In 1976, the Magnuson-Stevens Act was written to save our fisheries by providing a balanced approach to fulfilling our economic needs while promoting responsible resource conservation and ensuring Americans have access to the fish off our shores. This law also recognized that our fisheries vary from region to region and created a council-based management to accommodate these differences. It stands to reason that fishermen in Maine have different problems than fishermen in Louisiana.

Since enactment of this legislation, domestic offshore catches have increased dramatically in some fisheries, while other fisheries continue to struggle with management challenges. On balance, however, our nation's fisheries continue to add billions of dollars to the nation’s economy every year. In 1996, Congress passed the Sustainable Fisheries Act to amend and enhance the Magnuson-Stevens Act so that all fisheries could be rebuilt and support thriving sea-side economies. The overarching goal was to ensure prosperity for all United States fisheries by ending overfishing and rebuilding depleted stocks.

But in the eight years since then, we have continued to witness both increases and decreases in different fisheries affected by this law. According to the National Marine Fisheries Service’s Annual Report in 2003, certain fisheries have thrived; for example, sea scallops on Georges Bank have increased 20-fold from 1994 to 2002, and silver hake in the Northeast was declared fully rebuilt in 2002. The National Marine Fisheries Services’ most recent survey of young Georges Bank haddock indicates a population boom with the potential to be the largest ever recorded, putting that fishery well on the road to its recovery goal. But other fisheries have not fared as well, with overfishing commencing in 13 U.S. fisheries between 1997 and 2002.

As Chair of the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Oceans, Fisheries, and Coast Guard, I have sought answers as to why the Magnuson-Stevens Act has worked well for some fisheries, but not others. With so many fishing communities and workers in Maine, our federal fisheries laws must work for our state as well as our nation.

After chairing numerous hearings and meetings around the country, it became clear to me that most of the shortcomings in our federal fisheries policy stems from how the Magnuson-Stevens Act has been interpreted and applied to real-life fisheries problems. While the underpinnings of the Act are sound, the implementation of the Act have often been inconsistent with what Congress intended.

What we need is a federal fisheries policy that recognizes and responds to the unique conditions facing each individual fishery. The Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 2004, which I recently introduced in Congress, is a critical first step to better serve our fishermen and our environment.

My legislation contains several specific measures to enhance regulatory flexibility. First and foremost, it repeals the 10-year timeline for rebuilding fish stocks and the unnecessarily-rigid measures that stem from it. It allows for a more adaptive approach for determining the amount of fish that can be harvested by limiting it to the maximum sustainable yield that a stock can produce in any given year. This fishing rate would not permit overfishing; it would allow stocks to rebuild over time to a level that achieves balance with their ecosystems .

Another new proposal in this bill addresses the issue of "steaming time." Currently, fishermen who live farther away from healthy fish stocks are forced to use their limited number of permitted days-at-sea simply steaming to and from these stocks. In contrast, those who live closer to the stocks can spend more of their days-at-sea actually fishing. I am proposing that regional fishery management councils analyze these impacts and, if necessary, take action to eliminate these inequities that leave Maine fishermen at an inherent disadvantage.

Other key features of this Magnuson-Stevens Act reauthorization would address essential fish habitat and habitat areas of particular concern; authorizations for cooperative research, capacity reduction, and fishing quota systems; and language to improve social and ecological impact assessments, data and information management, public meeting notices, and scientific peer reviews. Individually and collectively, the provisions in this bill present a way forward in improving federal fisheries management.