Initially, a proposed settlement had been reached in a major lawsuit that pitted Maine and New England fishermen against certain conservation groups that called for sharp reductions in the number of groundfish taken from the Gulf of Maine. Although I remained concerned about any additional restrictions on our fishermen, which would have been imposed by this settlement, it was a far better remedy than one in which the fate of Maine''s fishermen was decided by a federal judge in Washington, D.C. with little knowledge of the fishing industry.
Unfortunately, on April 26, 2002, this judge didn''t accept completely the compromise proposal. She wrongly imposed additional burdens on fisherman. The impact will be devastating to our fishing families and the many small businesses that support the fleet.
I joined with other members of New England''s congressional delegation to urge President George W. Bush to take aggressive action. We believe that the Justice Department must appeal the court''s decision should the judge not reconsider her ruling. On May 10, 2002, the Department of Justice, at our request, petitioned the judge to reconsider the ruling. If she refuses, then we will press the Department of Justice to appeal the decision.
Fishermen up and down the coast have shared with me their anger, worry, and frustration at losing their jobs. During a recent meeting in Portland, I was told that mortgages cannot be paid, children cannot be educated, and an age-old way of life cannot be saved without a strong response. I hear this message loud and clear: the court over-stepped its bounds by becoming both regulator and scientist, roles for which it is poorly suited.
Maine fishermen have always led the nation in their conservation efforts, and in fact, fish stocks are rebounding. I heard from a fisherman named Sam Viola about this issue. Sam is a fisherman from Portland, who owns two 70-foot draggers and fishes for haddock, hake, and cod. His brother is a fisherman, as was Sam''s dad. That is typical in Maine where families, generation after generation, have gone to sea to earn a living.
Prior to the court''s April ruling, Sam said that finally, after years of scraping by due to catch restriction and limits on fishing days per year designed to restore the ground fishery, he has been able to make a living to support himself and his family. He believes the seas are now teeming with fish. But now, despite rebounding stocks, Sam and others are faced with even greater regulation and restrictions. Their way of life is threatened once again.
I have listened to Sam and other fishermen. Some need assistance for lost days at sea, many need debt refinancing for their boats, and others worry about keeping the fleet intact along with the sustaining the onshore infrastructure. I am requesting in the federal government''s Supplemental Budget that low interest loans and direct assistance be available to compensate fishermen for lost fishing days.
But, in the long term, we need to find a better way to manage our fisheries. Currently, for example, more than one hundred lawsuits are pending against the National Marine Fisheries Service.
We need a different approach, and I believe federal regulators must take the time to allow much more involvement from the true experts, the men and women who are fishing in the Gulf of Maine. It is an approach that would not only continue the process of rebuilding the fishing stocks in Maine, but also allows our hard-working, proud, and independent fishermen to earn a living.