Order Code RL33459
Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal
Legislation in the 109th Congress
Updated January 18, 2007
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) — were acted upon by the 109th Congress; the authorization of
appropriations for both laws expired at the end of FY1999. P.L. 109-479
reauthorized and extensively amended the MSFCMA; a bill extensively amending
the MMPA was 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 included 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 was 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.

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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Miscellaneous Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Bankruptcy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Seafood Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
State Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Recreational Fishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Hydropower and Water Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Habitat Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Artificial Reefs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Oysters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Tuna . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Vessel Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Jones Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Tax Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Fishing Vessels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Corals and Coral Reefs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Great Lakes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Commercial Surf Fishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Trade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Marine Debris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Dungeness Crab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Native American Fishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Invasive Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
International Fisheries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Seafood Safety and Nutrition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Hypoxia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Marketing and Labeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Health Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Sharks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Capital Construction Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
National Marine Sanctuaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Saltonstall-Kennedy Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Harmful Algal Blooms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Aquaculture: Background and Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Miscellaneous Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Bankruptcy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Fish Hatcheries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Open Ocean Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Marketing and Trade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Oyster Hatcheries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Genetic Modification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Disease . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
National Marine Sanctuaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Invasive Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Coral . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Tax Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Marine Mammals: Background and Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Marine Mammal Protection Act Reauthorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Miscellaneous Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Marine Debris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Polar Bear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Whaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Small Cetacean Kills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Ocean Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Tuna-Dolphin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Sea Otters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Canadian Sealing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
NMFS Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
List of Tables
Table 1. NMFS Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal
Legislation in the 109th Congress
Most Recent Developments
On January 12, 2007, President Bush signed P.L. 109-479 (H.R. 5946),
reauthorizing and extensively amending the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act and related fishery law. On December 22, 2006, President
Bush signed P.L. 109-449 (S. 362), establishing NOAA and Coast Guard programs
to manage marine debris — including lost fishing gear — and address its adverse
impacts. On December 20, 2006, President Bush signed P.L. 109-432, including
provisions suspending temporarily the duty on felt-bottom and lug-bottom boots for
use in fishing waders and on canned, boiled (not smoked) oysters. 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. On December 7, 2006, the Senate passed H.R. 5946,
amended to include much of the language formerly in S. 2012. (Members and staff
may request e-mail notification of new CRS reports on marine and freshwater
fisheries, aquaculture, and marine mammal issues by contacting Gene Buck at
[gbuck@crs.loc.gov] and requesting to be added to his notification list.)
Commercial and Sport Fisheries:
Background and Issues
Historically, coastal states managed marine sport and commercial fisheries in
nearshore waters, where most seafood was caught. However, as fishing techniques
improved, fishermen ventured farther offshore. Before the 1950s, the federal
government assumed limited responsibility for marine fisheries, responding primarily
to international fishery concerns and treaties (by enacting implementing legislation
for treaties, e.g., the Northern Pacific Halibut Act in 1937) as well as to interstate
fishery conflicts (by consenting to interstate fishery compacts, e.g., the Pacific
Marine Fisheries Compact in 1947). In the late 1940s and early 1950s, several Latin
American nations proclaimed marine jurisdictions extending 200 miles offshore.
This action was denounced by those within the United States and other distant-water
fishing nations who sought to preserve access for far-ranging fishing vessels.
Beginning in the 1950s (Atlantic) and 1960s (Pacific), increasing numbers of foreign
fishing vessels steamed into U.S. offshore waters to catch the substantially
unexploited seafood resources. Since the United States then claimed only a 3-mile
jurisdiction (in 1964, P.L. 88-308 prohibited fishing by foreign-flag vessels within
3 miles of the coast; in 1966, P.L. 89-658 proclaimed an expanded 12-mile exclusive
U.S. fishery jurisdiction), foreign vessels could fish many of the same stocks caught
by U.S. fishermen. U.S. fishermen deplored this “foreign encroachment” and alleged

CRS-2
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
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.
1 The full text of the MSFCMA, as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 (P.L.
104-297), can be found at [http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/magact/].
2 NMFS programs are described in detail at [http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/].
3 Links to individual Council websites are available at [http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/
councils/].
4 For the 2005 Report to Congress on Council membership, see [http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/
sfa/reg_svcs/Council_Reportocongress/05ReporttoCongress.pdf].
5 A detailed summary of the Sustainable Fisheries Act, including an explanation of issues
and legislative history, can be found at [http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/sfaguide/].

CRS-3
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
NMFS reports annually on the status of fish stocks managed under the
MSFCMA.9 For 2005, NMFS made overfishing10 determinations for 237 fish stocks
6 For additional domestic commercial fishery harvest statistics, see [http://www.st.nmfs.
noaa.gov/st1/commercial/index.html].
7 Recreational fishing programs at NMFS are discussed at [http://www.st.nmfs.gov/st1/
recreational/index.html].
8 Details of the 2001 survey can be found at [http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/
fishing.html].
9 See [http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/domes_fish/ReportsToCongress/finalSOS/Report_
text_FINAL3.pdf].
10 A stock that is subject to overfishing has a fishing mortality (harvest) rate above the level
that provides for the maximum sustainable yield.

CRS-4
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. Prior to the 109th Congress, 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 the reauthorization debate in the 109th
Congress was achieving a balance between conserving fish and maintaining a viable
commercial fishing industry.
Congressional Action. At issue for the 109th Congress were the terms and
conditions of provisions designed to reauthorize and amend the MSFCMA to address
the concerns of various interest groups.14 In the final hours of the 109th Congress,
P.L. 109-479 (H.R. 5946) was enacted to reauthorize and extensively amend the
MSFCMA. Various provisions enacted by P.L. 109-479:
! modified 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;
! mandated new requirements to restrict overfishing and modifying
how depleted fisheries are to be rebuilt;
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
! required increased consideration of economic and social impacts of
fishery management;
! modified research programs and improving data collection and
management;
! provided increased protection for deep sea corals and bottom habitat;
! implemented ecosystem-based management;
! promoted new gear technologies to further reduce bycatch;
! established national guidelines for individual fishing quota (limited
or dedicated access privilege) programs;
! modified the regional council fishery management plan process,
including better coordination with environmental review under the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); and
! strengthened the role of science in fishery management decision-
making.
The 109th Congress also 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). P.L. 109-479 also amended the MSFCMA to authorize activities
to promote improved monitoring and compliance for high seas fisheries, or fisheries
governed by international fishery management agreements (Title IV), and
implemented the Agreement between the United States and Canada on Pacific
Hake/Whiting (Title VI). In addition, other bills introduced in the 109th Congress
dealt with more restricted MSFCMA issues:
! H.R. 5681 would have amended 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.
! Section 1622 of S. 732, as reported on April 6, 2005 (S.Rept. 109-
53), would have repealed 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 have prohibited all commercial fishing for Atlantic
striped bass.

CRS-6
! H.R. 2112 would have designated the exclusive economic zone of
the United States as the “Ronald Wilson Reagan Exclusive
Economic Zone of the United States.”
! H.R. 2673 would have placed use restrictions on certain bottom
trawling gear, assisted fishermen in switching to alternative gear,
and required federal studies to identify and map diverse bottom
habitats.
! H.R. 3278 would have established national guidelines for individual
fishing quota programs.
! S. 1635 would have restricted trawling to designated areas to protect
deep sea corals and sponges.
! S. 1837 would have added Rhode Island to the Mid-Atlantic
Regional Council.
! H.R. 5447 would have authorized the Secretary of Commerce to
provide immediate assistance to fishermen and owners of related
fishery infrastructure affected by a disaster.
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,
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-7
or remove culverts and bridges to facilitate aquatic species passage. P.L. 109-479
required the Secretary of Commerce to complete a recovery plan for Klamath River
coho salmon and declared Oregon and California chinook salmon fishermen eligible
for direct assistance (§§113(b) and 113(c)), reauthorized the Yukon River Salmon
Act through FY2010 (§302(b)), amended and reauthorized the Pacific Salmon Treaty
Act through FY2010 (§302(d)), and reauthorized the Anadromous Fish Conservation
Act through FY2012 (§302(h)). 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 were introduced to address other Pacific
salmon issues:
! S. 232 would have authorized 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 have authorized 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 have amended the
Lower Snake River Compensation Plan to authorize aquatic and
riparian ecosystem restoration (§3100). H.R. 2864 would have
required 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 the
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. 3522 and H.R. 6278 would have reauthorized and amended 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 have required 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 have authorized partial removal
of these four dams under certain conditions.
! Section 103 of S. 2432/H.R. 5006 would have designated salmon
restoration areas in California.
! S. 2649/S. 2662/H.R. 5213 proposed emergency disaster assistance
to mitigate the economic losses caused by salmon fishing restrictions
along the California and Oregon coasts.
! Section 405 of H.R. 3854 would have authorized $1 million for
culvert removal on wild and scenic rivers in Clackamas County, OR,
to improve fish passage.

CRS-8
! H.R. 6241 would have amended 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 have authorized 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 have provided
for market-based adjustment of annual non-immigrant visa numerical limitations.
Section 203(a)(1) of H.R. 2870 would have required 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. Sections 1290-1291 (Division D) of P.L. 109-432 suspended
temporarily the duty on felt-bottom and lug-bottom boots, respectively, for use in
fishing waders. Other bills were introduced:
! H.R. 2864 would have required a feasibility review of the Kings
River (CA) Fisheries Management Program Framework Agreement;
this bill was reported by the House Committee on Transportation
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-9
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 have established a grant program to
encourage private landowners to provide public access for fishing
and other outdoor recreation.
! S.Con.Res. 66 would have affirmed congressional intent that fishing
(and hunting) is to be permitted on public lands in the National
Wildlife Refuge System.
! H.R. 5732 would have directed 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 were
introduced:
! S. 232 would have authorized 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 have amended 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 have reauthorized and amended 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.
! Section 101(a)(7) of H.R. 737 would have 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

CRS-10
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 were introduced:
! S. 218 would have amended 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 have established a program to
restore fishery habitat with annual authorized funding of $50 million
through FY2010.
! S. 1540 would have authorized 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 have authorized the Environmental
Protection Agency to award state grants for fishery habitat
protection, restoration, and enhancement.
! Section 109 of S. 2440 would have required an outreach program for
commercial and recreational fishermen and boaters to reduce the risk
of oil spills or releases.
! S. 2422 would have created a Coastal Conservation and Habitat
Restoration Fund to finance fishery habitat restoration.
! Section 14 of H.R. 5649 and §144 of S. 3926 would have authorized
a natural resources enhancement fund related to energy and mineral
development.
! H.R. 5872 would have promoted 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 have authorized 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. Provisions of P.L. 109-479 declared Oregon and California
chinook salmon fishermen eligible for direct assistance (§113(c)), required a report
by the Secretary of Commerce on the impact of 2005 hurricanes on commercial and
recreational fisheries and on fish habitat (§213), and reauthorized the
Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act through FY2012(§302(g)). On December 15, 2005,
the House Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries and Oceans held an oversight
hearing on the impact of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma on the Gulf Coast
fishing industry, coastal communities, and the marine environment, and on March 21,

CRS-11
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 were introduced to provide
assistance:
! Section 104(b) of H.R. 27 would have amended the Workforce
Investment Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-220) to specifically require state
plans to discuss how states would address the employment and
training needs of dislocated fishermen. This bill was reported
(amended) by the House Committee on Education and the
Workforce on February 25, 2005 (H.Rept. 109-9), with supplement
report filed March 1, 2005 (H.Rept. 109-9, Part II). On March 2,
2005, the House passed H.R. 27, amended. On June 29, 2006, the
Senate passed H.R. 27, amended, after substituting the language of
S. 1021 (amended) and deleting the provision on dislocated
fishermen.
! Provisions in S. 1765/S. 1766/H.R. 3958 would have provided
financial assistance to Louisiana fishermen and fishing vessel
owners as well as targeted assistance for menhaden and oyster
fisheries; other funds would have benefited fishery infrastructure
reconstruction, seafood marketing, and fishery habitat rehabilitation
as well as funding Coast Guard contracting of commercial fishing
vessels to remove debris.
! Section 601 of H.R. 4330/S. 2009 would have provided 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 have provided assistance
to New England fisheries harmed by red tide.
! S. 1723 would have authorized a $50 million grant program to
maintain waterfront access for commercial fishing and aquaculture.
! S. 2649/S. 2662/H.R. 5213 proposed emergency disaster assistance
to mitigate the economic losses caused by salmon fishery restrictions
along the California and Oregon coast. On June 28, 2006, a House
floor amendment to H.R. 5672 was adopted that would provide an
additional $2 million (by transfer) for the West Coast commercial
salmon industry.
! H.R. 5447 would have authorized 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 have (1) amended 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)
required 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,

CRS-12
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 excluded 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. Section 1214 (Division D) of P.L.
109-432 suspended temporarily the duty on canned, boiled (not smoked) oysters.
Other measures were introduced:
! S. 728, as reported (amended) by the Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Works on April 26, 2005 (S.Rept. 109-61),
would have specifically authorized 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 have authorized a study of oyster habitat restoration in
Delaware Bay (§1005(5)) and increased 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 have amended the Endangered Species Act to treat
distinct population segments of the Eastern oyster as separate
species. On July 19, 2005, the House Committee on Resources held
an oversight hearing on the potential listing of the eastern oyster
under the Endangered Species Act.
! Section 2(f) of S. 1494 would have established 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. Provisions of P.L. 109-479 reauthorized
the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act of 1975 (P.L. 94-70; 16 U.S.C. §§971 et seq.)
through FY2012 (§405), and implemented the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries
Convention (Title V). Additional measures were introduced:
! H.R. 629 would have extended certain tax credits, beneficial to
American Samoa tuna canneries, through January 1, 2016.

CRS-13
! S. 599/H.R. 2816 would have modified 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 have amended 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.
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 have amended 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 have extended certain tax credits, beneficial to
American Samoa tuna canneries, through January 1, 2016. H.R. 3944 and §2 of H.R.
5058 would have amended 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 have amended 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. Section 211 of P.L. 109-
479 provided for increased efforts to study and protect deep sea corals. 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 were introduced in the 109th Congress:
! S. 1390, H.R. 4788, and H.R. 5622 would have amended and
reauthorized 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).

CRS-14
! 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 have required 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,
the House passed H.R. 4761 (amended), with the coral study
provisions in §19.
! H.R. 1996 would have amended 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 have established the Northwestern Hawaiian
Islands National Marine Refuge; §7(c) of this bill would have
compensated fishermen displaced by the refuge.
! H.R. 2673 would have placed use restrictions on certain bottom
trawling gear and required federal studies to identify and map
diverse bottom habitats.
! H.R. 3469 would have prohibited the import, export, and take of
certain coral reef species.
! S. 1635/H.R. 3778 would have designated areas where trawling is
permitted to protect deep sea corals and sponges.
! Section 101 of S. 4039 would have amended 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) required FWS to
implement recommendations of the Great Lakes Fishery Resources Restoration Study
if funding is available. Additional bills in the 109th Congress addressed other Great
Lakes fishery issues:
! Section 5012 of H.R. 2864 would have allowed 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 have authorized state and local
grants for fish habitat improvement in the Great Lakes region.
! Title I of H.R. 2129 would have reauthorized various programs to
restore fisheries and aquatic habitat in the Great Lakes.

CRS-15
! H.R. 5089/S. 3605 would have authorized 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.
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. Title II of P.L. 109-363 (H.R.
4957) reauthorized the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation through FY2010.
Trade. Section 1214 (Division D) of P.L. 109-432 suspended temporarily the
duty on canned, boiled (not smoked) oysters. Section 343(b) of S. 14 would have
authorized a program for trade adjustment assistance to commercial fishermen, fish
processors, and fishing communities. S. 270 would have established a framework
for legislative and executive consideration of unilateral economic sanctions against
foreign nations. H.R. 3363 would have amended 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 have suspended temporarily the duty on certain sardines in
oil in airtight containers. Section 301(b) of S. 1963 and §501(b) of H.R. 6208 would
have clarified that commercial fishermen are eligible for trade adjustment assistance.
S. 3118 and S. 3752 would have liquidated or reliquidated certain entries of frozen
fish fillets at Los Angeles/Long Beach without antidumping duties or interest.
Marine Debris. P.L. 109-449 (S. 362) established NOAA and Coast Guard
programs to manage marine debris — including lost fishing gear — and address its
adverse impacts.
Dungeness Crab. Section 302(e) of P.L. 109-479 reauthorized and amended
the Dungeness Crab Fishery Management Act through FY2012.
Native American Fishing. Section 703 of P.L. 109-479 provided for the
settlement of claims of Puget Sound, WA, Indian tribes regarding treaty rights to take
shellfish.
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
field hearing in Fair Haven, MI, on ballast water management. Numerous bills were
introduced to enhance ballast water management19 as one means to control aquatic
invasive species:
! S. 363 and Title VII of S. 1224 would have amended the
Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act
(NANPCA) of 1990 to promote the development and adoption of
19 For background on ballast water management, see CRS Report RL32344, Ballast Water
Management to Combat Invasive Species
, by Eugene H. Buck.

CRS-16
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 have expressed 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 have reauthorized and amended NANPCA to address ballast
water management and other concerns.
! H.R. 4771 would have amended 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 addressed additional aquatic invasive
species issues:
! H.R. 3049 and S. 1402 would have amended 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 have established 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 have allocated 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 have required 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 have required that any agreement signed by the
United States not preclude measures to combat invasive species.
! S. 507 and H.R. 1593 would have authorized and established the
National Invasive Species Council.
! Section 4(b)(1)(C) of S. 508 would have authorized Great Lakes
Environmental Restoration Grants for invasive species prevention
and control.
! H.R. 1592 would have authorized various marine and freshwater
research, development, and demonstration programs to address
invasive species concerns.
! H.R. 3468 would have established specific procedures to address
invasive species concerns in Hawaii.
! H.R. 5900 would have protected, conserved, and restored native fish
and their habitat at national wildlife refuges through grants to
control, mitigate, and eradicate harmful nonnative species.

CRS-17
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 were introduced to address international fishery concerns:
! Section 103(4) of S. 600 would have authorized $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 have authorized
$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 have condemned 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 have reauthorized 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 have amended 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 have amended 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 have consolidated food safety and inspection programs,
including seafood inspection. Section 2 of H.R. 2235 would have required labels to
specify that certain fish and shellfish products are raw or partially cooked; §3 of this
bill would have required labels to specify that certain fish or shellfish products have
been frozen. H.Con.Res. 479 recognized the health benefits of eating seafood as part
of a balanced diet, and supported the goals and ideals of National Seafood Month.
Hypoxia. Section 5018 of H.R. 2864 would have authorized 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

CRS-18
amended language of S. 728, with the hypoxia provision deleted). Section 105 of
H.R. 4560 identified 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 identified “eliminating dead zones” as one of the possible goals
to be considered in a Great Lakes comprehensive management plan.
Marketing and Labeling. H.R. 710 would have provided assistance for the
construction, improvement, and rehabilitation of farmers markets, including those
selling local aquaculture and commercial fishing products. S. 1300 would have
replaced mandatory country-of-origin labeling for seafood with a voluntary program.
Section 2 of H.R. 3562/S. 1556 would have made the Specialty Crops
Competitiveness Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-465) applicable to wild harvested fish and
shellfish.
Health Care. Section 2 of H.R. 525/S. 406 and §402 of H.R. 2203 would have
amended 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.
Sharks. Section 302(c) of S. 2012 and §301(c) of H.R. 5051 would have
reauthorized 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 have permitted
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 have required 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 have recognized 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 have amended and modified fishery funding under the Saltonstall-Kennedy
Act.20
Harmful Algal Blooms. H.Res. 824 would have expressed the sense of
Congress on the importance of research on harmful algal blooms.
20 For background on this program, see CRS Report RS21799, Saltonstall-Kennedy Fishery
Funding
, by Eugene H. Buck.

CRS-19
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
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
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].
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-20
Miscellaneous Issues
Bankruptcy. Section 1007 of P.L. 109-8 extended bankruptcy protection to
family fishermen (including aquaculture operations) similar to what applies to family
farmers under Chapter 12 of bankruptcy laws.
Fish Hatcheries. In the 109th Congress, §6007 of P.L. 109-13 increased the
authorization to $25 million for the design and construction of a multispecies fish
hatchery at Fort Peck Lake, MT. 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 have authorized 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 was introduced in the 109th Congress:
! S. 1316 would have authorized 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 have authorized 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 have provided 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
have authorized payments of Commodity Credit Corporation funds
for loss of aquaculture crops due to a 2005 hurricane; §4 of S. 1804
would have authorized payments of Commodity Credit Corporation
funds for any crop loss (including fisheries) due to a disaster.
! S. 1723 would have authorized a $50 million grant program to
maintain waterfront access for commercial fishing and aquaculture.
! Various Louisiana aquaculture operators harmed by Hurricane
Katrina would have received assistance in S. 1765/S. 1766/H.R.
3958 — §525 would have provided a distribution of antidumping
duties collected on imported Chinese crawfish to benefit Louisiana
crawfish growers, a provision in Subtitle L would have provided
funds for alligator farmers, and provisions in Subtitle D would have
funded oyster hatcheries and restoration of oyster beds and reefs.

CRS-21
! Section 501(c)(1)(A) of S. 2747 would have authorized 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 have amended 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 have prohibited the issuance of permits for marine
aquaculture facilities in federal waters until requirements for such permits are
enacted. S. 1224 also would have established a coordinated agency program for
offshore permitting (§161), designated NOAA as the lead federal agency for marine
aquaculture (§162(b)(1)), and required regulations that prohibit marine aquaculture
where it would damage or alter seafloor habitat or alter water quality (§222). S. 1195
would have authorized 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) expressed concern about
antibiotic contamination in imported farm-raised shrimp and requested 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 have provided
financial assistance for the construction, improvement, and rehabilitation of farmers
markets, including those selling products from local aquaculture and commercial
fishing. S. 1300 would have replaced mandatory country-of-origin labeling for fish
and seafood with a voluntary program. Section 2 of H.R. 3562/S. 1556 would have
made the Specialty Crops Competitiveness Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-465) applicable to
farm-raised fish and shellfish. H.R. 4879/S. 2411 would have liquidated or
reliquidated 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 have specifically authorized 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.
28 For additional information on offshore aquaculture development, see CRS Report
RL32694, Open Ocean Aquaculture, by Rachel Borgatti and Eugene H. Buck.

CRS-22
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 sought 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 have prohibited 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 have required
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 have exempted aquaculture
operations from restrictions on coral handling and encourage cooperative aquaculture
ventures to propagate coral reef species.
Tax Provisions. H.R. 3874 would have amended 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
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
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-23
“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
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.

CRS-24
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 were the terms and
conditions of provisions designed to reauthorize and amend the MMPA to address
the concerns of various interest groups.31 Legislation was introduced:
! H.R. 2130 and H.R. 4075 would have extensively amended the
MMPA and authorized 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, declared that §7 consultation under the
Endangered Species Act was equivalent to a §101 incidental take
authorization required under the MMPA for dock building permits.
! Title IV of S. 1224 would have amended 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) directed negotiation of international
agreements to better protect cetaceans from commercial fishing gear
and authorized a grant program to develop less harmful fishing gear.
! Section 206 of H.R. 2939 would have transferred management of all
marine mammals to NOAA.
! H.R. 3839 would have amended 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 have amended the MMPA to authorize taking of
California sea lions to reduce their predation on endangered
Columbia River salmon.
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-25
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.
Marine Debris. P.L. 109-449 (S. 362) established NOAA and Coast Guard
programs to manage marine debris and address its adverse impacts.
Polar Bear. Title IX of P.L. 109-479 implemented the Agreement on the
Conservation and Management of the Alaska-Chukotka Polar Bear Population.
Whaling. H.Con.Res. 267 would have expressed 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 have expressed 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 have expressed 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 have expressed
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.
Small Cetacean Kills. S.Res. 99 would have expressed 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.
Ocean Noise. Section 402 of S. 1224 would have amended 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 have required a
report on the observed and projected effects of climate change on marine life and
habitat.
Tuna-Dolphin. S. 270 would have established a framework for legislative and
executive consideration of unilateral economic sanctions against foreign nations.
Sea Otters. H.R. 2323 would have promoted southern sea otter recovery and
research.
Canadian Sealing. S.Res. 33 urged Canada to end commercial seal hunting.
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-26
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).
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.