HR-3756-119
Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute by Unanimous Consent.
Sponsored by Dan Crenshaw (R-TX)
What it does
The bill would require the Commerce Secretary, working with State, Customs and Border Protection, and Labor, to publish a list of foreign vessels, fleets, and beneficial owners engaged in illegal, unreported, or unregulated (IUU) fishing, based on clear and convincing evidence and after notice to the owner. Listed vessels would be barred from U.S. ports and services, and seafood they caught, processed, or transported could not be imported. Their cargo could be seized and forfeited, except cargo held by importers who paid for it and had no reason to know of the violation. The bill would also allow the Treasury Secretary to impose asset-blocking and visa sanctions on foreign persons tied to IUU fishing or trade in endangered fish species, subject to a presidential waiver. It would authorize $20 million per year for fiscal years 2025 through 2030 for the list and $4 million for a National Academies study. It would also add reports, interagency strategies, Coast Guard boarding goals, and encouraged foreign assistance.
Who benefits
U.S. fishers and seafood processors who compete with cheaper illegally caught imports. Seafood importers and retailers who gain clearer information about which vessels to avoid. Workers on foreign vessels who may face forced labor, if enforcement deters abusers. Coastal nations and communities whose fish stocks are depleted by illegal fleets. Federal enforcement agencies that would gain a shared list and data-sharing strategies.
Who is hurt
Foreign vessel owners, fleets, and beneficial owners placed on the list, who would lose port access and U.S. market access. Foreign persons subject to asset blocking or visa bans. Importers and supply-chain firms that may face compliance costs, shipment seizures, or uncertainty about vessel status, though innocent paid-for cargo is exempt. Foreign governments whose fishing industries are targeted. Taxpayers would bear the authorized $24 million or more in costs, and crews of listed vessels could be affected by port bans.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that IUU fishing undercuts law-abiding U.S. fishers, depletes shared fish stocks, and is often linked to forced labor, and that current tools are fragmented across agencies. They contend a single public list built on a clear and convincing evidence standard, with owner notice and a removal process, gives enforcement a predictable, evidence-based tool. They cite the bill's importer exemption and its mandate to avoid burdening lawful seafood trade as safeguards.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that listing foreign vessels and owners, with import bans, seizure, and sanctions, gives agencies broad power with limited process, since the owner gets only 90 days to respond and the bill sets no judicial review. They contend it may raise seafood supply-chain costs, invite retaliation against U.S. exporters, and strain agency resources, citing the $24 million or more in new authorizations. They also note that the list is largely permanent unless an owner proves five years of clean conduct.
Constitutional context
Congress regulates foreign commerce and imports under the Commerce Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 3) and the foreign commerce and territorial powers, and the sanctions rely on IEEPA authority upheld in Dames & Moore v. Regan (1981). Listed foreign owners with U.S. property interests may raise Fifth Amendment due process claims over notice and the evidentiary process, though foreign parties without U.S. presence have limited constitutional protection.
Checks and balances
The executive branch (Commerce, Treasury, State, Customs, Coast Guard) gains listing, seizure, and sanctions authority, checked by congressional reporting requirements, appropriations limits, the presidential national interest waiver, and possible court review of seizures and sanctions.
Historical precedent
The High Seas Driftnet Fishing Moratorium Protection Act, the Maritime SAFE Act (2019), and the Port State Measures Agreement Act of 2015 already address IUU fishing, and this bill amends them to add a vessel blacklist.