Washington

Secretary Locke, a bureaucrat, not a marine scientist, appears to be more adept at avoiding and postponing decisions than he is at solving problems.

NEW BEDFORD, Mass. – February 06, 2011  – Since Commerce Secretary Gary Locke appears unwilling to listen to anyone else, maybe he'll listen to his boss.

President Barack Obama needs to set things right in the Northeast fishery.

Locke is out of step with the requirements of more than one federal regulation, and the president needs to point him back to the facts that affect the fishery and instruct him to reverse his decisions before any more harm is done.

Mayors, governors, members of Congress, fishermen, advocates, businessmen, scientists and academics have shown that current regulations harm fishermen and fishing communities, but none of it has moved Locke.

Gov. Deval Patrick last fall asked Locke for more opportunity for fishermen to have their voices heard; an increase in catch limits; a faster response to requests for stock assessment; and direct economic assistance for struggling fishing families. He accompanied his request with an expert report supporting his case.

Locke responded by saying scientific reinterpretations of previous data by experts in the field were not acceptable, and that Patrick's request for aid to families wasn't supported by the report.

Patrick has now called on President Obama to take control of the situation, because the stubbornness displayed by Locke's Department of Commerce has done nothing but increase the pressure on the industry and people trying to make a living.

Read the complete editorial from The Standard Times.

 

 

 

 

 

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Feb 2, 2011 – Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.), along with Representatives Barney Frank, Stephen F. Lynch, William R. Keating, and John F. Tierney, today asked the Obama Administration to revisit the case of Plymouth fisherman James Keding to ensure he’s given a fair catch quota.

“Jim is like any commercial fisherman in Massachusetts,” said Sen. Kerry.  “He understands the rules and he’s trying to live by them.  Bureaucracy should not get in the way of someone who is simply practicing his trade and providing for his family the same way he has for the past 25 years.

“It is inexplicable that NOAA has acknowledged that their system was flawed and subsequently updated their database to include both landing and permit history, yet they refuse to take responsibility for Mr. Keding’s current situation,” said Rep. Keating.  “NOAA’s misinformation is the cause-in-fact of Mr. Keding’s economic loss for the past two years, and it continues to impede his ability to successfully pursue his livelihood.  The just response would be to amend his allocation to the levels provided in the original Vessel Landing History.  This is NOAA’s responsibility to fix, and I urge Secretary Locke to take this matter up immediately.”

 The full text of the letter is below:

 February 2, 2011 

The Honorable Gary Locke
Secretary
U.S. Department of Commerce
1401 Constitution Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20230

Dear Secretary Locke:

We are writing to you on behalf of Plymouth, Massachusetts resident and commercial fisherman James Keding. 

In April 2008, in anticipation of the adoption and implementation of Amendment 16, Mr. Keding decided to purchase a newer vessel.  At that time, the seller of the vessel contacted National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and requested the vessel’s landing history.  On January 4, 2008, NMFS responded with a letter relaying the vessel’s landing history (the “Vessel Landing History Letter”) (See Attachment A).  Relying on the data contained in this letter, Mr. Keding and the seller negotiated a sale price for the vessel, which was acquired by Mr. Keding and renamed the F/V Zachary Nicholas.

In August 2009, after the adoption of Amendment 16, Mr. Keding received a letter from NMFS containing his preliminary allocations, based on landing history, for fishing year 2010 (See Attachment B).  Recognizing that these numbers did not correlate with the vessel history provided in the Vessel Landing History Letter, Mr. Kedig requested a review of the landings data.  After several months, Mr. Keding received a reply letter that attempted to clarify the discrepancies with a confusing explanation of MRI transfers (See Attachment C).  Given that Mr. Keding had relied upon NMFS’s Vessel Landing History Letter when he invested a large sum of money into a vessel that did not actually have the landing history set forth in the Letter, he urged NOAA to rectify the situation by changing his 2010 allocation to be consistent with the figures presented in the Vessel Landing History Letter.

On December 1, 2010, Mr. Keding received an email from Eric Schwaab reiterating NOAA’s refusal to revisit Mr. Keding’s allocation and explaining the discrepancy between the figures in the Vessel Landing History Letter and Mr. Keding’s 2010 allocation by stating the following:

In October 2004, the history associated with your vessel, F/V Zachary Nicholas, was retained by a previous owner and placed on another vessel, leaving your vessel with no landings history at that

time.  In November 2004, the owner of the F/V Zachary Nicholas (or the F/V Danielle marie, as the vessel was called at that time).  The vessel and this new landings history, including landings

beginning in November 2004 by the F/V Zachary Nicholas, was then sold to La Gata Fisheries, Inc. in may 2005, who, in turn, sold the vessel and its new fishing history to you in April 2008. Consequently, when you purchased the F/V Zachary Nicholas in April 2008, the F/V Zachary Nicholas’ fishing history prior to November 2004 was not included in the sale, because La Gata Fisheries, Inc. did not have the right to sell this prior fishing history to you.

In April 2008, in anticipation of the adoption and implementation of Amendment 16, Mr. Keding decided to purchase a newer vessel.  At that time, the seller of the vessel contacted National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and requested the vessel’s landing history.  On January 4, 2008, NMFS responded with a letter relaying the vessel’s landing history (the “Vessel Landing History Letter”) (See Attachment A).  Relying on the data contained in this letter, Mr. Keding and the seller negotiated a sale price for the vessel, which was acquired by Mr. Keding and renamed the F/V Zachary Nicholas.

 

In August 2009, after the adoption of Amendment 16, Mr. Keding received a letter from NMFS containing his preliminary allocations, based on landing history, for fishing year 2010 (See Attachment B).  Recognizing that these numbers did not correlate with the vessel history provided in the Vessel Landing History Letter, Mr. Kedig requested a review of the landings data.  After several months, Mr. Keding received a reply letter that attempted to clarify the discrepancies with a confusing explanation of MRI transfers (See Attachment C).  Given that Mr. Keding had relied upon NMFS’s Vessel Landing History Letter when he invested a large sum of money into a vessel that did not actually have the landing history set forth in the Letter, he urged NOAA to rectify the situation by changing his 2010 allocation to be consistent with the figures presented in the Vessel Landing History Letter.

 

On December 1, 2010, Mr. Keding received an email from Eric Schwaab reiterating NOAA’s refusal to revisit Mr. Keding’s allocation and explaining the discrepancy between the figures in the Vessel Landing History Letter and Mr. Keding’s 2010 allocation by stating the following:

In October 2004, the history associated with your vessel, F/V Zachary Nicholas, was retained by a previous owner and placed on another vessel, leaving your vessel with no landings history at that time.  In November 2004, the owner of the F/V Zachary Nicholas (or the F/V Danielle marie, as the vessel was called at that time).  The vessel and this new landings history, including landings beginning in November 2004 by the F/V Zachary Nicholas, was then sold to La Gata Fisheries, Inc. in may 2005, who, in turn, sold the vessel and its new fishing history to you in April 2008. Consequently, when you purchased the F/V Zachary Nicholas in April 2008, the F/V Zachary Nicholas’ fishing history prior to November 2004 was not included in the sale, because La Gata Fisheries, Inc. did not have the right to sell this prior fishing history to you.

Subsequently, Mr. Keding contacted Senator Kerry’s office.  A member of the Senator’s staff met with a team from NOAA in the Northeast Regional Office to discuss Mr. Keding’s case.  Several weeks after this meeting, Senator Kerry’s office received an email once again reiterating that Mr. Keding’s allocation would not be changed to coincide with the Vessel Landing History Letter and that no monetary compensation could be offered to him. 

The explanation provided by Mr. Schwaab, while relatively confusing, is accurate and accepted by all of the parties involved in the delineated transactions.  However, the most troubling aspect of this situation is that the Vessel Landing History Letter, specifically requested by the seller to negotiate the sale of his boat to Mr. Keding, in no way sets forth any of the permit transfer history discussed by Mr. Schwaab in his email.  To the contrary, the Vessel Landing History Letter presents figures from 2004 through 2007 that do not account for any of the permit transfer transactions. 

While NOAA staff has conceded that its processes have changed so letters like the Vessel Landing History Letter will no longer be used without also providing underlying permit history transfer information, the agency has refused to accept any type of responsibility for the current financial devastation facing the Keding family that is directly linked to the Vessel Landing History Letter.  In fact, NOAA staff members have consistently responded to Mr. Keding using phrases such as “misunderstanding about the applicable landings history” and “this is a very difficult issue for many to understand.”  Mr. Keding is a skilled tradesman who has been part of the Massachusetts fishery for over twenty years and, as such, completely understands the complexity of permit history transfers.  This is a case of misinformation- not misunderstanding. 

We thank you for your attention to this very pressing matter and urge you to revisit Mr. Keding’s 2010 allocation to prevent the imminent economic devastation facing the Keding family.

Sincerely, 

                        John Kerry                                          Barney Frank 

                        U.S. Senator                                       Member of Congress

                        Stephen F. Lynch                                William R. Keating

                        Member of Congress                           Member of Congress

                        John F. Tierney

                        Member of Congress

 

 

 

 

 

 

WASHINGTON — Representative Barney Frank announced this morning he will run for re-election in 2012, ending months of speculation that the 70-year-old from Newton was ready to retire.

Frank's statement:

I will be running for re-election to the House of Representatives in 2012. 

While I would have preferred to put off a discussion about the next election until a later date, I have been asked on a number of occasions about my plans.  In addition, I have become convinced that making my decision to run for re-election known is important for maximizing the impact I can have on the range of issues to which I am committed. These issues require a time commitment longer than the next two years. 

There are two issues in particular that are of central importance.  The first is to defend the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which will substantially diminish the likelihood of the risky and irresponsible behavior which led to the current economic crisis.  The law is already under attack by those who oppose meaningful regulation and who would undermine it, either by pressuring regulators to weaken the law or by underfunding agencies such as the SEC and CFTC which are charged with administering it.  The House Republican leadership has been very explicit about this, specifically targeting stronger regulation of derivatives, the independent Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and restrictions on excessively risky behavior by federally-insured banks.  If these opponents of reform are successful, it will put American workers and families at risk of suffering the effects of another economic meltdown.  I intend to do everything in my power to fight their efforts. 

My second national priority is to reduce significantly America's swollen, unnecessary, worldwide military footprint – this is the only way to reconcile the need for us to spend wisely, to promote our economy and to accomplish substantial deficit reduction.  Failure to address excessive military spending will either add to the deficit or force cuts in education, police, fire, transportation, scientific research, food safety, and infrastructure investment.  The disparity between the cost of America's legitimate security needs and the money we spend to maintain a worldwide military presence is the single greatest obstacle to responsible deficit reduction.  While in the past it has appeared to be politically impossible to make reasonable cuts to excessive military spending, there are recent encouraging signs, including the bipartisan work I have done with Congressman Ron Paul.  I will continue to make this a major part of my work in order to improve our economy and preserve our quality of life. 

While these two issues are central to our ability to return to a full-employment economy while protecting our quality of life, there are other national and regional issues on which I will be working as well — protecting the fishing industry in Massachusetts from arbitrary, unjust and unfair actions; fighting for full legal equality for all citizens; providing for the housing needs of low-income people, not by pushing them unwisely and unsustainably into homeownership, but rather by building affordable rental housing; and helping local communities provide a level of service adequate to the needs of their residents.

Read the complete story from The Boston Globe.

 

 

 

 

 

Washington, D.C. – This morning, Congressman John Tierney (D-MA) sent the following letter to Congressman Doc Hastings, the new Chairman of the Committee on Natural Resources and Congressman John Fleming, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs urging them to continue necessary oversight and evaluation on issues relating to fisheries management. Citing the ongoing work to improve conditions for our fishing community, Tierney urged the new Republican Chairmen to increase the attention directed to the Department of Commerce’s troubling stance on fishing issues.

Dear Chairmen Hastings and Fleming:

Congratulations on your assumption of the chairmanship of the Committee on Natural Resources and Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs, respectively. I am mindful that this Committee, and more specifically this Subcommittee, have an obligation to conduct necessary oversight and evaluation on issues relating to fisheries management, among other areas.

Throughout the 111th Congress, as you may be aware, many Congressional leaders from both chambers, both parties and more than six states, have been working with the Department of Commerce to improve conditions for the fishing community. There have been several Congressional hearings on the matter (both through the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on Domestic Policy and the House Committee on Natural Resources Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife) and numerous meetings, on the federal, state and local levels. Efforts have been made by Members to discuss how the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA’s) implementation of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Public Law 109-479) has negatively affected fishing communities up and down the east coast.

Additionally, there have been numerous instances of Members working together on a bipartisan basis on legislation and investigations relating to the Department of Commerce, NOAA and our fishing communities.

The aforementioned actions, along with the Subcommittee on Domestic Policy’s efforts in the 111th Congress, have also led to multiple Inspector General (IG) reports. These reports have resulted in, among other things, the reassignment of several high ranking employees of OLE and legislation, which I introduced, on the restriction of the use of monies in NOAA’s Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) Asset Forfeiture Fund (AFF) in an effort to end clear misuse and mismanagement of the AFF. Although action was taken by NOAA to address personnel issues within OLE highlighted in the IG reports, concerns remain as to the appropriateness and thoroughness of NOAA’s review of OLE and whether or not the personnel action taken by NOAA is satisfactory in holding officials accountable. As such, I would urge you to consider holding hearings on this matter to determine if the appropriate and necessary action was taken regarding the reassignment of NOAA officials.

More recently, as you may be aware, the Secretary of the Department of Commerce made a startling decision to not issue emergency regulations to increase catch-share limits in spite of recent data provided to the Department which demonstrated the need for an emergency increase. I have pledged, along with several of my colleagues, to continue to explore all avenues to address this issue. To that end, I would respectfully ask for your help in reviewing, through hearings or other appropriate action, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Public Law P.L. 109-479) as it relates to the Secretary’s authority to issue emergency regulations revising catch limits to higher levels that remain consistent with conservation requirements.

With these thoughts in mind, I respectfully recommend, as you formulate your agenda for the Committee and Subcommittee during the 112th Congress, that you dedicate your attention to these important matters. I believe there is additional work to be done and more progress to be made in order to continue serving and protecting our fishing communities.

Sincerely,

John F. Tierney

Member of Congress

 

 

 

 

GLOUCESTER, Mass. – February 2, 2010 – The Northeast Seafood Coalition congratulates Senator Brown for asserting leadership on an issue sorely in need of Congressional attention. Congress made clear in both National Standard 8 and the required economic impact statements that understanding and minimizing the economic impacts of federal fishery regulations on fishermen and fishing communities must be among the very top priorities of the Councils and NMFS. Instead, this has proved to be a weak link in the fishery management process as we have experienced first hand with groundfish management. Although prepared by Council and agency staff, fishery impact statements appear to have little if any operative effect in the actual fishery management process and so have been reduced to mere lip service to Congressional intent. When originally championed by Senator Olympia Snowe in the 1990's as part of the Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA), National Standard 8 was intended to provide the crucial, missing balance to those elements of the SFA that were focused strictly on fish stock conservation. In practice, it is difficult to see any real evidence that the National Standard 8 mandate to minimize adverse economic impacts on fishing communities has been taken seriously in the New England groundfish process. NSC believes that if enacted, the amendments in Senator Brown's bill would substantially reform the fishery management process by providing some real teeth behind National Standard 8 and the fishery impact statements. The requirement for truly independent impact analyses and a mandate for the Secretary of Congress to mitigate unacceptable economic impacts would be a giant leap forward in restoring balance to a process that threatens the foundation and economic stability of the New England groundfish industry. We greatly appreciate Senator Brown's vision and call on fishermen and their representatives in Congress throughout our region and across the nation to get behind this important legislation.        

The slaps in the faces to fishermen, their advocates and even to members of Congress just keep on coming from the federal agencies that oversee the industry.

Indeed, the actions of Commerce Secretary Gary Locke last week confirm they will keep coming indefinitely unless the region's congressional delegation finally steps up and demands some accountability from an entire federal department that, under the Obama administration, has hopelessly lost its way.

While there has been plenty of heated rhetoric during the past year from members of Congress regarding those agencies' punitive regulations, vindictive enforcement and blatant misconduct, U.S. Sen. Scott Brown is the first on the federal level to openly call for what is long overdue — an independent investigation into agents and enforcers of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

That, Brown said, may be the only way, "to right the many wrongs our fishermen have suffered."

His colleague, Sen. John Kerry, along with Congressmen John Tierney and Barney Frank should join in that demand. For, it should be clear to them by now, that talking isn't going to accomplish anything.

The misdeeds of NOAA enforcement were documented more than a year ago, in an audit by U.S. Department of Commerce Inspector General Todd Zinser.

For a while, it seemed that Secretary Locke would pursue justice for fishermen, both in promising to consider relaxing some of the most draconian federal limits on fishing, and in opening the door to revisiting unjust prosecutions of fishermen.

But now, Locke has been backing off. Two weeks ago, he refused to relax the limits, even after the recently retired chief scientist at NOAA, Steve Murawski, said in an interview that this year will be a "milestone" because it will mark the end of overfishing by the U.S. commercial fleet.

And last week, Locke backed off even more. Last fall, he had said he would be willing to explore past cases of government wrongdoing. But now, he has put new limits on an investigation into the prosecutions by Special Master Charles Swartwood III.

Read the complete editorial from The Gloucester Times.

 

 

 

 

 

NEW BEDFORD — Citing his “extraordinary frustration” in dealing with the U.S. Commerce Department, Gov. Deval Patrick has appealed to President Barack Obama to intervene in the dispute over fishing regulations in the Northeast.

After listing all of the ways in which he and others have been rebuffed by fisheries regulators, Patrick asks Obama in a three-page letter to “set your Department of Commerce and its agencies on a course of cooperation and consideration with regard to the fishing industry in Massachusetts and the coastal communities that depend on it for sustenance and identity.”

The letter comes in the wake of sweeping refusals by Commerce Secretary Gary Locke to do anything to change the system of sector management and the level of catch shares imposed on the fishing industry last year.

Despite lawsuits and intense political pressure from a bipartisan group of lawmakers mainly from the Northeastern states, nothing has changed with regard to the regulations and limits on fishing.

Patrick wrote, “Our fishing communities face severe challenges, and are currently suffering great hardship, as a result of well-intended but often ill-conceived and poorly executed efforts by federal regulators to constrain the fishing harvest and rebuild our fish stocks.”

Read the complete story from The South Coast Today.

 

 

 

 

 

Congressman Walter Jones' office has issued the following release:

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Last week U.S. Congressman Walter B. Jones (NC-3) and three of his colleagues sent a letter to Deanna Okun, Chairman of the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) supporting the continuation of antidumping duty orders on frozen warmwater shrimp from Brazil, China, India, Thailand and Vietnam.  The orders were put in place in 2005 after a U.S. Department of Commerce investigation found that exporters from these countries were illegally dumping shrimp onto the U.S. market at less than fair value.  In a separate investigation, the U.S. International Trade Commission confirmed that the illegal dumping was having devastating effects on the U.S. shrimp industry, including widespread economic losses and bankruptcies.   The trade relief has helped level the playing field for the domestic shrimp industry.   Jones and Congressmen Jo Bonner (AL-1), Jeff Landry (LA-3) and Steven Palazzo (MS-4) argue that continuation is imperative for the economies and culture of American shrimping communities.

 
The text of the letter follows:
 

“Dear Chairman Okun and Commissioners:

We are writing to express support for the continuation of the antidumping duty orders on frozen warmwater shrimp from Brazil, China, India, Thailand, and Vietnam.  These orders have played a crucial role in the survival and continued viability of the shrimp industry in the Gulf and South Atlantic states, and their continuation is essential to the thousands of men and women who work in this industry, as well as their families and communities.

Prior to the domestic shrimp industry’s pursuit of trade relief at the end of 2003, a massive flood of unfairly traded imported shrimp had drastically changed the shape of the U.S. shrimp market.  In a short period of time, U.S. shrimp imports had nearly doubled in volume, while the prices of those imports decreased significantly.  As import prices fell, domestic shrimp prices collapsed as well.  This flood of imports had devastating effects on the domestic shrimp industry, leading to the bankruptcy and closure of many small and medium sized businesses.  These businesses, many of which had been family owned for generations, were involved in all segments of the industry, from harvesting, processing, and purchasing shrimp, to supplying and maintaining vessels and equipment used by the industry.

The trade relief that was put in place in 2005 arrested the massive increase in shrimp imports and the declining prices of those imports.  Since the orders were put in place, the domestic industry has had to contend with destructive hurricanes, escalating fuel prices, and a devastating oil spill that crippled the industry for much of 2010, yet it has survived because of the spirit, hard work, and perseverance of the men and women who make up this industry.  The trade orders have been essential to giving these men and women an opportunity to compete on a more level playing field.

As the domestic shrimp producing industry continues its recovery from the Gulf oil spill, and at a time when fuel prices are skyrocketing once again, revocation of the orders would result in a greater flood of shrimp imports, would drive prices even lower, and would be a devastating blow to all segments of the domestic industry.  This industry is vital not only to the economies of our communities, but also to their culture.  We respectfully urge you to maintain the antidumping orders on frozen warmwater shrimp.”

For additional information, please contact Catherine Fodor in Congressman Jones’ office at (202) 225-3415.

Read the original press release.

 

 

 

WASHINGTON – Jan 31, 2011 – Today, Senator Scott Brown (R-Massachusetts) introduced the Fishing Impact Statement Honesty (FISH) Act of 2011. 

Senator Brown’s Fishery Impact Statement Honesty (FISH) Act would amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to require that economic impact statements on the affect of fishing regulations on communities be produced independently of NOAA and updated on an annual basis.

According to Senator Brown, fishing communities throughout Massachusetts are facing economic hardship because NOAA and the Commerce Department refuse to acknowledge that their catch share regulations are strangling the fishing industry.

The Commerce Department must be forced to produce an annual independent fisheries impact statement, so that officials at NOAA and the Commerce Department cannot ignore the situation or tailor the results of the statement to their own purposes.  Senator Brown's bill would require that the analysis be done by an outside neutral third party who would be chosen by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), not by NOAA or the Administration. 

If an independent auditor finds that NOAA regulations are hurting fishing communities, NOAA should be forced to make changes. Under the bill, the Secretary of Commerce is required to publish and implement a plan to address negative economic or social effects on fishing communities identified by the independent economic impact statement.

Read Senator Brown's proposed amendment to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

U.S. Sen. Scott Brown's reference Friday to seeking an "independent investigation" into potential criminal wrongdoing on the part of NOAA fisheries agents has resurrected a call by a number of fishing activists, officials and Gloucester lawmakers.

Reacting to the news that federal Commerce Secretary Gary Locke had put new written clamps on an investigation by a "special master" into cases of wrongdoing on the part of federal enforcers and prosecutors — as documented by an Inspector General's report — Brown said Friday it may be time to look toward another level of investigation into what many industry activists allege to have been criminal conduct by agents and enforcers with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

A Department of Commerce Inspector General's report — spawned largely from an investigation launched in Gloucester and New England — found widespread excessive enforcement by NOAA officials, who socked fishermen and businesses in the Northeast with fines of up to 500 percent higher than those meted out in other parts of the country, and carried out abusive tactics in pressing an alleged violation case against the Gloucester Seafood Display Auction.

Fishery supporters and lawmakers have been pressing to get NOAA, which falls under the Department of Commerce, to revisit back cases that dealt a number of New England fishermen excessive penalties — paid into NOAA enforcement's so-called Asset Forfeiture Fund, which agents in turn used for such expenses as foreign travel and acquiring cars and a "luxury" boat.

Read the complete story from The Gloucester Times.