Discussion · Senate
Edward J. Markey Democrat
“I am blocking this fishing bill for now. It is moving too fast. I need more time to talk with fishermen in Massachusetts to make sure the new rules do not hurt them. I want to keep working with the senator from Alaska to fix these problems.”
“Madam President, reserving the right to object, though this bill is primarily focused on addressing bycatch in the Northern Pacific fisheries, Alaska, we still have questions in Massachusetts about how this bill will affect fisheries that expand beyond the Northern Pacific. Again, people sometimes don’t follow fishing issues that closely. They might be amazed to know that the largest two fishing areas in the United States are Alaska and Massachusetts--New Bedford, Gloucester. You have seen the movies. You saw ``The Perfect Storm.’’ You saw all of these incredible stories about Massachusetts and its fishing industry. The same thing is true for Alaska. So we share that designation, and we kind of debate over which one is the No. 1 fishing State in the Union. It is not a debate in Senator Sullivan’s mind, I know, but it is important to us. Reducing bycatch is an important issue in Alaska and in Massachusetts as well, and it is very much worth pursuing, so I hope to continue to work on this topic with my colleague. It is a very important subject. When you are trying to catch one fish and now you start catching other fish as well, that is what we call bycatch, and you want to minimize that. You want to just focus on the primary fishing objective. So it is a very important subject, and it is something that all of the people in the Alaska delegation understand better than anyone else. It is a fishery issue that is essential in Alaska, but it affects other States, including Massachusetts, as well. But since this bill includes language that would direct new regulations across fisheries, I owe it to my constituents in Massachusetts to talk directly with the fishermen and fishing organizations in Massachusetts that could be affected by any changes, and they will need the time just to make sure any modifications that are needed would be included in the legislation. Unfortunately, this bill is moving rapidly. We haven’t had enough time to tackle these questions and talk to those folks in Massachusetts, many of whom are out on their boats right now or are on the docks as we speak. We just need to give them the time to be able to fully consider the implications of this legislation just to make sure there is not an implication in the law of unintended consequences. We have areas of agreement, though--no question about it--to build upon. I support the establishment of a fund for bycatch mitigation and habitat protection, as well as for the reauthorization of the Bycatch Reduction Engineering Program. All of that, I think, we can agree on. I think increased transparency and accountability in fisheries management is a critical goal, and I fundamentally believe in the aim of protecting our fisheries and habitats from unnecessary damage and harm. I want to continue to work with my colleague on that effort in the weeks ahead. We are still going to be in session for another couple of months. I have to respect, however, the ongoing questions posed by my constituents in Massachusetts regarding what this bill would mean to them. My staff is here with me--Jeremy D’Aloisio, Hannah Vogel, and Colleen Brown. They are here. They are willing to start talking right now, to work on this issue with Senator Sullivan’s staff in ensuring that we hear all of the concerns that come from the fishing communities in Massachusetts but then to come to the table to try to resolve any differences and to ultimately produce legislation. So that is the reason I come out here, and I do so having reserved my right to object. But having made my statement, I must at this point object to the motion of the Senator from Alaska.”
-
Speech on a bill
Relevance 3 of 100
Only 3% of this speech directly addressed the bill under debate.
See full analysis
Madam President, reserving the right to object, though this bill is primarily focused on addressing bycatch in the Northern Pacific fisheries, Alaska, we still have questions in Massachusetts about how this bill will affect fisheries that expand beyond the Northern Pacific. Again, people sometimes don’t follow fishing issues that closely. They might be amazed to know that the largest two fishing areas in the United States are Alaska and Massachusetts--New Bedford, Gloucester. You have seen the movies. You saw ``The Perfect Storm.’’ You saw all of these incredible stories about Massachusetts and its fishing industry. The same thing is true for Alaska. So we share that designation, and we kind of debate over which one is the No. 1 fishing State in the Union. It is not a debate in Senator Sullivan’s mind, I know, but it is important to us. Reducing bycatch is an important issue in Alaska and in Massachusetts as well, and it is very much worth pursuing, so I hope to continue to work on this topic with my colleague. It is a very important subject. When you are trying to catch one fish and now you start catching other fish as well, that is what we call bycatch, and you want to minimize that. You want to just focus on the primary fishing objective. So it is a very important subject, and it is something that all of the people in the Alaska delegation understand better than anyone else. It is a fishery issue that is essential in Alaska, but it affects other States, including Massachusetts, as well. But since this bill includes language that would direct new regulations across fisheries, I owe it to my constituents in Massachusetts to talk directly with the fishermen and fishing organizations in Massachusetts that could be affected by any changes, and they will need the time just to make sure any modifications that are needed would be included in the legislation. Unfortunately, this bill is moving rapidly. We haven’t had enough time to tackle these questions and talk to those folks in Massachusetts, many of whom are out on their boats right now or are on the docks as we speak. We just need to give them the time to be able to fully consider the implications of this legislation just to make sure there is not an implication in the law of unintended consequences. We have areas of agreement, though--no question about it--to build upon. I support the establishment of a fund for bycatch mitigation and habitat protection, as well as for the reauthorization of the Bycatch Reduction Engineering Program. All of that, I think, we can agree on. I think increased transparency and accountability in fisheries management is a critical goal, and I fundamentally believe in the aim of protecting our fisheries and habitats from unnecessary damage and harm. I want to continue to work with my colleague on that effort in the weeks ahead. We are still going to be in session for another couple of months. I have to respect, however, the ongoing questions posed by my constituents in Massachusetts regarding what this bill would mean to them. My staff is here with me--Jeremy D’Aloisio, Hannah Vogel, and Colleen Brown. They are here. They are willing to start talking right now, to work on this issue with Senator Sullivan’s staff in ensuring that we hear all of the concerns that come from the fishing communities in Massachusetts but then to come to the table to try to resolve any differences and to ultimately produce legislation. So that is the reason I come out here, and I do so having reserved my right to object. But having made my statement, I must at this point object to the motion of the Senator from Alaska.