Congress Archives - Page 8 of 11

Sen. Maria Cantwell Secures Key Provisions to Protect Pacific Northwest Seafood

December 15, 2015 — The following was released by the Office of Senator Maria Cantwell:

U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell today announced that her bipartisan bill—which will change the market name of “Alaska pollock” to “pollock”—will be included in the Congressional spending bill, also known as the ‘omnibus.’ The bill will legally change the acceptable market name essentially outlawing Pollock harvested in Russia from being passed off as “Alaskan Pollock” in the supermarket. Representative Jamie Herrera Butler (WA-3) sponsored the bill in the House.

In 2012, 113 million pounds of Russian Pollock—which is less sustainable and lower quality than pollock from Alaskan fisheries—was sold to U.S. consumers as “Alaska pollock.”

“Alaskan pollock is one of the most sustainable fisheries in the world,” said Cantwell, a senior member of the Commerce Committee, “And American consumers deserve to know whether they are purchasing this high quality product or a cheap alternative with a misleading label. By changing the acceptable market name to pollock, it will be illegal to label pollock caught in Russia, as Alaskan. Americans will be able to shop with confidence, knowing that they are buying the real thing and not a knock–off.”

The Genuine Alaska Pollock Producers (GAPP) supports these efforts and have previously cited several reasons for the requested change:

• The use of “Alaska pollock” as an acceptable market name is misleading to consumers;

•“Alaska pollock” is understood by consumers to connote a geographic origin, not a particular kind of food from any geographic origin;

• The use of “Alaska pollock” as an acceptable market name is inconsistent with other similar fish species; and

• U.S. government programs support other efforts to provide accurate information to consumers about the seafood they purchase.

Are You Eating Frankenfish?

December 15, 2015 — This month, Congress may decide whether consumers are smart enough to be trusted with their own food choices. Some lawmakers are trying to insert language into must-pass spending legislation that would block states from giving consumers the right to know whether their food contains genetically modified ingredients.

They must be stopped.

Nine out of 10 Americans want G.M.O. disclosure on food packages, according to a 2013 New York Times poll, just like consumers in 64 other nations. But powerful members of the agriculture and appropriations committees, along with their allies in agribusiness corporations like Monsanto, want to keep consumers in the dark. That’s why opponents of this effort have called it the DARK Act — or the Deny Americans the Right to Know Act.

As a chef, I’m proud of the food I serve. The idea that I would try to hide what’s in my food from my customers offends everything I believe in. It’s also really bad for business.

Why, then, have companies like Kellogg and groups like the Grocery Manufacturers Association spent millions in recent years to lobby against transparency? They say, in effect: “Trust us, folks. We looked into it. G.M.O. ingredients are safe.” But what they’re missing is that consumers want to make their own judgments. Consumers are saying: “Trust me. Let me do my own homework and make my own choices.”

Read the full opinion piece at the New York Times

Officials calling for more accurate fish counts

December 14, 2015 — WASHINGTON – The federal agency in charge of the nation’s fisheries should do a better job counting fish so it can develop proper catch limits for recreational anglers, a report by Congress’ investigative arm concludes.

The analysis by the Government Accountability Office was requested nearly three years ago by several Republican senators from the Gulf Coast who believe the Obama administration may have been overly restrictive in imposing catch limits on several popular fish, including red snapper.

The GAO report says the National Marine Fisheries Service has taken “many steps” in recent years to improve data collection but needs to adopt a master plan for counting fish in a more accurate, timely and transparent manner.

For example, the agency doesn’t have a complete registry of recreational anglers, often misses some groups of fishermen while conducting surveys, lacks catch-and-discard data in areas where access to the coastal communities is limited, and needs more “shoreside observers” to improve data collection.

“Without a comprehensive strategy, NMFS may have difficulty ensuring that the variety of steps it is taking to improve data collection are prioritized so that the most important steps are undertaken first,” the report says. “Further, without communicating the strategy and NMFS’ progress in implementing it, NMFS may have difficulty building trust among its stakeholders, and these stakeholders may have difficulty tracking the agency’s efforts.”

Read the full story from USA Today at Pensacola News Journal

Fishermen File Suit in N.H. Against NOAA Over Observers

December 9, 2015 — The following is an excerpt from a story published today in the Boston Globe. The plaintiffs in this lawsuit are David Goethel, who has been a fisherman for over 30 years and has served two terms on the New England Fishery Management Council, and Northeast Sector 13, a nonprofit organization comprised of 20 active groundfishermen who are permitted in Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island and Virginia. They are represented in the lawsuit by Cause of Action, a government accountability organization committed to ensuring that decisions made by federal agencies are open, honest, and fair.

A group of fishermen in the region filed a lawsuit Wednesday against the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in federal district court in Concord, N.H., arguing that the agency violated their rights by forcing them to pay for a controversial program that requires government-trained monitors on their vessels to observe their catch.

The fishermen, who in the coming weeks will be required to pay hundreds of dollars every time an observer accompanies them to sea, argue that the costs are too much to bear and will put many of them out of business.

They’re asking the court to prevent the regulations from taking effect when the federal dollars now subsidizing the program run out early next year.

“I’m extremely fearful that I won’t be able to do what I love and provide for my family if I’m forced to pay,” said David Goethel, one of the plaintiffs, who for 30 years has been fishing for cod and other bottom-dwelling fish out of Hampton, N.H. “I’m doing this not only to protect myself, but to stand up for others out there like me whose livelihoods are in serious jeopardy.”

The lawsuit alleges that, by forcing fishermen to pay for the monitors, regulators have violated their Constitutional rights and that their actions are “arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion.”

It adds that agency officials are “acting in excess of any statutory authority granted by Congress” and “improperly infringing on Congress’s exclusive taxation authority.”

As a result, the fishermen claim, the government’s authority to require the payments are “void and unenforceable.”

Fishing officials acknowledge that requiring the fishermen to pay for the so-called “at-sea monitoring” program will increase the hardship of fishermen who are already struggling with major cuts to their quotas. A federal report this year found that the costs could cause 59 percent of the region’s groundfishing fleet to lose money.

But agency officials have said that NOAA no longer has the money to pay for the program, and that by law, the fishermen were supposed to start paying for the observers three years ago.

The government has defrayed the costs because of the industry’s financial turmoil, said John Bullard, the agency’s regional administrator. In February, the agency told fishermen they would have to start paying later this year.

Bullard declined to comment on the lawsuit.

“NOAA Fisheries does not discuss ongoing litigation,” he said. “Independent of any litigation, we appreciate the challenge that paying for at-sea monitoring raises for fishermen.”

He and others noted that the fishermen may end up paying less than they expect for the observer program.

Read the full story at the Boston Globe

Read the Legal Memo here

Read the Complaint here

Overregulation threatens local fishing economies, Congressmen say

December 8, 2015 — A U.S. House of Representatives committee held a rare field hearing in Riverhead yesterday, the first time in recent memory such a committee has formally met on the East End.

A three-member panel of the House Committee on Natural Resources convened the hearing to discuss the federal policies that currently regulate the region’s fishing grounds, probing the policies’ basis in science, fishery conditions and economic impacts on the local economy with testimony and questioning of several invited witnesses.

The committee members who conducted the hearing, hosted by Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-Shirley), heard testimony for two hours yesterday at the Suffolk County Community College Culinary Arts Institute on East Main Street.

They also discussed alternatives to what some on the four-member panel characterized as oppressive regulation that could potentially damage the region’s fishing industry.

“In my part of the world, there’s a saying that if you have no farms, you have no food,” said committee chairman Rob Bishop, a Republican congressman from Utah. “The same can be said that if you have no boating access, you have no fish.”

Bishop claimed that federal agencies like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have “ignored state and local laws, input and science” in their regulatory decisions.

Read the full story from Riverhead Local

House Panel Supports Efforts to Safeguard Atlantic Coast Fisheries Access, Protect Against Obama Administration’s Potential Unilateral Fisheries Closures

December 7, 2015 — RIVERHEAD, N.Y. – The following was released by the House Committee on Natural Resources:

Today, the House Committee on Natural Resources held an oversight field hearing in Riverhead, NY on public access to Atlantic fisheries and the impact and implementation of federal decision-making on the commercial and recreational fishing industry and local economies. The panel received testimony from fisheries stakeholders and a representative from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

One focal point of the hearing was the possible designation by the Obama Administration of National Marine Monuments along the Atlantic Coast using the Antiquities Act, which would deny public input and usurp established habitat and fisheries management plans. Commercial and recreational fisheries stakeholders before the panel supported Committee efforts to ensure public input in future potential designations.

“I know firsthand what happens when a President abuses the Antiquities Act against the wishes of local residents as a means of shutting off multiple uses of lands and waters. There’s a reason we have laws on the books to ensure federal management decisions are informed by experts at the regional level, in full consultation with states and local users – not under the cover of darkness,” Committee on Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop (R-UT) said.

“Fishing and the maritime economy have been a key part of the economy, culture, and history of Long Island for centuries. Now more than ever our fisheries and the dedicated men and women who work in this important industry face challenges that must be addressed,” stated Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-NY) during opening statements. “And now more than ever we must strike the right balance between a strong fishing economy and protecting our critical natural resources. Fairness, transparency, and giving our fishermen and boaters a seat at the table is why we are here today.”

“Designating marine monuments is a relatively new practice that only began in 2006, with a monument designation larger than all of America’s National Parks combined, approximately the size of Germany,” Rep. Tom MacArthur (R-NJ) said during the hearing. “I find it particularly troubling that there is no concern given to local fish and wildlife commissioners or the state and local elected officials when sites are considered. There are serious implications to this designation and local communities should be involved in these designations, rather than a decree from Washington.”

In recent months, Members of Congress on both sides of the political aisle have voiced opposition to the potential Marine Monument designations and called upon the Obama Administration to seek local input on any potential actions.

Earlier this year, the House passed H.R. 1335, a bill to reauthorize and modernize the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA), the primary federal law that governs federal fisheries management. This bill makes key reforms to reflect scientific advancements and regional needs, and includes provisions to ensure that state and local interests are protected from future Marine Monuments designated under the Antiquities Act.

Click here to view witness testimony. Video footage of the hearing will be available here later today.

Read the release here

PORTLAND PRESS HERALD: Electronic catch monitors would improve fishery

November 27, 2015 — Managing the decline in New England’s commercial fishery has long been a delicate dance among fishermen, regulators and scientists.

The scientists estimate how many fish are available for harvest, and regulators use those estimates to allot catch shares among various groups of fishermen, called “sectors.”

Fishermen question the validity of the science, saying that they see more fish than the estimates would indicate. Regulators are influenced by members of Congress, who represent fishing communities, not fish, and are concerned with the communities’ economic survival.

Scientists say that they are doing the best they can with the data available, but what they can see paints a much darker picture than what the fishermen report.

Fortunately, there may be a way to produce data that everyone can be confident in: electronic monitoring.

Currently, professional monitors go out on fishing boats about 20 percent of the time, cataloging what the boats pull up in their nets and what they throw overboard.

The information they bring back is valuable, but there are problems with the system. The fishermen have to pay for the live monitors, and they are expensive. That’s especially true for boats leaving from rural areas, where the captain has to pay the travel expenses and accommodations for a monitor who is not locally based.

Read the full opinion piece at the Portland Press Herald

Arctic Nations Seek to Prevent Exploitation of Fisheries in Opening Northern Waters

November 24, 2015 — Ruth Teichroeb, the communications officer for Oceans North: Protecting Life in the Arctic, an initiative of the Pew Charitable Trusts, sent a note this evening about new steps related to an issue I’ve covered here before – the rare and welcome proactive work by Arctic nations to ban fishing in the central Arctic Ocean ahead of the “big melt” as summer sea ice retreats more in summers in a human-heated climate.

Given how little is known about the Arctic Ocean’s ecology and dynamics, this is a vital and appropriate step.

Here’s her note about an important meeting in Washington in early December, which will likely be obscured as the climate treaty negotiations in Paris enter their final week at the same time:

The United States is hosting negotiations for an international Arctic fisheries agreement to protect the Central Arctic Ocean in Washington, D.C., on December 1 to 3. The five Arctic countries will meet for the first time with non-Arctic fishing nations to work on a binding international accord. This follows the declaration of intent signed in July by the Arctic countries.

The big question for this meeting is whether China, Japan, Korea and the European Union will attend and cooperate on a precautionary agreement to prevent overfishing given the dramatic impact of climate change in the Arctic.

Read the full story at The New York Times

Members of Congress urge disaster relief for Dungeness crab fishermen

November 25, 2015 — In a bit of good news for California’s beleaguered crab fishermen, four members of Congress announced Tuesday they would call for federal disaster relief in the unlikely event the state’s commercial fishing season for Dungeness crab is canceled altogether.

In a letter to Gov. Jerry Brown, the representatives urged the governor to “stand ready” to ask U.S. Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker to provide compensation to fishermen and businesses if the crab season — postponed indefinitely Nov. 6 because of high levels of a biotoxin called domoic acid — is wiped out.

The congressmen and congresswomen who signed the letter — Rep. Lois Capps, D-Santa Barbara; Rep. Sam Farr, D-Carmel; Rep. Jared Huffman, D-San Rafael; and Rep. Jackie Speier, D-Hillsborough — represent coastal communities affected by the closure. Last season fishermen earned nearly $67 million from Dungeness crab in California.

Read the full story at San Jose Mercury News

Voices of Alaska: Unified effort in Congress protects Alaska’s seafood powerhouse

November 20, 2015 — Alaska is our nation’s seafood powerhouse. With nine of our country’s top twenty fishing ports by volume, we understand the vital role our seafood industry has played in our communities in the past, how important it is now, and how central the industry will be in the future. Protecting and enhancing Alaska’s fisheries is one of the top priorities of our delegation.

That’s why we were particularly pleased to have passed bipartisan legislation to help protect and enhance our fishing industry. H.R. 477, the Illegal, Unregulated and Underreported (IUU) Fishing Enforcement Act of 2015, increases enforcement capabilities for U.S. authorities to combat illegal fishing and protect fisheries off the coast of Alaska, and around the world. It was signed into law on November 5, 2015.

At issue is how illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing, or “pirate” fishing, is hurting our economy, our fishing communities, our healthy seafood stocks, and our sustainable oceans.

Our country’s fishermen have long been subject to sustainable management-based rules and regulations to ensure the long-term vitality of our species; pirate fishermen are not. These rogue vessels raid our oceans wherever, whenever, and however they please. Globally, legal fishing operations lose an estimated $10 to $23 billion a year to pirate fishing. Here at home, the Alaska King Crab fishery alone is estimated to have lost more than $550 million in the past 14 years.

Read the full opinion piece at Peninsula Clarion