ProQuest www.csa.com
 
 
Quick Links
>
>
  
Discovery Guides Areas
>
>
>
>
>
 
  
e-Journal

  Environmental Policy Issues  

Overview

Key Citations

Web Sites

Source

Contact Editor
Congressional Research Service Reports
Redistributed as a Service of the NLE*

IB10010: Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Legislation in the 106th Congress

Eugene H. Buck

Resources, Science, and Industry Division

September 20, 2000

CONTENTS

SUMMARY

Fish and marine mammals are important resources in the open ocean and nearshore coastal areas. A diverse body of laws and regulations guides the management of these resources by a multitude of federal agencies.

Commercial and sport fishing are jointly managed by the federal government and individual states. States manage fishery resources in inshore waters where 30% to 40% of the annual U.S. commercial harvest is taken. Beyond state jurisdiction and out to 200 miles, the federal government manages fisheries under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA) through the actions of eight regional fishery management councils. Beyond 200 miles, the United States participates in a multitude of international agreements relating to specific areas or species.

Legislation related to commercial and sport fisheries considered by the 105th Congress and enacted addressed numerous concerns, including regulation of large fishing vessels, management of the Atlantic striped bass fishery, protection of coral reef ecosystems, research and control of harmful blooms, and reauthorization of Wallop-Breaux sport fish restoration funding.

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, crawfish, shellfish, and trout.

Legislation related to aquaculture considered in the 105th Congress focused on reauthorizing the National Aquaculture Act (NAA) and promoting private aquaculture development. A simple reauthorization of the NAA was enacted.

Marine mammals are provided extensive protection under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) of 1972, as amended. This Act authorizes restricted use ("take") of marine mammals and addresses specific situations of concern, such as dolphin mortality primarily associated with the eastern tropical Pacific tuna fishery.

Legislation considered in the 105th Congress and enacted related to marine mammals included proposals to balance dolphin protection in the eastern tropical Pacific with tuna harvesting, modify regulations applicable to importing polar bear trophies from Canada (where limited hunting is legal), and provide an exemption from MMPA constraints for disentangling marine mammals from fishing gear or debris.

Authorization of appropriations for major legislation in this issue area -- the MSFCMA and the MMPA -- expired at the end of FY1999. Thus, reauthorization and possible amendment of these laws may be considered in the 106th Congress. In the first session of the 106th Congress, oversight hearings were held on implementation of various programs under these major authorities.

(Note that this issue brief references a number of useful Internet sites; these sites are hot-linked in the online version of this product.)

MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

On September 18, 2000, the House passed H.R. 2798, the Pacific Salmon Recovery Act, by voice vote. On September 12, 2000, the House passed H.R. 4840, the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Act, by voice vote. On September 5, 2000, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations reported a recommended resolution of advice and consent to the ratification of the 1996 Inter-American Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles (Exec. Rept. 106-18). On August 7, 2000, President Clinton signed P.L. 106-256 (S. 2327), establishing a Commission on Ocean Policy. (Members and staff may obtain daily or weekly summary updates via e-mail providing current information on marine and freshwater fisheries, aquaculture, and marine mammal issues by contacting gbuck@crs.loc.gov and requesting to be added to the summary distribution list.)

BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS

Commercial and Sport Fisheries: Background and Issues

Historically, coastal states managed marine sport and commercial fisheries in nearshore waters, where most seafood was caught. However, as fishing techniques improved, fishermen ventured farther offshore. Before the 1950s, the federal government assumed limited responsibility for marine fisheries, responding primarily to international fishery concerns and treaties (by enacting implementing legislation for treaties; e.g., the Northern Pacific Halibut Act in 1937) as well as to interstate fishery conflicts (by consenting to interstate fishery compacts; e.g., the Pacific Marine Fisheries Compact in 1947). In the late 1940s and early 1950s, several Latin American nations proclaimed marine jurisdictions extending 200 miles offshore. This action was denounced by those within the United States and other distant-water fishing nations who sought to preserve access for far-ranging fishing vessels. Beginning in the 1950s (Atlantic) and 1960s (Pacific), increasing numbers of foreign fishing vessels steamed into U.S. offshore waters to catch the predominantly unexploited seafood resources. Since the United States then claimed only a 3-mile jurisdiction (in 1964, P.L. 88-308 prohibited fishing by foreign-flag vessels within 3 miles of the coast; in 1966, P.L. 89-658 proclaimed an expanded 12-mile exclusive U.S. fishery jurisdiction), foreign vessels could fish many of the same stocks caught by U.S. fishermen. U.S. fishermen deplored this "foreign encroachment" and alleged that overfishing was causing stress on, or outright depletion of, fish stocks. The unsuccessful Law of the Sea Treaty negotiations in the 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 after the late Senator Warren G. Magnuson, and more recently the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA) http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/magact/ after Senator Ted Stevens) 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) http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the Department of Commerce. The 200-mile fishery conservation zone was superseded by an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), proclaimed by President Reagan on March 10, 1983 (Presidential Proclamation 5030).

Eight Regional Fishery Management Councils were created by the FCMA http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/councils/. Councils members are appointed by the Secretary of Commerce from lists of candidates knowledgeable of fishery resources, provided by coastal state Governors. The Councils prepare fishery management plans (FMPs) for those fisheries that they determine require active federal management. After public hearings, revised FMPs are submitted to the Secretary of Commerce for approval. Approved plans are implemented through regulations published in the Federal Register. Together these Councils have implemented 39 FMPs for various fish and shellfish resources, with 7 additional plans in various stages of development. Some plans are created for an individual or a few closely related species (e.g., FMPs for red drum by the South Atlantic Council, for northern anchovy by the Pacific 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 more than 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 http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/sfaguide/. The current authorization expired in FY1999.

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 in 1992 and subsequent years. Commensurate with the decline of foreign catch, domestic offshore catch increased dramatically, from about 1.6 billion pounds (1977) to more than 6.3 billion pounds (1993). Total (U.S. and foreign) offshore fishery landings from the U.S. EEZ increased about 24% between 1977 and 1986-1988 to a peak of 6.65 billion pounds, but declined slightly to stabilize over the next decade.

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.

In 1998, U.S. commercial fishermen landed about 7.2 billion pounds of edible fish and shellfish http://www.st.nmfs.gov/commercial/index.html, worth about $3 billion at the dock. Imports supplied another 3.6 billion pounds, worth almost $8.2 billion. After converting processed imports to comparable landed weight, 47.4% of the U.S. supply of edible fish and shellfish came from imports in 1998. U.S. consumers spent more than $49 billion on edible seafood in 1998, with more than $32 billion of that amount spent in restaurants. Marine recreational anglers caught an estimated 312 million fish in 1998 http://www.st.nmfs.gov/recreational/database/queries/index.html, of which the retained catch was about 195 million pounds. In 1996, a nationwide survey estimated http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/fishing.html that recreational anglers spent almost $38 billion each year pursuing their sport.

1. Magnuson Act Reauthorization

Background. The MSFCMA was reauthorized in 1996 by P.L. 104-297, the Sustainable Fisheries Act http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/; the current authorization for appropriations expires on September 30, 1999. These 1996 amendments established fish conservation initiatives directing NMFS and regional councils to protect essential fish habitat, minimize incidental fish bycatch, and restore overfished stocks. In addition, a host of modifications to regional council management procedures and federal management policy were enacted. NMFS contends that implementation of the 1996 amendments has met many of the Act's objectives http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/releases99/jan99/noaa99-4.html; fishing industry and environmental groups have criticized NMFS and regional council implementation efforts. While environmental groups have expressed concerns that NMFS and regional councils have not been as responsive as needed on conservation measures, fishing industry representatives are concerned that too stringent an application of conservation measures may cripple commercial fishing and bankrupt many fishermen. A key issue in any reauthorization debate in the 106th Congress may be seeking a comfortable balance between conserving fish and maintaining a viable commercial fishing industry.

Congressional Action. At issue for the 106th Congress will be the terms and conditions of any provisions designed to reauthorize and amend the MSFCMA to address the concerns of various interest groups. On April 29, the House Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife, and Oceans held an oversight hearing on the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the economic impact of NMFS regulations. H.R. 1653 proposes to approve a governing international fishery agreement between the United States and the Russian Federation; this measure was reported by the House Committee on Resources on June 22, 1999 (H.Rept. 106-195). H.R. 1643 proposes to establish a moratorium on operating large fishing vessels in the north Atlantic herring and mackerel fisheries; no action has been taken on this measure. However, €3025 of P.L. 106-31 (H.R. 1141) makes permanent the moratorium (included in P.L. 105-277) on operating large fishing vessels in the north Atlantic herring and mackerel fisheries until fishery management council action was taken. H.R. 2181 would authorize the Secretary of Commerce to acquire and equip fishery survey vessels; the House Committee on Resources reported this measure on July 22, 1999 (H.Rept. 106-251). H.Con.Res. 189 would express the sense of Congress regarding shark finning in Pacific waters. The House Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife, and Oceans held a hearing on H.Con.Res. 189 on October 21, 1999; this measure was reported (amended) on November 1, 1999 (H.Rept. 106-428), and it was agreed to by the House on November 1, 1999. In addition, H.R. 3078 would direct NMFS to study the effects of shark finning in the Pacific, while H.R. 3535 would prohibit shark finning. On June 6, 2000, the House Committee on Resources reported H.R. 3535 amended (H.Rept. 106-650); later in the day, this bill passed the House by a vote of 390-1. S. 2831 was introduced in the Senate to address shark finning concerns. H.R. 3059 proposes to establish a moratorium on all bottom trawling until NMFS completes a study of impacts of this fishing method and fishery management plans have been modified to address these impacts; no action has been taken on this measure. H.R. 3331, H.R. 3390, H.R. 4612, H.R. 4773, and S. 1911 would authorize a vessel buyout program for the swordfish pelagic longline fishery. The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation reported S. 1911 (amended) on July 12, 2000 (S.Rept. 106-339); no action has been taken on the other bills. H.R. 3516 would prohibit pelagic longline fishing in federal waters along the Atlantic coast; the House Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife, and Oceans held a hearing on H.R. 3331, H.R. 3390, and H.R. 3516 on February 8, 2000.

On July 15, 1999, the House Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife, and Oceans held an oversight hearing on National Marine Fisheries Service's regulations implementing the Fishery Management Plan for Highly Migratory Species of Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish and Sharks, specifically as it affects yellowfin tuna. On July 22, 1999, the House Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife, and Oceans held an oversight hearing on the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Oceans and Fisheries held a hearing on implementation of 1996 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and various reauthorization issues on July 29, 1999, as well as field hearings on this reauthorization in Portland, Maine (September 25, 1999), New Orleans, Louisiana (December 14, 1999), Anchorage, Alaska (January 18, 2000), Seattle, Washington (January 19, 2000), and Boston, Massachusetts (April 10, 2000). On March 21, 2000, the first MSFCMA reauthorization bill (H.R. 4046) in the 106th Congress was introduced, followed in the Senate by S. 2832 and S. 2973. For additional information on reauthorization issues in the 106th Congress, see CRS Report RL30215 , The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act: Reauthorization Issues for the 106th Congress.

2. Pacific Salmon

Background. Five species of salmon spawn in Pacific coastal rivers and lakes, after which juveniles migrate to North Pacific ocean waters where they mature. Since these fish may cross several state and national boundaries during their lifespan, management is complicated http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/salmon/salmon.html. Threats to salmon include hydropower dams blocking rivers and creating reservoirs, sport and commercial harvest, habitat modification by competing resource industries and human development, and hatcheries seeking to supplement natural production but sometimes unintentionally causing genetic or developmental concerns. In response to declining salmon populations in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California, discrete population units have been listed as endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. For background on this issue, see CRS Report 91-267 ENR, Pacific Salmon and Steelhead: Potential Impacts of Endangered Species Act Listings, CRS Report 98-666 ENR, Pacific Salmon and Anadromous Trout: Management Under the Endangered Species Act, and CRS Issue Brief IB10009, Endangered Species: Continuing Controversy.

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 http://radio.cbc.ca/news/fish/ became more antagonistic, including the blockade of an Alaska state ferry by British Columbia fishermen in Prince Rupert, BC, in July 1997. This deadlock was resolved in June 1999 when a new accord was concluded. (For additional information on the Pacific Salmon Treaty and new agreement, see CRS Report RL30234 , The Pacific Salmon Treaty: The 1999 Agreement in Historical Perspective.)

Congressional Action. Section 582(a) of P.L. 106-53 (Water Resources Development Act of 1999) amends €511 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 to direct the Army Corps of Engineers to establish a research and development program for Columbia and Snake Rivers salmon survival, with $10 million in funding authorized. In addition, €582(b) directs the Corps to accelerate development "fish-friendly" turbines with $35 million authorized for this purpose. Furthermore, €582(c) directs the Corps to carry out a program to reduce populations of fish-eating birds nesting on dredge spoil islands in the Columbia River, with $1 million authorized for this purpose. Section 515 authorizes the Corps of Engineers to provide technical planning and design assistance to non-federal parties and/or conduct studies to design and evaluate fish screens, fish passages devices, and other measures to decrease the inadvertent entry of fish into irrigation systems. P.L. 106-53 was signed into law on August 17, 1999. S. 1723 would authorize the Bureau of Reclamation to undertake projects to address salmon concerns with irrigation system water diversions; the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee's Subcommittee on Water and Power held a hearing on S. 1723 on October 20, 1999, and the full Committee approved this measure on February 10, 2000. S. 294 and H.R. 1444 propose to direct the Army Corps of Engineers to develop and implement a comprehensive program for fish screens and fish passage devices. The House Resources Committee reported H.R. 1444 (amended) on November 5, 1999 (H.Rept. 106-454, Part I), and the House suspended the rules, passing this measure on November 9, 1999. The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources reported H.R. 1444 (amended to incorporate S. 1723) on March 9, 2000 (S.Rept. 106-239), and the Senate passed the amended H.R. 1444 on April 13, 2000. No action has been taken on S. 294.

On April 6, 1999, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources' Subcommittee on Water and Power held an oversight field hearing in Hood River, Oregon, on the process for determining the future of the four lower Snake River dams. On April 7, 1999, the Senate Committee on Appropriations' Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies and the House Committee on Appropriations' Subcommittee on Interior held a joint field hearing in Seattle, WA, on funding for salmon recovery programs. H.Con.Res. 63 expresses the sense of Congress opposing removal of dams on the Columbia and Snake Rivers for fish restoration; the House Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife, and Oceans held a hearing on this measure on May 27, 1999; on July 21, 1999, the House Committee on Resources ordered H.Con.Res. 63 reported. On June 9, 1999, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources' Subcommittee on Water and Power held an oversight hearing on the process to determine the future of the four lower Snake River dams and conduct oversight on the Northwest Power Planning Council's Framework Process. H.R. 1314 and S. 715 propose to protect chinook salmon spawning habitat in the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River by designating this area as a Wild and Scenic River; no action has been taken on these measures. H.R. 1759 would create a Hanford Reach National Salmon Preserve and Recreational Area. H.R. 1652 proposes to establish a Yukon River Salmon Advisory Panel; the House Committee on Resources reported this measure on June 25, 1999 (H.Rept. 106-201). S. 1100 would amend the Endangered Species Act to require the designation of critical habitat for endangered and threatened species as part of recovery plan development. The Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Drinking Water held a hearing on this measure on May 27, 1999, and reported it, amended, on July 28, 1999 (S.Rept. 106-126). S. 1167 would amend the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act to expand the scope of the Independent Scientific Review Panel; a hearing was held on this measure by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water and Power on October 20, 1999. This measure was reported (amended) by the full Committee on March 9, 2000 (S.Rept. 106-235), and passed by the Senate on April 13, 2000. On June 23, 1999, the Senate Environment and Public Works' Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Drinking Water held a hearing on the plans and procedures of 9 federal agencies in their coordinated effort to promote salmon recovery. H.R. 2875 proposes to amend the Klamath River Basin Fishery Resources Restoration Act to provide for tribal representation on the Klamath Fishery Management Council and clarify allocation of annual tribal catch; no action has been taken on this measure. H.R. 2664 and S. 1525 propose to provide compensation to the Spokane Tribe in settlement of claims related to Grand Coulee Dam; no action has been taken on these measures. H.R. 2798 would authorize the Secretary of Commerce to provide financial assistance to Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and California for salmon habitat restoration projects. The House Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife, and Oceans held a hearing on H.R. 2798 on May 18, 2000, and this measure was reported (amended) September 6, 2000 (H.Rept. 106-806). The House passed H.R. 2798 by voice vote on September 18, 2000. On October 28, 1999, the House Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife, and Oceans held an oversight hearing on the Pacific Salmon Treaty. S. 2228/H.R. 3882 would authorize $125 million for the Corps of Engineers to coordinate and fund local efforts to restore salmon habitat in Puget Sound; no action has been taken on this measure. The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water and Power held oversight hearings to examine federal actions affecting hydropower operations on the Columbia River system in Washington (April 12, 2000) and in Cascade Locks, Oregon (April 18, 2000).

3. Coral Reef Ecosystems

Background. Coral reef ecosystems are viewed as fragile, unique, and in need of additional protection http://www.coralreef.noaa.gov/. Although most coral reef ecosystems are outside U.S. jurisdiction, many seek to encourage protection of these resources and U.S. coral reefs in Florida, Hawaii, and various island possessions. For more information, see CRS Report 91-671 ENR, Corals and Coral Reef Protection.

Congressional Action. S. 725, the Coral Reef Conservation Act of 1999, would establish a Coral Reef Conservation Program including NOAA grants authorized at $3.8 million annually for FY2000-FY2002 . The Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Oceans and Fisheries held a hearing on S. 725 on June 30, 1999. H.R. 673 and S. 2711, the Florida Keys Water Quality Improvements Act of 1999, would authorize the Environmental Protection Agency to make grants to the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority to improve water quality in the marine ecosystem of the Florida Keys. The House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment held a hearing on H.R. 673 on July 13, 1999, and the bill was reported (amended) on May 2, 2000 (H.Rept. 106-592). On May 4, 2000, H.R. 673 was passed by the House on vote of 411-7. S. 1253, the Coral Reef Protection Act of 1999, would authorize $100 million in financial assistance over 5 years for coral reef conservation projects; the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Oceans and Fisheries held a hearing on this measure on June 30, 1999. Subtitle B of S. 1420, the Coastal Stewardship Act, incorporates the coral protection language of S. 1253. No action has been taken on S. 1420. H.R. 2903, the Coral Reef Conservation and Restoration Act of 1999, would authorize a grant program to fund coral reef conservation projects and authorize appropriations to fund this program; the House Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife, and Oceans held a hearing on this measure on October 21, 1999. H.R. 3919 proposes coordination of and assistance for coral reef conservation; this measure was reported (amended) by the House Resources Committee on July 19, 2000 (H.Rept. 106-762). S. 1888 proposes additional support for coral reef protection in lands administered by agencies within the Department of the Interior; no action has been taken on this measure.

4. Appropriations

National Marine Fisheries Service. The Administration's FY2001 budget request for NMFS included $455.4 million in direct program obligations (FY2000 was $416.5 million); $21.9 million for procurement, acquisition, and construction; and $179.7 million in other fisheries-related accounts (including $160 million for Pacific salmon). NMFS identified an additional $119.5 million in increases for items supporting the management of living marine resources and their habitats elsewhere within the NOAA budget, including $102 million for the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery/Treaty Fund (see below). Within the NMFS program, the Administration requests significant increases for Endangered Species Act recovery plans (+$12.3 million), New England fisheries management (+$6.1 million), fish statistics (+$5.9 million), and coral reefs (+$5 million). NMFS also projects $20 million in transfers from the Department of Agriculture for Norton Sound (Alaska) fisheries failure ($5 million) and cooperative research and management in New England ($15 million). In addition, the Administration pledges to work with Congress to transfer NMFS's Seafood Inspection Program to the Food and Drug Administration. NMFS also proposed collecting $20 million in new fees under the authority of the MSFCMA in FY2001 and transferring $68 million from the Saltonstall-Kennedy account for NMFS activities.

Pacific Salmon. The Administration's FY2001 budget requests an additional $102 million for salmon recovery and Pacific Salmon Treaty obligations. A total of $60 million would implement the June 1999 agreement to the Pacific Salmon Treaty, providing $20 million each to the two Restoration and Enhancement Funds and $20 million to Washington State to complete a salmon license buyback program. The other $42 million in increases would be part of the Lands Legacy Initiative, to increase state capabilities to assist in conservation of Pacific salmon (the FY2001 proposal would increase this $58 million program (FY2000) to a total of $100 million).

Fish and Wildlife Service. The Administration's FY2001 budget request includes increases for subsistence fisheries on federal lands in Alaska ($11.1 million), Klamath and Trinity watersheds ($2.8 million), watershed restoration and fish passage through Partners for Fish and Wildlife ($500,000), the California Bay-Delta project ($500,000), and consultation on Federal Energy Regulatory Commission relicensing decisions ($100,000). Projected decreases include salmon and steelhead recovery in Washington State (-$3.8 million), salmon and bull trout habitat conservation projects in Washington State (-$2.1 million), fish health research and surveys (-$1 million), and Alabama sturgeon ($0.4 million). Payments to states under the Wallop-Breaux Sport Fish Restoration Program are estimated at about $292 million for FY2001 (was slightly more than $305 million in FY2000).

FY2000 Supplemental. H.R. 3908, as reported (H.Rept. 106-521), would provide $17.4 million for fishermen harmed by Hurricanes Floyd, Dennis, Georges, and Mitch and relief for the Long Island Sound lobster fishery disaster. The House passed this measure on March 30, 2000. No funds were provided for the West Coast groundfish fishery. No further action was taken on this measure. Subsequently, Title II, Chapter 2 of P.L. 106-246 appropriated disaster assistance and other funding for several fisheries: 1) Hurricane Floyd and other recent hurricanes ($10.8 million), fishery disasters in the Long Island Sound lobster fishery ($7.3 million for compensation and assistance, $6.6 million for research), and the west coast groundfish fishery ($5 million); 2) Pribilof Island and East Aleutian area of the Bering Sea crab fishery ($7 million disaster assistance; $3 million for Bering Sea ecosystem research, with $1 million for research to restore the crab fishery); 3) northeast multispecies fishery capacity reduction program ($10 million); and 4) Hawaiian longline fishery ($2 million for studies of longline interactions with sea turtles, $5 million for observer coverage).

5. Other Miscellaneous Issues

a. Managing fishing in Glacier Bay National Park. S. 501 and H.R. 947 would authorize specific and limited commercial and subsistence fishing within Glacier Bay National Park, Alaska. Although P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, included a compromise on commercial fishing in Glacier Bay National Park, Alaska, disagreements over this approach led to 106th Congress efforts to repeal the earlier action. On April 15, 1999, the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources held a hearing on S. 501; this measure was reported, amended, on July 29, 1999 (S.Rept. 106-128), and passed (amended) by the Senate on November 19, 1999. The compromise directs the National Park Service to allow commercial fishing in the outer waters of the park and requires the Park Service to study fisheries throughout the park, including the effect of commercial fishing on park resources. No action has yet been taken on H.R. 947. Language was inserted in H.R. 1141 and S. 544, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bills, to compensate Dungeness crab fishermen for loss of fishing privileges (Section 2319) as well as prohibit the Secretary of the Interior from expending funds to implement closures or restrictions on subsistence or commercial fishing in Glacier Bay National Park until questions concerning the state of Alaska's legal claim to submerged lands ownership and jurisdiction has been resolved (Section 2328). The compensation provision was added by Senate floor amendment to S. 544 on March 18, 1999, and the amended S. 544 passed the Senate on March 23, 1999. Subsequently, the Senate amended H.R. 1141 to substitute the language of S. 544, and adding the expenditure prohibition by floor amendment on March 24, 1999. The Senate passed the amended H.R. 1141 on March 25, 1999 . The conference report (H.Rept. 106-143) filed on May 14, 1999, provided for compensation of Dungeness crab fishermen in €501, but excluded the Secretarial prohibition on implementing fishery closures and restrictions. This measure was signed as P.L. 106-31 on May 21, 1999. In addition, €2303 (Title II, chapter 2) of P.L. 106-246 provides compensation for elements of the Dungeness crab fishery harmed by Glacier Bay National Park fishing restrictions.

b. Dedicated funding for fishery restoration. S. 446 and H.R. 798 were introduced to establish a program, using the Land and Water Conservation Fund, to provide substantial regular funding for a variety of interests, including fishery restoration. In these measures, Title VI would establish an Ocean Fish and Wildlife Conservation Fund through which the Department of Commerce would have $300 million annually to allocate in grants to states as well as public and private persons for conservation, restoration, and management of ocean fish and wildlife. Title VII would amend the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980 to provide $350 million annually to states for the conservation of native fish, wildlife, and plants. Title VIII would establish an Endangered and Threatened Species Recovery Fund through which NMFS and FWS would implement a $100 million private landowners incentive program for recovery of endangered and threatened species and their habitats. H.R. 701, H.R. 3245, H.R. 4377, S. 25, S. 2123, and S. 2181 take slightly different approaches on the same issues. After a series of hearings, the House Committee on Resources reported H.R. 701 on February 16, 2000 (H.Rept. 106-499, Part I). On May 11, 2000, the House passed H.R. 701 by a vote of 315-102. No action has been taken on any of the other measures. For additional information on these bills, see CRS Report RL30133, Resource Protection and Recreation: A Comparison of Bills to Increase Funding.

c. Tax provisions. H.R. 2488, the Taxpayer Refund Act of 1999, as passed (amended) by the Senate on July 30, 1999, contained two provisions relevant to commercial fishing, while this measure as passed earlier by the House contained a provision relevant to sport anglers. In the Senate version (retained from language previously in S. 1429), €604 reinstates income averaging provisions for commercial fishermen; and €605 would allow commercial fishermen to establish a tax-deferred Farm, Fishing, and Range Risk Management Account to shelter a portion of fishery income. In the House version of H.R. 2488, €1323 proposed to repeal the excise tax on fishing tackle boxes. A conference report (H.Rept. 106-289) was filed on August 4, 1999, and was adopted by both the House and Senate on August 5, 1999; the conference agreement includes all three new provisions. However, President Clinton vetoed H.R. 2488 on September 23, 1999. S. 2203 would provide income averaging for fishermen and allow fishermen to establish risk management accounts; no action has been taken on this measure. S. 1411 would amend the Internal Revenue Code to extend the credit for producing electricity from fish oil; no action has been taken on this measure. S. 2605 would provide income averaging for fishermen and a $1,500 business credit for purchasing safety equipment; no action has been taken on this measure.

d. Estuarine habitat. S. 835 and H.R. 1775 would encourage restoration of estuarine habitat through coordination of federal and non-federal programs. The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works held a hearing on S. 835 on July 22, 1999, and reported this measure on October. 14, 1999 (S.Rept. 106-189). The Senate passed S. 835, amended, on March 30, 2000. Hearings were held on H.R. 1775 by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment (July 13, 1999) and by the House Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife, and Oceans (September 23, 1999). H.R. 1775 was reported (amended) by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on April 4, 2000 (H.Rept. 106-561, Part 1) and by the Committee on Resources on June 9, 2000 (H.Rept. 106-561, Part 2). H.R. 2536 proposes to reduce the risk of oil pollution and improve navigation safety in San Francisco Bay. No action has been taken on this measure.

e. Chesapeake Bay restoration. H.R. 3039 and S. 492, the Chesapeake Bay Restoration Act of 1999, propose to amend the Clean Water Act to continue the Chesapeake Bay Program, providing technical assistance and technical assistance grants to promote restoration of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works held a hearing on S. 492 on July 22, 1999, and reported this measure on October 13, 1999 (S.Rept. 106-181). The House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment held a hearing, prior to referral, on this issue on July 13, 1999. H.R. 3039 was reported on March 29, 2000 (H.Rept. 106-550), and passed the House (amended) on April 12, 2000, by a vote of 418-7.

f. Ocean Policy and Restoration. S. 959, H.R. 2425, S. 2327, and H.R. 4410 propose to establish a National Ocean Council and/or a Commission on Ocean Policy to comprehensively review U.S. ocean policy. S. 2327 was reported by the Senate Commerce Committee on May 23, 2000 (S.Rept. 106-301). This measure was passed (amended) by the Senate on June 26, 2000, and passed by the House on July 25, 2000. President Clinton signed this measure into law as P.L. 106-256 on August 7, 2000. H.Res. 415 and H.Res. 440 express the sense of the House that there should be a National Ocean Day to recognize the significant role the oceans. H.Res. 415 was reported (amended) by the House Resources Committee on July 10, 2000 (H.Rept. 106-716), and was passed by the House on a vote of 387-28 on July 11, 2000. S. 2223 would establish a fund for the restoration of ocean and coastal resources. No action has been taken on this measure.

g. Fishermen and bankruptcy. S. 684, the Fishermen's Bankruptcy Protection Act, proposes to permit family fishermen to reorganize under Chapter 12 of the Bankruptcy Code in a similar fashion as provided already to farmers. Language of S. 684 was inserted in S. 625, the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1999, on November 9, 1999. On February 2, 2000, the Senate incorporated S. 625 into H.R. 833 as an amendment, and H.R. 833 was passed by the Senate. The family fishermen provisions are in €€1006 and 1426.

h. Foreign seizure of U.S. fishing vessels. H.R. 1651 proposes to amend the Fishermen's Protective Act of 1967 to extend the period during which reimbursement may be made to U.S. fishing vessel owners for costs incurred when their vessel is seized and detained by a foreign nation. This measure was reported by the House Committee on Resources on June 23, 1999 (H.Rept. 106-197) and was passed in the House by voice vote on September 13, 1999. On May 23, 2000, the measure was reported, amended, by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation (S.Rept. 106-302). H.R. 1651 passed the Senate, amended, on June 26, 2000.

i. Pfiesteria. S. 493, the Toxic Microorganism Abatement Pilot Project Act, would require the Army Corps of Engineers to evaluate, develop, and implement pilot projects in Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina to address problems with harmful toxic organisms in coastal waters and wetlands. No action has been taken on this measure. H.R. 684 proposes to amend the Clean Water Act to control water pollution from concentrated animal feeding operations. No action has been taken on H.R. 684.

j. Colorado River endangered fish. H.R. 2348, S. 1544, and S. 2239 propose authorizing the Bureau of Reclamation to provide cost sharing for endangered fish recovery programs for the Upper Colorado and San Juan River Basins. The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water and Power held a hearing on S. 2239 on April 25, 2000. On June 7, 2000, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee ordered S. 2239 reported (amended). The House Resources Subcommittee on Water and Power held a hearing on H.R. 2348 on October 21, 1999; this measure was reported (amended) by the House Resources Committee on July 25, 2000 (H.Rept. 106-791), and passed by the House later that day.

k. Commercial fishing vessel safety. H.R. 820 would authorize $5.5 million for the U.S. Coast Guard's commercial fishing vessel safety program. This measure was reported, amended, on March 11, 1999, by the Committee on Transportation (H.Rept. 106-51), and passed (amended) by the House on March 17, 1999. In the Senate, S. 1089 would rename and reauthorize the Commercial Fishing Industry Vessel Safety Advisory Committee through FY2005. This measure was reported May 23, 2000 (S.Rept. 106-300) and, on July 27, 2000, the language of S. 1089 was inserted into H.R. 820 and H.R. 820, as amended, was passed by the Senate, in lieu of S. 1089.

l. Sea lamprey control in the Great Lakes. Section 506 of P.L. 106-53 amends €1135(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 to clarify that use of the authority under this subsection for control of sea lamprey at any Great Lakes basin location is appropriate. P.L. 106-53 was signed into law on August 17, 1999.

m. Georges Bank oil exploration. S.Res. 167 proposes commendation of the Georges Bank Review Panel for recommending extension of the moratorium on oil and gas exploration on Georges Bank and of the Government of Canada for extending the moratorium. No action has been taken on this measure.

n. Sport fish restoration. H.R. 3671 and S. 2609 would amend the Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act to address concerns about administration of these accounts. H.R. 3671 was reported (amended) on March 30, 2000 (H.Rept. 106-554), and passed by the House on April 5, 2000, by a vote of 423-2.

o. National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. H.R. 4010 and S. 1653 propose to amend and reauthorize the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Establishment Act. S. 1653 was reported by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works on March 6, 2000 (S.Rept. 106-230) and passed by the Senate on March 9, 2000.

p. FERC licensing changes. H.R. 2335 proposes to modify the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's hydroelectric relicensing process, possibly affecting prescriptions for fishways issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Hearings were held on H.R. 2335 by the House Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power on March 30, 2000.

q. Federal government structure. H.R. 2452 proposes to eliminate the Department of Commerce and establish an independent National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. No action has been taken on this measure.

r. Missouri River fish habitat. S. 1279 proposes to grant the Army Corps of Engineers additional authority to protect, enhance, and restore fish habitat on the Missouri River. No action has been taken on this measure.

s. Invasive Species. H.R. 4191 would require regulations to enforce ballast water transfer procedures to protect the Great Lakes from invasive species; no action has been taken on this measure.

t. Habitat and Water Quality. H.R. 4278 and S. 2441 would establish a voluntary community incentive-based program to improve fish habitat and water quality; no action has been taken on either measure.

u. Double-crested cormorants. H.R. 3118 would direct the Secretary of the Interior to issue regulations authorizing states to establish hunting seasons for double-crested cormorants; no action has been taken on this measure.

v. Sport fishing licenses. H.R. 3810 would permit persons 62 and older to fish navigable waters without a license; no action has been taken on this measure.

w. Striped bass. H.R. 934 would prohibit the commercial harvest of Atlantic striped bass; no action has been taken on this bill. H.R. 4408 would reauthorize the Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act; this measure was reported by the House Resources Committee on June 26, 2000 (H.Rept. 106-698), and passed the House later that day by a vote of 393-12.

x. Crop insurance. Sec. 132 of P.L. 106-224 incorporated a Senate amendment to the Federal Crop Insurance Act to create a pilot program to insure wild salmon fishermen for harvest failure risks beginning in FY2002 and limited to no more than $1 million.

y. Atlantic cooperative fisheries. H.R. 4840 would reauthorize and amend the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act. This measure was reported (amended) by the House Resources Committee on September 6, 2000 (H.Rept. 106-804), and passed by voice vote in the House on September 12, 2000.

z. North Pacific Marine Research Institute. Section 2204 of Title II, Chapter 2, P.L. 106-246 establishes a North Pacific Marine Research Institute to be administered at the Alaska SeaLife Center, Seward, Alaska.

aa. Capital Construction Fund. S. 2960 would provide for qualified withdrawals from the Capital Construction Fund for fishermen leaving the industry and rollover of funds to individual retirement plans. No action has been taken on this measure.

Aquaculture: Background and Issues

Aquaculture is broadly defined as the farming or husbandry of fish, shellfish, and other aquatic animals and plants, usually in a controlled or selected environment. The diversity of aquaculture is typified by such activities as: fish farming, usually applied to freshwater commercial aquaculture operations (catfish and trout farms are examples http://www.usda.gov/nass/pubs/stathigh/1998/lv-aq.htm); 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 for mitigation of aquatic resource and habitat damage [ http://aquanic.org/].

The United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization has characterized aquaculture as one of the world's fastest growing food production activities. World aquaculture production http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/FISHERY/publ/circular/c886.1/c886-1.htm more than doubled in 10 years, from about 10 million metric tons in 1984 to a record 25.5 million metric tons in 1994, with a value of approximately $40 billion. U.S. aquaculture, until recently and with a few exceptions, has been considered a minor industry. By 1994, the U.S. aquaculture industry produced about 0.3 million metric tons http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/erssor/livestock/ldp-aqs/1998/aquaculture_outlook_03.05.98 with a farm gate value of $751 million. For more information, see CRS Report 97-436 ENR, Aquaculture and the Federal Role.

1. Miscellaneous Issues

a. Stuttgart Research Center. S. 1340 and H.R. 2972 propose to rename the Stuttgart National Aquaculture Research Center as the Harry K. Dupree Stuttgart National Aquaculture Research Center. Language to accomplish this renaming was incorporated in €754 of P.L. 106-78 (FY2000 agriculture appropriations).

b. Grants for Coordinated State Regulation of Aquaculture. H.R. 1110 and H.R. 2669 propose to amend the Coastal Zone Management Act to allow Coastal Zone Enhancement Grants to fund the development of a coordinated process among State agencies to regulate and issue permits for aquaculture facilities. Prior to introduction, hearings were held by the House Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife, and Oceans on February 25, 1999. H.R. 2669 was reported by the Committee on Resources on November 18, 1999 (H.Rept. 106-485).

c. Fort Peck Lake Hatchery. S. 2027 would authorize the Army Corps of Engineers to design and construct a warm water fish hatchery at Fort Peck Lake, MT; no action has been taken on this measure.

d. Stormwater exemption. H.R. 3625 and S. 2139 would exempt aquaculture facilities from permit requirements under the Clean Water Act's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System; no action has been taken on these measures.

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. 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 http://species.fws.gov/bio_walr.html, sea and marine otters, polar bears http://species.fws.gov/bio_pola.html, manatees http://species.fws.gov/bio_mana.html, 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 mammals 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. It provides that 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. It allows U.S. citizens to apply for and obtain authorization for the take of 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 no more than 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 Indian, Aleut, or Eskimo who resides in Alaska and who dwells on 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 5-year period, pending development of an improved system to govern the incidental taking of marine mammals in the course of commercial fishing operations. This exemption expired at the end of FY1993, and was extended several times until new provisions were enacted by P.L. 103-238, which reauthorized the MMPA through FY1999. The eastern tropical Pacific tuna fishery was excluded from the incidental take regimes enacted in 1988 and 1994. Instead, the taking of marine mammals incidental to that fishery is governed by separate provisions of the Act, as substantially amended by P.L. 105-42, the International Dolphin Conservation Program Act.

1. Marine Mammal Protection Act Reauthorization

Background. The MMPA was reauthorized in 1994 by P.L. 103-238, the Marine Mammal Protection Act Amendments of 1994, with the current authorization for appropriations expiring on September 30, 1999. The 1994 amendments indefinitely authorized the taking of marine mammals incidental to commercial fishing operations and provided for assessment of marine mammal stocks in U.S. waters, for the development and implementation of 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 studies of pinniped-fishery interactions http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/pubs/tm/tm28/areas.htm. For more on the 1994 amendments, see CRS Report 94-751 ENR, Marine Mammal Protection Act Amendments of 1994.

Congressional Action. At issue for the 106th Congress will be the terms and conditions of any provisions designed to reauthorize and amend the MMPA to address the concerns of various interest groups. H.R. 1934 and S. 1216 propose to amend the MMPA to establish a Marine Mammal Rescue Grant Program; the House Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries conservation, Wildlife, and Oceans held a hearing on H.R. 1934 on June 10, 1999, and this measure was reported, amended, on July 20, 1999 (H.Rept. 106-242). The House passed H.R. 1934 by voice vote on September 27, 1999. No action has been taken on S. 1216. The House Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife, and Oceans held a general oversight hearing on the Marine Mammal Protection Act on June 29, 1999. For additional information on potential reauthorization issues in the 106th Congress, see CRS Report RL30120 , Marine Mammal Protection Act: Reauthorization Issues for the 106th Congress.

2. Miscellaneous Issues

a. Tax deduction for subsistence whaling. Both H.R. 813 and S. 713 propose to amend the Internal Revenue Code to allow a charitable contribution deduction for certain expenses incurred by whaling captains in support of Native Alaskan subsistence whaling. On July 21, 1999, the language of S. 713 was added as €806 of S. 1429, the Taxpayer Refund Act, being marked up by the Senate Committee on Finance. This measure was reported on July 26, 1999 (S.Rept. 106-120), and passed by the Senate, amended, on July 30, 1999. Subsequently, the text S. 1429 was inserted into H.R. 2488, the Taxpayer Refund Act of 1999, which was passed in lieu of S. 1429. A conference report (H.Rept. 106-289) was filed on August 4, 1999, and was adopted by both the House and Senate on August 5, 1999; the conference agreement included the subsistence whaling provision. However, President Clinton vetoed H.R. 2488 on September 23, 1999.

b. Cook Inlet beluga whale protection. Section 2314 of H.R. 1141 proposes to revoke the Marine Mammal Protection Act exemption permitting subsistence hunting of Cook Inlet beluga whale through the end of FY2000 unless a cooperative agreement is negotiated between NMFS and the Cook Inlet Marine Mammal Council. This provision was added by Senate floor amendment to S. 544 on March 18, 1999, and the amended S. 544 passed the Senate on March 23, 1999. The Senate amended H.R. 1141 to substitute the language of S. 544, and passed the amended H.R. 1141 on March 25, 1999. The conference report (H.Rept. 106-143) filed May 14, 1999, included this provision as €3022, and this measure was signed as P.L. 106-31 on May 21, 1999.

c. Pribilof Islands transition. H.R. 3417 proposes to complete the withdrawal of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration from civil administration of the Pribilof Islands, Alaska; this measure was reported (amended) by the House Resources Committee on April 11, 2000 (H.Rept. 106-569), and passed by the House on June 26, 2000, by a vote of 400-3.

LEGISLATION

Related public laws and bills are discussed in the text of this document under "Background and Analysis."

Fisheries

P.L. 106-31 (H.R. 1141); P.L. 106-53 (S. 507); P.L. 106-60 (H.R. 2605); P.L. 106-78 (H.R. 1906); P.L. 106-113 (H.R. 3194); P.L. 106-224 (H.R. 2559); P.L. 106-246 (H.R. 4425); and P.L. 106-256 (S. 2327).

H.Con.Res. 63 (Hastings); H.Con.Res. 189 (Cunningham); H.Res. 415 (Mink); H.Res. 440 (Mink); H.R. 673 (Deutsch); H.R. 684 (George Miller); H.R. 701 (Young of Alaska); H.R. 798 (George Miller); H.R. 820 (Shuster); H.R. 833 (Gekas); H.R. 934 (Pallone); H.R. 947 (Young of Alaska); H.R. 1110 (Saxton); H.R. 1314 (Dicks); H.R. 1444 (DeFazio); H.R. 1480 (Shuster); H.R. 1643 (Saxton); H.R. 1651 (Young of Alaska); H.R. 1652 (Young of Alaska); H.R. 1653 (Young of Alaska); H.R. 1759 (Hastings); H.R. 1775 (Gilchrest); H.R. 2181 (Young of Alaska); H.R. 2335 (Towns); H.R. 2348 (Hansen); H.R. 2425 (Farr); H.R. 2452 (Royce); H.R. 2466 (Regula); H.R. 2488 (Archer); H.R. 2536 (George Miller); H.R. 2664 (Nethercutt); H.R. 2669 (Saxton); H.R. 2670 (Rogers of Kentucky); H.R. 2798 (Thompson); H.R. 2875 (Herger); H.R. 2903 (Saxton); H.R. 3039 (Bateman); H.R. 3059 (Hefley); H.R. 3078 (Faleomavaega); H.R. 3118 (McHugh); H.R. 3245 (Young of Alaska); H.R. 3331 (Saxton); H.R. 3390 (Goss); H.R. 3516 (Sanford); H.R. 3535 (Cunningham); H.R. 3671 (Young of Alaska); H.R. 3810 (Ney); H.R. 3882 (Inslee); H.R. 3908 (Young of Florida); H.R. 3919 (Saxton); H.R. 4010 (Faleomavaega); H.R. 4046 (Gilchrest); H.R. 4191 (Hoekstra); H.R. 4278 (Tanner); H.R. 4377 (Young of Alaska); H.R. 4408 (Saxton); H.R. 4410 (Saxton); H.R. 4612 (Saxton); H.R. 4773 (Saxton); H.R. 4840 (Saxton); S.Res. 167 (Collins); S. 25 (Landrieu); S. 294 (Wyden); S. 446 (Boxer); S. 492 (Sarbanes); S. 493 (Sarbanes): S. 501 (Murkowski); S. 525 (Grassley): S. 544 (Stevens); S. 684 (Collins); S. 715 (Murray); S. 725 (Snowe); S. 835 (Chafee); S. 959 (Hollings); S. 1089 (Snowe); S. 1100 (Chafee); S. 1167 (Gorton); S. 1186 (Domenici); S. 1217 (Gregg); S. 1253 (Inouye); S. 1279 (Kerrey); S. 1292 (Gorton); S. 1411 (Stevens); S. 1420 (Kerry); S. 1429 (Roth); S. 1525 (Murray); S. 1544 (Allard); S. 1653 (Chafee); S. 1723 (Wyden); S. 1888 (Akaka); S. 1911 (Breaux); S. 2123 (Landrieu); S. 2181 (Bingaman); S. 2203 (Murkowski); S. 2223 (Kerry); S. 2228 (Murray); S. 2239 (Allard); S. 2441 (Bond); S. 2605 (Collins); S. 2609 (Craig); S. 2711 (Graham); S. 2831 (Kerry); S. 2832 (Snowe); S. 2960 (Wyden); and S. 2973 (Kerry).

Aquaculture

P.L. 106-78 (H.R. 1906)

H.R. 2972 (Berry); H.R. 3625 (Dickey); S. 1233 (Cochran); S. 1340 (Lincoln); S. 2027 (Burns); and S. 2139 (Hutchinson).

Marine Mammals

P.L. 106-31 (H.R. 1141) and P.L. 106-113 (H.R. 3194).

H.R. 813 (Young of Alaska); H.R. 1934 (Saxton); H.R. 2488 (Archer); H.R. 3417 (Young of Alaska): S. 544 (Stevens); S. 713 (Murkowski); S. 1216 (Torricelli); and S. 1429 (Roth).

* These CRS reports were produced by the Congressional Research Service, a branch of the Library of Congress providing nonpartisan research reports to members of the House and Senate. The National Council for Science and the Environment (NCSE) has made these reports available to the public at large, but the Congressional Research Service is not affiliated with the NCSE or the National Library for the Environment (NLE). This web site is not endorsed by or associated with the Congressional Research Service. The material contained in the CRS reports does not necessarily express the views of NCSE, its supporters, or sponsors. The information is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. NCSE disclaims all warranties, either express or implied, including the warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. In no event shall NCSE be liable for any damages.