Providing for Consideration of H.R. Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act

Floor Speech

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule for H.R. 200, the Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act. It should be better called the empty oceans act.

H.R. 200 really risks rolling back science-based conservation efforts, destroying jobs, and hurting our fisheries and fish stocks. It undermines successful sustainable fishery management put in place by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. That is why so many fishermen, scientists, and business owners have come out in opposition to the empty oceans act. Many people whose livelihood comes from the sea have expressed reservations about the job-destroying provisions of H.R. 200 and how it poses a threat to the commercial fishing industry and their jobs, which rely on sustainable practices.

The Seafood Harvesters of America, a leading trade organization for fishermen, authored a letter expressing their concerns with the bill. More than 1,000 individuals and organizations have expressed their opposition. I had a number of fishermen come by my office today, telling me that this bill could cost them their jobs.

Since its passage, the goal of Magnuson-Stevens has never wavered: managing fisheries to ensure sustainability while, of course, realizing the potential of the resource. Magnuson-Stevens takes a bottom-up approach to resource management where stakeholders on regional fishery management councils work to meet the science-based criteria outlined by the law.

We have some success with this approach. Since the year 2000, we have seen 44 previously depleted fish stocks rebuilt. Currently, 84 percent of fish stocks are no longer overfished.

In 1976, Magnuson-Stevens was passed to end unregulated fishing predominantly by foreign fleets and to develop our own American fleets that could benefit from our abundant fisheries. The act was strengthened in 1996 and 2006 through bipartisan reauthorizations that established science-based fishery management reforms.

The 1996 reauthorization of Magnuson-Stevens bolstered requirements to prevent overfishing and rebuild fish stocks. And, in 2006, a bipartisan authorization maintained the commitment to sustainable fisheries, including accountability and catch limits. These bipartisan efforts succeeded to help create the sustainable fisheries that support coastal economies throughout America and, of course, consumers both in America and worldwide.

Unfortunately, unlike past reauthorizations, H.R. 200 was crafted through a partisan committee process intent on dismantling much of the progress made by Magnuson-Stevens over the last 40 years. In fact, the bill was reported in a party-line vote--Republicans for; Democrats against--with the Republicans continuing to reject attempts to come up with a broad bipartisan approach, as this bill has traditionally been done, that supports both commercial and recreational fishing interests and, of course, maintaining science-based reforms around sustainability.

Sadly, H.R. 200 inserts politics into how we manage our fisheries in several crucial areas. The bill erodes the role that science plays in managing our fisheries.

The bill guts science-based annual catch limit requirements through the creation of many exemptions for key species. These exemptions include many smaller fish that are absolutely critical as prey for valuable commercial and recreational predator species as part of a delicately balanced ecosystem. Hundreds of other species are exempted through this bill which dramatically increases the chances that overfishing will occur, leading to the devastation, both for sportsmen and commercial fishermen.

Catch limits are important to help conserve fisheries and are among the most successful provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. By eroding those provisions, this bill would allow for a long-term depletion of fish stocks. It can devastate the economies of local communities, destroy jobs, and threaten the recovery and stability of our ocean ecosystems.

This bill also weakens the data collection requirements that ensure that data-driven, science-based management is used for our fisheries. Data is currently collected through a broad range of sources, and the determination of the best available data is used by NOAA Fisheries and the regional fishery management councils. H.R. 200 would weaken data collection processes and harm the role of science in successful management of our fishery resources.

Weakening science-based provisions is only one of the ways that this bill inserts politics into what should be a scientific question, the management of our fisheries. This bill not only erodes science-based management practices, but it rolls back meaningful accountability requirements for recreational anglers. Large groups representing a few members of the fishing community and businesses that sell equipment and boats want to see that these jobs are sustained over time.

According to data from the Recreational Boating & Fishing Foundation released in May of 2018, participation in recreational fishing has increased for the past 2 years; 49 million Americans went fishing in 2017, an increase over the prior year. So the recreational side is strong under the current provisions of Magnuson-Stevens.

And, of course, recreational fishermen are not the only beneficiaries of the science-based approach. According to the National Marine Manufacturers Association, U.S. sales of boats and marine products increased 7 percent since the last passage in 2016.

So from 2016 to 2017, we saw a number of States: Florida, Texas, Michigan, North Carolina, Minnesota, California, Wisconsin, South Carolina, and Georgia, with double-digit increases in the sales of new boats, engines, trailers, and accessories, creating good jobs for Americans.

Recreational anglers and the businesses that rely upon their support are doing well and thriving, and this growth is a direct result of science-based fishery management practices fostered by Magnuson that this very bill would systematically dismantle, destroying good American jobs.

Instead of destroying jobs, what the Magnuson-Stevens Act does is ensure that our maritime industries will thrive now and in the future. And because of the success of Magnuson-Stevens, U.S. fisheries are stabilizing and rebounding.

With the bill working as intended, it would be absurd to pass this bill and roll back these very policies that have led to job creation and growth, increased enjoyment for recreational fishermen, and better sustainable practices of ecosystem management.

The Empty Oceans Act also inserts dangerous loopholes into Magnuson and it is including exemptions to rebuilding requirements that have helped recover successfully depleted fish stocks.

H.R. 200 potentially exempts hundreds of species from annual catch limits. That can dramatically increase overfishing, and overfishing may seem to some lucrative, or to some fun in the short-term, but of course it has devastating and nonsustainable consequences for our coastal communities that economically depend on the vital industries of recreational fishing and sports fishing.

These exemptions increase the chance of overfishing and lengthen the time it takes to rebuild depleted stocks to healthy levels, if ever.

These loopholes have a devastating effect as well on the commercial fishing industry and on consumers across the country that enjoy eating healthy fish. In 2015, commercial and recreational saltwater fishing generated $208 billion in revenue, supported 1.6 million jobs, and supported the healthy dining habits of hundreds of millions of American consumers, billions worldwide.

These economic benefits not only support recreational anglers and commercial fishing interests but entire towns and cities that rely on sports fishermen, recreational and commercial, as the entire hub of their economy.

If the Empty Oceans Act were to pass, the long-term prospects of so many communities would be devastated. So I think it is important to have a thoughtful look at how we can continue the bipartisan tradition of building upon the progress of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, making corrections where we need to, but making sure that we put science first in our ocean stewardship, and making sure that we have a sustainable approach to recreational and commercial fishing.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman from California an additional 30 seconds.

As we approach another election cycle, it is very important for this institution to do everything we can to ensure transparency and safety in our elections and the integrity of the election system itself.

Our democracy is being threatened by corporations, by special interests, and by foreign powers who are stripping away power from our people and our voters with dark money spending.

Secret spending in our elections has exploded since the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision permitting super-PACs and certain tax-exempt groups to spend unlimited sums, including, in many cases, undisclosed funds. The result is unprecedented levels of spending and a midterm election expected to be the most expensive ever.

Many of these groups don't even have to disclose their donors, allowing wealthy corporations and individuals and illicit foreign influencers to secretly spend unlimited dark money.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Cicilline's legislation, H.R. 6239, the DISCLOSE Act, which I am proud to be a cosponsor of. This bicameral bill would require organizations spending money in Federal elections to disclose their donors and guard against hidden foreign interference in our democracy.

Mr. Speaker, when we defeat the previous question, I will offer Mr. Cicilline's amendment for the DISCLOSE Act. That is why we are talking about that bill today.

The DISCLOSE Act is an alternative to this job-destroying bill and anticonsumer bill that we have before us. So I would encourage my colleagues to defeat the previous question so we can shine a light on the dark money that continues to pervade and pollute and distort our political system. I would hope that that is something we can agree on.

I hope my Republican and Democratic friends will vote to defeat the previous question because it doesn't matter what one's ideology is. What matters is there should be transparency in money in politics, and that is a basic tenet that I hope conservatives and liberals and moderates can agree on, and we can immediately move to that. When we defeat the previous question, I will offer that amendment based on the bill by Mr. Cicilline, which I am honored to be a cosponsor of.

Mr. Speaker, this is the third attempt to undermine the provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act that protects jobs and uses science in decisionmaking with regard to managing our ocean resources. These attempts failed every time, and the biggest reason they failed is the framework of Magnuson is working.

We talked about the increase in boat sales. We talked about the increase in jobs. We talked about the benefit to consumers. I am sure there is some fine tuning to do, but it is not time to push the reset button and start over down a very dangerous path that would destroy jobs and the entire economies of many of our local communities.

This act has been essential, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, in restoring our depleted fishing populations, helping communities devastated by overfishing, getting them back in balance. Science-based reforms over the last two decades have made our fisheries more profitable and rebuilt overfished stocks and have been of great benefit to consumers. These reforms have directly benefited recreational fishing interests, and that is reinforced by their own data of the industry.

So if we continue down the path of sustainable fisheries management, commercial and recreational fishermen will see even greater financial gains and support in the future. In fact, NOAA estimates that fully rebuilt fisheries would add $31 billion to our economy and create 500,000 new jobs.

We need a benchmark and a path to get there, not a pathway to the past of unsustainable practices and job destruction, which this bill does.

These potential jobs and revenues--$31 billion, 500,000 jobs--would support thousands of coastal communities throughout America, consumers across our country and the world, far outweighing any short-term benefit from an empty oceans act.

Only through science-based fisheries management can coastal towns and cities reap enormous environmental benefits. So, instead of throwing it away, we should build upon the proven sustainable fisheries management practices of Magnuson-Stevens in a bipartisan way. Unfortunately, this bill halts decades of progress, ends the science-based approach.

Rather than approving harmful and damaging measures to weaken our economy and harm the environment, let's start again and begin a true bipartisan reauthorization, as this Congress did in 1996, as this Congress did in 2006, to reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so we can move forward with our discussion of requiring that donations into political campaigns and allied groups have to be disclosed and to also vote ``no'' on the rule so that we begin work on a bipartisan reauthorization of Magnuson-Stevens, building upon the tradition of this institution and putting science in the front.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

A recorded vote was ordered.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source