Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2004-Conference Report-Continued

AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004-CONFERENCE REPORT-CONTINUED

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a provision that was added to the omnibus appropriations bill at my request. The provision is designed to halt temporarily the implementation of amendment 13 to the Northeast groundfish fishery management plan. With this 5-month delay, which will be in effect for the remainder of the fiscal year, a more equitable form of amendment 13 can be developed. Without this delay, amendment 13 would devastate the fishing industry of my home State. Amendment 13 would deny at least a quarter of Maine's fishermen their traditional access to fish stocks, and would jeopardize the ability of many related small businesses to survive financially.

Amendment 13 would impose a series of regulatory changes to New England's groundfish management system. These new regulations would reduce the number of fishing days allocated to most Maine fishermen. The average Maine fishing vessel that received any fishing days would be allocated roughly 52 fishing days each year that they could use off Maine's shores. These, of course, are the most fortunate of Maine's fishermen, as many would receive smaller allocations of fishing days under amendment 13. Imagine trying to make ends meet practicing your profession only 1 day per week.

There are further problems with amendment 13 in its current form. The plan relies on targeting healthy fish stocks in order to mitigate economic impacts while less abundant fish stocks rebuild. This has led to the creation of two classes of fishing days: A and B days. On "A" days, a fisherman may target any fish stock. On "B" days, fishing is restricted to a handful of healthy species in designated areas.

Unfortunately, Maine's small boats will have difficulty using any of their B days due to safety concerns. These B fisheries are restricted to areas far out to sea that small boats cannot fish safely. There is simply no B fishery that Maine's smaller fishing boats can access.

Further, Maine's large boats will penalized under amendment 13 because they are forced to lose valuable fishing time in transit to fish stocks located far to the south of Maine. Groundfish regulations would count transit time, "steaming time," as fishing time, putting Maine's fishermen at a severe disadvantage to fishermen located in southern New England. Fishermen based in southern New England could operate at a considerable competitive advantage, as they are able to spend more time fishing and less time steaming to and from fertile grounds, such as the Georges Bank. The result could well be the migration of Maine's fishing industry south to Massachusetts. In fact, we have already seen some large boats relocate from Portland to Gloucester.

Under amendment 13, Maine's larger fishing boats will continue to experience problems with steaming time. Fishermen from Portland, ME, who chose to take part in the cod exemption program and fish on stocks located on Georges Bank must travel 18 hours before they can put their nets in the water. In contrast, fishermen leaving from Gloucester, MA, can begin fishing after traveling for only 3 hours. Therefore, it makes perfect economic sense for vessels to relocate to southern ports, and some already have and more will do so. Maine suffers as these landings of fish and the revenues generated from these fish move south.

Furthermore, Maine's small-boat fishermen took drastic cuts in days-at-sea allocations. In fact, amendment 13 would allocate zero days-at-sea to 57 Maine groundfish fishermen; this is over 30 percent of Maine's groundfishing fleet that would be denied access to this resource. Maine's share of the groundfish resource has only diminished in recent years, and denying 30 percent of our fleet access to groundfish will only accelerate this trend. A larger portion of Maine's fleet will be denied access to groundfish than in any other New England State.

Amendment 13 would also harm Maine's fishing-related businesses such as gear manufacturers, ice suppliers, and small boat repair shops. Maine's fishing infrastructure, which already is at a critical minimum, would lose revenue due to restricted access to the resource and due to the southward migration of Maine's groundfish fleet. If the current form of amendment 13 were implemented, Maine's working waterfront could vanish, to be replaced by coastal development. These regulations may well mean that Maine would have neither the fishermen nor the fishing infrastructure needed for a healthy groundfish fishery.

In response to concerns regarding loss of fishing infrastructure, inequities in steaming time, and the immense social and economic costs of amendment 13, the Portland City Council unanimously passed a resolution addressing amendment 13 on September 15, 2003. This resolution called on Maine's congressional delegation to "root out all provisions of regional groundfish management which discriminate against vessels fishing from the State of Maine in general and, in particular, from the Port of Portland." Amendment 13, in its current form, discriminates against Maine's fishermen. The delay in implementation will provide the time needed to "root out" the unfair aspects of amendment 13.

Anyone who has followed the amendment 13 process has been confronted with a litany of bad news; bad for New England, and especially bad for my home State of Maine. Newspapers throughout the State of Maine have detailed how amendment 13 would devastate Maine's fishermen and related businesses.

Maine's groundfishing industry has already suffered in recent years. Since 1995, Maine's groundfishing fleet has shrunk by roughly 40 percent. In the past two decades, Maine has lost nearly 50 processing companies. Amendment 13 would only accelerate this trend. In fact, analysis by the National Marine Fisheries Service shows that amendment 13 would allocate so few days-at-sea to Maine's fishermen, that few, if any, of Maine's boats would be able to break even.

I want the New England groundfish fishery to be sustainable. But that goes for fish and fishermen alike. If fishermen cannot make a living at sea, they will have no choice but to turn to other businesses.

As part of the National Marine Fisheries Service's economic analysis of amendment 13, a break-even analysis is performed. This analysis makes a number of assumptions. First, this break-even analysis assumes a boat owner makes no profit, a grim prospect for any business. Second, this analysis assumes standard overhead and crew costs that must be overcome for a vessel to break even. By paying crew members the bare minimum pay of $25,000, most boats will need well over 60 days-at-sea to break even. Unfortunately, the average Maine fishermen will be allocated only 52 days-at-sea that they can actually use. Only a very small portion of Maine's fleet will be able to break even under amendment 13.

Amendment 13 is fundamentally unfair to Maine's fishing community. Yet, it was scheduled to be implemented by May 1, 2004, which marks the start of the next fishing season. Surely, we need a better, fairer approach. The amendment I included in the omnibus spending bill is meant to halt implementation of amendment 13 in the current fiscal year in order to provide an opportunity for the council to reconvene to find a management plan that is fair to all New England States; not a plan that ties the laboring oar of rebuilding the fisheries to the hands of just one State, Maine.

I have also sought this delay because we need time to make sure we do develop an equitable management plan before one is put into place. The groundfish fishery is recovering. Fish stocks have tripled in recent years; more important, they continue to rebuild under current regulations. This delay is not irresponsible; fish stocks are not declining. The condition of the fishery will continue to improve while a fair set of regulations are developed. The strict regulations that are currently in place, and that will stay in place because of my funding restriction, are undeniably working.

Because this matter is so important to so many people in Maine and throughout New England, I want to take a moment to make my intent in drafting this amendment perfectly clear.

My amendment prohibits funds in the omnibus from being used to implement a fisheries management plan for New England other than the final emergency rule published by the Department of Commerce in the Federal Register on June 27, 2003, at page 38234. According to the Department of Commerce, the final emergency rule was promulgated "to ensure that there exist measures to reduce overfishing until implementation of amendment 13." This is still the goal under my amendment-the timeframe has just been extended.

I intend, through my amendment, to keep the final emergency rule in place through the end of the fiscal year. This is the case in spite of any provisions of law-including, but not limited to, 16 U.S.C. § 1855©-that might otherwise limit the duration of the provisions of the final emergency rule. Indeed, my amendment is intended to suspend the application of provisions such as 16 U.S.C. § 1855© to the final emergency rule. And, in any event, my amendment would not prohibit the terms of the final emergency rule from being implemented, again, were they found by the court to have expired.

My amendment restricts the use of funds appropriated in the omnibus. Hence, the restrictions apply only through fiscal year 2004. Practically speaking, this means that no new management plan for New England can be implemented by the Department of Commerce before October 1, 2004. My amendment imposes this delay in order to provide time for the council to develop a plan that, unlike amendment 13, is fair to each of the New England States. The court, of course, is free to set a new implementation date that falls later than October 1, 2004, and might consider setting the new date at May 1, 2005, to coincide with the start of the fishing season.

In addition, my amendment in no way prevents the National Marine Fisheries Service from implementing regulations to allow the east coast scallop fleet and tuna purse seine fleet to access special management areas. I encourage the National Marine Fisheries Service to move forward and address these issues separate from the overfishing and rebuilding requirements in amendment 13.

It is my expectation that the New England Fishery Management Council will use the additional time my amendment will provide to develop a plan that all States can support. It is particularly encouraging that, after I announced that I would be pursuing this amendment, the New England Fishery Management Council's Groundfish Committee agreed to convene an emergency meeting in January to examine the concerns that I have raised. The Groundfish Committee did, indeed, address some of the issues that are important to Maine's fishermen, and I encourage the full council to follow the committee's lead and take positive steps toward resolving these critical issues.

The delay afforded by my amendment is so important because it provides time for the council to correct the inequities of amendment 13. The council was under severe, and in many ways artificial, time pressure to develop a new management plan. Moreover, much of what has been included in amendment 13 was brought to the council at a very late hour.

My amendment will provide time for the council to consider necessary changes that must be made to amendment 13. I do not expect the council to go back to the drawing board entirely. I believe that amendment 13 can be altered so that it is fair to all New England States. Problems with steaming time must be addressed by the council. Also, the council must deal with minimum days-at-sea allocations in a fair manner. There is room to improve the conservation tax on days-at-sea transfer to make this program viable, and the Groundfish Committee has forwarded a recommendation to the council that provides welcome relief. Finally, I believe that the leasing program should be extended to provide a measure of certainty to New England fishermen.

I am very pleased that, just last week, the Groundfish Committee forwarded several positive recommendations to the council for its consideration. The recommendations address many of the issues I have raised on behalf of Maine fishermen; issues that caused me to seek a delay in the implementation of amendment 13 in the first place. The council is scheduled to consider these recommendations next week. If the council makes similar, positive progress, I will happily reconsider the need for my amendment, and act accordingly.

In the end, I believe that the council can come up with a consensus product. That is not to say it will be a product that fishermen applaud. No one appreciates the Government taking away the livelihood families have relied upon for generations. But, until the inadequacies of our fisheries laws are addressed head on, we owe it to our fishermen to administer them, such as they are, with an even hand. That is precisely the goal of my amendment.