S-4938-119
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Sponsored by Dan Sullivan (R-AK)
What it does
The bill would require the North Pacific Fishery Management Council and NOAA to set gear performance standards for pelagic (mid-water) and nonpelagic (bottom) trawl vessels in the Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands, and Gulf of Alaska groundfish fisheries. It would require salmon excluder devices on pelagic trawl vessels within 1 year, and would bar any person in the United States from transactions in seafood from foreign vessels unless the Commerce Secretary determines the fishery meets standards comparable to the Magnuson-Stevens Act. It would also change Council transparency and recusal rules, direct salmon and ecosystem research, authorize $10 million per year for fiscal years 2027-2031 for the Bycatch Reduction Engineering Program, create a donation-funded Bycatch Mitigation and Habitat Protection Assistance Fund run by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, and direct a public-private flume tank for gear testing. Violations would be treated as Magnuson-Stevens Act violations, and other limits apply.
Who benefits
Subsistence users, Alaska Native communities, and commercial and recreational salmon, halibut, and crab fishermen who could see lower bycatch of species they depend on. Bottom-habitat species and ecosystems that could face less seafloor contact. Members of the public and Council stakeholders who would get recorded votes, webcasts, longer comment periods, and stricter recusal review. U.S. seafood producers who could face less competition from imports not meeting comparable standards. Gear makers, researchers, universities, Tribes, and fishermen who could receive grants, partnerships, and fund assistance.
Who is hurt
Trawl catcher/processor and pelagic trawl operators, including pollock fleets, who would bear costs for modified gear, seafloor sensors, and salmon excluders, and could face fishing restrictions or closures in some areas, plus civil penalties and permit sanctions for noncompliance. Processors and communities dependent on trawl catch could see reduced harvest or revenue. Importers, retailers, and restaurants could face supply disruption, compliance burdens, and seizure of seafood if foreign fisheries are not found comparable. Consumers could see higher seafood prices. Federal taxpayers would bear authorized spending, and NOAA would take on added workload.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that trawl bycatch of salmon, halibut, and crab harms subsistence and commercial users and that mid-water nets can contact the seafloor like bottom trawls. They contend the bill relies on independent National Academies review of gear baselines, field-tested excluders, and technical assistance and grants to ease the transition, while the import rule holds foreign fleets to standards U.S. fishermen already meet. They also argue recorded votes and recusal review would improve public trust in the Council.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that Congress would be overriding the Council's science-based process with fixed deadlines and mandates, and that gear changes and closures could impose heavy costs on trawl fleets, processors, and Alaska communities. They contend the import prohibition, with seizure of seafood and a comparability test left to the Commerce Secretary, could disrupt supply chains, raise prices, and invite trade disputes. They also argue that exempting task forces from the Federal Advisory Committee Act and relying on donations for the assistance fund leaves funding and accountability uncertain.
Constitutional context
Congress's authority rests on the Commerce Clause and its power over federal waters and foreign commerce (Art. I, §8), with the import ban resting on the foreign commerce power. Property-based challenges could arise under the Takings and Due Process Clauses, and the broad Commerce Secretary determination for imports could draw nondelegation scrutiny, though Gundy and the intelligible-principle test have generally tolerated such delegations; post-Loper Bright, courts would independently interpret the statute's terms.
Checks and balances
The bill shifts authority to NOAA and the Commerce Secretary and sets binding mandates for the Council, with checks including judicial review of regulations, National Academies review, congressional reporting requirements, and public disclosure, while the Federal Advisory Committee Act exemption for the new task force reduces one transparency check.
Historical precedent
The Magnuson-Stevens Act has been amended repeatedly to address bycatch (for example in 1996 and 2006), and the Alaska Salmon Research Task Force Act (2022) created the task force this bill would reconstitute.