Order Code RL33459
Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal
Legislation in the 109th Congress
Updated December 19, 2006
Eugene H. Buck
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division

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 federal laws and regulations guide their management. 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 acted upon by the 109th Congress; the authorization of
appropriations for both laws expired at the end of FY1999. A bill offering extensive
amendments to the MSFCMA has been passed by both the House and the Senate
(H.R. 5946) and awaits the President’s signature; a bill extensively amending the
MMPA has been passed by the House (H.R. 4075).
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 by the 109th
Congress includes measures to protect fishermen under bankruptcy law (§1007 of
P.L. 109-8), revise visa requirements to allow seasonal seafood processing workers
to enter the United States (§402 of P.L. 109-13 and §1074 of P.L. 109-364), reaffirm
state authority to regulate fishing to distinguish between state and out-of-state
residents (§6036 of P.L. 109-13), allow hydropower licensees to propose alternatives
to fishways as long as the alternatives would not diminish fish passage (§241 of P.L.
109-58), provide $112 million for Gulf Coast fishery recovery (P.L. 109-234), amend
the Sport Fish Restoration Program to permanently appropriate boat safety funding
and modify distribution of funds (Title X of P.L. 109-59), and implement the Great
Lakes Fishery Resources Restoration Study (P.L. 109-326).
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
protects aquaculture under bankruptcy law (§1007 of P.L. 109-8) and clarifies
aquaculture grants for 2005 hurricane disaster relief (§3032 of P.L. 109-234).
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Magnuson-Stevens Act Reauthorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Artificial Reefs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Oysters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Tuna . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Vessel Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Jones Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Tax Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Fishing Vessels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Corals and Coral Reefs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Great Lakes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Commercial Surf Fishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Invasive Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
International Fisheries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Seafood Safety and Nutrition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Trade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Hypoxia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Marine Debris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Marketing and Labeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Dungeness Crab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Health Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Sharks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Capital Construction Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
National Marine Sanctuaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Saltonstall-Kennedy Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Native American Fishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Harmful Algal Blooms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Aquaculture: Background and Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Miscellaneous Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Bankruptcy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Fish Hatcheries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Open Ocean Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Marketing and Trade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Oyster Hatcheries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Genetic Modification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Disease . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
National Marine Sanctuaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Invasive Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Coral . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Tax Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Marine Mammals: Background and Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Marine Mammal Protection Act Reauthorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Miscellaneous Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Whaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Marine Debris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Polar Bear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Small Cetacean Kills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Ocean Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Tuna-Dolphin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Sea Otters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Canadian Sealing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
NMFS Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
List of Tables
Table 1. NMFS Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal
Legislation in the 109th Congress
Most Recent Developments
On December 12, 2006, President Bush signed P.L. 109-388 (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
December 9, 2006, the House agreed to the Senate-amended H.R. 5946. On
December 9, 2006, the Senate agreed to the House-amended S. 362, establishing
NOAA and Coast Guard programs to manage marine debris — including lost fishing
gear — and address its adverse impacts. On December 7, 2006, the Senate passed
H.R. 5946, amended to include much of the language formerly in S. 2012, to
extensively amend and reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act and related fishery law. On December 6, 2006, the Senate agreed
to S.Res. 610, expressing the sense of the Senate that the United States should
promote the United Nations’ adoption of a resolution to protect the living resources
of the high seas from destructive, illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing
practices. On December 6, 2006, the Senate amended H.R. 4075 incorporate the
language of S. 2013, implementing the Agreement on the Conservation and
Management of the Alaska-Chukotka Polar Bear Population, and passed the amended
measure. (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

CRS-2
jurisdiction (in 1964, P.L. 88-308 prohibited fishing by foreign-flag vessels within
3 miles of the coast; in 1966, P.L. 89-658 proclaimed an expanded 12-mile exclusive
U.S. fishery jurisdiction), foreign vessels could fish many of the same stocks caught
by U.S. fishermen. U.S. fishermen deplored this “foreign encroachment” and alleged
that overfishing was causing stress on, or outright depletion of, fish stocks.
Protracted Law of the Sea Treaty negotiations in the early and mid-1970s provided
impetus for unilateral U.S. action.
The enactment of the Fishery Conservation and Management Act (FCMA) in
1976 (later renamed the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act and
more recently the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
(MSFCMA; 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
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].

CRS-3
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-
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
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/].
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].

CRS-4
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
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:
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
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-5
! 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;
! 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 July
17, 2006, the House Committee on Resources reported (amended) H.R. 5018
(H.Rept. 109-567). On December 7, 2006, the Senate passed H.R. 5946, amended
to include much of the language formerly in the Senate-amended S. 2012. On
December 9, 2006, the House agreed to the Senate-amended H.R. 5946, amending
and reauthorizing the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
and related fishery law. This measure awaits the President’s signature.
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:

CRS-6
! S. 1549 would rationalize the Pacific whiting (hake) fishery. Title
III of H.R. 5946 and Title VI of S. 2012 would implement the
Agreement between the United States and Canada on Pacific Hake/
Whiting. 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.
The House passed H.R. 5946 (amended) on September 27, 2006.
! 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). This bill was reported by the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure (amended) on July 28, 2006, with
(1) the American Fisheries Act amendment in §301; (2) the maritime
lien language in §308; and (3) new language in §310 modifying the
criteria for documenting fishing vessels (H.Rept. 109-614). The
House passed H.R. 5681 (amended) on September 28, 2006.
! Title IV of S. 2012 and Title I of H.R. 5946 would amend the
MSFCMA to authorize activities to promote improved monitoring
and compliance for high seas fisheries, or fisheries governed by
international fishery management agreements. 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. The House passed H.R. 5946
(amended) on September 27, 2006.
! 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.
! H.R. 3278 would establish national guidelines for individual fishing
quota programs.
! 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.

CRS-7
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 roads to repair, maintain,
or remove culverts and bridges to facilitate aquatic species passage. On May 24,
2005, the House Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries and Oceans held an oversight
hearing on the federal fish hatchery system. In addition, multiple bills have been
introduced to address other Pacific salmon issues:
! 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.
! 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 (§3099(c)(2)(F)) and would amend the Lower Snake
River Compensation Plan to authorize aquatic and riparian
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
ecosystem restoration (§3100). 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). The Senate passed H.R. 2864 on July 19, 2006 (amended
to incorporate amended language of S. 728, excluding the fish
passage and bird colony provisions, but including language in §3115
amending the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan).
! 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. On December 7, 2006, the Senate
amended H.R. 5946 to insert the language of S. 2012, and passed the
amended H.R. 5946, with the salmon reauthorizations in §302. The
House agreed to the amended H.R. 5946 on December 9, 2006. This
measure awaits the President’s signature.
! 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). On December 7, 2006, the Senate amended H.R. 5946 to
incorporate language reauthorizing the Anadromous Fish
Conservation Act at §302(h), and passed the amended H.R. 5946.
The House agreed to the amended H.R. 5946 on December 9, 2006.
This measure awaits the President’s signature.
! S. 3522 and H.R. 6278 would reauthorize and amend the Fisheries
Restoration and Irrigation Mitigation Act of 2000. The Senate
Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water and Power
held a hearing on S. 3522 on September 21, 2006.
! 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.
! 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. On December
7, 2006, the Senate amended H.R. 5946 to insert language in
§113(b) and (c) requiring the Secretary of Commerce to complete a
recovery plan for Klamath River coho salmon and declaring Oregon
and California chinook salmon fishermen eligible for direct
assistance, and passed the amended H.R. 5946. The House agreed
to the amended H.R. 5946 on December 9, 2006. This measure
awaits the President’s signature.

CRS-9
! Section 405 of H.R. 3854 would authorize $1 million for culvert
removal on wild and scenic rivers in Clackamas County, OR, to
improve fish passage.
! H.R. 6241 would amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act to
authorize taking of California sea lions to reduce their predation on
endangered Columbia River salmon.
! H.R. 6377 and S. 4084 would authorize implementing the San
Joaquin River Restoration Settlement providing for the
reintroduction of spring-run chinook salmon below Friant Dam.
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 Section 1074 of P.L.
109-364 directed that aliens who have already been counted toward the numerical
limitation for H-2B visas during FY2004, FY2005, or FY2006 not be counted again
toward the limitation during FY2007. Section 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. Section 1077 of P.L. 109-364 (H.R. 5122) directed
the Secretary of Defense to open Defense Department lands to fishing by certain
individuals. Other bills have been introduced:
! H.R. 2864 would require a feasibility review of the Kings River
(CA) Fisheries Management Program Framework Agreement; this
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
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). The Senate passed H.R. 2864 on
July 19, 2006 (amended to incorporate amended language of S. 728,
with modified Kings River provisions in §3017(a-b)).
! 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.
! 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.
! S. 3234 and S. 3736 would suspend temporarily the duty on lug-
bottom boots for use in fishing waders; S. 3235 and S. 3735 would
suspend temporarily the duty on felt-bottom boots for use in fishing
waders. H.R. 6111, H.R. 6346, and H.R. 6406 contain provisions on
both types of waders in §§1290-1291.
! 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. 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. 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 201 of S. 753, §2027 of H.R. 2864, §2008 of S. 728, 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. The Senate passed H.R. 2864 on July 19, 2006
(amended to incorporate amended language of S. 728, with
mitigation provisions in §2008).
! S. 3522 and H.R. 6278 would reauthorize and amend the Fisheries
Restoration and Irrigation Mitigation Act of 2000. The Senate
Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water and Power
held a hearing on this bill on September 21, 2006.

CRS-11
! 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.
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. P.L. 109-294 (S. 260) expanded the authority 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. 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.
! 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 and §144 of S. 3926 would authorize a
natural resources enhancement fund related to energy and mineral
development.
! H.R. 5872 would promote the restoration, protection, and
preservation of the natural, chemical, physical, and biological
integrity of the New York/New Jersey Bight.
! Section 106(c) of H.R. 6064 would authorize the Secretary of
Agriculture to share costs for development of fish habitat under the
Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program.
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. On December 15, 2005, the House Resources Subcommittee on

CRS-12
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. 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.
! 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).
On December 7, 2006, the Senate amended H.R. 5946 to include this
provision in §302(g) and passed the amended measure. The House
agreed to the Senate-amended H.R. 5946 on December 9, 2006.
! 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
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.
! 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. On December 7, 2006, the
Senate amended H.R. 5946 to insert language in §113(c) declaring
Oregon and California chinook salmon fishermen eligible for direct
assistance, and passed the amended H.R. 5946. The House agreed
to the amended H.R. 5946 on December 9, 2006. This measure
awaits the President’s signature.
! H.R. 5446 would direct the NOAA Administrator to report on the
effect of 2005 hurricanes on fisheries and fish habitat. On December
7, 2006, the Senate amended H.R. 5946 to insert similar language in

CRS-13
§213 requiring a report by the Secretary of Commerce on the impact
of 2005 hurricanes on commercial and recreational fisheries and on
fish habitat; the Senate passed the amended H.R. 5946. The House
agreed to the amended H.R. 5946 on December 9, 2006. This
measure awaits the President’s signature.
! 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);
§21 of H.R. 4761/H.R. 5649; and §151 of S. 3926 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. Section 7(19)(b) of H.R. 5872
specifically excludes material approved for construction or maintenance of permitted
artificial reefs from the definition of pollutant.
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. The Senate
passed H.R. 2864 on July 19, 2006, amended to incorporate the
language of amended S. 728, authorizing Long Island Sound oyster
restoration in §3076 and providing for Chesapeake Bay oyster
habitat restoration in §3110, but deleting Delaware Bay oyster
restoration).
! H.R. 3110 would amend the Endangered Species Act to treat distinct
population segments of the Eastern oyster as separate species. On

CRS-14
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. S. 3182 and §1214 of H.R. 6111,
H.R. 6346, and H.R. 6406 would suspend temporarily the duty on
canned, boiled (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:
! Section 405 of S. 2012, §6 of H.R. 4686, and §105 of H.R. 5946
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). 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. The House passed H.R. 5946
(amended) on September 27, 2006.
! Title V of S. 2012 and Title II of H.R. 5946 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. The House
passed H.R. 5946 (amended) on September 27, 2006.
! 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.
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
provide marine vessel safety training and cold water immersion education and
outreach programs for fishermen. Section 314 of P.L. 109-364 (H.R. 5122) required
the Secretary of Defense to provide information to NOAA to better identify hazards
posed by military munitions disposed in the ocean. S. 1473 would amend the
Internal Revenue Code to provide a business credit against income for the purchase
of fishing safety equipment.
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.

CRS-15
Tax Provisions. Section 214 of P.L. 109-280 (H.R. 4) exempts certain multi-
employer pension plans from excise taxes where employers participated in a federal
fishery capacity reduction program or the Northeast Fisheries Assistance Program.
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.
Fishing Vessels. P.L. 109-304 (H.R. 1442) completed codification of Title
46, U.S. Code, including fishery endorsements for vessels and financial assistance.
Corals and Coral Reefs. In the 109th Congress, P.L. 109-317 (H.R. 318)
authorized a feasibility study on designating land including fringing coral reef in the
U.S. Virgin Islands as a unit of the National Park System. 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:
! 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. On December 7, 2006, the Senate
amended H.R. 5946 to substitute the language of amended S. 2012.
The House agreed to the amended H.R. 5946 on December 9, 2006.
This measure awaits the President’s signature.
! 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 September 19, 2006, the House Committee on
Resources reported (amended) H.R. 5622 (H.Rept. 109-665).
! Section 6521(d) of H.R. 4241, as reported by the Committee on the
Budget on November 7, 2005 (H.Rept. 109-276); §21 of H.R.
4761/H.R. 5649; and §151 of S. 3926 would require a study of how
the removal of offshore oil and gas platforms and other OCS
facilities might affect coral populations. On November 18, 2005, the
House passed H.R. 4241, amended, with the 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,

CRS-16
the House passed H.R. 4761 (amended), with the coral study
provisions in §19.
! 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.
! H.R. 2673 would place use restrictions on certain bottom trawling
gear and require federal studies to identify and map diverse bottom
habitats.
! 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.
! Section 101 of S. 4039 would amend the Clean Air Act to direct the
National Academy of Sciences to assess the probability of a loss of
more than 40% of coral reefs because of increased ocean
temperature or acidity.
Great Lakes. In the 109th Congress, P.L. 109-326 (S. 2430) implemented
recommendations of the Great Lakes Fishery Resources Restoration Study.
Additional bills in the 109th Congress address other Great Lakes fishery issues:
! 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. The Senate
passed H.R. 2864 on July 19, 2006 (amended to incorporate
amended language of S. 728, with modified Great Lakes fisheries
restoration provisions in §3127).
! 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.
! H.R. 5089/S. 3605 would authorize the Great Lakes Fishery
Commission to investigate the effects of migratory birds on fish
stock productivity.
Commercial Surf Fishing. Section 10 of P.L. 109-362 (H.R. 233)
authorized continuation of traditional commercial surf fishing in Redwood National
and State Parks, CA.
Invasive Species. 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

CRS-17
field hearing in Fair Haven, MI, on ballast water management. 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.
! 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.
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. Other measures address additional aquatic invasive
species issues:
! 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 the
Judiciary reported H.R. 3049 on July 20, 2006 (H.Rept. 109-585).
! 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.
! 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. 4096 would
require the Corps of Engineers to operate and maintain the Chicago
sanitary and ship canal dispersal barriers and determine the
feasibility of a dispersal barrier in the Lake Champlain Canal.
! 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.
19 For background on ballast water management, see CRS Report RL32344, Ballast Water
Management to Combat Invasive Species
, by Eugene H. Buck.

CRS-18
! H.R. 1592 would authorize various marine and freshwater research,
development, and demonstration programs to address invasive
species concerns.
! H.R. 3468 would establish specific procedures to address invasive
species concerns in Hawaii.
! H.R. 5900 would protect, conserve, and restore native fish and their
habitat at national wildlife refuges through grants to control,
mitigate, and eradicate harmful nonnative species.
International Fisheries. On December 6, 2006, the Senate agreed to S.Res.
610, expressing the sense of the Senate that the United States should promote the
United Nations’ adoption of a resolution to protect the living resources of the high
seas from destructive, illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing practices. Several
bills have been introduced to address international fishery concerns:
! 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 and Nutrition. On March 8, 2006, the House passed H.R.
4167 after amending it to prohibit the National Uniformity for Food Act from
affecting any state action that establishes a notification requirement regarding
mercury in fish and shellfish. 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

CRS-19
to specify that certain fish or shellfish products have been frozen. H.Con.Res. 479
recognizes the health benefits of eating seafood as part of a balanced diet, and
supports the goals and ideals of National Seafood Month.
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 and §501(b) of H.R. 6208 would clarify that commercial fishermen are
eligible for trade adjustment assistance. S. 3118 and S. 3752 would liquidate or
reliquidate certain entries of frozen fish fillets at Los Angeles/Long Beach without
antidumping duties or interest. S. 3182 and §1214 of H.R. 6111, H.R. 6346, and
H.R. 6406 would suspend temporarily the duty on canned, boiled (not smoked)
oysters.
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. The
Senate passed H.R. 2864 on July 19, 2006 (amended to incorporate amended
language of S. 728, with the hypoxia provision deleted). 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. Section 5(c)(5) of H.R.
792 identifies “eliminating dead zones” as one of the possible goals to be considered
in a Great Lakes comprehensive management plan.
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 July 25, 2006, the House Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure reported (amended) S. 362 (H.Rept. 109-332, Part II). The House
passed S. 362 (amended) on September 27, 2006. On December 9, 2006, the Senate
agreed to the House-amended S. 362.
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.
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

CRS-20
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. On December 7, 2006, the
Senate amended H.R. 5946 to incorporate language of amended S. 2012 and passed
the amended H.R. 5946, with the Dungeness crab provision in §302(e). On
December 9, 2006, the House agreed to the Senate-amended H.R. 5946.
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.
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).
Sharks. Section 302(c) of S. 2012 and §301(c) of H.R. 5051 would
reauthorize the Shark Finning Prohibition Act through FY2010. 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.
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.
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.
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
Native American Fishing. H.R. 6119 would provide for the settlement of
claims of Puget Sound, WA, Indian tribes regarding treaty rights to take shellfish.
On December 7, 2006, the Senate amended H.R. 5946, incorporating the language
20 For background on this program, see CRS Report RS21799, Saltonstall-Kennedy Fishery
Funding
, by Eugene H. Buck.

CRS-21
of H.R. 6119 as §703, and passed the amended bill. On December 9, 2006, the
House agreed to the Senate-amended H.R. 5946.
Harmful Algal Blooms. H.Res. 824 would express the sense of Congress on
the importance of research on harmful algal blooms.
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. In mid-
2006, FAO estimated that 43% of all fish consumed by humans came from
aquaculture.23 The FAO predicts that world aquaculture production could exceed 130
million metric tons by 2030.24 U.S. aquaculture, until recently and with a few
exceptions, has been considered a minor industry. The U.S. Department of
Agriculture’s 2005 Census of Aquaculture reported U.S. sales of aquaculture
products had reached nearly $1.1 billion, with more than half this value from
Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi.25 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
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 details, see [http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000383/index.html].
24 For more discussion of FAO projections for 2030, see Part 3 of [http://www.fao.org/
docrep/007/y5600e/y5600e00.htm].
25 See [http://www.nass.usda.gov/aquaculture/index.asp].

CRS-22
wild harvests.26 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.). On November 14, 2006, NOAA released a draft 10-year plan
for its marine aquaculture program.27
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. P.L. 109-360 (H.R. 5381) authorized a volunteer
program and community partnerships benefitting national fish hatcheries. P.L. 109-
363 (H.R. 4957) directed 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. P.L. 109-388 (H.R. 5061) directed the Secretary of the
Interior to convey the Paint Bank National Fish Hatchery and Wytheville National
Fish Hatchery to the State of Virginia. On May 24, 2005, the House Resources
Subcommittee on Fisheries and Oceans held an oversight hearing on the federal fish
hatchery system. 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.
Assistance. Title III, Subtitle C, §3032 of P.L. 109-234 clarified terms and
conditions of aquaculture producer grants for 2005 hurricane disaster relief. 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.
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
26 For the latest information on domestic production and statistics, see
[http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID=1375].
27 Copy available at [http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/mediacenter/aquaculture/plan.htm].

CRS-23
authorize payments of Commodity Credit Corporation funds for any
crop loss (including fisheries) due to a disaster.
! 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.
! 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.28 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 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
28 For additional information on offshore aquaculture development, see CRS Report
RL32694, Open Ocean Aquaculture, by Rachel Borgatti and Eugene H. Buck.

CRS-24
shellfish. H.R. 4879/S. 2411 would liquidate or reliquidate certain salmon entries at
Miami without antidumping duties or interest.
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. On July 19, 2006, the Senate passed H.R. 2864, after
amending it to incorporate the language of S. 728, providing for Chesapeake Bay
oyster hatcheries in §3110.
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.29
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/S. 4058
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
29 For additional information on genetically engineered fish, see CRS Report RL32974,
Genetically Engineered Fish and Seafood, by Rachel Borgatti and Eugene H. Buck.

CRS-25
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 near the coast of the North Pacific or Arctic
Ocean, if such taking is for subsistence purposes or for creating and selling authentic
Native articles of handicrafts and clothing, and is not done wastefully.
The act also authorizes the taking of marine mammals incidental to commercial
fishing operations. In 1988, most U.S. commercial fish harvesters were exempted
from otherwise applicable rulemaking and permit requirements for a five-year period,
pending development of an improved system to govern the incidental taking of
marine mammals in the course of commercial fishing operations. This exemption
expired at the end of FY1993, and was extended several times until new provisions

CRS-26
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.30
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.31 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). The House passed H.R. 4075 (amended) on July
17, 2006.
! 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.
! 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.
30 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].
31 For additional background on potential reauthorization issues, see CRS Report RL30120,
The Marine Mammal Protection Act: Reauthorization Issues, by Eugene H. Buck.

CRS-27
! 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.
! H.R. 6241 would amend the MMPA to authorize taking of
California sea lions to reduce their predation on endangered
Columbia River salmon.
Miscellaneous Issues
Habitat. P.L. 109-294 (S. 260) expanded 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.
Whaling. 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.
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. 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.
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 July 25, 2006, the
House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure reported (amended) S. 362
(H.Rept. 109-332, Part II). The House passed S. 362 (amended) on September 27,
2006. On December 9, 2006, the Senate agreed to the House-amended S. 362.
Polar Bear. S. 2013 and §17 of H.R. 4075, as passed by the House on July 17,
2006, 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 S. 2013 on February 27, 2006 (S.Rept. 109-
217); the Senate passed this measure (amended) on June 6, 2006. On December 6,
2006, the Senate amended H.R. 4075 to incorporate the language of S. 2013, and
passed this measure. On December 7, 2006, the Senate amended H.R. 5946 by
adding the language of Senate-amended H.R. 4075 as Title IX, and passed the
amended measure. The House agreed to the amended H.R. 5946 on December 9,
2006. This measure awaits the President’s signature.
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.

CRS-28
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.32
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).
32 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-29
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.