S. 283Senate bill · 119th CongressOn the President's deskPublic Lands and Natural Resources

Illegal Red Snapper and Tuna Enforcement Act

Sponsored byTed CruzR-TXIntroduced Jan 28, 2025Full text on congress.gov ↗

Latest action (Oct 5, 2026) — Presented to President.

What it does

Congressional Research Service, Jan 28, 2025

This bill directs the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to jointly develop a standard methodology for identifying the country of origin of seafood to support enforcement against illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing (IUU fishing). It also authorizes technical assistance to other countries to help combat IUU fishing and transnational organized crime.

NOAA and NIST must consult with U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the Coast Guard in developing the methodology, which must use chemical analysis to identify the country of origin of seafood. The methodology must be consistent with the needs of federal and state law enforcement agencies in combating IUU fishing. The methodology must also include a portable field kit and, to the extent practicable, be appropriate for testing prepared food (including raw preparations of seafood such as sushi). The agencies must conduct pilot studies of the methodology on red snapper and tuna.

Within two years after the bill's enactment, NIST must report to Congress regarding the methodology and a plan for operationalizing it. The report must explain any aspects of its methodology that are impracticable, whether additional research would make the methodology practicable, and whether an alternate approach might be practicable.

The bill also authorizes the Department of Defense to use operation and maintenance funds to provide technical assistance to maritime forces of other countries to help combat IUU fishing and transnational organized crime (e.g., by providing observers or data analysis).

Face Value

as reported to the Senate
100Narrow

How much of this bill its name accounts for.

  • Every bill starts at100
  • Nothing counted against it: one area of law, and short enough that length doesn't register.

Face Value measures reach, not honesty. A big bill can be accurately named, and a low score is not an accusation — it means the contents reach further than any short title could describe. Count it yourself ↗ How this is worked out

Discussion

4 comments

Sign in to join the discussion and put your vote on the record.

Sort
8
SierraTrailDemoCA-12voted Yea23d ago
Has a version of this been introduced before? It feels familiar, and if it died last Congress I'd want to know what killed it. None of that is settled by the summary.
6
adaeze_oDemoTX-6voted Yea23d ago
The cost estimate assumes full compliance, and full compliance never happens. That gap is where these things go wrong. I'd rather see it fixed in committee than argued about on the floor.
6
elena.papadakisDemoGA-5voted Nay23d ago
Has a version of this been introduced before? It feels familiar, and if it died last Congress I'd want to know what killed it. Someone closer to this than me should say whether that's right.
4
quietriverbendDemoCA-21voted Nay23d ago
Voting no on process rather than substance. This hasn't had a hearing I can find, which is a lot of reach for a bill nobody has questioned in public. Happy to be told I've read it wrong.
Your position on S. 283No positions yet