H.R. 1335, the so-called Strengthening
Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act,
grinds forward in the House of Representatives.
After it was voted out of the Natural Resources Committee, a
floor vote was expected during the third week of May, but that has been delayed
until June. In the meantime, the House
Rules Committee issued the proposed rule for consideration of the bill, which
authorizes debate on eight amendments as well as the bill itself.
Such amendments include one by Louisiana Congressman Garrett
Graves that would strip the National Marine Fisheries Service of management
authority for red snapper, and hand such authority over to the states. The same amendment was actually decisively
rejected by the Natural Resources Committee in April, but Rep. Graves
apparently believes that it still stands a chance to be adopted on the House
floor.
All in all, the speed with which H.R. 1335 moved forward in
the House, despite the minor delay in the floor vote, was a setback for anglers
and other conservation interests who don’t want to see the current, successful
science-based management measures replaced by the sort of weak and
easily-evaded measures that the House bill would allow.
However, responsible anglers and other conservation
advocates got a big boost during the week, after the
White House Office of Management and Budget issued a Statement of
Administration Policy which opened with the welcome words that
“The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 1335, which would
amend the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA),
because it would oppose arbitrary and unnecessary requirements that would harm
the environment and the economy. The MSA
currently provides the flexibility needed to effectively manage the Nation’s
marine commercial, recreational and subsistence fisheries. In contrast, H.R. 1335 would undermine the
use of science-based actions to end and prevent overfishing.
“The current requirements of MSA are working—the percentage
of stocks that are subject to overfishing and the percentage of stocks that are
in an overfished state are at historic lows.
H.R. 1335 would interfere with the tremendous success achieved in
rebuilding overfished fisheries by setting rebuilding targets that are not
based on sound, credible science, and that unnecessarily extend the time to
rebuild fisheries. In making these
changes, H.R. 1335 introduces a series of ambiguous provisions that could
improperly extend rebuilding periods, delaying the significant economic and
environmental benefits of rebuild fisheries to both fishermen and the Nation as
a whole…”
The White House statement pretty well summed up why H.R.
1335 is a very bad bill, although plenty of us with far less influence but a
lot more free time have burned up thousands of words setting forth all of its
flaws in detail.
However, the key words of the White House statement come at
its end, where it unambiguously says that
“…H.R. 1335 would introduce uncertainty and delays in
rebuilding fisheries, undermine science-based management, weaken the protections
provided by other important environmental statutes, and generate sector and
interstate conflicts.
“If the President were presented with H.R. 1335, his
senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.”
And just like that, the playing field changed.
No, the fight is not over, and anyone who believes that it
is would be very foolish. But the White House statement did buy some time.
Even if the House does pass H.R. 1335 in June, which it probably
will, there is no companion bill in the Senate, and few Senators are likely to
fall on their swords to sponsor a similar bill after the White House threatened
a veto. Right now, it is likely that
even Senators who would like to weaken Magnuson-Stevens will be playing things
close to the vest, trying to interpret the White House statement and deciding
just how bad a bill might be able to be and still escape being vetoed.
It is also possible that there is just not enough appetite
in the Senate for significantly amending a law that is working well, and that
instead of producing the sort of radical reauthorization bill that will
probably come out of the House, various Senators will pick their fights,
chipping away at particular provisions that their constituents find
objectionable.
With any luck, that is what we also saw last week, when
Senator Marco Rubio of Florida reintroduced his Florida
Fisheries Improvement Act. Although
the bill, despite its name, would make some changes to Magnuson-Stevens that have nationwide impact, such changes are nowhere near as far-reaching as
the provisions in H.R. 1335, and are generally consistent with the stated
purpose of the bill, which is
“To amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act to support sustainable conservation and management for the Gulf
of Mexico and South Atlantic fisheries and the communities that rely on them,
and for other purposes.”
One still might not like Senator Rubio's bill. However, shince he is the Chairman of the Senate
Commerce, Science and Transportation Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere,
Fisheries and Coast Guard, the fact that he has chosen to introduce such a
modest bill at this time, rather than something far broader, could be an
encouraging sign, suggesting that a companion bill to H.R. 1335 will not be
coming out of his Subcommittee at any time soon.
At any rate, it provides reason to hope that real damage to
Magnuson-Stevens, just as the White House Statement of Administration Policy
provides reason to hope that H.R. 1335 will not become law.
Even so, conservation-minded anglers must remain diligent,
as there will inevitably be repeated efforts to weaken Magnuson-Stevens throughout this
session of Congress. Like a B-movie
monster, H.R. 1335 is going to be very hard to get rid of, and will keep coming
back time and again no matter how hard folks try to kill it.
We must never forget that the opponents of science-based
fisheries management can lose time and again and still not be any worse off.
On the other hand, we only
have to lose once to see our fishery management system regress to the days when
overfishing and overfished stocks were the norm, and the abundance that we
enjoy today, thanks to Magnuson-Stevens, was only a distant dream.
No comments:
Post a Comment