[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 24 (Thursday, February 8, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1787-S1788]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Ms. MURKOWSKI:
  S. 533. A bill to amend the National Aquaculture Act of 1980 to 
prohibit the issuance of permits for marine aquaculture facilities 
until requirements for the permits are enacted into law; to the 
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing an 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 serious implications, and 
make decisions on how such development should proceed.
  For years, some members of the Federal bureaucracy have advocated 
going forward with offshore aquaculture development without that 
debate. While the administration has entertained some level of public 
input, the role of Congress must not be undermined. Doing so, would be 
an extraordinarily bad idea.
  The Administration is in the final stages of preparing a bill to 
allow offshore aquaculture development to occur, and it plans to send 
the bill to Congress in the very near future. In the last Congress, the 
Administration proposed legislation to provide a regulatory framework 
for the development of off-shore aquaculture. While their draft bill is 
an improvement, it still does not establish clear mandatory 
environmental standards for the aquaculture industry.
  I remain steadfast that any proposal should meet the standards of the 
National Environmental Policy Act, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
Conservation and Management Act and the Jones Act. Why should this 
industry be exempt from the same laws that our commercial fisheries are 
subject to? Why should this industry not go through the same rigorous 
environmental review as any other activity that will have impacts on 
the environment?
  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 that we use as feed in 
those fish farms may lead to the decimation of those stocks. Yet the 
Administration's bill does not address feed in a meaningful way.
  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 . . . I certainly 
don't believe it is prudent to extend the site permits to 20 years, as 
in the draft bill, given all of the questions and uncertainties of the 
environmental risks.
  Not only do the proponents want to encourage such development, they 
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, transportation and shipping issues, fish biology, 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. We must retain the oversight necessary to 
ensure that if we move forward on the development of off-shore 
aquaculture.
  I sincerely hope that Congress will give this issue the attention it 
deserves. 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 text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 533

       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 2007''.

     SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON PERMITS FOR AQUACULTURE.

       The National Aquaculture Act of 1980 (16 U.S.C. 2801 et 
     seq.) is amended--

[[Page S1788]]

       (1) by redesignating sections 10 and 11 (16 U.S.C. 2809, 
     2810) as sections 11 and 12 respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after section 9 (16 U.S.C. 2808) the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 10. PROHIBITION ON PERMITS FOR AQUACULTURE.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Agency with jurisdiction to regulate aquaculture.--
     The term `agency with jurisdiction to regulate aquaculture' 
     means--
       ``(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; and
       ``(F) the Army Corps of Engineers.
       ``(2) Exclusive economic zone.--The term `exclusive 
     economic zone' has the meaning given the term in section 3 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)).
       ``(b) Prohibition on Permits for Aquaculture.--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 effective date of a bill 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 the 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 
     the 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.''.
                                 ______