[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 703-706]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       FISHERIES DISASTER FUNDING

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the bill we just passed out of the 
Senate, a bill to aid the victims of Superstorm Sandy, is important. It 
is important

[[Page 704]]

when we are faced with a disaster--whether it is a hurricane, whether 
it is an earthquake, whether it is a drought, whether it is a flood--
that we step forward and find those ways that we can help citizens who 
have faced immeasurable loss. The effort that has gone back and forth 
between two bodies now, and will, hopefully, move forward, is one which 
will certainly help to address the needs of those families who lost so 
much in Superstorm Sandy.
  I think we all recognize this was not the only disaster this country 
faced last year. In my State of Alaska we faced a fish disaster. For 
those of you who are from States that do not rely on your fisheries as 
a source of income, a source of jobs or a source of daily sustenance, 
you might think: Fish disasters; well, that is not really much to talk 
about. That is not a true disaster.
  In my State, when fisheries have declined to the extent we have 
seen--the loss of the Chinook salmon on the Yukon River, the Kuskokwim 
River, the Upper Cook Inlet--this has a dramatic impact on our State's 
economy, a dramatic impact on the livelihoods of so many Alaskans. 
Whether they be commercial fishermen, sport fishermen, our subsistence-
based fisheries, our fisheries communities, those businesses that are 
dependent on our salmon fisheries, these were all impacted this past 
year.
  As I had gone around the State, basically from about midsummer 
through the end of the year, everywhere I went, whether I was in an 
urban center such as Anchorage, Homer, or down in Seward, up in the 
Matanuska Valley, or out in the rural parts of the State up along the 
Yukon, out along the Kuskokwim out in the southwest, people were 
talking about two things: People were talking about our cost of energy 
because our energy costs remained the highest in the Nation, but they 
were also talking about fish. Pretty basic stuff: fuel, fish, and food. 
When we had a disaster this summer, it was an imperative around our 
State.
  We, in September of this past year, had an official declaration from 
the Secretary of Commerce--actually the Acting Secretary of Commerce, 
Rebecca Blank--that recognized this fish disaster, and this is a 
disaster that is statutorily authorized by section 308 of the 
Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act and section 31 of the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
  These are designations that are statutorily authorized. These are not 
earmarks. They are not to be labeled as pork or something special for 
an area. These are disasters subject to a statutory authorization, a 
process that has been clearly laid out. They are authorized in law for 
fish failures that require affirmative action from the Secretary of 
Commerce. The Secretary has taken that action. Congress then needs to 
do its part by funding for these disasters.
  I mentioned at the outset that some of my colleagues might not 
appreciate the importance of these fish disasters. But, again, these 
disasters are no less important than disasters for which we provide for 
other industries, such as drought disaster or drought assistance for 
our farmers. I think the Acting Secretary, when she signed these 
fisheries designations, recognized them for essentially what they are: 
fish droughts, fish droughts in our rivers and our oceans. She 
responded to the fisheries disasters not only in my State of Alaska, 
but she also moved forward with disaster determinations for Rhode 
Island, for New York, for Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, 
Connecticut, and Mississippi. The disaster declaration the Acting 
Secretary advanced opens the door, then, for the financial assistance 
from the Federal Government.
  You might notice those funds were not included in this disaster 
relief bill. That does not mean I will back down from attempting to do 
my best to make sure the disaster that Alaska faced with its fisheries, 
and that so many of our other States faced with their fisheries, that 
these needs will not be addressed.
  We didn't advance it in this package. It is important that the Sandy 
provision move forward, and that is why I eventually cast my vote in 
support of it. I know many of my colleagues--the Senator from Rhode 
Island is with me tonight. I know the Senator from New Hampshire is 
very concerned about it. The Senator from Maine is very concerned about 
it. I think it is fair to say we will continue our efforts to ensure 
the disasters that our fishermen have faced will be addressed as is 
statutorily provided in law. We will work to find that funding to make 
sure that disasters, however they present themselves in this country--
whether it is storm, flood, drought, hurricane, or earthquake--are 
addressed.
  I commit to working with my colleagues to continue to find those 
sources of funding so we address these revenues.
  I note that my colleague from Rhode Island is here, and I know he too 
wishes to address this important issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I very much appreciate the remarks of 
my friend, the Senator from Alaska. This is truly a bipartisan concern. 
There are Senators on both sides who feel very aggrieved by what took 
place, Senators from Alaska and Maine, on the two sides of the country, 
and a great number of us.
  The sheet that rests on the front table during the votes to make sure 
people coming in know what the current measure is describes the last 
vote as passage of H.R. 152, the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act of 
2013--not the Hurricane Sandy Relief Appropriations Act of 2013 but the 
Disaster Relief Appropriations Act.
  We have had a disaster. We didn't make this up. This wasn't something 
that was snuck into the bill or we tried to do an earmark on.
  The Governors of Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, 
New York, Connecticut--six Governors petitioned the government for a 
fisheries disaster declaration, and they received one. The Secretary of 
Commerce declared the New England Multispecies Groundfish Fishery 
disaster. The Senator from Alaska described it as a drought.
  It is like a drought. What has happened in our waters is that they 
have warmed. They have had some chemical changes. Fisheries have moved 
northward, and some of them have moved clean out of the U.S. 
continental waters. The result is that Georges Bank cod, Yellowtail 
flounder, Gulf of Maine cod and haddock have all had to face Draconian 
catch reductions to try to keep those species alive.
  We have a fishing tradition that goes back even longer than Alaska's, 
I will guess. Certainly, we started fishing back in the 17th century, 
the 1600s, in Rhode Island. It is a long tradition. But the changes we 
are wreaking on this planet are moving the fish around. They are 
creating these localized disasters for our fishermen who have worked 
hard all their lives, who have invested their life savings into 
expensive boats they have to take care of, the maintenance and the 
repair, and they risk their health and their lives and their limbs out 
at sea in all kinds of weather in order to bring in the catch to us. 
When the catch isn't there, it is a disaster.
  This is what the Governors have asked for, all six of them. That is 
what the U.S. Government, through the Secretary of Commerce, declared. 
Why on Earth the fisheries disaster that affects our fishermen doesn't 
matter--$150 million; it was not a big piece in a $60 billion bill. Yet 
we were left out. We were completely left out.
  I will continue to fight to get this done. I think there has been a 
wrong committed in this body, and I intend to make sure it gets 
righted. I will work hard with the Senator from Alaska. I see the 
Senator from New Hampshire, who is equally affected by this, on the 
Senate floor. It makes no sense to let people in the House of 
Representatives pick and choose among disasters in a bill and strip out 
disasters that have been declared by the U.S. Government and the 
Governors of six States.
  Do they know better? I don't think so. But they took it out. For 
whatever reason, we weren't able to get it in back here. I have had 
strong conversations with some of the lead supporters of the Sandy bill 
and the States that most benefit, with the chairman of the

[[Page 705]]

committee and the floor manager of the bill and with colleagues from 
nearby States. This is not over, but I am extremely upset that we would 
pass something called a Disaster Relief Appropriations Act and leave 
out of it the disaster that has befallen fisheries up and down the east 
coast, from Maine down through New Hampshire, through Massachusetts, 
through Rhode Island, through Connecticut and New York. That is a 
pretty wide-scale disaster.
  For the men and the women who go out and put their boats and 
themselves at risk for this catch when it is not there, you bet it is a 
disaster. It is just as much of a disaster as a farmer who looks out at 
parched fields and can't grow what he needs to grow. We are not there 
for them, not when it is fishermen, for some reason. We are not there 
for them. We have done it over and over. Since 1994 Federal fishery 
failures have been declared on 29 different occasions, and nearly $827 
million has been appropriated for relief. But not now. For some reason, 
not now.
  I yield now for the Senator from New Hampshire, who I know feels 
strongly about this issue. The Senator from Massachusetts was speaking 
with me earlier. She feels very strongly about this, and we need to get 
this set right. This is a day for celebration in some quarters but not 
in all.
  For those of us who have a responsibility to the men and women who 
have fished the waters off of our States, this is not an acceptable 
result.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am here to join my colleagues, Senator 
Murkowski from Alaska and Senator Whitehouse from Rhode Island, to 
express my disappointment and frustration along with them that the 
disaster relief funding for our Nation's fishermen has been stripped 
from this emergency relief bill. I agree with all of those who want to 
make sure the victims of Hurricane Sandy along the east coast get the 
help they need. I think that is something to which we all are 
committed. But the fact is that fishermen in New England and Alaska and 
other parts of this country are also facing hard times. They are 
grappling with onerous regulations that are designed to end 
overfishing, and in spite of these restrictions, the amount of codfish 
in the Gulf of Maine has declined drastically. It has a huge impact on 
New Hampshire, and the problem for fishermen in my State is now one of 
survival.
  Our fishermen have already seen their incomes decrease significantly 
in recent years. They depend on cod more than fishermen from any other 
State in New England. Cod accounts for more than 90 percent of the 
revenues of the fishing industry in New Hampshire. This is because our 
fishermen use small day boats, they fish close to shore, and most don't 
have the boats or equipment to catch other deep-sea species to 
compensate for the lack of cod. Our fishing businesses are small, and 
they are mostly owned by families who have been fishing for 
generations.
  For 400 years, we have been fishing in New Hampshire. Generations of 
fishermen in New Hampshire have continued this proud tradition. Yet, 
under what is happening with the fishing regulations, we are going to 
lose this industry. Our coastline is short in New Hampshire--it is only 
18 miles--but the fishing industry is still a crucial driver of the 
economy. It generates $106 million in economic activity, it supports 
5,000 full-time and part-time jobs in the State, and it provides our 
stores and our restaurants with a local and fresh supply of fish, just 
as it does in Alaska and Rhode Island. This historic way of life is 
going to become extinct if we don't help the fishing industry.
  I welcomed the decision of the Secretary of Commerce back in 
September to declare a Federal disaster for the Northeast fishing 
industry for the upcoming fishing year, but this declaration, as well 
as those already provided for Alaska, Mississippi, New Jersey, New 
York, Rhode Island, and other States, is meaningless if Congress does 
not provide relief funding to these fishing communities.
  As my colleagues have said so eloquently, the Senate voted last month 
to appropriate $150 million in funding for these disasters, and as 
Senator Whitehouse said, it was not a large percentage of the emergency 
relief bill. I am disappointed and, like the fisher men and women in 
New Hampshire who depend on this industry, frustrated that this funding 
has been taken out of the bill we voted on today.
  It is critical that we provide relief to the fishermen and to the 
coastal economies in New England--and in New Hampshire as a part of the 
New England economy--and Mississippi and New Jersey and New York and 
Alaska and the other States that are affected. We have to work to 
ensure the long-term sustainability of these vital resources and of 
this historic way of life. I intend to continue to work with my 
colleagues from those States that are affected to make sure the fishing 
industry gets the help it needs to survive.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. As I heard the compilation from the distinguished 
Senator from New Hampshire, it was a pretty small percentage of the 
bill, and I was going through the math in my head. If it was a $60 
billion bill, with a $150 million appropriation that would have 
supported the disaster for the fishermen, I think that is 0.25 percent 
of the total of the bill--one-quarter of 1 percent. Yet somebody over 
on the House side had to target that and take it out and leave the 
fishermen high and dry while the rest all went through?
  I think it is really important that we as a group stand for the 
fishermen and try to force some recognition in this body that the 
disaster they are facing is a real one.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Yes.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. It is not just the people who are fishing directly who 
are affected by this, it is also all of the other jobs that depend on 
that fishing industry that are going to be lost.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. The engine repair people, the net repair people, the 
folks who process the fish that are caught, the folks who sell fuel to 
the fishermen, the people who do maintenance on the boats--there is an 
entire economic ecosystem that is knocked down when the fishermen can't 
bring the catch home. Yes, the Senator is absolutely correct.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. And in my small State of New Hampshire, where we only 
have 18 miles of coastline, we have 5,000 jobs dependent on this 
industry. So in Rhode Island and Alaska, I am sure my colleagues have a 
significant number of jobs dependent on the fishing industry. What 
happens to those jobs if the industry doesn't survive? They are gone.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I think Alaska may actually have more coastline than 
Rhode Island.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. I think we have 33,000 miles of coastline, not to be 
bragging on a coastline. But what is so important as part of this 
discussion--and my colleague Senator Shaheen has stated this--our 
fishermen often are not included when we think about areas of disaster. 
Yet, in terms of those industries, those parts of our economy that are 
making things happen as folks are kind of chugging along, it is our 
fisheries that for decades--and for centuries, as Senator Whitehouse 
noted--have been producing good jobs and providing a source of 
sustenance for our families.
  Alaska is in somewhat of a unique situation in that we still have so 
many families who rely on their fisheries for subsistence. This is not 
just an income source for many. For so many in rural Alaska, this means 
whether or not you are going to be able to eat this winter. The 
situation on the Yukon and on the Kuskokwim--when those rivers were 
shut down to fishing, we had actions of civil disobedience, where 
individuals just came to the river and said: We have to put our nets in 
because we have to be able to feed our families. Down in the Cook Inlet 
region, it is not so much a subsistence lifestyle there but a 
commercial fishery as well as sport fishing. So sport guides who are

[[Page 706]]

required to be off the river cannot take that tourist who has come to 
Alaska for their dream fishing trip. They have to cancel that and lose 
their revenue, and so guides can no longer stay in place.
  So Senator Shaheen is correct about the ripple effect to the economy. 
It affects all of our fishing communities and those who support them. 
So when we talk about disasters in areas and $150 million that was to 
be split between all of these different regions and States, it is a 
recognition that it is quite slight in comparison to the true loss to 
our economies, the true loss to our families who have suffered.
  Again, I appreciate the commitment we have from so many who have been 
impacted that we don't give up on this. We have gone through the 
process, we have jumped the hurdles to get the designation that is 
required by our government through the Secretary of Commerce. We have 
done that. Now the step is for Congress to provide that funding that 
makes the difference. It is one thing to get a disaster declaration on 
paper; it is another to be able to provide the relief. And I certainly 
intend to push until that relief is provided not only for the families 
in Alaska but for those who have been impacted by fisheries disasters 
throughout the country.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. And I will certainly join my colleague in that effort.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. I thank my colleague.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________