To no one’s surprise, H.R. 1335, the so-called Strengthening
Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management act, was
passed by the House of Representatives last Monday in an essentially party-line
vote.
Only five Democrats—four from coastal states in New England,
which have always been hostile to the Magnuson-Stevens Act’s conservation and
rebuilding provisions—supported the bill, while just three Republicans opposed
it.
Crammed full of provisions that would delay or completely
prevent the rebuilding of overfished stocks, permit managers to elevate
transitory economic concerns above the long-term health of fish populations and
effectively negate the provision of a number of important environmental laws,
H.R. 1335 represents the low-water mark in modern fisheries management.
A very bad bill has been passed by the House of
Representatives. The question now is
whether it dies there, or whether its contagion will spread into the Senate and
beyond, to ultimately corrupt and degrade America’s fisheries laws.
The answer is tough to discern.
It’s probably safe to say that H.R. 1335, in its current
form, won’t get very far. It is a bill
conceived by a House majority that has been consistently hostile to any form of
resource conservation and always favoring short-term economic benefits over the
conservation and preservation of either habitat or any form of life,
terrestrial or marine.
The
bill was bad enough that the White House Office of Management and Budget issued
a Statement of Administration Policy with respect to it, which said
“The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 1335…because it
would impose arbitrary and unnecessary requirements that would harm the
environment and the economy…H.R. 1335 would undermine the use of science-based
actions to end and prevent overfishing.
“The current requirements of [the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act] are working—the percentage of stocks that are
subject to overfishing and the percentage 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
rebuilt fisheries to both fishermen and the Nation as a whole…
“If the President were presented with H.R. 1335, his
senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.”
Nothing is ever completely certain in politics, but that
White House statement provides a pretty good clue that H.R. 1335 won’t get very
far on its own.
In the Senate, normally a more deliberative and less extreme
body, things look somewhat better.
Senator Marco Rubio of Florida chairs the Senate Commerce,
Science and Transportation Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries and
Coast Guard, which will be responsible for drafting any Senate version of
Magnuson-Stevens reauthorization legislation.
Senator Rubio has already stated that any such bill that comes out of
the Senate will have to have true bipartisan support. He has also already reintroduced his Florida
Fisheries Improvement Act, which is in itself a very modest
Magnuson-Stevens reauthorization bill.
Senator Rubio’s bill weakens some conservation provisions of
the current law, but overall is far less offensive, and far less ideologically
driven, than H.R. 1335. Although some
provisions do have national reach, for the most part the bill does just what
its name suggests—addresses fisheries issues that have been raised by his
constituents in Florida and throughout the greater southeastern region.
Although America’s fisheries would be better
off if Senator Rubio’s bill died somewhere short of the White House, if it
represented the only changes to Magnuson-Stevens signed into law by the current
Congress, the damage done would be relatively limited.
There is, of course, no assurance that a more damaging
Magnuson-Stevens reauthorization will not appear later on, although there
doesn’t appear to be anyone willing to introduce such a bill at this time.
There is also no assurance that the House wouldn’t try to convince
the Senate to agree on compromise legislation that was somewhat less extreme
than H.R. 1335, but still far worse than Senator Rubio’s bill.
It’s not clear that any such effort at compromise would bear
fruit. The House majority responsible
for H.R. 1335 seems to be as hostile to marine resources as it has been to gray
wolves, sage grouse and even clean water.
It is hard to imagine that it would not wage a very strong fight to
weaken the National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act and
Antiquities Act, as such laws apply in the ocean, as a prelude to efforts to
weakening or abolishing the same laws as they apply to rivers, lakes and dry
land.
It is also unlikely that the House majority, typically
skeptical if not aggressively hostile to science and science-based conservation
efforts, would want to move very far from its current proposals to gut the
conservation and rebuilding provisions of Magnuson-Stevens.
On the other hand, assuming that Senator Rubio is sincere in
his insistence on a bipartisan reauthorization bill, it is just as unlikely
that the Senate minority would agree to the ideologically extreme provisions of
H.R. 1335.
That could lead to gridlock, which would be the best outcome
of all. However, it is also very
possible that one side will blink, and that a compromise—or perhaps a House
version of Senator Rubio’s bill—will be passed.
In that case, it will be up to the White House, which will
probably base its veto decision on just how offensive any compromise turns out
to be.
Thus, anglers concerned with their fisheries' future need to be
vigilant, and make every effort to keep a bad bill from ever getting to the
President’s desk, so that such decision need never be made.
No comments:
Post a Comment