June 2, 2015 — WASHIGNTON — The following summary of the proceedings of the House of Representatives regarding H.R. 1335, the “Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act,” was provided to Saving Seafood by Kelley Drye and Warren:
Bill: H.R. 1335, Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act.
Summary: H.R. 1335 reauthorizes the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act through FY 2019 and modifies the law to provide greater authority to regional fishery management councils and the fishing industry in setting the conditions under which overfished or depleted fisheries are to be restored.
Summary of Roll Call Votes
· Rep. Dingell Amendment – Strikes the bill’s environmental streamlining requirements that allow the regional fishery councils to concurrently do NEPA reviews while assessing Fishery Management Plans. FAILED 155-223 (54 NOT VOTING). Official Tally
· Rep. Lowenthal Amendment – the National Ocean Council, operating under Executive Order 13547, to develop a process for decommissioning oil and gas rigs that eliminates harm to the red snapper stock and improves habitat. FAILED 149-227 (56 NOT VOTING). Official Tally
· Democratic Motion to Recommit (Rep. Peters) – protect fishing communities in the aftermath of an oil or hazardous materials spill by requiring: (1) the relevant Regional Fishery Management Council fully assess the impacts of the spill to stocks of fish, fishing communities, and the marine environment; (2) the polluter pay for any cleanup or removal of pollution impacting fishery; (3) the polluter pay for testing of fish and water quality, in order to protect consumers and fishermen. FAILED 155-223 (54 NOT VOTING). Official Tally
· Final Passage of H.R. 1335. PASSED 225-152 (55 NOT VOTING). Official Tally
Amendments Adopted (by voice vote)
Rep. Young Amendment (10 minutes of debate) – Provides for additional information for stock assessments, the use of students to collect marine recreational fishing data and clarifies information for Council reviews.
Rep. Wittman Amendment (10 minutes of debate) – Gives NOAA the authority to use alternative fishery management measures.
Reps. Keating / Lynch / Moulton Amendment (10 minutes of debate) – Amends Section 10 (3) Use of Asset Forfeiture Fund for Fishery Independent Data Collection to include fishery research and independent stock assessments, conservation gear engineering, at-sea and shoreside monitoring, fishery impact statements, and other priorities established by the Council as necessary to rebuild or maintain sustainable fisheries, ensure healthy ecosystems, and maintain fishing communities.
Amendments Not adopted (by voice vote)
Rep. Huffman Amendment (Democratic Substitute) (20 minutes of debate) – Reauthorizes the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and improves fisheries management and data collection.
Amendments Withdrawn
Rep. Farr Amendment (10 minutes of debate) – Allows the use of vessel information under Executive Order 13547 to aid in restoring fisheries habitat at the Secretary's discretion.
Rep. Graves Amendment (10 minutes of debate) – Confers management of snapper fisheries to Gulf of Mexico states similar to the management of Atlantic Striped Bass to Atlantic states. Seeks to improve the science of snapper fisheries monitoring.
General Debate
Rep. Bishop (R-UT) – This bill makes a good law even better. It’s good for our economy and for US jobs.
Rep. Grijalva (D-AZ) – This has been named the empty oceans act by the fishing community. This bill overrides the ESA, NEPA, and the Antiquities Act. These are major problems. Let’s go back to the drawing board and help our fisheries.
Rep. Young (R-AK) – This bill is written for the fishermen and communities, not for the government or groups like Pew. We sought to balance conservation with allowing for economic growth. Rebuilding the fish stock will be based on the availability of the fish stock. It does not ignore science.
Rep. Grijalva (D-AZ) – The Magnuson Act is working and should be allowed to continue to work. I yield to Ms. Capps.
Rep. Capps (D-CA) – I oppose H.R. 1335. Magnuson has worked. Ensuring that fish stocks are healthy is vital. This bill will dismiss management standards and fish stock rebuilding laws. Creates gaping loopholes under the guise of flexibility. It unravels the current system, like the ESA, NEPA, and National Marine Fisheries Service.
Rep. Wittman (R-VA) – I support H.R. 1335. We need to have quality scientific data that allows for effective fishery management. I am glad also that this bill has the support of numerous recreational sports associations.
Rep. Dingell (D-MI) – I oppose this bill. This is historically a bipartisan issue. But this bill will take our fisheries management in the wrong direction. The number of stocks overfished has been cut in half since 2006. This isn’t broken. I hope we can come to an agreement to reauthorize it in a bipartisan manner.
Rep. Hice (R-GA) – HR 1335 makes needed improvements to the Magnuson Act. With these improvements, our fisherman will be able to increase their contributions to the economy. It encourages our local professionals to play a role in regulatory matters rather than a one size fits all approach from the federal government. It strikes a balance between the commercial and recreational fishing interests.
Rep. Pallone (D-NJ) – The fishing industry is important to my state’s economy. The President has threatened a veto and this bill did not get one Democratic vote in Committee. I am troubled with the changes to NEPA, ESA, NMSA, and the antiquities. Fishery managers play an important role with NOAA but lack the expertise on the regulatory impacts of certain issues. There are positive reforms of Magnuson in this bill but unfortunately rolls back valuable environmental protections.
Rep. Bishop (R-UT) – I would like to mention that this bill has the support of the Garden State Seafood Association.
Rep. Duncan (R-SC) – I am pleased that my amendment on the Morris Dill study was included. It will help allocations for fisheries. It encourages a science-based review of fisheries in the South Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico. We want policy based on science and what’s going on in the water, not a bureaucrat in Washington.
Rep. Pingree (D-ME) – I support the reauthorization of the Magnuson act but not this bill. Many of my neighbors and constituents make their living on commercial fishing. We must keep our fisheries sustainable and not allow them to be devastated by overfishing. We must rebuild the fish stocks and support more funding for the science.
Rep. McArthur (R-NJ) – There is the same amount of boats as people in my district. I hear a lot from charter and commercial fisherman. They say the Magnuson Act no longer works. Nobody wants the Wild West days of unregulated fishing but this bill relies on science to keep fish stocks healthy while allowing commercial fisherman to create jobs.
Rep. Graham (D-FL) – The fishing industry is so important to my district. The prevalence of red snapper in my district shows me that Magnuson is working. There are healthy reforms in the bill that will improve the Act. We should get the states and stakeholders involved. We must improve data collection techniques – like was included in the CJS bill.
Rep. Weber (R-TX) – We have a great snapper industry in my district as well. I want to discuss the Graves (R-LA) amendment. I don’t think this amendment is needed. We want the industries to last. The Restaurant Association is opposed to the Graves amendment. Snapper should be available to all. We should not be picking winners and losers. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Graves amendment.
Rep. Lowenthal (D-CA) – This bill will weaken many environmental laws. It makes Magnuson the controlling statute in any conflicts with other conservation laws (i.e. Antiquities). This is outside the scope of a fisheries bill.
Rep. Scott (R-GA) – The commercial fishermen get to fish all year for red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico. But the government restricts recreational fisherman to 10 days. We should use science to examine the fishing seasons for recreational fisherman.
Rep. Grijalva (D-AZ) – The Magnuson Act was been valuable to fishing stocks. This is not a bipartisan bill.
Rep. Bishop (R-UT) – We have heard that there are problems with the status quo and we are presenting our proposal to fix the problems. We must cut red tape, increase transparency, as we must reauthorize this Act.
Debate on Amendments
· Rep. Dingell Amendment #1 (10 minutes of debate) – Strikes the bill’s environmental streamlining requirements that allow the regional fishery councils to concurrently do NEPA reviews while assessing Fishery Management Plans.
Rep. Dingell (D-MI) – This bill would short circuit public review. Casts NEPA aside and make regional fishery management councils the sole decision maker without consideration of impacts to local communities. We should not limit public input.
Rep. Bishop (R-UT) – This amendment would give more opportunities to delay and litigation.
Rep. Pingree (D-ME) – I support the amendment. Our fisheries don’t work on artificial timelines. We must not allow NEPA analyses to be rushed.
Rep. Dingell (D-MI) – This bill would eliminate federal responsibility under NEPA. Businesses and individuals would be given less consideration. The regional fishery councils would be given too much power.
Rep. Young (R-AK) – This provision was requested by the communities. It does not eliminate NEPA. This amendment puts the interest of outsiders above the community.
Rep. Bishop (R-UT) – This provision eliminates duplication of processes.
Roll Call vote on Dingell Amendment ordered. Amendment #2 (Farr) withdrawn.
· Keating / Lynch / Moulton Amendment #3 (10 minutes of debate) – Amends Section 10 (3) Use of Asset Forfeiture Fund for Fishery Independent Data Collection to include fishery research and independent stock assessments, conservation gear engineering, at-sea and shoreside
Rep. Keating (D-MA) – My amendment would ensure that AFF funds are used for specific items. I am concerned about the shifting of NEPA to the councils, but I believe we need to provide increased resources to the councils.
Rep. Moulton (D-MA) – I support this amendment so we can make smart investments in our fishing industry. The fishermen and the environmentalist want the same thing – a healthy and sustainable fishing stock.
Rep. Bishop (R-UT) – I do not oppose the amendment. The IG reported that NOAA misused the funds which is why were are addressing some of the problems with the status quo. The Keating amendment is a very constructive approach to a problem.
Keating Amendment adopted – by voice vote
· Rep. Lowenthal Amendment #4 (10 minutes of debate) – the National Ocean Council, operating under Executive Order 13547, to develop a process for decommissioning oil and gas rigs that eliminates harm to the red snapper stock and improves habitat.
Rep. Lowenthal (D-CA) – My amendment would develop a transparent process to preserve red snapper in oil gas rig decommissioning.
Rep. Young (R-AK) – This amendment failed in committee. I have heard that the oil rigs serve as man-made reefs that the red snapper love. I am not in favor of giving the Oceans Council any power.
Rep. Lowenthal (D-CA) – The colleagues across the aisle are opposed to this amendment because they are opposed to Oceans Council. It urges agency and stakeholders to work together on a process.
Rep. Graves (R-LA) – I oppose this amendment. I want time for industry to work on a solution.
Rep. Bishop (R-UT) – This amendment would give validity to the Administration’s oceans policy, which was done in secret.
Roll Call vote on Lowenthal Amendment ordered.
· Rep. Young Amendment #5 (10 minutes of debate) – Provides for additional information for stock assessments, the use of students to collect marine recreational fishing data and clarifies information for Council reviews.
Rep. Young (R-AK) – My amendment clarifies some portions of the bill.
Rep. Grijalva (D-AZ) – We have not yet gotten feedback from the Administration on the requirements of this amendment. I urge a no vote.
Young Amendment adopted – by voice vote
· Rep. Graves Amendment #6 (10 minutes of debate) – Confers management of snapper fisheries to Gulf of Mexico states similar to the management of Atlantic Striped Bass to Atlantic states. Seeks to improve the science of snapper fisheries monitoring.
Rep. Graves (R-LA) – We have seen the National Marine Fisheries Service to limit recreational fishing using science that is not robust. It has allowed the charter fishing industry to fish 45 days, commercial to fish all year and recreational fishermen only 10 days. The 5 Gulf States came up with an agreement and my amendment would codify that agreement
Rep. Grijalva (D-AZ) – This amendment failed in committee.
Rep. Young (R-AK) – I think this issue needs additional discussion.
Rep. Graves (R-LA) – This amendment has support of many fishing and recreational sporting associations.
Rep. Bishop (R-UT) – I concur there is an access problem for the red snapper. I want to work with Mr. Graves on this issue.
Rep. Graves (R-LA) – I look forward to working with my colleagues and having additional hearings on this. I withdraw my amendment.
Graves Amendment #6 withdrawn
· Rep. Wittman Amendment #7 (10 minutes of debate) – Gives NOAA the authority to use alternative fishery management measures.
Rep. Wittman (R-VA) – I would give NOAA authority to use recreational fishery management processes that are important to recreational fishermen. It provides flexibility for management of recreational fisheries.
Rep. Grijalva (D-AZ) – I appreciate the intent however, this amendment does not include important safeguards that would prevent overfishing.
Wittman Amendment adopted – by voice vote
· Rep. Huffman Amendment #8 (20 minutes of debate) – Democratic Substitute. Reauthorizes the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and improves fisheries management and data collection.
Rep. Huffman (D-CA) – I believe this bill falls short in many ways. We need to maintain domestic fish stocks. Our current science-based approach is working and this bill will undue much of that good work. This bill is a partisan bill. My amendment has many provisions similar to my bill, the Fishing Economy Improvement Act, which was introduced with Rep. Sablan.
Rep. Bishop (R-UT) – This is a much better amendment than was introduced in the committee. However, I feel this amendment takes away much of the flexibility in the bill. There are too many problems in the status quo that need to be addressed.
Rep. Pingree (D-ME) – This amendment would update many processes without doing away important environmental protections.
Rep. Young (R-AK) – The goal of the Magnuson Act was sustainable fisheries and sustainable communities. There is a lot in this bill that reflects this amendment.
Rep. Beyer (D-VA) – I support this amendment. I would complement the current Magnuson processes. I would modernize data collection.
Rep. Bishop (R-UT) – This amendment does not move us forward. It erases flexibility, transparency, and regulatory efficiencies.
Huffman Amendment is not adopted – by voice vote.