[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 17]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 23234-23235]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




           MAYOR KALISZ SPEAKS WISELY ON FISHING REGULATIONS

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. BARNEY FRANK

                            of massachusetts

                    in the house of representatives

                     Wednesday, September 24, 2003

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, we face a very difficult 
situation regarding the fishing industry in Massachusetts. I believe 
that current federal law should do a better job then it does of 
allowing fishing to go forward with appropriate respect for 
environmental considerations. Flaws in the current law have resulted in 
judicial orders that restrict fishing unduly, and will cause serious 
economic harm without appropriate environmental justification. It is my 
hope that we will proceed quickly to amendment of existing law so as to 
avoid this problem in the future.
  Currently, because we have not yet dealt with the law, the fishing 
industry in Massachusetts faces the imposition of unduly restrictive 
rules. Some of my Congressional colleagues and I have spoken out in an 
effort to hold off drastic action for as long as is legally possible, 
to give us time to change the law. Last week, Mayor Frederick Kalisz, 
Jr. of New Bedford addressed an important meeting in New Bedford, 
attended by a large number of representatives of the fishing industry, 
as well as federal officials. Mayor Kalisz's comments are extremely 
thoughtful and because this is an important national subject, and 
because I hope that the views expressed by Mayor Kalisz will be 
followed by federal officials, I ask that his comments be printed here.

      2003 NOAA--Fisheries Constituent Session--September 16, 2003

       Good afternoon Dr. Hogarth, on behalf of the residents of 
     the City of New Bedford, I'd like to thank you for the 
     opportunity to present a few brief remarks regarding the 
     current state of fisheries issues.
       Back in 1976 when the Magnusun Act was first enacted there 
     was great hope throughout the country that the Act's 
     innovative structure of setting forth objective standards and 
     requiring that these standards and scientific data form the 
     basis of decisions rendered through consensus by a regional 
     fisheries management councils would protect the American 
     Fishery and also create a sustainable fishery. As you are 
     aware, the Act set forth ten (10) national standards and 
     required that all fisheries management plans be consistent 
     with these standards. Although Congress seemed to give all of 
     the standards equal weight, the regulations promulgated to 
     implement the Act and subsequent Court decisions appear to 
     have created a pecking order among standards. As a result the 
     scientific data is no longer a tool to assist in crafting 
     consensus, but rather disagreements over basic scientific 
     data have become the single biggest impediment to consensus. 
     This is truly unfortunate.
       We rely on current economic conditions to determine 
     interest rates; we rely on current air quality conditions to 
     determine smog, yet we are satisfied to rely on last year's 
     fishing trawls to determine if fish are in the same area 
     today. My remarks are not intended to attack the science, but 
     rather to call for a renewed scientific partnership based on 
     consensus. If we can not agree on the basics of fisheries 
     science, we will never be able to agree on maximum 
     sustainable yield.
       I understand that in spite of the significant strides that 
     have been made in marine biology and marine environmental 
     science, our knowledge pales in comparison to the mysteries 
     the oceans still hold. We still do not fully understand the 
     result of a 2% change in the salinity of the water, nor do we 
     fully understand the impact of a 2 degree change in the water 
     temperature on year old fish stock. We understand that smoke 
     stack emissions from the Midwest can affect our air quality 
     here in New England, but do not understand, or in some cases 
     recognize, the effects the particulates from those emissions 
     will have on Georges Bank when they run into an Atlantic 
     Storm. We intuitively understand that there must be an effect 
     on the oceans from El Nino, but we still don't know what 
     causes red tide to occur when it does.
       Perhaps it is only the arrogance of man that would lead us 
     to assume that we can totally understand the intricacies of 
     the seas. And so rather than expand our knowledge of those 
     things we still don't understand, we have settled for 
     intensive study of the things we do understand. We then 
     purport to be committed to building a sustainable fishery by 
     controlling only those things we understand. It is analogous 
     to learning that someone has polluted a stream and then 
     rather than seek to identify the source of the contamination, 
     claim that the reduction of fish is solely due to new lures 
     being used by people who fish in the stream.
       We have allowed ourselves to become overwhelmed by the task 
     of fisheries management and have ceded our responsibilities 
     to science. Science's role must be to use the best methods 
     available to collect data, analyze that data and then 
     identify trends. Science's role is not to set policy. That is 
     the role that Congress assigned to the members of the 
     regional council who represent all of the various interests.
       As we seek to expand our knowledge, we must also guard to 
     ensure that we recognize the difference between scientific 
     data and rhetoric. There is currently a movement afoot to 
     paint our fishing families as ``capture hunters'' and not the 
     harvesters of the bounty of the sea as Magnuson rightfully 
     recognizes. The fisherman are no more the enemy of the oceans 
     than farmers are enemies of the land.
       So where do we go from here. I believe that Vice Admiral 
     Lautenbacher's message in the NOAA Annual Guidance Memorandum 
     clearly identifies NOAA's role in the future. The Vice 
     Admiral writes:
       ``NOAA's own decision making processes must be transparent, 
     participatory, and information-based, taking into account 
     diverse societal values. In short, the Nation needs NOAA as 
     an honest broker when it comes to oceanic and atmospheric 
     issues.''
       I couldn't agree more. But there must be actions to support 
     these words. An honest broker facilitates frank and 
     forthright discussion and is not willing to resort to overly 
     simplistic solutions such as ``hard TACs'' which do nothing 
     more than encourage more intensive use of the fishery.
       An agency that has led the way in understanding the 
     dynamics of hurricanes by flying planes into the middle of 
     the cyclone, cannot rely on old outdated models and data when 
     it comes to fisheries. The Vice Admiral also rightfully 
     recognizes the need to develop new models and methods for 
     data gathering and analysis. Again the Vice Admiral writes:
       ``We should enhance our current scientific and decision-
     making ability, in order to fulfill mandates for trust 
     resources in a manner that satisfies the public's 
     expectations of an honest broker. We should conduct research 
     on ecological, social and economic processes geared toward 
     advancing integrated analyses of alternatives.''
       The Vice Admiral further writes:
       ``To enhance NOAA's role as honest broker, we should strive 
     consistently to improve the accuracy and quality of the 
     scientific research on which important decisions depend. We 
     should also work to make our decision processes as fair and 
     transparent as possible and expand our interaction with the 
     entire spectrum of decisions-makers to ensure increased 
     responsiveness to NOAA science.''
       The Vice Admiral's message is actually a call to develop 
     models that analyze the entire system rather than just one 
     piece of a much bigger system. As I mentioned earlier, this 
     new model will require renewed commitment as we seek to 
     understand that which is still a mystery.
       Finally, the Vice Admiral writes of the need to forge 
     strategic partnerships stating.
       ``The challenges facing America require integrated, 
     cooperative solutions. No agency can go it alone. We need to 
     work with universities, industry, stakeholder groups and 
     government agencies at all levels.''

[[Page 23235]]

       Over the past two years, the City of New Bedford has forged 
     a strategic partnership with NOAA and other federal agencies 
     and through this partnership has developed innovative 
     consensus based strategies for the remediation and 
     redevelopment of Brownfields. Today, I renew the commitment 
     of New Bedford to continue our work with SMAST, 
     MassFisheries, NOAA-Fisheries, and our sister ports in 
     Massachusetts and throughout New England to develop and 
     implement the best practices possible so that we can collect 
     and analyze data in real time to create a truly sustainable 
     fishery.
       Today, the winds have changed. A solidarity is building on 
     the wharves and in the facilities, on the streets and in the 
     community. During the past year, I have met regularly with a 
     Seafood Industry Advisory Task Force composed of 
     representatives of the various sectors of New Bedford's 
     Seafood Industry. In these meetings there is a sense of 
     cooperation and resolve. We understand that it is more than 
     just charts and graphs, it is about families and community. 
     We understand that an academic exercise that only results in 
     a 1% change in the resource in 2023 can decimate an industry, 
     a community and a family.
       We have many difficult decisions to make. Let us agree to 
     use the best available science to gather and analyze our data 
     in real time, and then allow the deliberative framework 
     created by the Magnuson Act to balance the interests and 
     manage our fisheries.

                          ____________________