1
00:00:09,680 --> 00:00:12,020
GUEST SPEAKER: I'm
going to present to you

2
00:00:12,020 --> 00:00:14,430
some important criteria
by which to evaluate

3
00:00:14,430 --> 00:00:17,120
the legislative proposals
in the legislative hearings.

4
00:00:17,120 --> 00:00:20,700
And I'm going to present
them in my suggested order

5
00:00:20,700 --> 00:00:22,430
of importance of the criteria.

6
00:00:22,430 --> 00:00:25,810
So number one, I would suggest
the most important criterion

7
00:00:25,810 --> 00:00:26,930
is science.

8
00:00:26,930 --> 00:00:30,720
So ask yourself,
does the question

9
00:00:30,720 --> 00:00:32,990
used to evaluate
the proposals, ask

10
00:00:32,990 --> 00:00:36,590
yourself does the proposal
accord with valid research

11
00:00:36,590 --> 00:00:39,950
on maintaining fish populations?

12
00:00:39,950 --> 00:00:43,010
Number two, I would suggest the
second most important criterion

13
00:00:43,010 --> 00:00:45,260
is policy design and economics.

14
00:00:45,260 --> 00:00:48,920
Ask yourself does the proposal
include a well-designed policy?

15
00:00:48,920 --> 00:00:50,990
And number three,
I would suggest

16
00:00:50,990 --> 00:00:56,180
that the third most important
criterion is politics.

17
00:00:56,180 --> 00:00:59,575
Ask yourself does the
proposal have support and is

18
00:00:59,575 --> 00:01:04,680
it likely to pass, or can
you make it likely to pass?

19
00:01:04,680 --> 00:01:08,390
Values and management
are two other criteria

20
00:01:08,390 --> 00:01:12,830
that I have not ranked in
the top three for this issue.

21
00:01:12,830 --> 00:01:15,110
If you take a look at
the handout on the board,

22
00:01:15,110 --> 00:01:18,830
you'll see why I haven't
ranked management

23
00:01:18,830 --> 00:01:20,930
as the most important
criterion for this issue.

24
00:01:20,930 --> 00:01:23,600
We already have the
Magnuson-Stevens Act,

25
00:01:23,600 --> 00:01:27,510
which is the federal legislation
used to manage fisheries.

26
00:01:27,510 --> 00:01:34,740
And since it was revised in 1996
you can see the top map shows--

27
00:01:34,740 --> 00:01:36,800
with the red circles,
all the red circles

28
00:01:36,800 --> 00:01:39,380
are fish populations
that have recovered

29
00:01:39,380 --> 00:01:45,320
in the New England states, your
home constituency since 2000.

30
00:01:45,320 --> 00:01:52,040
And the graph on the bottom
shows an overall decline

31
00:01:52,040 --> 00:01:57,050
in fish stocks that are
having measured as overfished.

32
00:01:57,050 --> 00:02:02,599
So this isn't primarily a
management problem because we--

33
00:02:02,599 --> 00:02:04,640
there will doubtless be
proposals with management

34
00:02:04,640 --> 00:02:06,764
problems, but for this
issue, we at least

35
00:02:06,764 --> 00:02:08,389
know that management
is possible and we

36
00:02:08,389 --> 00:02:12,100
know that we have some
success in managing this issue

37
00:02:12,100 --> 00:02:14,450
federally.

38
00:02:14,450 --> 00:02:16,250
So we have some
organizational capacity

39
00:02:16,250 --> 00:02:17,750
that we're already aware of.

40
00:02:17,750 --> 00:02:21,740
So now I'm going to go
over the three top criteria

41
00:02:21,740 --> 00:02:23,690
and why I've ranked
them that way

42
00:02:23,690 --> 00:02:28,940
with some important questions
to use to gather information

43
00:02:28,940 --> 00:02:31,100
during the hearings for
each of the criteria.

44
00:02:31,100 --> 00:02:35,026
So number one is science.

45
00:02:35,026 --> 00:02:37,150
Science I've ranked as the
most important criterion

46
00:02:37,150 --> 00:02:39,440
for this issue because
science is our best

47
00:02:39,440 --> 00:02:41,660
tool for understanding
the natural world, which

48
00:02:41,660 --> 00:02:42,830
includes fisheries.

49
00:02:42,830 --> 00:02:44,660
Also, it's very
important for this issue

50
00:02:44,660 --> 00:02:46,940
because as you may
know, there seems

51
00:02:46,940 --> 00:02:50,420
to be legitimate disagreement
about the science

52
00:02:50,420 --> 00:02:51,650
on this issue.

53
00:02:51,650 --> 00:02:55,730
So it's very important for you
to use the hearings to assess--

54
00:02:55,730 --> 00:02:57,230
you're going to
have to take a stand

55
00:02:57,230 --> 00:03:00,200
on which of the science
that's presented to you

56
00:03:00,200 --> 00:03:01,520
you think is valid.

57
00:03:01,520 --> 00:03:03,870
And that's going
to underpin how do

58
00:03:03,870 --> 00:03:06,950
you assess the other criteria.

59
00:03:06,950 --> 00:03:11,042
You're going to have to
take a stand on science

60
00:03:11,042 --> 00:03:14,200
in order to decide which
legislation to support.

61
00:03:16,760 --> 00:03:19,830
You can't really assess the
policy design for example,

62
00:03:19,830 --> 00:03:23,220
without knowing what science
you think is legitimate.

63
00:03:23,220 --> 00:03:25,370
Some really important
questions to ask yourself

64
00:03:25,370 --> 00:03:27,120
about the science
during the hearings,

65
00:03:27,120 --> 00:03:30,140
some important
information to gather,

66
00:03:30,140 --> 00:03:31,700
it's important to
find out who funded

67
00:03:31,700 --> 00:03:34,640
the research, each research
that's presented to you.

68
00:03:34,640 --> 00:03:37,640
Also whether the
research was published

69
00:03:37,640 --> 00:03:38,794
in a peer-reviewed journal.

70
00:03:38,794 --> 00:03:41,210
Peer-reviewed research has
been vetted by other scientists

71
00:03:41,210 --> 00:03:43,580
and has had criticism
from other scientists who

72
00:03:43,580 --> 00:03:44,750
weren't involved in it.

73
00:03:44,750 --> 00:03:48,260
Non-peer reviewed research
there's no guarantee of that.

74
00:03:48,260 --> 00:03:50,630
Ask yourself, is
there broad agreement

75
00:03:50,630 --> 00:03:53,930
among other scientists
with this research

76
00:03:53,930 --> 00:03:56,690
or is this research presented
by one or two scientists

77
00:03:56,690 --> 00:04:01,290
and the rest of the scientific
community disagrees with them?

78
00:04:01,290 --> 00:04:05,600
And in general,
just ask yourself

79
00:04:05,600 --> 00:04:10,770
when a proposal presents
a method of management,

80
00:04:10,770 --> 00:04:13,760
what ways of management,
of fisheries management,

81
00:04:13,760 --> 00:04:16,982
have data to show that
they're actually effective.

82
00:04:16,982 --> 00:04:21,875
So going on to number two,
policy design and economics.

83
00:04:21,875 --> 00:04:23,720
That's also a very
important criterion

84
00:04:23,720 --> 00:04:27,890
because any policies
effectiveness

85
00:04:27,890 --> 00:04:30,890
is going to be dependent
on it being well-designed.

86
00:04:30,890 --> 00:04:35,450
And the economic
costs of each proposal

87
00:04:35,450 --> 00:04:37,520
are real both to
your constituents

88
00:04:37,520 --> 00:04:39,360
and to the federal government.

89
00:04:39,360 --> 00:04:41,750
And so far, we have
very little information

90
00:04:41,750 --> 00:04:44,644
about the different
proposals policy designs.

91
00:04:44,644 --> 00:04:46,310
So it is important
to gather information

92
00:04:46,310 --> 00:04:49,630
during the hearings
about the policy design.

93
00:04:49,630 --> 00:04:52,910
So some important
questions to ask yourself

94
00:04:52,910 --> 00:04:58,070
are what are the economic costs
associated with each proposal

95
00:04:58,070 --> 00:05:01,550
both to your constituents,
both short-term cost

96
00:05:01,550 --> 00:05:04,820
and long-term costs
both to our state

97
00:05:04,820 --> 00:05:08,010
and to the federal government?

98
00:05:08,010 --> 00:05:10,260
What are the economic benefits
of each proposal again,

99
00:05:10,260 --> 00:05:12,038
both short-term and long-term?

100
00:05:14,825 --> 00:05:19,340
It's important to ask yourself
of the proposals which

101
00:05:19,340 --> 00:05:23,790
proposal is the least coercive
while still being effective?

102
00:05:23,790 --> 00:05:29,180
So if we can incorporate some
aspects of self-organization

103
00:05:29,180 --> 00:05:35,360
of the fisheries
industry that will often

104
00:05:35,360 --> 00:05:38,540
make it a less coercive policy.

105
00:05:41,470 --> 00:05:45,290
Also from the policy
design standpoint,

106
00:05:45,290 --> 00:05:49,380
an important question to try to
suss out from the hearings is,

107
00:05:49,380 --> 00:05:51,800
are the fisheries likely
to comply with the policy?

108
00:05:51,800 --> 00:05:54,740
Who's going to make them
comply if they don't?

109
00:05:54,740 --> 00:05:56,180
Who will implement the policy?

110
00:05:56,180 --> 00:05:58,720
LAWRENCE SUSSKIND: 20 seconds.

111
00:05:58,720 --> 00:06:00,650
GUEST SPEAKER: And
moving on to politics,

112
00:06:00,650 --> 00:06:05,275
politics is important because
your re-election is important

113
00:06:05,275 --> 00:06:09,650
and because the hearings
are an important time

114
00:06:09,650 --> 00:06:12,094
to gather political information.

115
00:06:12,094 --> 00:06:13,760
LAWRENCE SUSSKIND:
Thank you, very much.

116
00:06:13,760 --> 00:06:14,260
Good.

117
00:06:14,260 --> 00:06:15,910
Good job.