Hearing on American Fisheries Management and Life Enhancement Act

Honorable Nick J. Rahall

Ranking Democrat

House Resources Committee

Hearing on

H.R. 5018, American Fisheries Management and Life Enhancement Act and

H.R. 1431, Fisheries Science and Management Enhancement Act

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Mr. Chairman, as the Committee begins to assert its role in the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, I would like to start out by repeating an observation made by the author John Steinbeck:

"It has always been my private conviction that any man who pits his intelligence against a fish and loses has it coming."

And indeed, that is really what this reauthorization is all about.

The fact of the matter is that today, roughly 20 percent of our Nation's fisheries are already overfished, experiencing overfishing, or approaching an overfished condition.

At the same time, in 2004, Americans ate an average of 16.6 pounds of seafood per person. This represents a nine percent increase in the last decade.

Meanwhile, our Nation's fisheries support a $60 billion contribution to the U.S. economy and provide jobs for more than half a million Americans, sustaining the economy in fishing communities such as New Bedford, Massachusetts, where the committee held a hearing recently.

Finally, we must not just be mindful of the commercial fishing interests in this issue. For instance, I know plenty of anglers from West Virginia who travel to Myrtle Beach each summer to fish for the shear tranquility of the sport. More than 44 million American anglers generate $116 billion a year in revenue.

There you have it. We have diminished fish populations, an increase in the desire of Americans to have seafood on their dinner tables, and the economic factors, both commercial and recreational, that these fisheries represent. All these factors are tied into how we proceed on the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

So we are in effect seeking to pit our intelligence on the decisions we make during this process against the fish. And as Steinbeck said, if we get it wrong, we have it coming to us because the ramifications will be far-reaching and potentially disastrous to all interests involved.

We have two measures before us this morning. The Chairman's comprehensive reauthorization bill, and my more limited legislation aimed at reforming the Act's fisheries councils structure.

The Magnuson Act delegates much of the responsibility of the management of our ocean fisheries to regional fishery management councils. Yet, when we take a close look at the membership of these councils, incredibly, we find that of the 72 council members nationwide, 34 are commercial fishermen.

And of those 72 members nationwide, only 10 members can be viewed as not representing fishing interests, bringing with them the ability to make decisions in an objective manner.

In fact, on certain councils the ratio is much higher. On the North Pacific Fishery Management Council there are six commercial fishermen, and only one recreational fisherman on the council. On the New England council, two-thirds of the seats are taken by commercial fishermen.

In a year when we are witnessing a distressing increase in the number of deaths in our coalfields, I am forced to pause and reflect about how such leadership and oversight imbalances can adversely affect Federal policies and our citizens.

Certainly, this Administration's policy of placing a coal company executive at the helm of the Mine Safety and Health Administration - the body charged with overseeing safety at mining operations - has demonstrated the potential folly of this practice. While the fox has been guarding the henhouse in the mine safety world, it appears his cousin has been guarding our fishery resources.

It is from that perspective that I introduced H.R. 1431, which includes the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy's recommendations to Congress as they relate to the pressing need to reform these fishery councils.

For example, it is clear to me that the committees that are charged with providing scientific guidance to these fishery councils should be comprised of impartial members with scientific expertise.

Further, in order to broaden representation on the councils, governors should be asked to submit to the Secretary a broad slate of candidates for each council vacancy.

These are just two examples of what I view as common-sense reforms that will enable the councils to function better in terms of meeting the needs of all Americans, current and future generations.

So I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for including my bill on the agenda today.

With that said, Mr. Chairman, your legislation also contains many good features, but just like with the news media, it would bore our viewers to just present good news........folks often want to know the not-so-good.

While your bill gives a nod to council reform, it does nothing to address the conflicts of interest, to prohibit voting by council members who have not received training, or to require council membership from various sectors.

I am certain this was simply an oversight and we can work to rectify the situation.

Turning to other sections of H.R. 5018, I have serious concerns about its provisions relating to the fishery rebuilding requirements in the Magnuson Act. And as should be expected, I must raise concerns over provisions which would waive the application of the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Marine Sanctuaries Act.

With that, I look forward to working with you and other Committee Members. We need to make sure that the fishing remains good, and the catching too.

Thank you.

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ii00_democrats/magnusonhearing.html