The House reauthorized the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA), commonly called the “fish bill,” in a roll call vote on Wednesday. A multi-hour debate over the bill, which regulates fishing in federal waters, centered on its two controversial measures: weakening catch limits for several species of fish, and eliminating a 10-year deadline for fish stock rebuilding.
H.R. 200, the Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act, would authorize $397 million to renew the MSA through 2022. This version of the MSA amends the existing law by allowing regional fisheries management councils to exceed federal catch limits and by eliminating the existing 10-year timeline for fish stock rebuilding programs. The House passed the bill 222-193.
During the floor debate, several Democratic representatives, referring to H.R. 200 as the “Empty Oceans Act,” argued that the changes to the MSA would reduce fish stocks and undo a decade of progress toward sustainable fishing. The bill’s opponents emphasized that the current law has been working since it was last reauthorized, in 2006.
“If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” said Democratic Rep. Jared Huffman of California. “The law is working as intended,” he said, and reauthorization “shouldn’t come at the expense of the law’s core provisions.”
The MSA regulates fishing in federal waters, between 3 and 200 miles from shore. The law establishes eight regional fisheries councils, which have some discretion to manage local recreational and commercial fishing. The most recent reauthorization of the bill, passed in 2007, established federal catch limits for nearly 400 fish species. Since implementation of those catch limits, the population of more than 40 of those species have been rebuilt.
Democratic Rep. David Cicilline of Rhode Island said H.R. 200 would “undermine the years of progress made in rebuilding fish stocks,” as well as “gut science-based management for fisheries” and “reduce accountability for recreational fisheries.”
Republican supporters said the bill would put more power in the hands of the regional councils, which they said should have more flexibility to make decisions about managing fish stocks than the current law provides. Republican Rep. Don Young of Alaska, who was an author of the original MSA, which passed in 1976, said H.R. 200 “takes a middle-of-the-road approach to fisheries management.”
According to the floor debate, stakeholder groups were split on whether to support or oppose H.R. 200. Both Democrats and Republicans reported receiving large numbers of letters in opposition or support of the bill, respectively. Broadly, the bill was supported by the recreational fishing and boating industry and opposed by a coalition of environmentalists, scientists, commercial fishermen, aquariums, and conservation groups.
Several Republicans cited their own recreational fishing experiences during the debate as evidence of their investment in fisheries policy, at times questioning whether Democratic opponents had ever fished or understood fisheries issues.
For the legislation to move ahead, the Senate must introduce a companion bill to H.R. 200. There is currently no such bill, though senators have another 18 months to write one.