Order Code IB10139
CRS Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal
Legislation in the 109th Congress
Updated September 9, 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
09-09-05
Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Legislation
in the 109th Congress
SUMMARY
Fish and marine mammals are important
ments to allow certain seasonal immigrant
resources in open ocean and nearshore coastal
seafood processing workers to enter the
areas. Many laws and regulations guide the
United States (§402 of P.L. 109-13), reaffirms
management of these resources by federal
state authority to regulate certain fishing
agencies.
activities to distinguish between state and
out-of-state residents (§6036 of P.L. 109-13),
Bills to reauthorize and amend major
allows hydropower licensees to propose alter-
legislation — the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
natives to fishways as long as the alternatives
Conservation and Management Act
would not diminish fish passage (§241 of P.L.
(MSFCMA) and the Marine Mammal Protec-
109-58), and comprehensively amends and
tion Act (MMPA) — have been introduced in
reauthorizes the Sport Fish Restoration Pro-
the 109th Congress; the authorization of appro-
gram to permanently appropriate boat safety
priations for both laws expired at the end of
funding and modify distribution of funds
FY1999. Bills offering extensive amendments
(Title X of P.L. 109-59).
to the MSFCMA include H.R. 1431 and S.
1224. Both H.R. 2130 and S. 1224 propose
Aquaculture — the farming of fish,
extensive amendments to the MMPA. Rec-
shellfish, and other aquatic animals and plants
ommendations by the U.S. Commission on -
in a controlled environment — is expanding
Ocean Policy will likely play a role in actions
rapidly, both in the United States and abroad.
considered during the 109th Congress.
In the United States, important species cul-
tured include catfish, salmon, shellfish, and
Commercial and sport fishing are jointly
trout. Legislation related to aquaculture en-
managed by the federal government and indi-
acted by the 109th Congress extends protection
vidual states. States have jurisdiction gener-
to family fishermen (including aquaculture
ally within 3 miles of the coast. Beyond state
operations) under Chapter 12 of bankruptcy
jurisdiction and out to 200 miles, the federal
law (§1007 of P.L. 109-8).
government manages fisheries under the
MSFCMA through eight regional fishery
Marine mammals are protected under the
management councils. Beyond 200 miles, the
MMPA. With few exemptions, the MMPA
United States participates in international
prohibits harm or harassment (“take”) of
agreements relating to specific areas or spe-
marine mammals, unless restrictive permits
cies.
are obtained. It addresses specific situations
of concern, such as dolphin mortality, which
Legislation related to commercial and
is primarily associated with the eastern tropi-
sport fisheries enacted thus far by the 109th
cal Pacific tuna fishery. No legislation has yet
Congress extends protection to family fisher-
been enacted by the 109th Congress relating to
men under Chapter 12 of bankruptcy law
marine mammals.
(§1007 of P.L. 109-8), revises visa require-
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

IB10139
09-09-05
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
On September 9, 2005, Secretary of Commerce Carlos M. Gutierrez declared a fishery
failure in the Gulf of Mexico, a necessary precursor for federal fishery disaster assistance.
On September 9, 2005, the House Committee on Government Reform’s Subcommittee on
Regulatory Affairs held a field hearing in Fair Haven, MI, on ballast water management. On
August 31, 2005, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works reported H.R.
1428, proposing to reauthorize the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. On August 29,
2005, Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf Coast causing widespread damage to the fishing and
aquaculture industries of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama (for more information, see
CRS Report RS22241). On August 10, 2005, President Bush signed P.L. 109-59 (the
Transportation Equity Act) wherein provisions clarified the eligibility for communities to
participate in the western Alaska community development quota (CDQ) program, limited
expenditures to no more than $10 million annually for federal forest highways to repair,
maintain, or remove culverts and bridges to facilitate fish passage, comprehensively amended
and reauthorized the Sport Fish Restoration Program to permanently appropriate boat safety
funding and modify distribution of funds whereby all accounts would annually receive a
fixed percentage of the total fund revenue, eliminated the Aquatic Resources Trust Fund and
created a Sport Fish Restoration and Boating Trust Fund, and modified the excise tax on
certain sport fishing equipment. On August 8, 2005, President Bush signed P.L. 109-58 (the
Energy Policy Act of 2005) wherein language allows 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. (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,
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
CRS-1

---

IB10139
09-09-05
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
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.
CRS-2

---

IB10139
09-09-05
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
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.
CRS-3

---

IB10139
09-09-05
In the 109th Congress, §10206 of P.L. 109-59 (the Transportation Equity Act) clarified
the eligibility for communities to participate in the western Alaska community development
quota (CDQ) program. 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, as
reported on April 6, 2005 (S.Rept. 109-53), 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). H.R. 2059 would prohibit all commercial fishing for
Atlantic striped bass. 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. H.R. 2112 would designate the exclusive economic
zone of the United States as the “Ronald Wilson Reagan Exclusive Economic Zone of the
United States.” H.R. 2673 would place use restrictions on certain bottom trawling gear,
assist fishermen in switching to alternative gear, and require federal studies to identify and
map diverse bottom habitats. S. 1224 would provide for increased efforts to protect deep sea
corals and bottom habitat (Subtitle A and §222 of Subtitle B in Title II) and would
extensively amend the MSFCMA to implement ecosystem-based management, further
reduce bycatch, establish national policy for individual fishing quotas, and modify the
regional council fishery management plan process (Title III). Section 304 of S. 1280 would
require the Coast Guard to integrate vessel monitoring system data into existing databases
to improve monitoring and enforcement of fishery law; §305 would require a Coast Guard
report to Congress on detection and interdiction of foreign fishing incursions. On July 28,
2005, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation reported (amended)
S. 1280 (S.Rept. 109-114). The House Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries and Oceans
held field hearings in Alaska on MSFCMA reauthorization on July 6, 2005 (Ketchikan) and
July 8, 2005 (Kodiak). H.R. 3278 would establish national guidelines for individual fishing
quota programs. S. 1549 proposes to rationalize the Pacific whiting (hake) fishery. S. 1635
would designate areas where trawling is permitted to protect deep sea corals and sponges.
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, 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
CRS-4

---

IB10139
09-09-05
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.
Congressional Action. In the 109th Congress, §1119(m) of P.L. 109-59 (the
Transportation Equity Act) limited the expenditures to no more than $10 million annually
from the Highway Trust Fund for federal forest highways to repair, maintain, or remove
culverts and bridges to facilitate fish passage. 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. 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), and the Senate passed this measure on July 26, 2005. Section 3099(c)(2)(F) of S.
728, as reported (amended) by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works on
April 26, 2005 (S.Rept. 109-61), would authorize the FWS to manage bird colonies in the
proposed McNary National Wildlife Refuge, to reduce the loss of juvenile salmonids. On
May 24, 2005, the House Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries and Oceans held an
oversight hearing on the federal fish hatchery system. Section 4078 of H.R. 2864 would
require a feasibility study of fish passage improvements in Oregon; this bill was reported by
the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure (amended, with the Oregon fish
passage language now at §4083) on June 24, 2005 (H.Rept. 109-154); the House passed this
bill (amended) on July 14, 2005 (fish passage language now at §4085).
Miscellaneous Issues
Bankruptcy. Section 1007 of P.L. 109-8 extends similar protection to family
fishermen as currently applies to family farmers under Chapter 12 of bankruptcy laws.
Seafood Processing. Section 402 of P.L. 109-13 revises requirements for H-2B
visas allowing certain seasonal immigrant seafood processing workers to enter the United
States. Section 203(a)(1) of H.R. 2870 would require the Labor Secretary to prohibit seafood
processing operations from employing minors.
State Management. Section 6036 of P.L. 109-13 reaffirms and clarifies the authority
of states to regulate certain hunting and fishing activities to distinguish between state
residents and non-residents.
Recreational Fishing. Funding of Aquatic Resources Trust Fund (ARTF) programs
was extended several times before a transportation bill was finally enacted — P.L. 109-14
(through June 30, 2005), P.L.109-20 (through July 19, 2005), P.L. 109-35 (through July 21,
2005), P.L. 109-37 (through July 27, 2005), P.L. 109-40 (through July 30, 2005), and P.L.
109-42 (through August 14, 2005). P.L. 109-59 (The Transportation Equity Act)
comprehensively amended and reauthorized the Sport Fish Restoration Program to
permanently appropriate boat safety funding and modify distribution of funds whereby all
accounts will annually receive a fixed percentage of the total fund revenue, eliminated the
ARTF to create a Sport Fish Restoration and Boating Trust Fund, and modified the excise
tax on certain sport fishing equipment. H.R. 3649 would fund sportfishing and boating
CRS-5

---

IB10139
09-09-05
safety programs from the Highway Trust Fund through the end of FY2005. (For background
on the ARTF and its programs, see CRS Report RS22060, The Aquatic Resources Trust
Fund.) H.R. 1351 and S. 548 would establish a grant program to encourage private
landowners to provide public access for fishing and other outdoor recreation. Section
5038(a) of H.R. 2864 would require a feasibility review of the Kings River (California)
Fisheries Management Program Framework Agreement; this bill was reported by the House
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure (amended, with the Kings River language
now at §5045(a)) on June 24, 2005 (H.Rept. 109-154). The House passed H.R. 2864
(amended) on July 14, 2005, with the Kings River language at §5051(a).
Invasive Species. S. 363 and Title VII of S. 1224 would amend the Nonindigenous
Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act (NANPCA) of 1990 to promote the
development and adoption of new ballast water treatment technologies and standards; on July
21, 2005, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation ordered S. 363
reported (amended). 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. On June 15, 2005, the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation’s National Ocean Policy Study held
a hearing on ballast water management and threats to coral reefs. On September 9, 2005, the
House Committee on Government Reform’s Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs held a
field hearing in Fair Haven, MI, on ballast water management. (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 and 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. H.R. 3049
and S. 1402 would amend the Lacey Act to add four species of carp to the list of injurious
species that are prohibited from being imported or shipped. S. 1541 would establish a
cooperative cost-shared grant program to control and mitigate the spread of invasive species
on public lands. H.R. 3468 would establish specific procedures to address invasive species
concerns in Hawaii.
Hydropower and Water Projects. Section 241 of P.L. 109-58 (the Energy Policy
Act of 2005) allows 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. 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); the Senate passed this bill on July 26,
2005. 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 and
§2027 of H.R. 2864 would amend the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 to modify
requirements for mitigation for aquatic resource losses at Corps of Engineers projects. H.R.
CRS-6

---

IB10139
09-09-05
2864 was reported by the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure (amended)
on June 24, 2005 (H.Rept. 109-154), and passed by the House (amended) on July 14, 2005.
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; S. 600 was reported by the Senate Committee on Foreign
Relations on March 10, 2005 (S.Rept. 109-35). Section 103(4) of H.R. 2601 would
authorize an appropriation of $25,123,000 for “International Fisheries Commissions” for
both FY2006 and FY2007. H.R. 2601 was reported (amended) on July 13, 2005 (H.Rept.
109-168), and passed by the House (amended) on July 20, 2005. Section 6054 of H.R. 1268,
as passed by the Senate (amended) on April 21, 2005, would have encouraged the
government of Ecuador to enforce laws, prohibit destructive fishing, and discourage illegal
fishing in the Galapagos Islands; however, this language was deleted in conference (H.Rept.
109-72) and was not included in P.L. 109-13. H.Con.Res. 168 would condemn the
Democratic People’s Republic of Korea for abducting and holding captive certain Korean
and Japanese citizens, including fishermen; the House passed the measure (amended) on July
11, 2005.
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/H.R. 2018 would expand the
authorization 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; the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works reported S. 260
(amended) on June 22, 2005 (S.Rept. 109-86), and the Senate passed S. 260 (amended) on
June 27, 2005. Title V (Subtitle C) of S. 1224 would establish a program to restore fishery
habitat with annual authorized funding of $50 million through FY2010. H.R. 3153/S. 1578
would reauthorize Upper Colorado and San Juan River Basin endangered fish recovery
programs. Section 121 (Title I, Corps of Engineers) of H.R. 2419, as reported by the Senate
Committee on Appropriations on June 16, 2005 (S.Rept. 109-84), would authorize certain
activities related to the Middle Rio Grande ESA Collaborative Program beneficial to the
silvery minnow. On July 1, 2005, the Senate passed H.R. 2419 (amended). S. 1540 would
authorize the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of the Interior to establish a program
to improve water management and contribute to the recovery of the endangered silvery
minnow in the Middle Rio Grande, New Mexico.
Oysters. S. 728, as reported (amended) on April 26, 2005 (S.Rept. 109-61), would
specifically authorize projects to restore and rehabilitate oyster beds, bars, reefs, and shellfish
habitat in Chesapeake Bay (§3095) and in Long Island Sound (§3064). H.R. 2864 would
authorize a study of oyster habitat restoration in Delaware Bay (§1005(5)) and increase the
Corps of Engineers authorization for constructing oyster habitat in Chesapeake Bay (§5017).
H.R. 2864 was reported by the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
(amended) on June 24, 2005 (H.Rept. 109-154), and passed by the House (amended) on July
14, 2005. H.R. 3110 would amend the Endangered Species Act to treat distinct population
segments of the Eastern oyster as separate species. On July 19, 2005, the House Committee
on Resources held an oversight hearing on the potential listing of the eastern oyster under the
Endangered Species Act. H.R. 3636 would suspend temporarily the duty on prepared or
preserved oysters, not smoked. Section 2(f) of S. 1494 would establish a stock enhancement
and habitat restoration program for Chesapeake Bay oysters.
CRS-7

---

IB10139
09-09-05
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. Section 2 of H.R. 2235 would require
labels to specify that certain fish and shellfish products are raw or partially cooked; §3 of this
bill would require labels to specify that certain fish or shellfish products have been frozen.
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. H.R. 1996 would amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to provide for debt relief
to developing countries that take action to protect critical coral reef habitats. H.R. 2376
would establish the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands National Marine Refuge; §7(c) of this
bill would compensate fishermen displaced by refuge creation. Title II (Subtitle A and §222
of Subtitle B) of S. 1224 would provide for increased efforts to protect deep sea corals. H.R.
2673 would place use restrictions on certain bottom trawling gear and require federal studies
to identify and map diverse bottom habitats. S. 1390 would amend and reauthorize the Coral
Reef Conservation Act of 2000. On June 15, 2005, the Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation’s National Ocean Policy Study held a hearing on threats to coral
reefs; the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation ordered S. 1390
reported (amended) on July 21, 2005. H.R. 3469 would prohibit the import, export, and take
of certain coral reef species. S. 1635 would designate areas where trawling is permitted to
protect deep sea corals and sponges.
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.
Great Lakes. Section 4(b)(1)(D) of S. 508 would authorize state and local grants for
fish habitat improvement in the Great Lakes region. Title I of H.R. 2129 would reauthorize
various programs to restore fisheries and aquatic habitat in the Great Lakes. Section 5012
of H.R. 2864 would allow non-federal participants in Great Lakes fisheries restoration to
provide as much as 100% of their non-federal share through in-kind contributions. H.R.
2864 was reported by the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure (amended)
on June 24, 2005 (H.Rept. 109-154), and passed by the House (amended) on July 14, 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. H.R. 3636 would suspend temporarily the duty on
prepared or preserved oysters, not smoked.
Tuna. H.R. 629 would extend certain tax credits, beneficial to American Samoa tuna
canneries, through January 1, 2016. S. 599/H.R. 2816 would modify the duty treatment of
CRS-8

---

IB10139
09-09-05
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), and the Senate passed this bill (amended) on July 1,
2005.
Health Care. Section 2 of H.R. 525/S. 406 and §402 of H.R. 2203 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); the House
passed this bill on July 26, 2005.
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. H.R. 1428 would reauthorize the
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. The House Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries
and Oceans held a hearing on this bill on April 26, 2005. This measure was reported
(amended) on June 8, 2005 (H.Rept. 109-112), and passed by the House (amended) on June
27, 2005. On August 31, 2005, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
reported this bill (S.Rept. 109-127).
Artificial Reefs. Section 3505 of H.R. 1815, as reported (amended) by the Committee
on Armed Services on May 20, 2005 (H.Rept. 109-89), would require a strategy and
implementation plan to dispose of obsolete Maritime Administration vessels, including use
as artificial reefs. The House passed this measure on May 25, 2005.
Vessel Safety. Section 205 of S. 1280 would establish a pilot program for dockside
no fault/no cost safety and survivability examinations for uninspected commercial fishing
vessels; §216 of this bill would require the Coast Guard to continue to provide marine vessel
safety training and cold water immersion education and outreach programs for fishermen.
On July 28, 2005, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation reported
(amended) S. 1280 (S.Rept. 109-114). S. 1473 would amend the Internal Revenue Code to
provide a business credit against income for the purchase of fishing safety equipment.
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.”
Capital Construction Fund. S. 343/H.R. 2174 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 and Labeling. 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. S. 1300 would replace mandatory
country-of-origin labeling for seafood with a voluntary program. Section 2 of H.R. 3562/S.
1556 would make the Specialty Crops Competitiveness Act applicable to wild harvested fish
and shellfish.
CRS-9

---

IB10139
09-09-05
Climate Change. H.R. 759 and §609 of H.R. 2828 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.
Saltonstall-Kennedy Act. Section 7 of H.R. 1431 and §356 of S. 1224 would
amend and modify fishery funding under the Saltonstall-Kennedy Act. For background, see
CRS Report RS21799, Saltonstall-Kennedy Fishery Funding.
Hypoxia. Section 5018 of H.R. 2864 authorizes the Corps of Engineers to participate
in Gulf of Mexico hypoxia assessment efforts. This bill was reported by the House
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure (amended) on June 24, 2005 (H.Rept. 109-
154), and passed by the House (amended) on July 14, 2005.
Jones Act. Section 211 of S. 1280 would waive the Jones Act for certain foreign
vessels that have transported fish or shellfish in Maine waters; on June 23, 2005, the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation reported S. 1280 (amended) on July
28, 2005 (S.Rept. 109-114).
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. With growth, 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 P.L. 109-8 extends similar protection to family
fishermen (including aquaculture operations) as currently applies to family farmers under
Chapter 12 of bankruptcy laws.
Mitigation Hatcheries. Section 6007 of P.L. 109-13 increases the authorization to
$25 million for the design and construction of a multispecies fish hatchery at Fort Peck Lake,
Montana. H.R. 537 would authorize specific activities wherein National Fish Hatchery
production would compensate for the impacts of federal water development projects on
CRS-10

---

IB10139
09-09-05
aquatic resources. On May 24, 2005, the House Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries and
Oceans held an oversight hearing on the federal fish hatchery system.
Open Ocean Facilities. S. 796 and §162(b)(3) of S. 1224 would prohibit the
issuance of permits for marine aquaculture facilities in federal waters until requirements for
such permits are enacted. S. 1224 also would establish a coordinated agency program for
offshore permitting (§161), designate NOAA as the lead federal agency for marine
aquaculture (§162(b)(1)), and require regulations that prohibit marine aquaculture where it
would damage or alter seafloor habitat or alter water quality (§222). S. 1195 would authorize
the Secretary of Commerce to establish and implement a regulatory system for offshore
aquaculture in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone. For additional information on offshore
aquaculture development, see CRS Report RL32694, Open Ocean Aquaculture.
Marketing and Trade. 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. The House Appropriations
Committee report (H.Rept. 109-102) on H.R. 2744 (FY2006 agriculture appropriations)
expresses concern about antibiotic contamination in imported farm-raised shrimp and
requests a report from the Food and Drug Administration on sampling of shrimp imports.
The House passed H.R. 2744 (amended) on June 8, 2005. S. 1300 would replace mandatory
country-of-origin labeling for fish and seafood with a voluntary program. Section 2 of H.R.
3562/S. 1556 would make the Specialty Crops Competitiveness Act applicable to farm-raised
fish and shellfish.
Genetic Modification. H.Amdt. 241, offered on H.R. 2744 (FY2006 agriculture
appropriations) and subsequently withdrawn, would have prohibited the use of FY2006 funds
for the approval or process of approval of an application for an animal drug for creating
transgenic salmon or any other transgenic fish. For additional information on genetically
engineered fish, see CRS Report RL32974, Genetically Engineered Fish and Seafood.
Oyster Hatcheries. Section 3095 of S. 728, as reported by the Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Works (amended) on April 26, 2005 (S.Rept. 109-61), would
specifically authorize projects to construct and upgrade oyster hatcheries in Chesapeake Bay.
National Marine Sanctuaries. Section 6(b) of S. 880/H.R. 1712 would prohibit
most aquaculture in the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary, the Cordell Bank
National Marine Sanctuary, and the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary.
Invasive Species. Section 305 of H.R. 1591/S. 770 would require efforts to promote
voluntary cooperative compliance by aquaculture operators in screening, monitoring, and
control of aquatic invasive species.
Assistance. S. 1316 would authorize the Small Business Administration to provide
emergency relief to shellfish growers affected by toxic red tide losses; the Senate passed this
bill on June 27, 2005. Section 2(g) of S. 1494 would authorize the Director of NOAA’s
Chesapeake Bay Office to make grants and enter into contracts that would promote
aquaculture development.
CRS-11

---

IB10139
09-09-05
Disease. S. 572 and S. 573 seek to improve the federal response to agricultural
diseases, including diseases at aquaculture operations.
Coral. Under certain conditions, H.R. 3469 would exempt aquaculture operations from
restrictions on coral handling and encourage cooperative aquaculture ventures to propagate
coral reef species.
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, the MMPA 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 MMPA established a moratorium on the “taking” of marine mammals in U.S.
waters and by U.S. nationals on the high seas. The MMPA also established a moratorium
on importing marine mammals and marine mammal products into the United States. The
MMPA 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 MMPA, 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. Title II of the MMPA 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 MMPA.
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 MMPA’s purposes and policies.
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.
CRS-12

---

IB10139
09-09-05
The MMPA’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 MMPA 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).
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. H.R. 2130 proposes various amendments to the MMPA
and authorizes appropriations for several programs; the House Committee on Resources
reported H.R. 2130 (amended) on July 21, 2005 (H.Rept. 109-180). Title IV of S. 1224
would amend the MMPA to encourage development of fishing gear less likely to take marine
mammals, expand fisheries required to participate in the MMPA incidental take program to
include recreational fisheries, and authorize appropriations for stock assessments and
observer programs; in addition, Title III (Subtitle C) would direct negotiation of international
agreements to better protect cetaceans from commercial fishing gear and authorize a grant
program to develop less harmful fishing gear. Section 206 of H.R. 2939 would transfer
management of all marine mammals to NOAA. 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/H.R. 2018 would expand the authorization of the Secretary of the
Interior to assist private landowners in restoring, enhancing, and managing marine mammal
CRS-13

---

IB10139
09-09-05
habitat on private land through the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program; the Senate
Committee on Environment and Public Works reported S. 260 (amended) on June 22, 2005
(S.Rept. 109-86), and the Senate passed S. 260 (amended) on June 27, 2005.
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), and the Senate passed this bill (amended) on July 1, 2005.
Ocean Noise. Section 402 of S. 1224 would amend the National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation Establishment Act to create a national ocean noise pollution research endowment
fund. For additional information on this issue, see CRS Report RS22158, Active Sonar and
Marine Mammals: Chronology with References.
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 and §609 of H.R. 2828 would require the Secretary of
Commerce to prepare a report on the observed and projected effects of climate change on
marine life and habitat.
Whaling. S.Con.Res. 33/H.Con.Res. 164 express the sense of the Congress regarding
the policy of the United States at the 57th Annual Meeting of the International Whaling
Commission.
Tuna-Dolphin. S. 270 would establish a framework for legislative and executive
consideration of unilateral economic sanctions against foreign nations.
Sea Otters. H.R. 2323 would require specific activities to promote southern sea otter
recovery and research.
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
CRS-14

---

IB10139
09-09-05
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. On June 10, 2005, the House Committee on Appro-
priations reported H.R. 2862, proposing FY2006 funding for NMFS (H.Rept. 109-118); the
House passed this bill on June 16, 2005. The Senate Committee on Appropriations reported
H.R. 2862 (amended) on June 23, 2005 (S.Rept. 109-88).
Table 1. NMFS Appropriations
(in thousands of dollars)
FY2005
FY2005
FY2006
FY2006
FY2006
Request
Enacted
Request
Hse Pasd
Sen Rptd
Fisheries
368,546
377,390
351,932
322,105
377,484
Protected Resources
154,965
175,530
159,273
126,000
176,050
Habitat Conservation
46,280
53,248
34,096
36,000
58,580
Enforcement Surveillance
53,401
70,347
80,163
72,500
78,669
SUBTOTAL
623,192
676,515
625,464
556,605
745,783*
Procurement, Acquisition, and
2,000
31,048
2,000
6,000
16,527**
Construction
Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery
100,000
88,798
90,000
50,000
90,000
Other Accounts
5,792
27,284
10,419
60
287
TOTAL
735,203
823,645
727,883
612,665
852,597
* Includes $55 million for “Alaska Composite Research and Development Program.”
**Excludes $55.5 million for fisheries survey vessel construction.
Sources: Budget Justifications, House and Senate Committee Reports, and floor debate.
LEGISLATION
Fisheries
P.L. 109-8 (S. 256); P.L. 109-13 (H.R. 1268); P.L. 109-14 (H.R. 2566); P.L. 109-20
(H.R. 3104); P.L. 109-35 (H.R. 3332); P.L. 109-37 (H.R. 3377); P.L. 109-40 (H.R. 3453);
P.L. 109-42 (H.R. 3512); P.L. 109-58 (H.R. 6); and P.L. 109-59 (H.R. 3).
H.Con.Res. 164 (Delahunt); H.Con.Res. 168 (Hyde); 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. 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); H.R. 1640 (Barton); H.R. 1815 (Hunter); H.R. 1996 (Kirk);
H.R. 2018 (Sullivan); H.R. 2059 (Pallone); H.R. 2112 (Issa); H.R. 2129 (Ehlers); H.R. 2174
(Capps); H.R. 2203 (Shadegg); H.R. 2235 (Pallone); H.R. 2376 (Case); H.R. 2601 (Smith
of New Jersey); H.R. 2673 (Hefley); H.R. 2816 (Neal); H.R. 2828 (Inslee); H.R. 2862
(Wolf); H.R. 2864 (Young of Alaska); H.R. 2870 (Lantos); H.R. 3049 (Green of Wisconsin);
H.R. 3110 (Jindal); H.R. 3153 (Cubin); H.R. 3278 (Allen); H.R. 3468 (Case); H.R. 3469
(Case); H.R. 3562 (Hooley); H.R. 3636 (Tauscher); H.R. 3649 (Young of Alaska);
CRS-15

---

IB10139
09-09-05
S.Con.Res. 12 (Feingold); S. 6 (Santorum); S. 10 (Domenici); 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); S. 797 (Murkowski); S. 1224 (Boxer); S. 1230 (Grassley); S. 1280
(Snowe); S. 1300 (Santorum); S. 1390 (Inouye); S. 1402 (DeWine); S. 1473 (Collins); S.
1494 (Sarbanes); S. 1540 (Domenici); S. 1541 (Akaka); S. 1549 (Smith); S. 1556 (Wyden);
S. 1578 (Allard); and S. 1635 (Lautenberg).
Aquaculture
P.L. 109-8 (S. 256) and P.L. 109-13 (H.R. 1268).
H.R. 537 (Deal); H.R. 685 (Sensenbrenner); H.R. 710 (Kaptur); H.R. 1591 (Gilchrest);
H.R. 1712 (Woolsey); H.R. 2744 (Bonilla); H.R. 3469 (Case); H.R. 3562 (Hooley); S. 572
(Akaka); S. 573 (Akaka); S. 728 (Bond); S. 770 (Levin); S. 796 (Murkowski); S. 880
(Boxer); S. 1195 (Stevens); S. 1224 (Boxer); S. 1300 (Santorum); S. 1316 (Snowe); S. 1494
(Sarbanes); and S. 1556 (Wyden).
Marine Mammals
H.R. 759 (Gilchrest); H.R. 2018 (Sullivan); H.R. 2130 (Gilchrest); H.R. 2323 (Farr);
H.R. 2862 (Wolf); H.R. 2939 (Weldon); S.Con.Res. 33 (Snowe); S.Res. 33 (Levin); S.Res.
99 (Lautenberg); S. 260 (Inhofe); S. 270 (Lugar); S. 362 (Inouye); and S. 1224 (Boxer).
CRS-16

---