S-221-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
Sponsored by Rick Scott (R-FL)
What it does
This bill would amend the Tariff Act of 1930 and the Anti-Smuggling Act to extend the legal definition of "customs waters" from 12 nautical miles to 24 nautical miles from U.S. baselines. This would give U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) the legal authority to board, inspect, and interdict vessels suspected of customs, smuggling, immigration, or sanitary law violations in the expanded zone. The change would align statutory law with Presidential Proclamation 7219 (1999), which already established a 24-nautical-mile contiguous zone under international law but was never reflected in the underlying customs statutes.
Who benefits
U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents, who would gain more time and legal authority to intercept fast-moving vessels. Coastal communities affected by drug smuggling, as earlier interdiction may reduce the volume of narcotics reaching shore. Domestic maritime industries that compete with smugglers undercutting legal trade. Federal prosecutors, who would have a clearer statutory basis for charges against vessels intercepted in the 12–24 nautical mile zone. States with significant coastlines (e.g., Florida, Texas, California) that bear disproportionate costs of maritime smuggling.
Who is hurt
Foreign-flagged vessels operating in the 12–24 nautical mile zone that could now be subject to boarding and inspection under U.S. law, even if they have not yet entered U.S. territorial waters. Maritime shipping companies whose vessels transit near U.S. coasts and may face increased inspection delays. Civil liberties and maritime law organizations concerned about expanded enforcement jurisdiction over vessels on the high seas. Countries whose fishing or commercial fleets regularly operate in that zone may face diplomatic friction.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that modern high-speed vessels can cover the 12-nautical-mile customs zone far faster than they could when the statute was written, leaving CBP agents insufficient time to intercept smugglers before they reach shore or scatter cargo. They contend the bill simply closes a gap between existing U.S. international law commitments — Presidential Proclamation 7219 already established the 24-nautical-mile contiguous zone in 1999 — and the outdated domestic statutes that still cap enforcement at 12 miles. Aligning the statute with international law norms codified in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea imposes no new obligations on law-abiding vessels and gives agents a legally sound basis for interdictions they are already attempting.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that expanding the enforcement zone doubles the area in which CBP may board foreign vessels without a warrant or clear probable cause, raising due process and international law concerns about the treatment of vessels that have not yet violated U.S. law. They contend that the "reasonable grounds" standard required under international law for boarding in the contiguous zone is vague and may be applied inconsistently, creating friction with allied nations whose commercial and fishing fleets operate in that corridor. Critics also note that the bill does not include new resources, oversight mechanisms, or judicial review procedures to accompany the expanded authority, leaving enforcement discretion largely unchecked.