Order Code IB10139
CRS Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal
Legislation in the 109th Congress
Updated April 22, 2005
Eugene H. Buck
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

CONTENTS
SUMMARY
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Commercial and Sport Fisheries: Background and Issues
Magnuson Act Reauthorization
Pacific Salmon
Miscellaneous Issues
Aquaculture: Background and Issues
Miscellaneous Issues
Marine Mammals: Background and Issues
Marine Mammal Protection Act Reauthorization
Miscellaneous Issues
NMFS Appropriations
LEGISLATION


IB10139
04-22-05
Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Legislation
in the 109th Congress
SUMMARY
Fish and marine mammals are important
funding, required regulations allowing wild
resources in open ocean and nearshore coastal
seafood to be certified or labeled as organic,
areas. Many laws and regulations guide the
rationalized certain Alaska crab fisheries and
management of these resources by federal
instituted crab processor quotas, reauthorized
agencies.
the Yukon River Salmon Act, made Depart-
ment of Defense Buy American requirements
Reauthorization of major legislation —
permanently inapplicable to the procurement
the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
of seafood, increased consultation on fishery
and Management Act (MSFCMA) and the
law enforcement, and extended income aver-
Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) —
aging to commercial fishermen.
will likely be on the agenda of the 109th Con-
gress, since the authorization of appropriations
Aquaculture — the farming of fish,
for both laws expired at the end of FY1999.
shellfish, and other aquatic animals and plants
In the 108th Congress, reauthorization bills
in a controlled environment — is expanding
were introduced and oversight hearings were
rapidly, both in the United States and abroad.
held. One MMPA reauthorization bill was
In the United States, important species cul-
reported. Recommendations by the U.S.
tured include catfish, salmon, shellfish, and
Commission on Ocean Policy will likely play
trout. Legislation related to aquaculture en-
a role in actions considered during the 109th
acted by the 108th Congress authorized interim
Congress.
assistance to operators awaiting recovery of
damages for oil spill injuries and provided
Commercial and sport fishing are jointly
restoration funding for hurricane-damaged
managed by the federal government and indi-
oyster reefs.
vidual states. States have jurisdiction gener-
ally within 3 miles of the coast. Beyond state
Marine mammals are protected under the
jurisdiction and out to 200 miles, the federal
MMPA. This Act authorizes restricted use
government manages fisheries under the
(“take”) of marine mammals. It addresses
MSFCMA through eight regional fishery
specific situations of concern, such as dolphin
management councils. Beyond 200 miles, the
mortality, which is primarily associated with
United States participates in international
the eastern tropical Pacific tuna fishery.
agreements relating to specific areas or spe-
Legislation enacted by the 108th Congress
cies.
required the evaluation of foreign compliance
with the dolphin conservation programs,
Legislation related to commercial and
permitted imports of polar bears harvested
sport fisheries enacted by the 108th Congress
prior to final regulations, modified the provi-
authorized several commercial fishing capac-
sions on taking marine mammals related to
ity reduction programs, required increased
military readiness activities and federal scien-
legal and fiscal accountability for Pacific
tific research, and required studies to reduce
salmon recovery, provided fishery disaster
vessel strikes on North Atlantic right whales.
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

IB10139
04-22-05
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
On April 26, 2005, the House Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries and Oceans has
scheduled a hearing on H.R. 1428, proposing to reauthorize the National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation. On April 21, 2005, the Senate passed H.R. 1268 (amended), including
amendments that would revise requirements for H-2B employers allowing certain seasonal
immigrant seafood processing workers to enter the United States, reaffirm the authority of
states to regulate certain hunting and fishing activities to distinguish between state residents
and non-residents, and increase the authorization to $25 million for design and construction
of a multispecies fish hatchery at Fort Peck Lake, Montana. On April 21, 2005, the Senate
Committee on the Judiciary reported S. 339, proposing to reaffirm the authority of states to
regulate certain hunting and fishing activities to distinguish between state residents and non-
residents. On April 20, 2005, President Bush signed P.L. 109-8 (S. 256) into law, wherein
§1007 would extend similar protection to family fishermen as currently applies to family
farmers under Chapter 12 of bankruptcy laws. On April 19, 2005, the Senate adopted a floor
amendment to H.R. 1268 that would revise requirements for H-2B employers allowing
certain seasonal immigrant seafood processing workers to enter the United States. On April
14, 2005, the House passed S. 256. On April 14, 2005, the House Resources Subcommittee
on Fisheries and Oceans held an oversight hearing on the relationship between the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and the National
Environmental Policy Act. On April 13, 2005, the Senate agreed to a floor amendment
(§6047) to H.R. 1268 to reaffirm the authority of states to regulate certain hunting and
fishing activities to distinguish between state residents and non-residents. On April 13, 2005,
the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation reported S. 362 (with
amendment), which would establish NOAA and Coast Guard programs to manage marine
debris — including lost fishing gear — and address its adverse impacts. On April 13, 2005,
the House Committee on Education and the Workforce reported H.R. 525, wherein §2 would
amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to authorize fishing industry
associations to provide health care plans for association members. On April 8, 2005, the
House Committee on the Judiciary reported S. 256. On April 6, 2005, the Senate Committee
on Environment and Public Works reported S. 732, wherein §3004 would modify the
Aquatic Resources Trust Fund (ARTF) by specifying percentage allocations to various
programs from the Sport Fish Restoration Account. On April 6, 2005, the Senate Committee
on Appropriations reported H.R. 1268 (with amendments), wherein §6010 would increase
the authorization to $25 million for design and construction of a multispecies fish hatchery
at Fort Peck Lake, Montana. (Members and staff may request e-mail notification of new
CRS reports in the areas of marine and freshwater fisheries, aquaculture, and marine
mammal issues by contacting Gene Buck at [gbuck@crs.loc.gov] and requesting to be added
to his notification list.)
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Commercial and Sport Fisheries:
Background and Issues
Historically, coastal states managed marine sport and commercial fisheries in nearshore
waters, where most seafood was caught. However, as fishing techniques improved,
CRS-1

IB10139
04-22-05
fishermen ventured farther offshore. Before the 1950s, the federal government assumed
limited responsibility for marine fisheries, responding primarily to international fishery
concerns and treaties (by enacting implementing legislation for treaties, e.g., the Northern
Pacific Halibut Act in 1937) as well as to interstate fishery conflicts (by consenting to
interstate fishery compacts, e.g., the Pacific Marine Fisheries Compact in 1947). In the late
1940s and early 1950s, several Latin American nations proclaimed marine jurisdictions
extending 200 miles offshore. This action was denounced by those within the United States
and other distant-water fishing nations who sought to preserve access for far-ranging fishing
vessels. Beginning in the 1950s (Atlantic) and 1960s (Pacific), increasing numbers of
foreign fishing vessels steamed into U.S. offshore waters to catch the substantially
unexploited seafood resources. Since the United States then claimed only a 3-mile
jurisdiction (in 1964, P.L. 88-308 prohibited fishing by foreign-flag vessels within 3 miles
of the coast; in 1966, P.L. 89-658 proclaimed an expanded 12-mile exclusive U.S. fishery
jurisdiction), foreign vessels could fish many of the same stocks caught by U.S. fishermen.
U.S. fishermen deplored this “foreign encroachment” and alleged that overfishing was
causing stress on, or outright depletion of, fish stocks. Protracted Law of the Sea Treaty
negotiations in the early and mid-1970s provided impetus for unilateral U.S. action.
The enactment of the Fishery Conservation and Management Act (FCMA) in 1976
(later renamed the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act and more recently
the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA); see
[http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/magact/]) ushered in a new era of federal marine fishery
management. The FCMA was signed into law on April 13, 1976, after several years of
debate. On March 1, 1977, marine fishery resources within 200 miles of all U.S. coasts, but
outside state jurisdiction, came under federal jurisdiction, and an entirely new multifaceted
regional management system began allocating fishing rights, with priority given to domestic
enterprise.
Primary federal management authority was vested in the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS, also more popularly referred to as “NOAA Fisheries” — see [http://www.
nmfs.noaa.gov/]) within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of
the Department of Commerce. The 200-mile fishery conservation zone was superseded by
an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), proclaimed by President Reagan on March 10, 1983
(Presidential Proclamation 5030).
Eight Regional Fishery Management Councils were created by the FCMA (see
[http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/councils/]). Council members are appointed by the Secretary of
Commerce from lists of candidates knowledgeable of fishery resources, provided by coastal
state governors. The councils prepare fishery management plans (FMPs) for those fisheries
that they determine require active federal management. After public hearings, revised FMPs
are submitted to the Secretary of Commerce for approval. Approved plans are implemented
through regulations published in the Federal Register. Together these councils and NMFS
have developed and implemented 40 FMPs for various fish and shellfish resources, with 9
additional plans in various stages of development. Some plans are created for an individual
species or a few related ones (e.g., FMPs for red drum by the South Atlantic Council and for
shrimp by the Gulf of Mexico Council). Others are developed for larger species assemblages
inhabiting similar habitats (e.g., FMPs for Gulf of Alaska groundfish by the North Pacific
Council and for reef fish by the Gulf of Mexico Council). Many of the implemented plans
have been amended (one over 30 times), and three have been developed and implemented
CRS-2

IB10139
04-22-05
jointly by two or more councils. The MSFCMA was last reauthorized in 1996 by P.L. 104-
297, the Sustainable Fisheries Act (see [http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/sfaguide/]). This
authorization of appropriations expired in FY1999.
Today, individual states manage marine fisheries in inshore and coastal waters,
generally within 3 miles of the coast. Interstate coordination occurs through three regional
(Atlantic, Gulf, and Pacific) interstate marine fishery commissions, created by
congressionally approved compacts. Beyond state waters, out to 200 miles, the federal
government manages fish and shellfish resources for which FMPs have been developed
under the MSFCMA. Individual states manage fishermen operating state-registered vessels
under state regulations consistent with any existing federal FMP when fishing in inshore state
waters and, in the absence of a federal FMP, wherever they fish.
Under initial FCMA authority, a substantial portion of the fish catch from federal
offshore waters was allocated to foreign fishing fleets. However, the 1980 American
Fisheries Promotion Act (Title II of P.L. 96-561) and other FCMA amendments orchestrated
a decrease in foreign catch allocations as domestic fishing and processing industries
expanded. Foreign catch from the U.S. EEZ declined from about 3.8 billion pounds in 1977
to zero since 1992. Commensurate with the decline of foreign catch, domestic offshore catch
in federal waters increased dramatically, from about 1.6 billion pounds (1977) to more than
6.3 billion pounds. Total (U.S. and foreign) offshore fishery landings from the U.S. EEZ
(i.e., federal waters) increased about 24% between 1977 and 1986-1988 to a peak of 6.65
billion pounds. Since this peak, annual landings have declined slightly and stabilized at
around 6 billion pounds.
In 2003, U.S. commercial fishermen landed about 7.5 billion pounds of edible,
unprocessed fish and shellfish (see [http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/commercial/index.
html]) from combined state, federal, and international waters, worth almost $3.2 billion at
the dock. Imports of mostly processed products supplied another 4.9 billion pounds, worth
about $11.1 billion. U.S. consumers spent an estimated $61.2 billion on edible seafood in
2003, with about $42 billion of that amount spent in restaurants and other food service
establishments. In addition, marine recreational anglers caught an estimated 452 million fish
in 2003, of which the retained catch was about 263 million pounds (see [http://www.st.nmfs.
gov/st1/recreational/index.html]). In 2001, a nationwide survey estimated that recreational
anglers spent almost $36 billion each year pursuing their sport (see [http://www.census.gov/
prod/www/abs/fishing.html]).
Magnuson Act Reauthorization
Background. The MSFCMA was last reauthorized in 1996 by P.L. 104-297, the
Sustainable Fisheries Act; authorization for appropriations expired on September 30, 1999.
The 1996 amendments established fish conservation initiatives directing NMFS and regional
councils to protect essential fish habitat, minimize incidental fish bycatch, and restore
overfished stocks. In addition, a host of modifications to regional council management
procedures and federal management policy were enacted. NMFS contends that
implementation of the 1996 amendments has met many of the Act’s objectives (see
[http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/releases99/jan99/noaa99-4.html]); fishing industry and
environmental groups have criticized NMFS and regional council implementation efforts.
While environmental groups have expressed concerns that NMFS and regional councils have
CRS-3

IB10139
04-22-05
not been as responsive as needed on conservation measures, fishing industry representatives
are concerned that too stringent an application of conservation measures may cripple
commercial fishing and bankrupt many fishermen. A key issue in any reauthorization debate
in the 109th Congress may be seeking a balance between conserving fish and maintaining a
viable commercial fishing industry.
Congressional Action. At issue for the 109th Congress will be the terms and
conditions of provisions designed to reauthorize and amend the MSFCMA to address the
concerns of various interest groups. For additional information on reauthorization issues
likely to be discussed in the 109th Congress, see CRS Report RL30215, The Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act: Reauthorization Issues
.
In the 109th Congress, S. 797 and §1825 of H.R. 3 seek to clarify the eligibility for
communities to participate in the western Alaska community development quota (CDQ)
program. On March 7, 2005, the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
reported H.R. 3, amended (H.Rept. 109-12); on March 10, 2005, the House passed this bill
(amended). H.R. 1431 proposes to amend the MSFCMA to modify requirements for the
appointment and training of members of regional councils, and to modify how certain
regional council committees and panels conduct business. Section 1622 of S. 732 proposes
to repeal the P.L. 108-199 prohibition on FY2004 New England fisheries expenditures (this
provision appears to have already been repealed by §304 of P.L. 108-219). On April 14,
2005, the House Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries and Oceans held an oversight hearing
on the relationship between the MSFCMA and the National Environmental Policy Act.
Pacific Salmon
Background. Five species of salmon spawn in Pacific coastal rivers and lakes, after
which juveniles migrate to North Pacific ocean waters where they mature. Since these fish
may cross several state and national boundaries during their life spans, management is
complicated. Threats to salmon include hydropower dams blocking rivers and creating
reservoirs, sport and commercial harvests, habitat modification by competing resource
industries and human development, and hatcheries seeking to supplement natural production
but sometimes unintentionally causing genetic or developmental concerns. In response to
declining salmon populations in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California, discrete
population units have been listed as endangered or threatened species under the Endangered
Species Act. For background on this issue, see CRS Report 98-666 ENR, Pacific Salmon
and Anadromous Trout: Management Under the Endangered Species Act
; and CRS Report
RL31546, The Endangered Species Act and Science: The Case of Pacific Salmon.
To address some of these concerns, the United States and Canada negotiated a bilateral
agreement on Pacific salmon in 1985. However, by the mid-1990s, controversy stalled
renegotiations to adjust cooperative management of these fish, and U.S.-Canada relations
became more antagonistic, including the blockade of an Alaska state ferry by British
Columbia fishermen in Prince Rupert, BC, in July 1997. This deadlock was resolved in June
1999 when a new accord was concluded. For additional information on the Pacific Salmon
Treaty and new agreement, see CRS Report RL30234, The Pacific Salmon Treaty: The 1999
Agreement in Historical Perspective
.
CRS-4

IB10139
04-22-05
Congressional Action. In the 109th Congress, §1119(b)(2) of H.R. 3 would limit
the expenditures to no more than $2.5 million annually from the Highway Trust Fund for
federal forest highways to repair, maintain, or remove culverts and bridges on forest
highways to facilitate fish passage. On March 7, 2005, the House Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure reported H.R. 3, amended (H.Rept. 109-12), with the cited
provision at §1120(b)(2); the House passed this bill (amended) on March 10, 2005, with this
fish passage provision at §1121(b)(2). H.R. 1615 would require a National Academy of
Sciences analysis of federal salmon recovery efforts and a Government Accountability Office
study of the effects of partially removing four lower Snake River dams, and would authorize
partial removal of these four dams under certain conditions.
Miscellaneous Issues
Invasive Species. S. 363 would amend the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance
Prevention and Control Act of 1990 to promote the development and adoption of new ballast
water treatment technologies and standards. Section 12 of S. 793/H.R. 1636 would express
the sense of Congress that strong mandatory standards for ballast water be enacted. H.R.
1591 and S. 770 would reauthorize and amend the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance
Prevention and Control Act of 1990 to address ballast water management and other concerns.
(For background on ballast water management, see CRS Report RL32344, Ballast Water
Management to Combat Invasive Species
.) Section 7(d)(4) of H.R. 792 would allocate funds
to the State of Illinois for a project to establish a permanent invasive species barrier between
the Mississippi River and Lake Michigan. S.Con.Res. 12 would require that any agreement
signed by the United States not preclude measures to combat invasive species. S. 507/H.R.
1593 would authorize and establish the National Invasive Species Council. Section
4(b)(1)(C) of S. 508 would authorize Great Lakes Environmental Restoration Grants for
invasive species prevention and control. H.R. 1592 would authorize various marine and
freshwater research, development, and demonstration programs to address invasive species
concerns.
Recreational Fishing. S. 421 would reauthorize and expand the Aquatic Resources
Trust Fund (ARTF) and its programs relating to sport fishing and recreational boating safety.
H.R. 996 would extend the authorization for transfer of motorboat and small engine fuel tax
receipts to the ARTF through FY2011, terminate the allocation of a portion of these fuel tax
receipts to the General Fund, and extend the authorization of appropriations from the Boat
Safety Account for state recreational boating safety programs through FY2009. On March
8, 2005, H.R. 996 was reported (amended) by the House Committee on Ways and Means
(H.Rept. 109-13). Title III of S. 732, reported April 6, 2005, would modify the ARTF by
specifying percentage allocations to various programs from the Sport Fish Restoration
Account (§3004). H.R. 3, as passed by the House on March 10, 2005, includes §10002(c)
to extend deposits of fuel taxes into the ARTF through FY2011, and §10002(d)(2)(B) to
extend the authorization for expenditures from the Boat Safety Account through FY2009.
(For background on the ARTF and programs, see CRS Report RS22060, The Aquatic
Resources Trust Fund
.) H.R. 1351/S. 548 would establish a grant program to encourage
private landowners to provide public access for fishing and other outdoor recreation.
Habitat Restoration. S. 218 would amend the Food Security Act to authorize the
Natural Resources Conservation Service to establish a stream habitat improvement program,
funded at $60 million annually for FY2006-FY2008. S. 260 would expand the authorization
CRS-5

IB10139
04-22-05
of the Secretary of the Interior to assist private landowners in restoring, enhancing, and
managing fish habitat on private land through the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program.
Section 4(b)(1)(D) of S. 508 would authorize state and local grants for fish habitat
improvement in the Great Lakes region. S. 728 would specifically authorize projects to
restore and rehabilitate oyster beds, bars, reefs, and shellfish habitat in Chesapeake Bay
(§3090) and in Long Island Sound (§3060).
Assistance. Section 104(b) of H.R. 27 proposes to amend the Workforce Investment
Act to specifically require state plans to discuss how states would address the employment
and training needs of dislocated fishermen. This bill was reported (amended) by the House
Committee on Education and the Workforce on February 25, 2005 (H.Rept. 109-9), with
supplement report filed March 1, 2005 (H.Rept. 109-9, Part II). On March 2, 2005, the
House passed H.R. 27, amended.
Hydropower and Water Projects. S. 232 proposes to authorize the Secretary of
the Interior, acting through the Bureau of Reclamation, to assist in implementing fish passage
and screening facilities at non-federal water projects. On March 10, 2005, the Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources reported S. 232 (S.Rept. 109-31). Section 101(a)(7) of
H.R. 737 would set a goal for Department of Energy hydropower programs to decrease
damage to fish and aquatic ecosystems. Section 201 of S. 753 would amend the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 to require full mitigation for aquatic resource losses at
Corps of Engineers projects. Section 231 of H.R. 6 would allow federal hydropower
licensees to propose alternatives to fishways required by the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission as long as the alternatives would not diminish fish passage.
Bankruptcy. Section 1007 of S. 256/H.R. 685 would extend similar protection to
family fishermen as currently applies to family farmers under Chapter 12 of bankruptcy laws.
On February 10, 2005, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary held hearings on S. 256; the
committee reported this measure, amended, on February 17, 2005. On March 10, 2005, the
Senate passed S. 256 (amended). On April 8, 2005, the House Committee on the Judiciary
reported S. 256 (H.Rept. 109-31, Part I), and the House passed this measure on April 14,
2005. President Bush signed this measure into law as P.L. 109-8 on April 20, 2005.
Trade. Section 343(b) of S. 14 would authorize a program for trade adjustment
assistance to commercial fishermen, fish processors, and fishing communities. S. 270 would
establish a framework for legislative and executive consideration of unilateral economic
sanctions against foreign nations.
Tuna. H.R. 629 would extend certain tax credits, beneficial to American Samoa tuna
canneries, through January 1, 2016. S. 599 would modify the duty treatment of tuna to
specifically identify tuna packed in pouches, and would eliminate duties on certain tuna
products imported from cited ASEAN nations.
Marine Debris. S. 362 would establish NOAA and Coast Guard programs to manage
marine debris — including lost fishing gear — and address its adverse impacts. The Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation reported this bill (with amendment)
on April 13, 2005 (S.Rept. 109-56).
CRS-6

IB10139
04-22-05
International Fisheries. Section 103(4) of S. 600 would authorize an appropriation
of $25,123,000 for “International Fisheries Commissions” for FY2006, and such sums as
may be necessary for FY2007; this bill was reported by the Senate Committee on Foreign
Relations on March 10, 2005 (S.Rept. 109-35).
Seasonal Labor. S. 352 would revise requirements for H-2B employers allowing
certain seasonal immigrant seafood processing workers to enter the United States. On April
19, 2005, the Senate adopted a floor amendment to H.R. 1268 that would revise requirements
for H-2B employers allowing certain seasonal immigrant seafood processing workers to enter
the United States; the Senate passed H.R. 1268 (amended) on April 21, 2005.
Tax Provisions. Section 308 of S. 6 proposes to amend the Internal Revenue Code
to provide tax incentives for participation in the Fish and Wildlife Services’ “Partners for
Fish and Wildlife Program.”
Seafood Safety. S. 131 would amend the Clean Air Act to promote research to
clarify the contribution of U.S. electricity generation to mercury contamination in fish and
seafood. Section 12 of S. 730 would amend the Clean Air Act to require the EPA
Administrator to evaluate and improve fish consumption advisories concerning mercury
contamination of fish. Section 102 of H.R. 1507/S. 729 would consolidate food safety and
inspection programs, including seafood inspection.
State Management. S. 339 and H.R. 731 would reaffirm the authority of states to
regulate certain hunting and fishing activities to distinguish between state residents and non-
residents. On April 13, 2005, the Senate agreed to a floor amendment (§6047) to H.R. 1268
to reaffirm the authority of states to regulate certain hunting and fishing activities to
distinguish between state residents and non-residents; the Senate passed H.R. 1268
(amended) on April 21, 2005. On April 21, 2005, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary
reported S. 339.
Health Care. Section 2 of H.R. 525/S. 406 would amend the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 to authorize fishing industry associations to provide health care
plans for association members. On April 13, 2005, the House Committee on Education and
the Workforce reported H.R. 525 (H.Rept. 109-41).
Capital Construction Fund. S. 343 would permit qualified withdrawals from the
Capital Construction Fund for fishermen leaving the industry and for the rollover of Capital
Construction Funds to individual retirement plans.
Marketing. H.R. 710 would provide financial assistance for the construction,
improvement, and rehabilitation of farmers markets, including those selling products from
local aquaculture and commercial fishing.
Climate Change. H.R. 759 would require the Secretary of Commerce to prepare a
report on the observed and projected effects of climate change on marine life, habitat, and
commercial and recreational fisheries.
CRS-7

IB10139
04-22-05
Corals and Coral Reefs. On March 1, 2005, the House Resources Subcommittee
on Fisheries and Oceans held an oversight hearing on the Coral Reef Conservation Act of
2000.
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. H.R. 1428 would reauthorize the
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. The House Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries
and Oceans has scheduled a hearing on this bill on April 26, 2005.
Aquaculture: Background and Issues
Aquaculture is broadly defined as the farming or husbandry of fish, shellfish, and other
aquatic animals and plants, usually in a controlled or selected environment. The diversity
of aquaculture is typified by such activities as: fish farming, usually applied to freshwater
commercial aquaculture operations (e.g., catfish and trout farms; see [http://www.usda.gov/
nass/pubs/stathigh/2002/livestock02.pdf]); shellfish and seaweed culture; net-pen culture,
used by the salmon industry, wherein fish remain captive throughout their lives in marine
pens built from nets; and ocean ranching, used by the Pacific Coast salmon industry, which
cultures juveniles, releases them to mature in the open ocean, and catches them when they
return as adults to spawn. Fish hatcheries are government and commercial aquaculture
facilities that raise fish for recreational and commercial stocking as well as to mitigate
aquatic resource and habitat damage.
The United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has characterized
aquaculture as one of the world’s fastest growing food production activities. World
aquaculture production more than doubled in 10 years, from about 10 million metric tons in
1984 to a record 25.5 million metric tons in 1994, with a value of approximately $40 billion.
The FAO predicts that world aquaculture production will reach between 35 million metric
tons and 40 million metric tons in 2010 (see [http://www.fao.org/documents/show_cdr.asp?
url_file=/docrep/w9900e/w9900e05.htm]). U.S. aquaculture, until recently and with a few
exceptions, has been considered a minor industry. Despite considerable growth, the domestic
aquaculture industry faces strong competition from imports of foreign aquacultural products,
from the domestic poultry and livestock industries, and from wild harvests (see [http://usda.
mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/erssor/livestock/ldp-aqs/2004/aqs20.pdf]). With growth, how-
ever, aquaculture operations are facing increasing scrutiny for habitat destruction, pollution,
and other concerns. The major statute affecting U.S. aquaculture is the National Aquaculture
Act of 1980, as amended (16 U.S.C. §2801, et seq.). For more information, see CRS Report
97-436, Aquaculture and the Federal Role (Out of print. For copies, contact author at
gbuck@crs.loc.gov); and CRS Report RL32694, Open Ocean Aquaculture.
Miscellaneous Issues
Bankruptcy. Section 1007 of S. 256/H.R. 685 would extend similar protection to
family fishermen (including aquaculture operations) as currently applies to family farmers
under Chapter 12 of bankruptcy laws. On February 10, 2005, the Senate Committee on the
Judiciary held hearings on S. 256; the committee reported this measure, amended, on
February 17, 2005. On March 10, 2005, the Senate passed S. 256 (amended). On April 8,
2005, the House Committee on the Judiciary reported S. 256 (H.Rept. 109-31, Part I), and
CRS-8

IB10139
04-22-05
the House passed this measure on April 14, 2005. President Bush signed this measure into
law as P.L. 109-8 on April 20, 2005.
Mitigation Hatcheries. H.R. 537 would authorize specific activities wherein
National Fish Hatchery production would compensate for the impacts of federal water
development projects on aquatic resources. Section 6010 of H.R. 1268, as reported by the
Senate Committee on Appropriations (S.Rept. 109-52) on April 6, 2005, and §3057 of S. 728
would increase the authorization to $25 million for design and construction of a multispecies
fish hatchery at Fort Peck Lake, Montana. The Senate passed H.R. 1268 (amended) on April
21, 2005.
Marketing. H.R. 710 would provide financial assistance for the construction,
improvement, and rehabilitation of farmers markets, including those selling products from
local aquaculture and commercial fishing.
Disease. S. 572 and S. 573 seek to improve the federal response to agricultural
diseases, including diseases at aquaculture operations.
Oyster Hatcheries. Section 3090 of S. 728 would specifically authorize projects to
construct and upgrade oyster hatcheries in Chesapeake Bay.
Open Ocean Facilities. S. 796 would prohibit the issuance of permits for marine
aquaculture facilities in federal waters until requirements for such permits are enacted.
Marine Mammals: Background and Issues
Due in part to the high level of dolphin mortality (estimated at more than 400,000
animals per year) in the eastern tropical Pacific tuna purse-seine fishery, Congress enacted
the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) in 1972. While some critics assert that the
MMPA is scientifically irrational because it identifies one group of organisms for special
protection unrelated to their abundance or ecological role, this Act has accomplished much
by way of promoting research and increased understanding of marine life as well as
encouraging attention to incidental bycatch mortalities of marine life by the commercial
fishing and other maritime industries.
The Act established a moratorium on the “taking” of marine mammals in U.S. waters
and by U.S. nationals on the high seas. The Act also established a moratorium on importing
marine mammals and marine mammal products into the United States. This Act protected
marine mammals from “clubbing, mutilation, poisoning, capture in nets, and other human
actions that lead to extinction.” It also expressly authorized the Secretary of Commerce and
the Secretary of the Interior to issue permits for the “taking” of marine mammals for certain
purposes, such as scientific research and public display.
Under the Act, the Secretary of Commerce, acting through NMFS, is responsible for the
conservation and management of whales, dolphins, porpoises, seals, and sea lions. The
Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), is responsible
for walruses, sea and marine otters, polar bears, manatees, and dugongs. This division of
authority derives from agency responsibilities as they existed when the MMPA was enacted.
CRS-9

IB10139
04-22-05
Title II of the Act established an independent Marine Mammal Commission (MMC) and its
Committee of Scientific Advisors on Marine Mammals to oversee and recommend actions
necessary to meet the requirements of the Act.
Prior to passage of the MMPA, states were responsible for marine mammal
management on lands and in waters under their jurisdiction. The MMPA shifted marine
mammal management authority to the federal government. It provides, however, that
management authority, on a species-by-species basis, could be returned to states that adopt
conservation and management programs consistent with the purposes and policies of the Act.
It also provides that the moratorium on taking can be waived for specific purposes, if the
taking will not disadvantage the affected species or population. Permits may be issued to
take or import any marine mammal species, including depleted species, for scientific research
or to enhance the survival or recovery of the species or stock. The MMPA allows U.S.
citizens to apply for and obtain authorization for taking small numbers of mammals
incidental to activities other than commercial fishing (e.g., offshore oil and gas exploration
and development) if the taking would have only a negligible impact on any marine mammal
species or stock, provided that monitoring requirements and other conditions are met.
The Act’s moratorium on taking does not apply to any Native American (Indian, Aleut,
or Eskimo) who resides in Alaska and who dwells near the coast of the North Pacific or
Arctic Ocean, if such taking is for subsistence purposes or for creating and selling authentic
Native articles of handicrafts and clothing, and is not done wastefully.
The Act also authorizes the taking of marine mammals incidental to commercial fishing
operations. In 1988, most U.S. commercial fish harvesters were exempted from otherwise
applicable rulemaking and permit requirements for a five-year period, pending development
of an improved system to govern the incidental taking of marine mammals in the course of
commercial fishing operations. This exemption expired at the end of FY1993, and was
extended several times until new provisions were enacted by P.L. 103-238, which
reauthorized the MMPA through FY1999. The eastern tropical Pacific tuna fishery was
excluded from the incidental take regimes enacted in 1988 and 1994. Instead, the taking of
marine mammals incidental to that fishery is governed by separate provisions of the MMPA,
and was substantially amended by P.L. 105-42, the International Dolphin Conservation
Program Act.
Marine Mammal Protection Act Reauthorization
Background. The MMPA was reauthorized in 1994 by P.L. 103-238, the Marine
Mammal Protection Act Amendments of 1994; the authorization for appropriations expired
on September 30, 1999. The 1994 amendments indefinitely authorized the taking of marine
mammals incidental to commercial fishing operations and provided for assessing marine
mammal stocks in U.S. waters, for developing and implementing take reduction plans for
stocks that may be reduced or are being maintained below their optimum sustainable
population levels due to interactions with commercial fisheries, and for studying pinniped-
fishery interactions. For more information on the 1994 amendments, see CRS Report 94-751
ENR, Marine Mammal Protection Act Amendments of 1994 (Out of print. For copies, contact
author at gbuck@crs.loc.gov).
CRS-10

IB10139
04-22-05
Congressional Action. At issue for the 109th Congress will be the terms and
conditions of any provisions designed to reauthorize and amend the MMPA to address the
concerns of various interest groups. For additional information on potential reauthorization
issues in the 109th Congress, see CRS Report RL30120, The Marine Mammal Protection Act:
Reauthorization Issues
.
Miscellaneous Issues
Habitat. S. 260 would expand the authorization of the Secretary of the Interior to assist
private landowners in restoring, enhancing, and managing marine mammal habitat on private
land through the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program.
Marine Debris. S. 362 would establish NOAA and Coast Guard programs to manage
marine debris and address its adverse impacts. The Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation reported this bill (with amendment) on April 13, 2005 (S.Rept.
109-56).
Small Cetacean Kills. S.Res. 99 would express the sense of the Senate condemning
the commercial slaughter of small cetaceans by certain nations and supporting certain
policies at the 57th Annual Meeting of the International Whaling Commission.
Climate Change. H.R. 759 would require the Secretary of Commerce to prepare a
report on the observed and projected effects of climate change on marine life and habitat.
Tuna-Dolphin. S. 270 would establish a framework for legislative and executive
consideration of unilateral economic sanctions against foreign nations.
Canadian Sealing. S.Res. 33 urges Canada to end commercial seal hunting.
NMFS Appropriations
On February 7, 2005, the Bush Administration requested FY2006 funds for federal
agencies and programs, including $625.5 million in direct program funds for NMFS (see
Table 1) — this is a $51 million (7.5%) reduction from FY2005 direct program funding for
NMFS enacted in the omnibus appropriations bill, P.L. 108-447. The FY2005 omnibus
appropriations measure also authorized capacity reduction funding for the Southeast Alaska
purse seine salmon fishery ($50 million; §209, Division B), the Gulf of Mexico reef fish
longline fishery ($35 million; §218, Division B), the Bering Sea Aleutian Island non-pollock
groundfish fishery ($75 million; §219(b), Division B), the U.S. distant water tuna fleet ($40
million; Fisheries Finance Program Account, Division B), and the menhaden fishery ($19
million; Fisheries Finance Program Account, Division B); and increased the coordination of
interagency ocean science programs, including U.S. research and monitoring programs
related to seafood safety, and identified hypoxia and harmful algal blooms as important in
addressing the role of oceans in human health (Title IX, Division B). On March 10, 2005,
the House Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries and Oceans held an oversight hearing on
NMFS’s FY2006 budget request.
CRS-11

IB10139
04-22-05
Table 1. NMFS Appropriations
(in thousands of dollars)
FY2004
FY2005
FY2005
FY2006
Enacted
Request
Enacted
Request
Fisheries
363,815
368,546
377,390
351,932
Protected Resources
145,118
154,965
175,530
159,273
Habitat Conservation
41,221
46,280
53,248
34,096
Enforcement Surveillance
71,187
53,401
70,347
80,163
SUBTOTAL
621,341
623,192
676,515
625,464
Procurement, Acquisition, and Construction
23,200
2,000
31,048
2,000
Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery
89,052
100,000
88,798
90,000
Other Accounts
24,500
5,792
27,284
10,419
TOTAL
758,093
735,203
823,645
727,883
Sources: Budget Justifications, House and Senate Committee Reports, and floor debate.
LEGISLATION
Fisheries
P.L. 109-8 (S. 256).
H.R. 3 (Young of Alaska); H.R. 6 (Barton); H.R. 27 (McKeon); H.R. 525 (Sam
Johnson); H.R. 629 (Faleomavaega); H.R. 685 (Sensenbrenner); H.R. 710 (Kaptur); H.R.
731 (Udall); H.R. 737 (Woolsey); H.R. 759 (Gilchrest); H.R. 792 (Emanuel); H.R. 996
(Thomas); H.R. 1268 (Lewis of California); H.R. 1351 (Pomeroy); H.R. 1428 (Pombo); H.R.
1431 (Rahall); H.R. 1507 (DeLauro); H.R. 1591 (Gilchrest); H.R. 1592 (Ehlers); H.R. 1593
(Ehlers); H.R. 1615 (McDermott); H.R. 1636 (Farr); S.Con.Res. 12 (Feingold); S. 6
(Santorum); S. 14 (Stabenow); S. 131 (Inhofe); S. 218 (Kohl); S. 232 (Smith); S. 260
(Inhofe); S. 270 (Lugar); S. 339 (Reid); S. 343 (Wyden); S. 352 (Mikulski); S. 362 (Inouye);
S. 363 (Inouye); S. 406 (Snowe); S. 421 (Lott); S. 507 (DeWine); S. 508 (DeWine); S. 548
(Conrad); S. 599 (Kerry); S. 600 (Lugar); S. 728 (Bond); S. 729 (Durbin); S. 730 (Leahy);
S. 732 (Inhofe); S. 753 (Feingold); S. 770 (Levin); S. 793 (Durbin); and S. 797 (Murkowski).
Aquaculture
P.L. 109-8 (S. 256).
H.R. 537 (Deal); H.R. 685 (Sensenbrenner); H.R. 710 (Kaptur); S. 572 (Akaka); S. 573
(Akaka); S. 728 (Bond); and S. 796 (Murkowski).
Marine Mammals
H.R. 759 (Gilchrest); S.Res. 33 (Levin); S.Res. 99 (Lautenberg); S. 260 (Inhofe); S. 270
(Lugar); and S. 362 (Inouye).
CRS-12