Order Code RL33459
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal
Legislation in the 109th Congress
Updated July 14, 2006
Eugene H. Buck
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Legislation
in the 109th Congress
Summary
Fish and marine mammals are important resources in open ocean and nearshore
coastal areas. Many laws and regulations guide the management of these resources
by federal agencies. Bills to reauthorize and amend major legislation — the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA) and the
Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) — have been introduced in the 109th
Congress; the authorization of appropriations for both laws expired at the end of
FY1999. Bills offering extensive amendments to the MSFCMA have been passed
by the Senate (S. 2012) and ordered reported in the House (H.R. 5018).
Recommendations by the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy will likely play a role
in legislation considered during the 109th Congress.
Commercial and sport fishing are jointly managed by the federal government
and individual states. States have jurisdiction generally within 3 miles of the coast.
Beyond state jurisdiction and out to 200 miles, the federal government manages
fisheries under the MSFCMA through eight regional fishery management councils.
Beyond 200 miles, the United States participates in international agreements relating
to specific areas or species.
Legislation related to commercial and sport fisheries enacted thus far by the
109th Congress extends protection to family fishermen under Chapter 12 of
bankruptcy law (§1007 of P.L. 109-8), revises visa requirements to allow certain
seasonal immigrant seafood processing workers to enter the United States (§402 of
P.L. 109-13), reaffirms state authority to regulate certain fishing activities to
distinguish between state and out-of-state residents (§6036 of P.L. 109-13), allows
hydropower licensees to propose alternatives to fishways as long as the alternatives
would not diminish fish passage (§241 of P.L. 109-58), and comprehensively amends
and reauthorizes the Sport Fish Restoration Program to permanently appropriate boat
safety funding and modify distribution of funds (Title X of P.L. 109-59).
Aquaculture — the farming of fish, shellfish, and other aquatic animals and
plants in a controlled environment — is expanding rapidly, both in the United States
and abroad. In the United States, important species cultured include catfish, salmon,
shellfish, and trout. Legislation related to aquaculture enacted by the 109th Congress
extends protection to family fishermen (including aquaculture operations) under
Chapter 12 of bankruptcy law (§1007 of P.L. 109-8).
Marine mammals are protected under the MMPA. With few exemptions, the
MMPA prohibits harm or harassment (“take”) of marine mammals, unless restrictive
permits are obtained. It addresses specific situations of concern, such as dolphin
mortality, primarily associated with the eastern tropical Pacific tuna fishery. No
marine mammal legislation has yet been enacted by the 109th Congress.
This report replaces CRS Issue Brief IB10139, Fishery, Aquaculture, and
Marine Mammal Legislation in the 109th Congress, by Eugene H. Buck, and will be
updated periodically to reflect legislative action.

---

Contents
Most Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Commercial and Sport Fisheries: Background and Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Magnuson-Stevens Act Reauthorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Pacific Salmon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Miscellaneous Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Bankruptcy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Seafood Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
State Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Recreational Fishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Hydropower and Water Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Habitat Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Artificial Reefs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Oysters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Tuna . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Vessel Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Jones Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Invasive Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Corals and Coral Reefs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
International Fisheries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Seafood Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Trade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Great Lakes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Tax Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Marine Debris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Hypoxia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Marketing and Labeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Health Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Fishing Vessels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Dungeness Crab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Saltonstall-Kennedy Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Capital Construction Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Harmful Algal Blooms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
National Marine Sanctuaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Aquaculture: Background and Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Miscellaneous Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Bankruptcy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Fish Hatcheries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Open Ocean Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

---

Marketing and Trade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Genetic Modification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Oyster Hatcheries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Disease . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
National Marine Sanctuaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Invasive Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Coral . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Tax Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Marine Mammals: Background and Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Marine Mammal Protection Act Reauthorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Miscellaneous Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Marine Debris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Whaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Ocean Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Polar Bear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Small Cetacean Kills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Tuna-Dolphin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Sea Otters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Canadian Sealing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
NMFS Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
List of Tables
Table 1. NMFS Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

---

Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal
Legislation in the 109th Congress
Most Recent Developments
On July 13, 2006, the Senate Committee on Appropriations reported H.R. 5672
(amended), proposing NMFS FY2007 funding at $903.7 million. On July 13, 2006,
the House Committee on Resources reported S. 260, proposing to expand the
authority of the Secretary of the Interior to assist private landowners in restoring,
enhancing, and managing fish and marine mammal habitat on private land through
the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program. On July 11, 2006, President Bush signed
P.L. 109-241 (H.R. 889), including provisions that (1) defined western Alaska
community development quota plans in the context of the MSFCMA; (2) modified
vessel shares for crab fisheries in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands; (3) required
the Coast Guard to integrate vessel monitoring system data into existing databases
to improve monitoring and enforcement of fishery law; (4) required a Coast Guard
report on detection and interdiction of foreign fishing incursions; (5) allowed U.S.
tuna vessels operating out of American Samoa to use non-United States licensed and
documented personnel to meet manning requirements for four years; (6) required the
Coast Guard to continue to provide marine vessel safety training and cold water
immersion education and outreach programs for fishermen; and (7) waived the Jones
Act for certain foreign vessels that have transported fish or shellfish in Maine waters.
On July 11, 2006, the Senate passed (amended) S. 2430, implementing
recommendations of the Great Lakes Fishery Resources Restoration Study. On July
10, 2006, the House passed H.R. 5061, directing the Secretary of the Interior to
convey the Paint Bank National Fish Hatchery and Wytheville National Fish
Hatchery to the State of Virginia. On June 29, 2006, the House passed H.R. 4761
(amended), proposing to direct the Secretary of the Interior to issue regulations
permitting the use of decommissioned offshore oil and gas platforms as artificial
reefs. The bill would also require a study of how the removal of offshore oil and gas
platforms and other OCS facilities might affect existing fish stocks and coral
populations. On June 29, 2006, the Senate passed H.R. 27 (amended) after
substituting the language of S. 1021 (amended) and deleting the provision that would
have amended the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-220) to specifically
require state plans to discuss how states would address the employment and training
needs of dislocated fishermen. On June 29, 2006, the House passed (amended) H.R.
5672, proposing NMFS FY2007 funding. On June 28, 2006, a House floor
amendment to H.R. 5672 was adopted that would provide an additional $2 million
(by transfer) for the West Coast commercial salmon industry. On June 28, 2006, the
House Committee on Resources reported H.R. 5061. On June 28, 2006, the House
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure ordered S. 362 reported (amended),
establishing NOAA and Coast Guard programs to manage marine debris — including
lost fishing gear — and to address its adverse impacts. On June 27, 2006, the Senate
Committee on Environment and Public Works reported S. 2430 (amended),

---

CRS-2
implementing recommendations of the Great Lakes Fishery Resources Restoration
Study. On June 26, 2006, the House Committee on Resources reported H.R. 4761
(amended). On June 22, 2006, the Senate, after passing S. 2766 (amended),
including provisions requiring the Secretary of Defense to provide information to
NOAA to better identify hazards posed by military munitions disposed in the ocean,
incorporated these provisions into H.R. 5122 and passed H.R. 5122 (amended),
omitting the House-passed provisions of H.R. 5122 that would have directed the
Secretary of Defense to open Defense Department lands to fishing by certain
individuals. On June 22, 2006, the House Committee on Appropriations reported
H.R. 5672. On June 21, 2006, the House Committee on Resources ordered H.R.
5622 reported (amended), proposing to amend and reauthorize the Coral Reef
Conservation Act. On June 19, 2006, the Senate passed S. 2012 (amended),
reauthorizing and amending the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act. (Members and staff may request e-mail notification of new CRS
reports on 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.)
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 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

---

CRS-3
(MSFCMA; 16 U.S.C. §§1801 et seq.)1 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 popularly referred to as “NOAA Fisheries”) within
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the U.S.
Department of Commerce.2 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.3
Council members are appointed by the Secretary of Commerce from lists of
candidates knowledgeable of fishery resources, provided by coastal state governors.4
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.5 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-
1 The full text of the MSFCMA, as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 (P.L.
104-297), can be found at [http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/magact/].
2 NMFS programs are described in detail at [http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/].
3 Links to individual Council websites are available at [http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/
councils/].
4 For the 2005 Report to Congress on Council membership, see [http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/
sfa/reg_svcs/Council_Reportocongress/05ReporttoCongress.pdf].
5 A detailed summary of the Sustainable Fisheries Act, including an explanation of issues
and legislative history, can be found at [http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/sfaguide/].

---

CRS-4
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 2004, U.S. commercial fishermen landed almost 7.8 billion pounds of edible,
unprocessed fish and shellfish from combined state, federal, and international waters,
worth almost $3.4 billion at the dock.6 Imports of mostly processed products
supplied almost 5 billion pounds, worth more than $11.3 billion. U.S. consumers
spent an estimated $61.9 billion on edible seafood in 2004, with almost $43 billion
of that amount spent in restaurants and other food service establishments. In
addition, marine recreational anglers caught an estimated 441 million fish in 2004,
of which the retained catch was about 254 million pounds.7 In 2001, a nationwide
survey estimated that recreational anglers spent almost $36 billion each year pursuing
their sport.8
NMFS reports annually on the status of fish stocks managed under the
MSFCMA.9 For 2005, NMFS made overfishing10 determinations for 237 fish stocks
and complexes,11 finding that 192 (81%) of them were not subject to overfishing and
45 (19%) were subject to overfishing. In addition, NMFS made overfished12
6 For additional domestic commercial fishery harvest statistics, see [http://www.st.nmfs.
noaa.gov/st1/commercial/index.html].
7 Recreational fishing programs at NMFS are discussed at [http://www.st.nmfs.gov/st1/
recreational/index.html].
8 Details of the 2001 survey can be found at [http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/
fishing.html].
9 See [http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/domes_fish/ReportsToCongress/finalSOS/Report_
text_FINAL3.pdf].
10 A stock that is subject to overfishing has a fishing mortality (harvest) rate above the level
that provides for the maximum sustainable yield.
11 NMFS reviewed 530 individual stocks and stock complexes but had insufficient
information to make determinations on all of them.
12 A stock that is overfished has a biomass level below a biological threshold specified in
(continued...)

---

CRS-5
determinations for 206 stocks and complexes, finding that 152 (74%) of them were
not overfished and 54 (26%) were overfished. These numbers reflect no change in
the overfishing percentages compared to 2004 (when 19% were subject to
overfishing) and a slight improvement in the overfished numbers compared to that
year (when 28% were overfished).
Magnuson-Stevens 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. While NMFS sought to implement the 1996 amendments,13 fishing industry
and environmental groups 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 are the terms and
conditions of provisions designed to reauthorize and amend the MSFCMA to address
the concerns of various interest groups.14 Bills introduced in the 109th Congress and
offering extensive amendments to the MSFCMA include H.R. 1431, H.R. 4940, H.R.
5018, H.R. 5051, S. 1224, and S. 2012. The issues addressed by many of these bills
include:
! modifying requirements for the appointment and training of
members of regional councils and how certain regional council
committees and panels conduct business to enhance transparency of
the regional council process;
! mandating new requirements to restrict overfishing and modifying
how depleted fisheries are to be rebuilt;
! requiring increased consideration of economic and social impacts of
fishery management;
12 (...continued)
its fishery management plan.
13 For background on initial implementation progress, see [http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.
gov/releases99/jan99/noaa99-4.html].
14 For additional information on MSFCMA reauthorization issues, see CRS Report
RL30215, The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act:
Reauthorization Issues, by Eugene H. Buck and Daniel A. Waldeck.

---

CRS-6
! modifying research programs and improving data collection and
management;
! providing increased protection for deep sea corals and bottom
habitat;
! implementing ecosystem-based management;
! promoting new gear technologies to further reduce bycatch;
! establishing national guidelines for individual fishing quota (limited
access privilege) programs;
! modifying the regional council fishery management plan process,
including better coordination with environmental review under the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); and
! strengthening the role of science in fishery management decision-
making.
On April 14, 2005, the House Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries and Oceans
held an oversight hearing on the relationship between the MSFCMA and NEPA. 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). On April 25, 2006, the House Committee on Resources held a field
hearing in New Bedford, MA, on H.R. 4940 and H.R. 5018; the committee also held
a hearing on H.R. 1431 and H.R. 5018 on May 3, 2006. On April 4, 2006, the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation reported (amended) S. 2012
(S.Rept. 109-229); the Senate passed S. 2012 (amended) on June 19, 2006. On May
17, 2006, the House Committee on Resources ordered H.R. 5018 reported
(amended).
The 109th Congress enacted §10206 of P.L. 109-59 (the Transportation Equity
Act) clarifying the eligibility for communities to participate in the western Alaska
community development quota (CDQ) program. Provisions of P.L. 109-241 (the
Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2006) defined western Alaska
community development quota plans in the context of the MSFCMA (§416);
modified vessel shares for crab fisheries in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands
(§417); required the Coast Guard to integrate vessel monitoring system data into
existing databases to improve monitoring and enforcement of fishery law (§803); and
required a Coast Guard report on detection and interdiction of foreign fishing
incursions (§804). In addition, other bills introduced in the 109th Congress deal with
more restricted MSFCMA issues:
! Section 1622 of S. 732, as reported on April 6, 2005 (S.Rept. 109-
53), would 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.
! 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.

---

CRS-7
! H.R. 3278 would establish national guidelines for individual fishing
quota programs.
! S. 1549 would rationalize the Pacific whiting (hake) fishery.
! S. 1635 would restrict trawling to designated areas to protect deep
sea corals and sponges.
! S. 1837 would add Rhode Island to the Mid-Atlantic Regional
Council.
! H.R. 5447 would authorize the Secretary of Commerce to provide
immediate assistance to fishermen and owners of related fishery
infrastructure affected by a disaster.
! H.R. 5681 would amend the American Fisheries Act (Title II,
Division C, P.L. 105-277) to modify provisions for fishing vessel
rebuilding and replacement and for how pollock allocations are
calculated when vessels leave fishing cooperatives (§301) and would
amend 46 U.S.C. Chapter 313 to prohibit maritime liens on fishing
permits (§309).
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.
Management is complicated because these fish may cross several state and national
boundaries during their life spans. 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.15
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.16
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,
15 For additional background on this issue, see CRS Report 98-666 ENR, Pacific Salmon and
Anadromous Trout: Management Under the Endangered Species Act; and archived CRS
Report RL31546, The Endangered Species Act and Science: The Case of Pacific Salmon,
available from the author at [gbuck@crs.loc.gov].
16 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-8
maintain, or remove culverts and bridges to facilitate fish passage. In addition,
multiple bills have been introduced to address other Pacific salmon issues:
! 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 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior, acting through
the Bureau of Reclamation, to assist in implementing fish passage
and screening facilities at nonfederal 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 at §4083) on June 24, 2005
(H.Rept. 109-154); the House passed this bill (amended) on July 14,
2005 (with the fish passage language at §4085).
! S. 2012 would reauthorize the Yukon River Salmon Act through
FY2010 (§302(b)), and amend and reauthorize the Pacific Salmon
Treaty Act through FY2010 (§302(d)). On April 4, 2006, the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation reported
(amended) S. 2012 (S.Rept. 109-229); the Senate passed S. 2012
(amended) on June 19, 2006.
! Section 3 of H.R. 4686 would reauthorize the Anadromous Fish
Conservation Act through FY2012; the House Committee on
Resources reported this bill (amended) on April 27, 2006 (H.Rept.
109-444).
! Section 103 of S. 2432/H.R. 5006 would designate salmon
restoration areas in California.
! S. 2649/S. 2662/H.R. 5213 would provide emergency disaster
assistance to mitigate the economic losses caused by salmon fishing
restrictions along the California and Oregon coasts.
! S. 3522 would reauthorize and amend the Fisheries Restoration and
Irrigation Mitigation Act of 2000.

---

CRS-9
Miscellaneous Issues
Bankruptcy. Section 1007 of P.L. 109-8 extended bankruptcy protection to
family fishermen similar to what applies to family farmers under Chapter 12 of
bankruptcy laws.
Seafood Processing. Division B, Title IV, §402 of P.L. 109-13 revised
requirements for H-2B visas allowing certain seasonal immigrant seafood processing
workers to enter the United States through October 1, 2006.17 S. 2284/H.R. 4740
would extend the revised visa requirements of P.L. 109-13 through October 1, 2009;
§7 of H.R. 5058 would provide for market-based adjustment of annual non-
immigrant visa numerical limitations. 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 reaffirmed and clarified 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)
programs18 was extended several times before P.L. 109-59, The Transportation
Equity Act, comprehensively amended and reauthorized the Sport Fish Restoration
Program to (1) permanently appropriate boat safety funding and modify distribution
of funds whereby all accounts will annually receive a fixed percentage of the total
fund revenue (2) eliminate the ARTF to create a Sport Fish Restoration and Boating
Trust Fund; and (3) modify the excise tax on certain sport fishing equipment. P.L.
109-74 funded sportfishing and boating safety programs from the Highway Trust
Fund through the end of FY2005. Other bills have been introduced:
! 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.
! H.R. 2864 would require a feasibility review of the Kings River
(CA) Fisheries Management Program Framework Agreement; this
bill was reported by the House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure (amended) 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).
! S.Con.Res. 66 would affirm congressional intent that fishing (and
hunting) is to be permitted on public lands in the National Wildlife
Refuge System.
! As reported by the House Committee on Armed Services (H.Rept.
109-452) on May 5, 2006, §1036 of H.R. 5122 would direct the
Secretary of Defense to open Defense Department lands to fishing
17 For additional background on immigration issues, see CRS Report RL33125, Immigration
Legislation and Issues in the 109th Congress.
18 For additional background on the ARTF and its programs, see CRS Report RS22060, The
Aquatic Resources Trust Fund, by Eugene H. Buck.

---

CRS-10
by certain individuals; this measure passed the House (amended) on
May 11, 2006. On June 22, 2006, the Senate, after passing S. 2766
(amended) incorporated these provisions into H.R. 5122 and passed
H.R. 5122 (amended), without the fishing provisions.
! S. 3234 would suspend temporarily the duty on lug bottom boots for
use in fishing waders; S. 3235 would suspend temporarily the duty
on felt bottom boots for use in fishing waders.
! H.R. 5732 would direct the Secretary of the Interior to continue
stocking fish in certain lakes in the North Cascades National Park,
Ross Lake National Recreation Area, and Lake Chelan National
Recreation Area.
Hydropower and Water Projects. Section 241 of P.L. 109-58 (Energy
Policy Act of 2005) allowed 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. Additional measures have been
introduced:
! S. 232 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior, acting through
the Bureau of Reclamation, to assist in implementing fish passage
and screening facilities at nonfederal water projects. This bill was
reported on March 10, 2005 (S.Rept. 109-31), and passed the Senate
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, §2027 of H.R. 2864, and §6 of S. 2288 would
amend the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662;
33 U.S.C. §§2201 et seq.) to modify requirements for mitigating
aquatic resource losses at Corps of Engineers projects. 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.
! On February 27, 2006, the House Committee on Resources held an
oversight field hearing on declining fish populations in the San
Francisco Bay-San Joaquin Delta.
! S. 3522 would reauthorize and amend the Fisheries Restoration and
Irrigation Mitigation Act of 2000.
Habitat Restoration. Section 121 (Title I, Corps of Engineers) of P.L. 109-
103 authorized certain activities related to the Middle Rio Grande Endangered
Species Act Collaborative Program beneficial to the silvery minnow. P.L. 109-183
reauthorized Upper Colorado and San Juan River Basin endangered fish recovery
programs. Other measures have been introduced:
! S. 218 would amend the Food Security Act of 1985 (P.L. 99-198) to
authorize the Natural Resources Conservation Service to establish
a stream habitat improvement program, funded at $60 million
annually for FY2006-FY2008.

---

CRS-11
! 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. On September 23, 2005, the House Resources
Subcommittee on Fisheries and Oceans held a hearing on S. 260 and
H.R. 2018; the House Committee on Resources reported S. 260 on
July 13, 2006 (H.Rept. 109-562).
! Title V (Subtitle C) of S. 1224 would establish a program to restore
fishery habitat with annual authorized funding of $50 million
through FY2010.
! 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, NM.
! Section 501 of H.R. 4650 would authorize the Environmental
Protection Agency to award state grants for fishery habitat
protection, restoration, and enhancement.
! Section 109 of S. 2440 would require an outreach program for
commercial and recreational fishermen and boaters to reduce the risk
of oil spills or releases.
! S. 2422 would create a Coastal Conservation and Habitat
Restoration Fund to finance fishery habitat restoration.
! Section 14 of H.R. 5649 would authorize a natural resources
enhancement fund related to energy and mineral development.
Assistance. Section 101(b) (Title I, Chapter I) of P.L. 109-148 directed the
Secretary of Agriculture to pay as much as 90% of the costs of rehabilitating public
and private oyster reefs damaged by hurricanes. Title II, Chapter 1, §2105 of P.L.
109-234 deleted the oyster recovery authority enacted by P.L. 109-148; Title II,
Chapter 8, provided $112 million for Gulf Coast fishery recovery (in addition to $38
million transferred to NMFS by Title II, Chapter 1, §2104, from the Department of
Agriculture for oysters) and $5 million for the New England shellfish industry
harmed by red tide. Additional measures have been introduced to provide assistance:
! Section 104(b) of H.R. 27 would amend the Workforce Investment
Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-220) 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. On June 29, 2006, the Senate passed H.R. 27,
amended, after substituting the language of S. 1021 (amended) and
deleting the provision on dislocated fishermen.
! Provisions in S. 1765/S. 1766/H.R. 3958 would provide financial
assistance to Louisiana fishermen and fishing vessel owners as well
as targeted assistance for menhaden and oyster fisheries; other funds

---

CRS-12
would benefit fishery infrastructure reconstruction, seafood
marketing, and fishery habitat rehabilitation as well as fund Coast
Guard contracting of commercial fishing vessels to remove debris.
! Section 601 of H.R. 4330/S. 2009 would provide Louisiana,
Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida with $10 million for oyster reef
rehabilitation and $60 million for fishery disaster assistance.
! Section 105 of H.R. 3754/S. 1692 would provide assistance to New
England fisheries harmed by red tide.
! S. 1723 would authorize a $50 million grant program to maintain
waterfront access for commercial fishing and aquaculture.
! On December 15, 2005, the House Resources Subcommittee on
Fisheries and Oceans held an oversight hearing on the impact of
Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma on the Gulf Coast fishing
industry, coastal communities, and the marine environment, and on
March 21, 2006, the House Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries
and Oceans held an oversight field hearing in Gretna, LA, on how
the 2005 hurricanes affected fishery resources and associated
communities.
! Section 2 of H.R. 4686 would reauthorize the Interjurisdictional
Fisheries Act through FY2012. The House Committee on Resources
reported this bill (amended) on April 27, 2006 (H.Rept. 109-444).
! S. 2649/S. 2662/H.R. 5213 would provide emergency disaster
assistance to mitigate the economic losses caused by salmon fishery
restrictions along the California and Oregon coast. On June 28,
2006, a House floor amendment to H.R. 5672 was adopted that
would provide an additional $2 million (by transfer) for the West
Coast commercial salmon industry.
! H.R. 5446 would direct the NOAA Administrator to report on the
effect of 2005 hurricanes on fisheries and fish habitat.
! H.R. 5447 would authorize the Secretary of Commerce to provide
immediate assistance to fishermen and owners of related fishery
infrastructure affected by a disaster.
Artificial Reefs. Section 3505 of P.L. 109-163 required a strategy and
implementation plan to dispose of obsolete Maritime Administration vessels,
including their use as artificial reefs, and modified terms for transferring obsolete
government vessels for use as artificial reefs. Section 6521(d) of H.R. 4241, as
reported by the Committee on the Budget on November 7, 2005 (H.Rept. 109-276)
and §21 of H.R. 4761/H.R. 5649 would (1) amend the OCS Lands Act to direct the
Secretary of the Interior to issue regulations permitting the use of decommissioned
offshore oil and gas platforms as artificial reefs, and (2) require a study of how the
removal of offshore oil and gas platforms and other OCS facilities might affect
existing fish stocks and coral populations. On November 18, 2005, the House passed
H.R. 4241, amended, with the artificial reef and coral language removed. On June
14, 2006, the House Committee on Resources held a hearing on H.R. 4761; the
Committee reported this bill (amended) on June 26, 2006 (H.Rept. 109-531). On
June 29, 2006, the House passed H.R. 4761 (amended), with the artificial reef and
coral study provisions in §19.

---

CRS-13
Oysters. Section 101(b) (Title I, Chapter I) of P.L. 109-148 directed the
Secretary of Agriculture to pay as much as 90% of the costs of rehabilitating public
and private oyster reefs damaged by hurricanes. Other measures have been
introduced:
! S. 728, as reported (amended) by the Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Works 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, not smoked, oysters.
! Section 2(f) of S. 1494 would establish a stock enhancement and
habitat restoration program for Chesapeake Bay oysters.
Tuna. In the 109th Congress, §421 of P.L. 109-241 (the Coast Guard and
Maritime Transportation Act of 2006) allowed U.S. tuna vessels operating out of
American Samoa to use non-United States licensed and documented personnel to
meet manning requirements for four years. Additional measures have been
introduced:
! 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 tuna to
specifically identify tuna packed in pouches, and would eliminate
duties on certain tuna products imported from cited ASEAN nations.
! Section 405 of S. 2012 and §6 of H.R. 4686 would reauthorize the
Atlantic Tunas Convention Act of 1975 (P.L. 94-70; 16 U.S.C.
§§971 et seq.) through FY2012; the House Committee on Resources
reported H.R. 4686 (amended) on April 27, 2006 (H.Rept. 109-444).
! Title V of S. 2012 would implement the Western and Central Pacific
Fisheries Convention. On April 4, 2006, the Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation reported (amended) S. 2012
(S.Rept. 109-229); the Senate passed S. 2012 (amended) on June 19,
2006.
Vessel Safety. In the 109th Congress, §405 of P.L. 109-241 (the Coast Guard
and Maritime Transportation Act of 2006) required the Coast Guard to continue to

---

CRS-14
provide marine vessel safety training and cold water immersion education and
outreach programs for fishermen. Additional measures have been introduced:
! S. 1473 would amend the Internal Revenue Code to provide a
business credit against income for the purchase of fishing safety
equipment.
! Section 333(b) of S. 2766/S. 2767 and §312(b) of H.R. 5122 (as
reported by the House Committee on Armed Services on May 5,
2006) would require the Secretary of Defense to provide information
to NOAA to better identify hazards posed by military munitions
disposed in the ocean; S. 2766 (S.Rept. 109-254) and S. 2767 were
reported by the Senate Committee on Armed Services on May 9,
2006. The House passed H.R. 5122 (amended) on May 11, 2006.
On June 22, 2006, the Senate passed S. 2766 (amended),
subsequently incorporating these provisions in H.R. 5122 and
passing H.R. 5122 (amended).
Jones Act. Section 418 of P.L. 109-241 (the Coast Guard and Maritime
Transportation Act of 2006) waived the Jones Act for certain foreign vessels that
have transported fish or shellfish in Maine waters.
Invasive Species. Numerous bills have been introduced to enhance ballast
water management19 as one means to control aquatic 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 November 16, 2005, the
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
reported (amended) S. 363 (S.Rept. 109-181).
! 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, S. 770, H.R. 5030, and Title I of H.R. 5100/S. 2545
would reauthorize and amend NANPCA 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.
! H.R. 4771 would amend NANPCA to require all vessels equipped
with ballast water tanks to conduct ballast water exchange or
alternative management before entering any Great Lakes port.
Other measures address additional aquatic invasive species issues:
19 For background on ballast water management, see CRS Report RL32344, Ballast Water
Management to Combat Invasive Species, by Eugene H. Buck.

---

CRS-15
! 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.
! On November 3, 2005, the House Resources Subcommittee on
Fisheries and Oceans held an oversight hearing on invasive Asian
carp in the Great Lakes and Mississippi River System.
! 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. The House Committee on
Resources ordered H.R. 3049 reported on March 29, 2006.
! S. 1541 would establish a cooperative cost-shared grant program to
control and mitigate the spread of invasive species on public lands.
On November 2, 2005, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests held a hearing on this
bill.
! H.R. 3468 would establish specific procedures to address invasive
species concerns in Hawaii.
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 (P.L. 106-562; 16 U.S.C. §§6401 et seq.) Various bills
have been introduced in the 109th Congress:
! H.R. 1996 would amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (P.L.
87-195; 22 U.S.C. §§2151 et seq.) 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 the refuge.
! Title II (Subtitle A and §222 of Subtitle B) of S. 1224, §211 of S.
2012, and §208 of H.R. 5051 would provide for increased efforts to
study and protect deep sea corals. On April 4, 2006, the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation reported
(amended) S. 2012 (S.Rept. 109-229); the Senate passed S. 2012
(amended) on June 19, 2006.
! H.R. 2673 would place use restrictions on certain bottom trawling
gear and require federal studies to identify and map diverse bottom
habitats.

---

CRS-16
! S. 1390, H.R. 4788, and H.R. 5622 would amend and reauthorize the
Coral Reef Conservation Act. 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
reported S. 1390 (amended) on November 17, 2005 (S.Rept. 109-
182), and the Senate passed this measure (amended) on December
15, 2005. On June 21, 2006, the House Committee on Resources
ordered H.R. 5622 reported (amended).
! H.R. 3469 would prohibit the import, export, and take of certain
coral reef species.
! S. 1635/H.R. 3778 would designate areas where trawling is
permitted to protect deep sea corals and sponges.
! H.R. 318 would authorize a study on the feasibility of designating
land including fringing coral reef in the U.S. Virgin Islands as a unit
of the National Park System; the House passed this bill on
November 15, 2005. On April 20, 2006, the Senate Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources reported H.R. 318 (S.Rept. 109-241).
International Fisheries. Section 103(4) of S. 600 would authorize
$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 $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. Section 7 of
H.R. 4686 would reauthorize the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Convention Act of
1995 (P.L. 104-43, title II; 16 U.S.C. §§5601 et seq.) through FY2012; the House
Committee on Resources reported this bill (amended) on April 27, 2006 (H.Rept.
109-444).
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. On March 8, 2006, the House passed H.R. 4167
after amending it to prevent the National Uniformity for Food Act from affecting any
state action that establishes a notification requirement regarding mercury in fish and
shellfish.

---

CRS-17
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. 3363 would amend the
Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. §§1202 et seq.) to repeal certain duty requirements
relating to imported salt for curing fish. H.R. 3635 would suspend temporarily the
duty on certain sardines in oil in airtight containers. H.R. 3636 would suspend
temporarily the duty on prepared or preserved oysters, not smoked. Section 301(b)
of S. 1963 would clarify that commercial fishermen are eligible for trade adjustment
assistance. S. 3118 would liquidate or reliquidate certain entries of frozen fish fillets
at Los Angeles/Long Beach at Miami without antidumping duties or interest. S. 3182
would suspend temporarily the duty on canned, boiled (not smoked) oysters.
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 nonfederal participants in
Great Lakes fisheries restoration to provide as much as 100% of their nonfederal
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. S.
2430/H.R. 4953 would implement recommendations of the Great Lakes Fishery
Resources Restoration Study; on June 27, 2006, the Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Works reported (amended) S. 2430 (S.Rept. 109-270). The
Senate passed S. 2430 (amended) on July 11, 2006. H.R. 5089/S. 3605 would
authorize the Great Lakes Fishery Commission to investigate the effects of migratory
birds on fish stock productivity.
Tax Provisions. Section 308 of S. 6 would amend the Internal Revenue Code
to provide tax incentives for participation in the Fish and Wildlife Services’ “Partners
for Fish and Wildlife Program.” H.R. 629 would extend certain tax credits,
beneficial to American Samoa tuna canneries, through January 1, 2016. H.R. 3944
and §2 of H.R. 5058 would amend the Internal Revenue Code to allow fishermen a
temporary credit against income tax to offset high fuel costs. Section 203 of H.R.
3908 would amend the Internal Revenue Code to exempt payments from gross
revenue for certain landowner incentive programs that restore or protect habitat.
Marine Debris. S. 362 and H.R. 3692 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 S. 362 (with amendment) on April 13, 2005 (S.Rept. 109-
56), and the Senate passed this bill (amended) on July 1, 2005. The House
Committee on Resources reported this measure (amended) on December 8, 2005
(H.Rept. 109-332, Part I). On June 28, 2006, the House Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure ordered S. 362 reported (amended).
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.

---

CRS-18
Section 105 of H.R. 4560 identifies the improvement of water quality in the Gulf of
Mexico impaired by hypoxia as eligible for funds from a Clean Water Trust Fund.
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. H.R. 1428 would reauthorize the
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. The House Committee on Resources
reported this measure (amended) on June 8, 2005 (H.Rept. 109-112); the House
passed this bill (amended) on June 27, 2005. On August 31, 2005, the Senate
Committee on Environment and Public Works reported this bill (S.Rept. 109-127).
Marketing and Labeling. H.R. 710 would provide assistance for the
construction, improvement, and rehabilitation of farmers markets, including those
selling local aquaculture and commercial fishing products. 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 of
2004 (P.L. 108-465) applicable to wild harvested fish and shellfish.
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 (ERISA; P.L. 93-406;
29 U.S.C. §§1001 et seq.) 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.
Fishing Vessels. H.R. 1442 would complete codification of Title 46, U.S.
Code, including fishery endorsements for vessels and financial assistance; this bill
was reported (amended) July 14, 2005, by the House Committee on Judiciary
(H.Rept. 109-170), and passed by the House (amended) on November 16, 2005.
Dungeness Crab. Section 302(f) of S. 2012 and §5 of H.R. 4686 would
reauthorize and amend the Dungeness Crab Fishery Management Act through
FY2012; the House Committee on Resources reported H.R. 4686 (amended) on April
27, 2006 (H.Rept. 109-444). On April 4, 2006, the Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation reported (amended) S. 2012 (S.Rept. 109-229); the
Senate passed S. 2012 (amended) on June 19, 2006.
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.20
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.
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.
20 For background on this program, see CRS Report RS21799, Saltonstall-Kennedy Fishery
Funding, by Eugene H. Buck.

---

CRS-19
Harmful Algal Blooms. H.Res. 824 would express the sense of Congress on
the importance of research on harmful algal blooms.
National Marine Sanctuaries. H.Res. 856 would recognize the national
marine sanctuaries program as critical to managing the ocean and Great Lakes
resources of the United States.
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.21 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);22 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; by 2002,
global aquaculture production had reached almost 40 million metric tons. The FAO
predicts that world aquaculture production could exceed 130 million metric tons by
2030.23 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.24 With
growth, however, 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.).
21 For more background information, see archived CRS Report 97-436, Aquaculture and the
Federal Role, available from the author at [gbuck@crs.loc.gov]; and CRS Report RL32694,
Open Ocean Aquaculture.
22 For statistics on freshwater production, see [http://www.usda.gov/nass/pubs/stathigh/
2002/livestock02.pdf].
23 For more discussion of FAO projections for 2030, see Part 3 of [http://www.fao.org/
docrep/007/y5600e/y5600e00.htm].
24 For the latest information on domestic production and statistics, see [http://usda.mannlib.
cornell.edu/reports/erssor/livestock/ldp-aqs/2006/ldpaqs23.pdf].

---

CRS-20
Miscellaneous Issues
Bankruptcy. Section 1007 of P.L. 109-8 extended bankruptcy protection to
family fishermen (including aquaculture operations) similar to what applies to family
farmers under Chapter 12 of bankruptcy laws.
Fish Hatcheries. In the 109th Congress, §6007 of P.L. 109-13 increased the
authorization to $25 million for the design and construction of a multispecies fish
hatchery at Fort Peck Lake, MT. On May 24, 2005, the House Resources
Subcommittee on Fisheries and Oceans held an oversight hearing on the federal fish
hatchery system. Several additional bills related to fish hatcheries were introduced:
! 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.
! H.R. 4957/S. 3551 would direct the Secretary of the Interior to
convey the Tylersville division of the Lamar National Fish Hatchery
and Fish Technology Center to the State of Pennsylvania; the House
Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries and Oceans held a hearing on
H.R. 4957 on June 15, 2006.
! H.R. 5061 would direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey the
Paint Bank National Fish Hatchery and Wytheville National Fish
Hatchery to the State of Virginia; the House Resources
Subcommittee on Fisheries and Oceans held a hearing on this bill on
June 15, 2006, and the House Committee on Resources reported this
bill on June 28, 2006 (H.Rept. 109-533). The House passed H.R.
5061 on July 10, 2006.
! H.R. 5381 would authorize a volunteer program and community
partnerships benefitting national fish hatcheries; the House
Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries and Oceans held a hearing on
this bill on June 15, 2006.
Assistance. Title III, Subtitle C, §3032 of P.L. 109-234 clarified terms and
conditions of aquaculture producer grants for 2005 hurricane disaster relief. Other
legislation has been introduced in the 109th Congress:
! 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.
! S. 1636/H.R. 3702 would provide agricultural disaster assistance to
aquaculture producers that incurred losses for their 2005 crop due to
damaging weather or related conditions.
! Section 203 of H.R. 3809 and §101 of H.R. 4330/S. 2009 would
authorize payments of Commodity Credit Corporation funds for loss
of aquaculture crops due to a 2005 hurricane; §4 of S. 1804 would
authorize payments of Commodity Credit Corporation funds for any
crop loss (including fisheries) due to a disaster.

---

CRS-21
! S. 1723 would authorize a $50 million grant program to maintain
waterfront access for commercial fishing and aquaculture.
! Various Louisiana aquaculture operators harmed by Hurricane
Katrina would receive assistance in S. 1765/S. 1766/H.R. 3958 —
§525 would provide a distribution of antidumping duties collected
on imported Chinese crawfish to benefit Louisiana crawfish growers,
a provision in Subtitle L would provide funds for alligator farmers,
and provisions in Subtitle D would fund oyster hatcheries and
restoration of oyster beds and reefs. On December 15, 2005, the
House Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries and Oceans held an
oversight hearing on the impact of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and
Wilma on the Gulf Coast fishing industry, coastal communities, and
the marine environment.
! Section 501(c)(1)(A) of S. 2747 would authorize energy disaster
emergency loans for small business aquaculture operators suffering
from increased energy costs.
Open Ocean Facilities.25 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.
EEZ. Section 6521 of H.R. 4241, as reported by the Committee on the Budget on
November 7, 2005 (H.Rept. 109-276), and §21(b) of H.R. 4761/H.R. 5649 would
amend the OCS Lands Act to direct the Secretary of the Interior to issue regulations
permitting the use of decommissioned offshore oil and gas platforms for aquaculture.
On November 18, 2005, the House passed H.R. 4241 (amended), with the
aquaculture provision removed. On June 14, 2006, the House Committee on
Resources held a hearing on H.R. 4761; the Committee reported this bill (amended)
on June 26, 2006 (H.Rept. 109-531), with the specific authorization for the “culture
of marine organisms” deleted. On June 29, 2006, the House passed H.R. 4761, with
the amended provisions in §19. On April 6, 2006, the Senate Commerce
Committee’s National Ocean Policy Study held a hearing on offshore aquaculture;
a second hearing on this subject was held on June 8, 2006.
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
25 For additional information on offshore aquaculture development, see CRS Report
RL32694, Open Ocean Aquaculture, by Rachel Borgatti and Eugene H. Buck.

---

CRS-22
labeling for fish and seafood with a voluntary program. Section 2 of H.R. 3562/S.
1556 would make the Specialty Crops Competitiveness Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-465)
applicable to farm-raised fish and shellfish. H.R. 4879/S. 2411 would liquidate or
reliquidate certain salmon entries at Miami without antidumping duties or interest.
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.26
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.
Disease. S. 572 and S. 573 seek to improve the federal response to
agricultural diseases, including diseases at aquaculture operations. The Senate
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs reported S. 572
(amended) on September 27, 2005.
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.
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.
Tax Provisions. H.R. 3874 would amend the Internal Revenue Code to
provide for tax-exempt qualified small issue bonds to finance aquacultural processing
property.
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, supporters note that this act has accomplished much by way of promoting
26 For additional information on genetically engineered fish, see CRS Report RL32974,
Genetically Engineered Fish and Seafood, by Rachel Borgatti and Eugene H. Buck.

---

CRS-23
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. 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

---

CRS-24
expired at the end of FY1993, and was extended several times until new provisions
were enacted in 1994 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 in 1997 by P.L. 105-42, the International Dolphin
Conservation Program Act.
Marine Mammal Protection Act Reauthorization
Background. The MMPA was reauthorized 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.27
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.28 Legislation has been introduced:
! H.R. 2130 and H.R. 4075 would extensively amend the MMPA and
authorize 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.
! H.R. 3839 would amend the MMPA to repeal the long-term goal for
reducing to zero the incidental mortality and serious injury of marine
mammals in commercial fishing operations, and to modify the goal
of take reduction plans for reducing such takings.
27 For more background and information on the 1994 amendments, see archived CRS Report
94-751 ENR, Marine Mammal Protection Act Amendments of 1994, available from the
author at [gbuck@crs.loc.gov].
28 For additional background on potential reauthorization issues, see CRS Report RL30120,
The Marine Mammal Protection Act: Reauthorization Issues, by Eugene H. Buck.

---

CRS-25
! Section 25 of H.R. 3824, as passed by the House (amended) on
September 29, 2005, would declare that §7 consultation under the
Endangered Species Act is equivalent to a §101 incidental take
authorization required under the MMPA for dock building permits.
Miscellaneous Issues
Habitat. S. 260/H.R. 2018 would expand the authority 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;
the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works reported S. 260 (amended)
on June 22, 2005 (S.Rept. 109-86), and the Senate passed it (amended) on June 27,
2005. On September 23, 2005, the House Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries and
Oceans held a hearing on S. 260 and H.R. 2018; the House Committee on Resources
reported S. 260 on July 13, 2006 (H.Rept. 109-562).
Marine Debris. S. 362 and H.R. 3692 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 S. 362 (with
amendment) on April 13, 2005 (S.Rept. 109-56), and the Senate passed this bill
(amended) on July 1, 2005. The House Committee on Resources reported S. 362
(amended) on December 8, 2005 (H.Rept. 109-332, Part I). On June 28, 2006, the
House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure ordered S. 362 reported
(amended).
Whaling. S.Con.Res. 33/H.Con.Res. 164 would express the sense of the
Congress regarding the policy of the United States at the 57th Annual Meeting of the
International Whaling Commission. H.Con.Res. 267 would express the sense of
Congress relating to Makah treaty rights and whaling; the House Committee on
Resources reported this measure (amended) on November 10, 2005 (H.Rept. 109-
283). S.Con.Res. 99 would express the sense of the Congress regarding the policy
of the United States at the 58th Annual Meeting of the International Whaling
Commission. H.Con.Res. 441 would express the sense of Congress regarding votes
cast by certain Caribbean countries for a resumption of commercial whaling at the
58th annual International Whaling Commission meeting in June 2006.
Ocean Noise. Section 402 of S. 1224 would amend the National Fish and
Wildlife Foundation Establishment Act (P.L. 98-244; 16 U.S.C. §§3701 et seq.) to
create a national ocean noise pollution research endowment fund.29
Polar Bear. S. 2013 would implement the Agreement on the Conservation and
Management of the Alaska-Chukotka Polar Bear Population; the Senate Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation reported this measure on February 27,
2006 (S.Rept. 109-217). The Senate passed this measure (amended) on June 6, 2006.
29 For additional information on ocean noise, see CRS Report RL33133, Active Military
Sonar and Marine Mammals: Events and References, by Eugene H. Buck and Kori Calvert.

---

CRS-26
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 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.
Sea Otters. H.R. 2323 would promote southern sea otter recovery and
research.
Canadian Sealing. S.Res. 33 urges Canada to end commercial seal hunting.
NMFS Appropriations
P.L. 109-108 provided FY2006 funding for NMFS. On February 6, 2006, the
Bush Administration requested FY2007 funds for federal agencies and programs,
including $736.9 million for NMFS (Table 1). On March 9, 2006, the House
Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries and Oceans held an oversight hearing on
NMFS’s FY2007 budget request.
H.R. 5672, proposing NMFS FY2007 funding at $559.4 million, was reported
by the House Committee on Appropriations on June 22, 2006 (H.Rept. 109-520), and
passed (amended) by the House on June 29, 2006. According to NOAA calculations,
FY2007 funding for NMFS would decline by approximately 28%, or $156 million
below the current funding level, if the House-passed approach were enacted. Such
a reduction would “force NOAA to close critical fisheries, terminate protected
species programs and terminate the Seafood Quality and Safety Program, costing
billions in economic losses and increasing the cost of seafood to US consumers,”
according to NOAA’s impact statement. Large reductions in funding for NOAA are
inconsistent with the recommendations of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and
the Pew Oceans Commission. The chairs of these commissions, Admiral James D.
Watkins and Leon E. Panetta, issued a joint letter expressing their concern that the
proposed funding cuts are being imposed at a time when there is clear recognition of
the growing number and severity of problems compromising the health and
associated economic benefits generated by our oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes. On
July 13, 2006, the Senate Committee on Appropriations reported H.R. 5672
(amended), proposing NMFS FY2007 funding at $903.7 million (S.Rept. 109-280).

---

CRS-27
Table 1. NMFS Appropriations
(in thousands of dollars)
FY2006
FY2006
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
Request
Enacted
Request
Hse Pas’d
Sen Rptd
Fisheries
351,932
352,585
347,023
317,600
436,261
Protected Resources
159,273
145,039
144,924
108,000
180,991
Habitat Conservation
34,096
46,629
39,896
40,000
56,927
Enforcement Surveillance
80,163
72,675
80,697
73,500
84,500
SUBTOTAL
625,464
667,226*
648,988*
539,100
813,679*
Procurement, Acquisition,
2,000
30,444
0
0
0
and Construction
Pacific Coastal Salmon
90,000
66,571
66,825
20,000
90,000
Recovery
Other Accounts
10,419
39,579
21,088
287
0
TOTAL
727,883
803,820
736,901
559,387
903,679
Sources: Budget Justifications, House and Senate Committee Reports, and floor debate.
* Includes funds for “Alaska Composite Research and Development Program” — $50.3 million for
FY2006; the Administration’s FY2007 request is $36.45 million; theFY2007 Senate-reported amount
was $55 million

---