OUTSIDE THE POLITICAL MAINSTREAM: H.R. 200 AND THE "MODERN FISH ACT"

I’ve already written about how some recreational fishing industry groups have been trying to conflate H.R. 200, the “Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fishery Management Act,” with S. 1520, the “Modernizing Recreational Fisheries Management Act,” which its supporters often shorten to the “Modern Fish Act,” even though those bills are essentially different pieces of legislation.

However, there is one way in which those bills are exactly alike:  Both fall well outside the historical political mainstream.

Fisheries management has historically been a bipartisan issue, with both Republicans and Democrats recognizing the need for more effective conservation and management of living marine resources.  The late Senator Ted Stevens, whose name is memorialized in the title of the nation’s primary fishery management law, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, was a long-serving Republican from Alaska. 

Senator Stevens’ colleague, and his partner in drafting that law, was the late Sen. Warren Magnuson, a Democrat from the State of Washington.

Although they belonged to different parties, they well understood that, if America’s fisheries were to have a future, fishery conservation was an imperative, not a partisan issue.

For most of the past forty years, that has been the case. 

The 1996 reauthorization of Magnuson-Stevens, the landmark Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996, was passed with broad bipartisan support, and the affirmative votes of most of the Democrats and Republicans in the House and the Senate.  The 2006 reauthorization was passed by unanimous consent in the Senate, and by voice vote in the House, with too little opposition to make a roll-call vote necessary.

Representative Don Young (R-Alaska) was pleased with the 2006 reauthorization bill, saying

“This is a good piece of legislation.  It has been a long time coming.  This bill will do good for our oceans and for our fisheries.”

One of the biggest supporters of the 2006 reauthorization was Republican President George W. Bush.  A “fact sheet” issued by the Office of the White House Press Secretary noted, after the bill was signed into law, that

“By signing this Bill, the President reaffirmed our commitment to protect Americas fisheries and keep our commercial and recreational fishing communities strong.  This Act will end over-fishing in America, help us replenish our Nation’s fish stocks, and advance international cooperation and ocean stewardship.”

The fact sheet also singled out particular aspects of the 2006 reauthorization for particular praise.  Among other things, it noted that

“The Act Sets A Firm Deadline To End Overfishing In America By 2011.  Over-fishing occurs when more fish from a species are caught than is sustainable, endangering the species’ long-term existence.  This Act directs Regional Fishery Management Councils to establish annual quotas in Federally-managed fisheries to end over-fishing  by 2010 for fish stocks currently undergoing over-fishing and by 2011 for all other Federally managed fish stocks.”

So it seems that President Bush believed that annual catch limits were good.

The fact sheet also notes that

“The Act Uses Market-Based Incentives To Replenish America’s Fish Stocks.  The Act will help us double the number of limited-access privilege programs by the year 2010.  Limited-access privilege programs assign specific shares of the annual harvest quota to eligible fishermen, fishing communities, and regional fishery associations.  Increasing the number of these programs will end the race for fish, improve the quality of catches, and protect those who earn their livelihood from fishing.”

So it seems that President Bush believed that catch share programs were good, too.

In fact, it doesn't appear that there was much dissent at all.  Republican or Democrat, freshman Congressman or President, America’s lawmakers seemed very much in synch, at least with regard to the proposition that fishery conservation was important, and that conservative fishery management was the right way to go.

But then, somewhere along the way, something happened.

Bills to weaken Magnuson-Stevens had been rattling around for a long time; the effort started even before the 2006 reauthorization.  

At first, such efforts fell flat.  H.R. 1584, the Flexibility in Rebuilding American Fisheries Act of 2009, introduced by Rep. Frank Pallone (D-New Jersey), never made it out of committee.  That bill’s ill-begotten descendant, H.R. 4742, the first “Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fishery Management Act,” introduced by Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Washington), did a little better; it made it out of committee, but was never scheduled for a vote on the House floor.

Soon after that, Hastings’ House career died, and Rep. Don Young—yes, the same Rep. Young that had called the 2006 reauthorization “a good piece of legislation” that was “a long time coming” and “will do good for our oceans and our fisheries”—adopted Hastings’ bastard bill, letting it keep its old name but giving it a new number, H.R. 1335, when he introduced it in 2015.  In that form, H.R. 1335 was eventually passed by the House in a lopsided party line vote, with 220 Republicans and 5 Democrats in favor, and 3 Republicans and 149 Democrats against.

H.R. 1335 met a much-deserved death in the Senate, where it expired, unlamented, in committee.  Unfortunately, before it died, it managed to kill the bipartisan tradition of fishery management in the House.  In the Senate, such tradition may still survive.

Such Senate bipartisanship could be critical, because the same old bill has changed its identity again, having been introduced once more by Rep. Young, as H.R. 200 in 2017.  

While the substance of the legislation was just about the same and just as malevolent as it always was, the bill received a bit of cosmetic surgery during the committee markup process, when a handful of provisions sought by the fishing tackle and boatbuilding industries, along with some anglers’ rights groups, were added in an effort to make it look a little less ugly upon a first, casual glance. 

The facelift was good enough to win House approval, but even at that, H.R. 200 was able to win passage only through a party-line vote.  The vote on H.R. 200 was much closer than it was on H.R. 1335.  Only 29 votes separated yeas and nays, with 213 Republicans voting in favor and 178 Democrats voting against; only 9 Democrats and 15 Republicans crossed the clearly drawn line to vote their conscience instead of their party.

Which is why we must hope that the spirit of bipartisan support for good fishery management still survives in the Senate.  For it is now there that the health of America’s fish stocks could be determined.

There is reason to believe that such hope is not in vain.

Both H.R. 200 and the original version of S. 1520 sought to attack the very provisions that Sen. Stevens and President Bush believed were important.  Both bills sought to weaken the annual catch limit requirement that helps avoid overfishing.  Both would have weakened rebuilding requirements that, in the words of President Bush’s Press Office, would “help us replenish our Nation’s fish stocks.  Both would severely cripple managers' ability to adopt catch share programs that “end the race for fish, improve the quality of catches, and protect those who earn their livelihood from fishing.” 

But when S. 1520 went through the committee mark-up process, an interesting thing happened.  The committee members actually worked together to make it a better bill.  It’s still not a good bill by any stretch of the imagination, and because of the way the legislative process works, passing the largely innocuous S. 1520 would open the door to the malign H.R. 200, which could then become law.  S. 1520 still ought to die. 

Yet, even saying that, it’s well worth noting that the S. 1520 that came out of committee was, thanks to the bipartisan process, a lot better bill than the S. 1520 that went in.  The fact that Sen. Wicker (R-Mississippi), the original sponsor of S. 1520, introduced the amended bill suggest that, in the Senate, cooperation remains alive. 

So we have a rational reason to hope that the same cooperative process that worked in the case of S. 1520 might work with respect to any Magnuson-Stevens reauthorization bill that the Senate could see.

For even a casual glance at history makes it clear that both H.R. 200 and S. 1520—the “Modern Fish Act”--are political aberrations.

Both offend the bipartisan spirit that has always been a part of federal fisheries legislation.  And before folks begin talking about the party in power, it’s important to note that both offend the historical Republican dedication to effective fishery conservation and management.

After all, neither Sen. Stevens nor President Bush could, in good faith, be called “RINOs.”

So it’s time to tell all of our federal legislators what we know to be true:  

Effective fishery conservation and management benefits everyone, in the long term, regardless of party.  

H.R. 200, and the “Modern Fish Act,” are bad bills, bills that offend long-established legislative principles and traditions, bills that heartily deserve to die.