[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 44 (Thursday, April 14, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3666-S3667]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Ms. MURKOWSKI:
  S. 796. A bill to amend the National Aquaculture Act of 1980 to 
prohibit the issuance of permits for marine aquaculture facilities 
until requirements for such permits are enacted into law; to the 
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President. I am today reintroducing a very 
important bill on a subject that was not resolved last year, and which 
continues to be an outstanding issue for those of us who are dependent 
on healthy and productive natural populations of ocean fish and 
shellfish.
  Simply put, this bill prohibits further movement toward the 
development of aquaculture facilities in federal waters until Congress 
has had an opportunity to review all of the very

[[Page S3667]]

serious implications, and make decisions on how such development should 
proceed.
  Some people are calling for a moratorium on offshore aquaculture. 
Frankly, Mr. President, we need more than a delay--we need a very 
comprehensive discussion of this issue and a serious debate on what the 
ground-rules should be.
  For years, some members of the federal bureaucracy have advocated 
going forward with offshore aquaculture development without that 
debate. Doing so, would be an extraordinarily bad idea.
  We are now being told that the Administration is in the final stages 
of preparing a draft bill to allow offshore aquaculture development to 
occur, and that it plans to send a draft to the Hill in the very near 
future. The problem is, that draft has been prepared in deep secrecy. 
We have only rumors about what may be in that draft bill. The 
administration has had meetings on the general topic of aquaculture, 
but has done little to nothing to work with those of us who represent 
constituents whose livelihoods might be imperiled and states with 
resources that might be endangered if the administration gets it wrong.
  Scientists, the media and the public are awakening to the serious 
disadvantages of fish raised in fish farming operations compared to 
naturally healthy wild fish species such as Alaska salmon, halibut, 
sablefish, crab and many other species.
  It has become common to see news reports that cite not only the 
general health advantages of eating fish at least once or twice a week, 
but the specific advantages of fish such as wild salmon, which contains 
essential Omega-3 fatty acids that may help reduce the risk of heart 
disease and possibly have similar beneficial effects on other diseases.
  Educated and watchful consumers have also seen recent stories citing 
research that not only demonstrates that farmed salmon fed vegetable-
based food does not have the same beneficial impact on cardio-vascular 
health, but also that the demand for other fish to grind up and use as 
feed in those fish farms may lead to the decimation of those stocks.
  Those same alert consumers may also have seen stories indicating that 
fish farms may create serious pollution problems from the concentration 
of fish feces and uneaten food, that fish farms may harbor diseases 
that can be transmitted to previously healthy wild fish stocks, and 
that fish farming has had a devastating effect on communities that 
depend on traditional fisheries.
  It is by no means certain that all those problems would be duplicated 
if we begin to develop fish farms that are farther offshore, but 
neither is there any evidence that they would not be. Yet despite the 
uncertainties, proponents have continued to push hard for legislation 
that would encourage the development of huge new fish farms off our 
coasts.
  Not only do the proponents want to encourage such development, but 
reports indicate they may also want to change the way decisions are 
made so that all the authority rests in the hands of just one federal 
agency. I believe that would be a serious mistake. There are simply too 
many factors that should be evaluated--from hydraulic engineering, to 
environmental impacts, to fish biology, to the management of disease, 
to the nutritional character of farmed fish, and so on--for any 
existing agency.
  We cannot afford a rush to judgment on this issue--it is far too 
dangerous if we make a mistake. In my view, such a serious matter 
deserves the same level of scrutiny by Congress as the recommendations 
of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy for other sweeping changes in 
ocean governance.
  The ``Natural Stock Conservation Act'' I am introducing today lays 
down a marker for where the debate on offshore aquaculture needs to go. 
It would prohibit the development of new offshore aquaculture 
operations until Congress has acted to ensure that every federal agency 
involved does the necessary analyses in areas such as disease control, 
engineering, pollution prevention, biological and genetic impacts, 
economic and social effects, and other critical issues, none of which 
are specifically required under existing law.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to understand that this is not a 
parochial issue, but a very real threat to the literal viability of 
natural fish and shellfish stocks as well as the economic viability of 
many coastal communities.
  I sincerely hope that this issue is taken up seriously in the context 
of reauthorizing the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which governs fishery 
management, and responding to the recommendations of the U.S. Oceans 
Commission and the Pew Oceans Commission.
  We all want to make sure we enjoy abundant supplies of healthy foods 
in the future, but not if it means unnecessary and avoidable damage to 
wild species, to the environment generally, and to the economies of 
America's coastal fishing communities.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 796

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Natural Stock Conservation 
     Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON PERMITS FOR AQUACULTURE.

       The National Aquaculture Act of 1980 (16 D.S.C. 2801 et 
     seq.) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating sections 10 and 11 as sections 11 and 
     12 respectively; and S.L.C.
       (2) by inserting after section 9 the following new section:


                 PROHIBITION ON PERMITS FOR AQUACULTURE

       ``Sec. 10. (a) In General.--The head of an agency with 
     jurisdiction to regulate aquaculture may not issue a permit 
     or license to permit an aquaculture facility located in the 
     exclusive economic zone to operate until after the date on 
     which a bill is enacted into law that--
       ``(1) sets out the type and specificity of the analyses 
     that the head of an agency with jurisdiction to regulate 
     aquaculture shall carry out prior to issuing any such permit 
     or license, including analyses related to--
       ``(A) disease control;
       ``(B) structural engineering;
       ``(C) pollution;
       ``(D) biological and genetic impacts;
       ``(E) access and transportation;
       ``(F) food safety; and
       ``(G) social and economic impacts of such facility on other 
     marine activities, including commercial and recreational 
     fishing; and
       ``(2) requires that a decision to issue such a permit or 
     license be--
       ``(A) made only after the head of the agency that issues 
     such license or permit consults with the Governor of each 
     State located within a 200-mile radius of the aquaculture 
     facility; and
       ``(B) approved by the regional fishery management council 
     that is granted authority under title III of the Magnuson-
     Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 
     1851 et seq.) over a fishery in the region where the 
     aquaculture facility will be located.
       ``(b) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Agency with jurisdiction to regulate aquaculture.--
     The term `agency with jurisdiction to regulate aquaculture' 
     means each agency and department of the United States, as 
     follows:
       ``(A) The Department of Agriculture.
       ``(B) The Coast Guard.
       ``( C) The Department of Commerce.
       ``(D) The Environmental Protection Agency.
       ``(E) The Department of the Interior.
       ``(F) The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
       ``(2) Exclusive economic zone.--The term `exclusive 
     ecoriomic zone' has the meaning given that term in section 3 
     of the of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
     Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1802).
       ``(3) Regional fishery management council.--The term 
     `regional fishery management council' means a regional 
     fishery management council established under section 302(a) 
     of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 
     Act (16 U.S.C. 1852(a)).''.
                                 ______