required to 
implement them, because individual fishing quota programs must be 
developed on a fishery-by-fishery basis. I do think, however, that 
individual quota programs should be available as one of the many 
management tools Councils may draw upon. I must add that all eight 
Councils have asked for this freedom and have asked for Congress to 
lift the moratorium.
  However, I know that some members want to extend the moratorium. They 
don't want to allow some fisheries to go ahead with IFQs until there is 
a national policy in place. I understand and appreciate this 
perspective. I also recognize members of the environmental community 
would be more comfortable with such programs if a national policy were 
already in place. As I said, I support a national policy on these 
programs, and I look forward to working with my colleagues next year to 
develop one.
  However, I would like to point out that all fishery management plans, 
including those that rely on quota programs, are required to meet the 
national standards already in the Act. Let me offer a few examples of 
these standards. Any fish quota program would have to meet National 
Standard 4, which prohibits conservation and management measures from 
discriminating between residents of different states. This standard 
also mandates that fishing privileges be allocated fairly and 
equitably, that they are calculated to promote conservation, and that 
they are carried out so that no entity shall have an excessive share. 
Any fish quota program would also have to meet National Standard 8, 
which requires such measures to take into account the importance of 
fishery resources to fishing communities. They would also have to meet 
National Standard 9, which requires measures to minimize bycatch, and 
National Standard 10, which addresses safety.
  In addition, the Act requires all individual fishing quota programs 
approved on or after October 1, 2000, to meet several additional 
criteria. For example, these programs must be subject to review based 
on any future national policy and such revision may require 
reallocation of quota. These programs must also be effectively managed 
and enforced, which may require reliance on observers and/or cost-
recovery fees. In addition, these criteria address the most contentious 
aspect of individual quota programs: the initial allocation of quota. 
The Act requires programs to ensure a fair initial allocation of quota, 
to prevent excessive control over quota, and to include a mechanism for 
entry-level fishermen, small vessel owners and crew members to access 
quota. I think all of these examples illustrate that some elements 
integral to a national policy on individual fishing quota programs are 
already included in the Act. I believe we are much closer to having a 
national policy in place than some people may believe.
  Unfortunately, it appears likely that the moratorium will be 
extended. Therefore, I ask my colleagues to consider several caveats to 
this extension. First, I ask that the moratorium be extended for only 8 
months. This will take the moratorium off the appropriations cycle. 
Placing the moratorium on the yearly appropriations cycle creates a 
precedent that is easy to repeat every year. Taking the moratorium off 
the appropriations cycle will increase the urgency for Congress to 
develop a national policy within the months ahead.
  Second, I ask for an exception to the moratorium for fixed-gear 
sablefish along the West Coast. This fishery is ready for fishermen to 
be allowed to consolidate permits, which is technically considered an 
IFQ. In fact, the fishery has been ready to do so since 1994. We should 
not make these fishermen wait any longer. They deserve to be freed from 
a 9-day race for fish, and fishermen who want to get out of the fishery 
should be compensated for their investments. I ask for your support for 
this exception.
  Third, I support asking NMFS to gather input from the eight regional 
Councils on a national policy for individual fishing quotas. It is 
appropriate and important for Congress to have this input before we 
finalize a national policy on quota programs.
  Most important, however, I ask for the commitment of my colleagues to 
deal with this issue next year, during the first session of the 107th 
Congress. It is not fair to punish those few fisheries that are ready 
to move forward with quota programs just because other fisheries are 
not. We have already had four years to resolve these issues, to no 
avail. If my colleagues believe this issue must be addressed within the 
broader context of Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 
Act reauthorization, I understand and I hope they will consider

[[Page 26279]]

this Senator ready and willing to move forward with that challenge. I 
support Senator Snowe's and Senator Kerry's efforts to hold more 
hearings on reauthorization, and I offer to help them in any way I can 
to ensure it happens.
  Let's commit ourselves to have a productive, comprehensive dialogue 
on a national policy. Let's commit to reaching a consensus that will 
allow our Councils and fisheries to pursue this innovative, effective 
solution that can work for fishing families, fisheries, conservation 
and consumers.

                          ____________________