Saltonstall-Kennedy Act: Background and Issues

Congressional research reportNov 14, 2025

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Saltonstall-Kennedy Act:

Background and Issues

Updated November 14, 2025

Congressional Research Service

https://crsreports.congress.gov

R46335

SUMMARY

Saltonstall-Kennedy Act:

Background and Issues

R46335

November 14, 2025

Anthony R. Marshak

Analyst in Natural

The Saltonstall-Kennedy Act of 1954 (S-K Act; 15 U.S.C. §713c-3) established a program to

Resources Policy

provide financial support for research and development of commercial fisheries. The S-K Act

created a fund (known as the S-K fund) that is financed by a permanent appropriation of a portion

of import duties on marine fishery products. S-K funds are distributed by the Secretary of

Commerce as grants and cooperative agreements to address needs of the U.S. fishing industry,

such as harvesting, processing, marketing, and associated infrastructure. Congress typically

allocates most S-K funding to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (NOAA), for agency activities related to marine fisheries research and management. Some have questioned

whether this allocation of S-K funds reflects the original intent of the S-K Act and addresses the fishing industry’s needs and

priorities.

Since the creation of the S-K fund, the authorizing language and Congress’s priorities for the fund have evolved with the

fishing industry’s needs, new or amended federal laws governing fisheries management, and changes to NMFS

responsibilities. In 1980, the American Fisheries Promotion Act (AFPA; P.L. 96-561) amended the S-K Act to authorize a

competitive grant program, known as the Saltonstall-Kennedy Grant Program (S-K Grant Program), and the National

Program to support fishing industry research and development projects. NMFS administers both programs. In the 1980s, the

S-K Grant Program focused on fisheries development; in subsequent years, as U.S. fisheries became fully or overexploited,

priorities generally shifted to resource conservation and management. More recently, Congress established the American

Fisheries Advisory Committee (AFAC) through the American Fisheries Advisory Committee Act (P.L. 117-121) to

administer elements of the S-K Grant Program and recommend projects for funding to NMFS. The AFAC is an industry

advisory committee that identifies the fishing industry’s needs, develops requests for proposals, reviews grant applications,

and selects grant applications for approval. The S-K Grant Program has supported various projects, such as gear technology

research, seafood marketing, and aquaculture.

The S-K Grant Program is funded by a permanent appropriation of 30% of the previous calendar year’s customs receipts

from imports of fish and fish products. These funds are transferred into NOAA’s Promote and Develop American Fisheries

Products and Research Pertaining to American Fisheries Fund (P&D account). Transfers of revenue into the P&D account

have grown steadily from $26.7 million in FY1980 to approximately $376.5 million in FY2024 (nominal dollars, not adjusted

for inflation). Congress subsequently transfers most funds into the Operations, Research, and Facilities (ORF) account within

NOAA. Congress has directed NMFS to use funds allocated to the ORF account for specific activities, including stock

assessments, fishing information networks, survey and monitoring projects, cooperative research, and interjurisdictional

fisheries. The remaining funds are available to support the annual competitive S-K Grant Program and, in some cases, the

National Program.

Since the early 1980s, Congress has transferred most P&D account funds into the ORF discretionary account, sometimes

leaving little or no funding for the specified purposes of the S-K Act. Some critics have questioned whether funds from the

P&D account could be used more effectively by targeting fishing industry needs, as Congress originally intended. For

example, in the 119th Congress, some Members have introduced bills that would authorize increased allocations for the S-K

Grant Program and other purposes. In previous Congresses, some Members proposed legislation that would have included

additional priorities (e.g., climate-related priorities) for the S-K Grant Program or would have proposed using S-K funds to

establish a regional fisheries grant program. Some stakeholders have expressed concerns that if significant funding were

shifted away from NMFS fisheries management programs, additional funds would need to be appropriated or activities such

as data collection and fish population assessments could be compromised. These NMFS activities provide information and

analyses used to manage and conserve fishery populations. Additional issues of interest may include potential impacts of

tariffs imposed by the Trump Administration to future P&D funding amounts, as well as potential implications of Executive

Order (E.O.) 14276, “Restoring America’s Seafood Competitiveness,” and NOAA staffing priorities for ongoing activities

with respect to the promotion and development of U.S. fisheries. The impacts of tariffs and E.O. 14276 on S-K funding and

the S-K Grant Program are unclear at present, as are NOAA’s ongoing priorities for these efforts under the second Trump

Administration.

Congressional Research Service

Saltonstall-Kennedy Act: Background and Issues

Contents

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1

General Provisions of the Saltonstall-Kennedy Act ........................................................................ 3

The American Fisheries Advisory Committee .......................................................................... 3

History of the Saltonstall-Kennedy Act ........................................................................................... 5

Revenue and Use of Funds .............................................................................................................. 8

Use of Funds: Operations, Research, and Facilities Account.................................................. 10

Use of Funds: Remaining Funding ......................................................................................... 10

Saltonstall-Kennedy Grant Program ................................................................................. 12

Issues for Congress ........................................................................................................................ 13

Congressional Actions ............................................................................................................. 14

Funding Allocation............................................................................................................ 14

Stopping the Transfer to the Operations, Research, and Facilities Account ..................... 15

Past Proposals to Amend S-K Funding Priorities ............................................................. 16

Figures

Figure 1. Flow and Use of Saltonstall-Kennedy (S-K) Act Funds .................................................. 2

Figure 2. Total Funds Transferred from USDA and Percentage of Funds Transferred to

Operations, Research, and Facilities (ORF) ................................................................................. 9

Tables

Table 1. History of Legislation Related to the Saltonstall-Kennedy (S-K) Act ............................... 7

Table 2. Requested and Enacted ORF Transfers and S-K Grant Program Funding ....................... 11

Table A-1. Financing History of the Saltonstall-Kennedy Program .............................................. 17

Appendixes

Appendix. History of Financing Under the Saltonstall-Kennedy Act ........................................... 17

Contacts

Author Information........................................................................................................................ 19

Congressional Research Service

Saltonstall-Kennedy Act: Background and Issues

Introduction

The Saltonstall-Kennedy Act of 1954 (S-K Act; 15 U.S.C. §713c-3) established a fund (known as

the S-K fund) to support U.S. fisheries development and research. Funding for the S-K fund

originates from a transfer by the Secretary of Agriculture into the Promote and Develop American

Fisheries Products and Research Pertaining to American Fisheries Fund (P&D account); the P&D

account is administered by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) of the National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in the Department of Commerce.1 Transfers of

revenue into the P&D account have grown steadily from $26.7 million in FY1980 to

approximately $376.5 million in FY2024 (nominal dollars, not adjusted for inflation). Currently,

the bulk of P&D account revenue is transferred into NOAA’s Operations, Research, and Facilities

(ORF) discretionary account (Figure 1), which supports fisheries science and management

administered by NMFS.2 The remaining funds support the Saltonstall-Kennedy Grant Program

(S-K Grant Program) and sometimes the National Program, which focus on fishing industry

research and development projects.3

Historically, use of the S-K fund has evolved with changing fisheries management institutions

and shifting needs of U.S. fisheries.4 Congress has considered whether current funding from the

P&D account meets the needs of U.S. fisheries and the U.S. fishing industry.5 Some stakeholders

and Members of Congress have questioned whether the U.S. commercial fishing industry receives

sufficient opportunities to provide input into the S-K competitive grant process.6 Citing what they

have described as a lack of industry input, among other concerns, some critics have asserted that

NMFS has not distributed funding in accordance with the primary purposes and stipulations of

1 The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) also is known as National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

(NOAA) Fisheries.

2 The Operations, Research, and Facilities (ORF) discretionary account, NOAA’s largest, funds a portion of all of

NOAA’s line office budgets and Mission Support. For more information, see CRS Report R48157, National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Budget and Funding: Overview and Issues for Congress, by Eva Lipiec and

Natalie Paris.

3 NOAA, NMFS, “Saltonstall-Kennedy Research Program: Background, Process, and Transparency,” p. 7,

https://meetings.npfmc.org/CommentReview/DownloadFile?p=6b955135-a4ad-42f2-a415-6636df6ea502.pdf&

fileName=B1%20S-K%20Grant%20Review%20PRESENTATION.pdf.

4 The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), under 16 U.S.C. §1802(13), defines

fishery as “(A) one or more stocks of fish which can be treated as a unit for purposes of conservation and management

and which are identified on the basis of geographical, scientific, technical, recreational, and economic characteristics;

and (B) any fishing for such stocks.”

5 For example, Nathan Strout, “Senate Budget Would Shrink NOAA Fisheries’ Budget Slightly, Despite Trump

Administration’s Demand for Steep Cuts,” Seafood Source, July 21, 2025, https://www.seafoodsource.com/news/

supply-trade/senate-budget-would-shrink-noaa-fisheries-budget-slightly-despite-trump-administration-s-demand-forsteep-cuts.

6 Senator Lisa Murkowski, “Murkowski, Sullivan Welcome Signing of American Fisheries Advisory Committee Act,”

press release, May 16, 2022; and Senator Dan Sullivan, “Senators Pass Bill Out of Committee to Give Fishermen Voice

in Grant Process, Boost U.S. Seafood,” press release, June 29, 2016.

Congressional Research Service

Saltonstall-Kennedy Act: Background and Issues

the S-K Act,7 such as supporting projects related to the marketing of fish.8 Another concern is the

allocation of funds, and specifically whether there is a need for more financial support of S-K

competitive grants than for funding NMFS fisheries science and management activities in the

ORF discretionary account.9 If Congress were to reallocate funding to provide greater support of

the S-K Grant Program, it may need to consider implications of the likely decrease in funds that

would be transferred to ORF from the P&D account to support NMFS fishery research and

management activities. Additionally, Congress may wish to consider other administrative

priorities for these types of NMFS research and management activities.10

Figure 1. Flow and Use of Saltonstall-Kennedy (S-K) Act Funds

Source: Congressional Research Service, adapted from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

(NOAA), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), “Saltonstall-Kennedy Research Program,” presentation

provided to New England Fishery Management Council, December 6, 2018, https://s3.amazonaws.com/

nefmc.org/7_NE-Council-Presentation_Feedback-Sessions-Final.pdf.

7 As examples, Senator Lisa Murkowski, “Murkowski Supports a Safer and More Prosperous Alaska: Senate

Appropriations Approves Commerce, Justice, Science Funding Bill,” press release, June 15, 2018; and Alaska Fisheries

Development Foundation, Inc., “Your Support Needed for Saltonstall-Kennedy Act Revision,” May 8, 2012,

https://afdf.org/updates/your-support-needed-for-saltonstall-kennedy-act-revision (hereinafter Alaska Fisheries

Development Foundation, 2012). The Saltonstall-Kennedy Act (S-K Act) requires the Secretary of Commerce to make

grants using the funds transferred from the Secretary of Agriculture and to use “no less than 60 per centum of such

moneys to make direct industry grants to develop [U.S.] fisheries and to expand domestic and foreign markets for

[U.S.] fishery products.” 15 U.S.C. §713c-3(b), (c), (f).

8 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, American Fisheries Advisory

Committee Act, committee print, prepared by Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 115 th Cong., 1st

sess., December 11, 2017, p. 2; and 15 U.S.C. §713c-3(c)(1), (f)(1)(A).

9 Saving Seafood, “Senators Kerry and Snowe Will Introduce Bill to Restore Intent of Saltonstall-Kennedy Act,” March

9, 2012.

10 For example, Executive Order 14276 of April 17, 2025, “Restoring American Seafood Competitiveness,” 90 Federal

CRS In Focus IF13017, President Trump’s April 2025 Executive Order on American Seafood Competitiveness:

Considerations for U.S. Fisheries, by Anthony R. Marshak.

Congressional Research Service

Saltonstall-Kennedy Act: Background and Issues

Notes: ORF = Operations, Research, and Facilities; P&D = Promote and Develop Account; Saltonstall-Kennedy

(S-K) Act of 1954 (15 U.S.C. §713c-3); USDA = U.S. Department of Agriculture. For P&D and S-K Program

funding values since 2018, see Table A-1.

General Provisions of the Saltonstall-Kennedy Act

The S-K Act requires the Secretary of Agriculture to transfer 30% of duties on marine fishery

products collected under the so-called Section 32 Program (see Table 1) to the Secretary of

Commerce.11 These funds are transferred into the P&D account and made available to NMFS.

Currently, uses of S-K funds as specified under 15 U.S.C. §713c-3 include

•

providing grants in support of fisheries research and development projects under

Subsection (c),12

implementing a national fisheries research and development program under

Subsection (d),13

implementing the Northwest Atlantic Ocean Fisheries Reinvestment Program,14

and

funding the federal share of a fishing capacity reduction fund.15

The S-K Act requires the Secretary of Commerce to use no less than 60% of funds to make direct

industry-assistance grants. The act also requires the balance of S-K funds to be allocated to

finance NMFS activities that support development of U.S. fisheries.16 See the section on

“Revenue and Use of Funds” for more information regarding the administration and uses of these

funds for fisheries research and development.

The American Fisheries Advisory Committee

The S-K Act, as amended by the American Fisheries Advisory Committee Act (P.L. 117-121),

established the American Fisheries Advisory Committee (AFAC), which administers elements of

S-K competitive grants.17 The S-K Act, as amended, includes provisions for the AFAC’s

11 The program’s name is from the section that established the program, Section 32 of the Act of August 24, 1935,

Chapter 641, §32; 7 U.S.C. §612c.

12 15 U.S.C. §713c-3(c). Subsection (c) refers to topics that may be addressed by research and development grants,

including but not limited to “fisheries science, recreational fishing, harvesting, processing, marketing, and associated

infrastructures.” Subsection (c) also identifies the terms and conditions of grant awards.

13 15 U.S.C. §713c-3(d). Subsection (d) refers to a national fisheries research and development program (“including but

not limited to, harvesting, processing, marketing, and associated infrastructures, if not adequately covered by projects

assisted under Subsection (c) of this section or as the Secretary [of Commerce] deems appropriate.”)

14 The MSA, under 16 U.S.C. §1863, stipulates that the purposes of the Northwest Atlantic Ocean Fisheries

Reinvestment Program are “(A) promoting development of commercial fisheries and markets for underutilized species

of the northwest Atlantic Ocean; [and] (B) developing alternative fishing opportunities for participants in the New

England Groundfish fishery,” among other purposes, including providing technical support and assistance to U.S.

fishers and fish processors for underutilized species in the region; providing economic opportunities through improved

processing and expanded use of fish waste; and addressing overfished New England groundfish stocks by using

aquaculture or hatchery programs.

15 16 U.S.C. §1861a(b), (c).

16 15 U.S.C. §713c-3(f)(1).

17 NOAA, NMFS, “American Fisheries Advisory Committee [AFAC],” https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/topic/partners/

american-fisheries-advisory-committee; and U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, American Fisheries Advisory

Committee Charter, pp. 1-7, September 2024, https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/s3//2024-09/AFAC-Charter.docx.

Hereinafter NOAA, American Fisheries Advisory Committee Charter, 2024.

Congressional Research Service

Saltonstall-Kennedy Act: Background and Issues

composition, roles and responsibilities, and procedures.18 In 2022, the American Fisheries

Advisory Committee Act changed the process for awarding S-K competitive grants by assigning

to the AFAC certain duties that include

•

identifying the needs of the seafood industry,

developing requests for proposals,

reviewing grant applications, and

selecting grant applications for approval.19

Prior to the AFAC’s establishment, NMFS performed these functions and considered industry

input during the selection process.20 P.L. 117-121 expanded the specified purposes of fisheries

research and development projects by explicitly including projects that focus on fisheries science

and recreational fishing.21

In accordance with statute, the AFAC comprises 22 representatives from six geographic regions

of the United States.22 The Secretary of Commerce appoints three members from each region,

including (1) an individual with experience as a seafood harvester or processor, (2) an individual

with experience in recreational or commercial fishing or in growing seafood, and (3) an

individual who represents the fisheries science community or the relevant U.S. regional fishery

management council.23 The Secretary also appoints four at-large members, including (1) an

individual who has experience in food distribution, marketing, retail, or service; (2) an individual

with experience in the recreational fishing industry supply chain; (3) an individual with

experience in the commercial fishing industry supply chain; and (4) an individual who is an

employee of NMFS with expertise in fisheries research.24 In selecting these members, the

Secretary of Commerce is to seek to maximize, to the extent practicable, a balanced

representation of expertise in U.S. fisheries, seafood production, and science.25 The AFAC elects

a chair among its members.26 All AFAC members serve three-year terms.27 The AFAC members

18 15 U.S.C. §713c-3(e).

19 15 U.S.C. §713c-3(e)(5).

20 Functions performed by NMFS included development of priorities by NMFS in coordination with regional fishery

management councils, interstate marine fisheries commissions, NOAA Fisheries Science Centers, and NMFS Regional

Offices.

21 Projects related to recreational fisheries and science historically have been included, but these projects were not

explicitly considered in the statute prior to enactment of P.L. 117-121.

22 Region 1 includes Alaska and the Western Pacific, including Hawaii, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana

Islands, and the territories of Guam and American Samoa. Region 2 includes Connecticut, Rhode Island,

Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Maine. Region 3 includes Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida,

Arkansas, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Region 4 includes California, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho.

Region 5 includes New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and

Georgia. Region 6 includes Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. 15 U.S.C.

§713c-3(e)(2).

23 Individuals are to be selected so that members of the AFAC “have experience or expertise with as many seafood

species as practicable.” 15 U.S.C. §713c-3(e)(3)(A)(i)-(iv). For more information on U.S. regional fishery management

councils, see CRS Report R47645, U.S. Regional Fishery Management Councils, by Anthony R. Marshak.

24 Examples in statute of individuals with experience in recreational and commercial supply chains include “fishermen,

manufacturers, retailers, and distributors.” 15 U.S.C. §713c-3(e)(3)(B)(i)-(iv).

25 15 U.S.C. §713c-3(e)(3)(C).

26 NOAA, NMFS, “American Fisheries Advisory Committee Members,” https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/

partners/american-fisheries-advisory-committee-members; and 15 U.S.C. §713c-3(e)(6).

27 15 U.S.C. §713c-3(e)(4).

Congressional Research Service

Saltonstall-Kennedy Act: Background and Issues

are to meet twice annually, with meetings rotating among the six regions.28 The Secretary is to

designate an agency staff member to coordinate and assist with the AFAC’s activities.29

The Secretary of Commerce is to identify three or more federal, private, or public sector experts

to undertake technical review of grant applications, which occurs prior to committee review.30

The Secretary also is required to develop guidance related to technical review, including criteria

for elimination of applications that fail to meet a minimum level of technical merit.31 A grant may

not be approved unless the Secretary is satisfied with the applicant’s technical and financial

capability.32 Based on the AFAC’s recommendations, the Secretary of Commerce is to evaluate

the proposed project according to listed criteria and other criteria that the Secretary may require.33

If the Secretary fails to provide funds to a grant selected by the AFAC, the Secretary is required to

send a written document to the AFAC justifying the decision.34

History of the Saltonstall-Kennedy Act

Congress passed the S-K Act in 1954, but the act’s legislative history began in 1935 (Table 1).

Congress last amended the S-K Act in the 117th Congress through passage of the American

Fisheries Advisory Committee Act (P.L. 117-121).

In 1935, Congress passed legislation to provide financial support for domestic agricultural

commodity markets. Section 32 of the Act of August 24, 1935, provided a permanent

appropriation equal to 30% of gross receipts from all duties collected under customs laws.35 The

act authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to use these funds to support exports and domestic

consumption of agricultural commodities. The Act of August 11, 1939, authorized the Secretary

of Agriculture to transfer up to $1.5 million from funds collected under Section 32 to support the

fishing industry. Funds were transferred to the Federal Surplus Commodities Corporation to

purchase and distribute surplus fishery products and to the Secretary of the Interior to promote

markets for fishery products of domestic origin.36

In 1954, the S-K Act amended the Act of August 11, 1939, to provide additional funding from

Section 32 funds to support the U.S. fishing industry.37 The S-K Act authorized the transfer from

the Secretary of Agriculture to the Secretary of the Interior,38 from the larger Section 32 account’s

28 15 U.S.C. §713c-3(e)(8).

29 15 U.S.C. §713c-3(e)(9).

30 15 U.S.C. §713c-3(e)(12)(A).

31 15 U.S.C. §713c-3(e)(12)(B); and NOAA, NMFS, “Frequent Questions About the Saltonstall-Kennedy Grant

Program,” https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/funding-financial-services/frequent-questions-about-saltonstall-kennedygrant-program.

32 15 U.S.C. §713c-3(c)(3).

33 15 U.S.C. §713c-3(c)(3)(A).

34 15 U.S.C. §713c-3(c)(3)(B).

35 The Act of August 24, 1935, Chapter 641, §32; 7 U.S.C. §612c. See CRS In Focus IF12193, Farm and Food Support

Under USDA’s Section 32 Account, by Jim Monke; and CRS Report RL34081, Farm and Food Support Under

USDA’s Section 32 Program, coordinated by Jim Monke.

36 Act of August 11, 1939, Chapter 696; 15 U.S.C. §713c-2. The Act of 1939 authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to

transfer these funds to the Federal Surplus Commodities Corporation under the Section 32 program.

37 Act of July 1, 1954, Chapter 447; 15 U.S.C. §713c-3.

38 Prior to the transfer of duties for marine fisheries to the Department of Commerce (via the Reorganization Plan No. 4

of 1970), NMFS’s predecessor, the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, was included under the Department of the

Interior, as established in the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (P.L. 1024, Chapter 1036). The White House,

(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

Saltonstall-Kennedy Act: Background and Issues

funding, an amount equal to 30% of gross receipts from duties collected on fishery products.39

These funds were maintained in a separate account for use by the Secretary of the Interior to

support the flow of fishery products in commerce, develop and increase markets for fishery

products, and conduct research. Annual expenditures from the fund were limited to $3 million,

and the balance of the fund was not allowed to exceed $5 million at the end of any year. In 1956,

the S-K Act was amended to remove the limit on annual expenditures from the fund.40 The S-K

Act also authorized the Secretary of the Interior to appoint a fishing industry advisory committee

to provide guidance on the formulation of policy, rules, and regulations pertaining to requests for

assistance, and other matters.41

In 1976, the Fishery Conservation and Management Act (FCMA; P.L. 94-265) established a 200nautical-mile fishery conservation zone (FCZ) and brought marine fisheries within the FCZ under

domestic control.42 The FCMA allowed foreign fishing to continue in the FCZ, but it granted

priority fishing rights to the domestic fishing industry.43 In the following years, U.S. policy

emphasized development of domestic fisheries and replacement of foreign fishing with domestic

fishing in the FCZ (e.g., through implementation of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation

and Management Act [MSA; 16 U.S.C. §1801 et seq.]).44 According to the U.S. Government

Accountability Office, until 1979, NMFS used nearly all S-K funds to support fisheries

management and development activities—NMFS granted only small amounts to the fishing

industry for development projects.45 In 1979, likely because of growing industry support of

domestic fisheries development, NMFS made available approximately $5.3 million of S-K funds

to regional fisheries development foundations, universities, private industry, and state and local

governments.46

In 1980, Congress formally authorized the current competitive S-K Grant Program in Section 210

of the American Fisheries Promotion Act (AFPA; P.L. 96-561). The AFPA directed the Secretary

of Commerce to use at least 50% of S-K funds for the S-K Grant Program and the balance of

funds for a National Program. Both programs supported research and development efforts to

address areas such as harvesting, processing, marketing, and related infrastructures. By 1980, the

transfer from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) had grown to $26.7 million (Table A1). The AFPA also formally transferred responsibility for administering the fund from the

Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1970, Title 5, Appendix-Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1970, July 9, 1970, pp. 221-223,

https://darrp.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/Reorganization%20Plan%20No.%204%20of%201970.pdf.

39 Products included fish, shellfish, mollusks, crustaceans, aquatic plants and animals, and any products thereof,

including processed and manufactured products.

40 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (P.L. 1024, Chapter 1036, §12(b)).

41 Act of July 1, 1954, Chapter 447, §2(c).

42 On March 10, 1983, President Reagan issued Proclamation 5030, which established the 200-nautical-mile exclusive

economic zone (EEZ). The EEZ provided sovereign rights over the natural resources in the zone, including fisheries,

and replaced the fishery conservation zone established by the Fishery Conservation and Management Act (P.L. 94-265)

in 1976.

43 Foreign fishing was allocated the surplus after U.S. domestic fishing needs were met. Allocations to foreign

operations were terminated when the surplus was completely utilized by U.S. domestic fishing.

44 The capacity of U.S. domestic fishing fleets increased during the 1980s; by 1990, domestic fleets had replaced nearly

all foreign fishing fleets operating in the U.S. EEZ. Daniel S. Holland, “Governance of Fisheries in the United States,”

in Handbook of Marine Fisheries Conservation and Management, eds. R. Quentin Grafton et al. (New York, NY:

Oxford University Press, 2010), pp. 382-392.

45 U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), Uses of Saltonstall-Kennedy Fisheries Development Funds, August

30, 1985, http://www.gao.gov/assets/150/143275.pdf. GAO was called the General Accounting Office when the report

was written in 1985. Hereinafter cited as GAO, 1985.

46 GAO, 1985.

Congressional Research Service

Saltonstall-Kennedy Act: Background and Issues

Secretary of the Interior to the Secretary of Commerce. The House committee report

accompanying the AFPA noted that the definition of fishery includes recreational fishing and that

recreational projects would be eligible for grants.47 The AFPA also removed a section that

established the S-K fishing industry advisory committee; the advisory committee had been

previously terminated pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (P.L. 92-463).48

Congress has made additional changes to the allocation and use of the S-K fund (Table 1). The

Highway Improvement Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-424) increased the share of funds used for the

competitive grant program from 50% to 60%. In the following years, potential uses of the fund

were broadened to include the Fisheries Promotion Fund (P.L. 99-659), the Northwest Atlantic

Ocean Fisheries Reinvestment Fund (P.L. 102-567), and the federal share of a fishing capacity

reduction program (P.L. 104-297). Congress established the Fisheries Promotion Fund to support

domestic and international markets for domestically produced seafood; a portion of S-K funds

was transferred to the fund from FY1987 to FY1991 for this purpose (Table A-1).49 In 2022,

through the American Fisheries Advisory Committee Act (P.L. 117-121), Congress modified the

process for awarding S-K competitive grants, including in its establishment of the AFAC to

administer elements of the grant process.

Table 1. History of Legislation Related to the Saltonstall-Kennedy (S-K) Act

Year

Act

Brief Description

1935

Act of August 24, 1935, Chapter

641, Section 32

Established a permanent appropriation (§32) to set aside 30%

of annual customs receipts; supported the farm sector by

authorizing the purchasing of surplus commodities and

funding various other activities.

1939

Act of August 11, 1939 (P.L. 76392), Chapter 696, Section 1

Authorized the purchase and distribution of surplus fishery

products with funding of up to $1.5 million per year.

1954

Act of July 1, 1954 (SaltonstallKennedy Act), Chapter 447

Required U.S. Department of Agriculture to transfer to the

Department of Commerce 30% of duties on marine products

to fund U.S. fisheries and limited expenditures to no more

than $3 million per year.

1956

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, Act

of August 8, 1956, Chapter 1036,

Section 12(b)

Removed limitation on annual expenditures.

1980

American Fisheries Promotion

Act (P.L. 96-561), Title II, Section

210

Authorized competitive grants and national fisheries research

and development programs; directed that at least 50% of

funds be used for a competitive grant program, with the

balance for the National Program.

1983

Highway Improvement Act of

1982 (P.L. 97-424), Title IV,

Section 423(a)

Increased competitive grant share to at least 60% of funds;

stipulated that S-K funds were to be used exclusively for

promoting U.S. fisheries.

1986

Fish and Seafood Promotion Act

of 1986 (P.L. 99-659), Title II,

Section 209(e)

Expanded authorized uses of S-K funds to include the

Fisheries Promotion Fund for several years.

47 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, American Fisheries Promotion Act, report to

accompany H.R. 7039, 96th Cong., 2nd sess., June 26, 1980, H. Rept. 96-1138, p. 39.

48 5 U.S.C. App., Section 14, of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (P.L. 92-463) terminated advisory committees

within two years of the law’s enactment (January 5, 1973) unless the committee was renewed within that two-year

period or, in the case of a committee established by Congress, its duration was otherwise provided by law.

49 Funding levels included $750,000 in FY1987, $2.6 million in FY1988, $3 million in FY1989, $2 million in FY1990,

and $2 million in FY1991.

Congressional Research Service

Saltonstall-Kennedy Act: Background and Issues

Year

Act

Brief Description

1992

National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration

Authorization Act of 1992 (P.L.

102-567), Title IX, Section 902(c)

Expanded authorized uses of S-K funds to include

implementation of the Northwest Atlantic Ocean Fisheries

Reinvestment Program.

1996

Sustainable Fisheries Act (P.L.

104-297), Title I, Section 116(c)

Expanded authorized uses of S-K funds to include the federal

share of a fishing capacity reduction program.

2013

Consolidated and Further

Continuing Appropriations Act,

2013 (P.L. 113-6), Title I

Restricted the use of the Promote and Develop Fisheries

Products funds transferred to the Operations, Research, and

Facilities account to cooperative research, annual stock

assessments, data collection, interjurisdictional fisheries

grants, and fisheries information networks. Subsequent

appropriations acts have adopted similar language.

2022

American Fisheries Advisory

Committee Act (P.L. 117-121)

Modified the process for awarding competitive grants,

including through the establishment of, and assignment of

duties to, the American Fisheries Advisory Committee for

administering elements of the grant process.

Source: Congressional Research Service.

Revenue and Use of Funds

The revenues that are transferred into NOAA’s P&D account from USDA are derived from duties

on fishery products, “including fish, shellfish, mollusks, crustaceans, aquatic plants and animals,

and any products thereof, including processed and manufactured products.”50 The P&D account is

a mandatory fund that requires no periodic reauthorization or appropriation.51 Transfers into

NOAA’s P&D account have steadily increased from $26.7 million in FY1980 to approximately

$376.5 million in FY2024 (Figure 2). According to NOAA, in calendar year (CY) 2017,

approximately 77.0% of revenues were from duties collected on imports of nonedible marine

products, including jewelry, ink, various chemicals, and skins.52 The remaining 23.0% of

revenues were from duties on imports of edible seafood products.

According to NMFS foreign fishery trade statistics, in CY2024, total calculated duties on

identified fishery imports amounted to approximately $364.0 million,53 or 96.5% of the amount

50 15 U.S.C. §713c-3(b)(1). Duties are collected by calendar year (CY) but not appropriated for use until the subsequent

fiscal year (FY), such that collections from CY2022 would be appropriated in FY2024 (i.e., the FY following

completion of the full CY).

51 When funds from the Promote and Develop American Fisheries Products and Research Pertaining to American

Fisheries Fund (P&D) account are used to offset ORF funding, the funding is considered to be discretionary because

the ORF is a discretionary account. However, P&D funds used for the S-K Grant Program or the National Program that

are identified in law as mandatory funding are not used by NOAA to offset ORF funding.

52 NOAA Ocean and Coastal Budget Formulation and Communication, NOAA Budget Office, July 12, 2018. For more

information on tariffs, see the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) of the United States, https://hts.usitc.gov/. Most

aquatic products are found in HTS chapters 3 and 16, but additional aquatic products can be found in other chapters of

the HTS.

53 The U.S. Census Bureau cautions that estimates of calculated duty do not necessarily reflect amounts of duty paid

and should be used with caution. For example, factors such as foreign processing and assembly or situations where

portions of the value may be eligible for duty-free consideration may lead to overstatement or understatement in

estimates of calculated duty. U.S. Census Bureau, “International Trade Definitions,” https://www.census.gov/foreigntrade/reference/definitions/index.html#C.

Congressional Research Service

Saltonstall-Kennedy Act: Background and Issues

requested by NOAA for its P&D account in FY2025.54 According to NMFS trade statistics, the

majority of calculated duties (i.e., 95.3% cumulatively) collected on identified fishery imports in

CY2024 were from edible seafood products, including unclassified edible products (34.8%),

tilapia (25.7%), albacore tuna (6.3%), caviar and caviar substitutes (4.2%), and additional

miscellaneous edible products (24.3%). The remaining 4.7% of calculated duties mostly were

from unclassified nonedible products. As of CY2024, tariffs on edible fish products had been

reduced or eliminated for many seafood products, and most remaining duties were collected on

canned products (e.g., tuna) or processed products (e.g., fish sticks).55 In CY2024, most duties

were collected on identified fishery imports from China ($232.9 million), followed by Thailand

($59.8 million), Vietnam ($19.2 million), Ecuador ($13.5 million), and Indonesia ($4.7 million).56

As of November 14, 2025, CRS had not identified any published accounting of amounts available

for NOAA’s P&D account in response to tariffs enacted by the Trump Administration.

Figure 2. Total Funds Transferred from USDA and Percentage of Funds Transferred

to Operations, Research, and Facilities (ORF)

(FY1979 to FY2024; nominal dollars)

Figure is interactive in the HTML version of this report.

Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Budget Office, Email, January 20, 2020;

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Saltonstall-Kennedy Grant Program: Fisheries Research and Development

Reports 2008, 2001, 1991-1992, 1987-1990, and 1982-1986; and NOAA, “Budget and Reports,”

https://www.noaa.gov/organization/budget-finance-performance/budget-and-reports.

Notes: USDA = U.S. Department of Agriculture. Data included on the primary axis (left axis; purple line) are

the total funds (nominal value; not adjusted for inflation) transferred from USDA to the NOAA Promote and

54 NOAA, NMFS, “Foreign Fishery Trade Data,” accessed September 2, 2025, https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/

national/sustainable-fisheries/foreign-fishery-trade-data (hereinafter, NOAA, NMFS, “Foreign Fishery Trade Data”);

and NOAA, Budget Estimates, Fiscal Year 2025, Congressional Submission, March 2024, pp. NMFS-137,

https://www.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/2024-03/NOAA_FY25_Congressional_Justification.pdf.

55 NOAA, NMFS, “Foreign Fishery Trade Data.”

56 NOAA, NMFS, “Foreign Fishery Trade Data.”

Congressional Research Service

Saltonstall-Kennedy Act: Background and Issues

Develop American Fisheries Products and Research Pertaining to American Fisheries Fund (P&D account) since

FY1979. Data included on the secondary axis (right axis; green line) are the percentage of funds from the P&D

account that were ultimately transferred to the NOAA ORF account since FY1979. For a detailed account of

funding, including real dollar values for the NOAA P&D account (i.e., 2025 USD; adjusted for inflation), see

Table A-1.

Use of Funds: Operations, Research, and Facilities Account

Congress has allocated a growing portion of revenue in the P&D account to the ORF account

rather than funding the S-K Grant Program as prescribed by the S-K Act. The transfer to the ORF

account has ranged from $5 million, or 29% of the P&D account in 1979, to over $174 million in

the five most recent years reported by NOAA (FY2020-FY2024), which is more than 95% of the

annual transfer into the P&D account (Figure 2; Table 2). ORF funds are used “to support

fisheries research and management activities including the analysis and decision-making that

supports ecosystem approaches to management.”57 Often the allocation of most funds to the ORF

account limits the funding that is available for the specified purposes of the S-K Act.

In 2013, Congress restricted the use of P&D funds that were transferred into the ORF account

that year.58 It limited this funding to fisheries activities related to cooperative research, annual

stock assessments, survey and monitoring projects, interjurisdictional fisheries grants, and fish

information networks. In subsequent years, agency budget requests have reflected this intent by

identifying similar areas, and Congress has continued to include similar language in

appropriations laws and accompanying Senate committee reports.59 In more recent fiscal years

(FY2025-FY2026), however, the NOAA budget request has proposed that all P&D account

funding be transferred to the ORF account in support of NMFS activities.

Use of Funds: Remaining Funding

In most years, the majority of funds that remain in the P&D account after the transfer into the

ORF account have been used for the competitive S-K Grant Program as described in Subsection

amount of remaining funding for the S-K Grant Program has varied from year to year, ranging

from no funding in FY2011 and FY2012, when Congress did not leave any remaining funding for

the S-K program, to a high of $29.5 million in FY2009 (Table 2). Since 2020, annual remaining

funding for the S-K program has averaged approximately $9.5 million per year.

The S-K Act directs the Secretary of Commerce to use no less than 60% of funds for fisheries

research and development grants pursuant to Subsection (c). The act also requires the Secretary to

use the remaining funds to finance NMFS activities directly related to U.S. fisheries development,

as outlined in Subsection (d). Since 1982, S-K grant funding has been less than 30% of total

transfers from USDA, and it has been lower in most years. In many years, Congress did not fund

the National Program or provided a small portion of the remaining funds for that purpose. For

FY2026, the Senate Committee on Appropriations proposed $10 million for the S-K Grant

57 NOAA, NMFS, The Saltonstall-Kennedy Grant Program: Fisheries Research and Development Report, 2011.

58 Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 (P.L. 113-6), March 26, 2013, 127 STAT. 239.

59 As examples, P.L. 113-76, P.L. 113-235, P.L. 114-113, and P.L. 115-31 added the S-K Grant Program to the list of

fishery-related activities that should be funded from the P&D account. Fishery-related activities identified in P.L. 115141, P.L. 116-6, and P.L. 116-93 included the S-K Grant Program, fishery data collection, surveys and assessments,

and interjurisdictional fisheries.

60 15 U.S.C. §713c-3(c) and (d). A portion of the remainder also has been used to administer the use of S-K funds for

the S-K Grant Program and the National Program.

Congressional Research Service

Saltonstall-Kennedy Act: Background and Issues

Program, as communicated in S.Rept. 119-44, accompanying the Commerce, Justice, Science,

and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2026 (S. 2354) in the 119th Congress.61

Table 2. Requested and Enacted ORF Transfers and S-K Grant Program Funding

(funding in thousands of dollars)

Fiscal

Year

Request ORF

Transfer

Request S-K Grant

Program Funding

Enacted ORF

Transfer

Remaining Funding

for S-K Grant

Programa

2007

77,000

2,283

79,000

3,816

2008

77,000

5,816

77,000

7,594

2009

79,000

5,594

79,001

29,510

2010

104,600

9,400

104,600

8,771

2011

104,600

8,771

90,239

2012

66,200

5,000

109,098

2013

119,064

5,000

119,064

11,172

2014

123,164

8,208

115,000

12,187

2015

123,164

8,208

116,000

26,615

2016

130,164

13,574

130,164

16,225

2017

130,164

15,647

130,164

14,909

2018

154,199

144,000

10,664

2019

154,868

157,980

426

2020

158,407

174,774

8,009

2021

183,834

246,171

12,000

2022

246,171

7,989

243,532

10,628

2023

348,871

7,530

344,901

11,500

2024

355,081

7,530

369,522

7,000

2025

377,363

N/A

2026

409,644

N/A

Sources: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Budget Office, Email, January 20, 2020;

NOAA, Budget Office, Email, December 2, 2019; and NOAA, “Budget and Reports,” https://www.noaa.gov/

organization/budget-finance-performance/budget-and-reports.

Notes: N/A = Not available; ORF = NOAA Operations, Research, and Facilities account; S-K Grant Program =

Saltonstall-Kennedy Grant Program. No information regarding FY2025 enacted ORF transfer and remainder of

funds was included in the FY2026 NOAA budget justification.

a. Includes the S-K Grant Program, National Program, and NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service

administrative costs.

Historically, Congress also provided financial support for the Fisheries Promotion Fund, which

was funded between $750,000 and $3 million from FY1987 to FY1991 (Table A-1).62 No funding

has been provided for the Fisheries Promotion Fund since 1991. From FY2003 to FY2006, most

61 No language regarding the S-K Grant Program was included in H.Rept. 119-272, accompanying the Commerce,

Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2026 (H.R. 5342) in the 119th Congress.

62 16 U.S.C. §4008.

Congressional Research Service

Saltonstall-Kennedy Act: Background and Issues

funding remaining after the ORF transfer was used for congressionally directed projects that

supported several regional seafood marketing initiatives (Table A-1).63 Annual S-K reports from

the agency and other sources indicate that S-K funds have not been used for either the Northwest

Atlantic Ocean Fisheries Reinvestment fund or the fishing capacity reduction program.64

Saltonstall-Kennedy Grant Program

According to NMFS, general goals of the S-K program are to fund projects that address the needs

of fishing communities, optimize economic benefits by building and maintaining sustainable

fisheries, and increase other opportunities to keep working waterfronts viable.65 Historically,

projects funded by the S-K Grant Program have included, for example, enhancing markets for

fishery products, examining fishery management options, and developing more efficient and

selective fishing gear. Projects often have focused on both state and federal marine commercial

fisheries, and other sectors—such as aquaculture and recreational fishing—also have been

eligible for and have received funding.

NMFS solicits proposals as a federal funding opportunity on the federal grants website, which

includes funding priorities, application requirements, and proposal evaluation criteria.66 Funding

priorities are developed annually by the AFAC. For example, in FY2020, S-K program priorities

were seafood promotion, development, and marketing, and science or technology that promotes

sustainable U.S. seafood production and harvesting.67 NMFS included similar priorities for the

FY2025 S-K grant competition.68

According to the AFAC charter, the AFAC annually identifies the needs of U.S. marine fishing

communities and finalizes priorities for the annual competitive grant solicitation.69 The review

process includes (1) pre-proposal review, (2) technical review and ranking, (3) panel review and

ranking, and (4) grant selection. Pre-proposals undergo an administrative review by the AFAC,

which recommends to NMFS those pre-proposals to be encouraged to submit full proposals for

review. Full review includes administrative screening; technical review by federal, public, and

private sector experts; and funding recommendations by the AFAC to program and NMFS

leadership.

AFAC communicates to NMFS which proposals have been recommended by the AFAC for

funding. The committee weighs its recommendations based on the proposals’ ranking and other

considerations, such as availability of funding, balance and distribution of funds, and

duplication.70 Congress also has reinforced this approach in directives to NMFS, such as in the

63 S-K funds have supported congressionally directed projects focused generally on regional marketing initiatives,

including $10 million in FY2003, $17.5 million in FY2004, $12 million in FY2005, and $12 million in FY2006. Also

see Table A-1.

64 NOAA, NMFS, “Saltonstall-Kennedy Research and Development Program,” https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/

national/funding-financial-services/saltonstall-kennedy-research-and-development-program. Hereinafter NOAA,

NMFS, “Saltonstall-Kennedy Research and Development Program.”

65 NOAA, NMFS, “Saltonstall-Kennedy Research and Development Program.”

66 NOAA, NMFS, “Saltonstall-Kennedy Grant Competition,” https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/grant/saltonstallkennedy-grant-competition. Hereinafter, NOAA, NMFS, “Saltonstall-Kennedy Grant Competition.”

67 NOAA, NMFS, “Saltonstall-Kennedy Grant Program: Funding Opportunities,” December 2019,

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/grant/saltonstall-kennedy-grant-program.

68 NOAA, NMFS, “Saltonstall-Kennedy Grant Competition.”

69 NOAA, American Fisheries Advisory Committee Charter, 2024; and NOAA, NMFS, “Saltonstall-Kennedy Grant

Competition.”

70 NMFS, “FY20 Saltonstall-Kennedy Competition,” May 31, 2019, https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/searchgrants.html?keywords=saltonstall (search in “Archived” status).

Congressional Research Service

Saltonstall-Kennedy Act: Background and Issues

explanatory statement for the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 (P.L. 117-328).71 In the past,

NMFS has considered whether the program and fishing industry would benefit from placing

greater emphasis on monitoring approved projects and disseminating results. For example, during

2019, feedback sessions were arranged with regional fishery management councils to solicit

constituents’ views on how to improve the dissemination and use of results from funded

projects.72

Issues for Congress

Some fishing industry representatives have suggested the U.S. commercial fishing industry and

fishing communities could benefit from greater direct support from S-K funding.73 Relatedly,

some industry representatives have raised concerns about whether the competitive grant process

has included sufficient fishing industry input and whether a greater portion of P&D funds should

be allocated to the annual S-K Grant Program.74 Some stakeholders and Members of Congress

have asserted that NMFS decides by its own criteria which programs receive grants and that in

some cases the fishing industry’s priorities do not match those of NMFS.75 These Members and

stakeholders have contended that broader, more direct fishing industry participation is needed to

inform the process of identifying the needs and priorities of grant funding. Congress addressed

some of these concerns through passage of the American Fisheries Advisory Act (P.L. 117-121).

Some industry concerns regarding future funding of the S-K program and its funding priorities

continue.76

Another question from stakeholders regarding S-K Act implementation has been whether a

greater portion of P&D funding should be allocated to the S-K Grant Program.77 Some Members

have contended that Congress, as reflected in statute, intended to provide funding primarily to the

S-K Grant Program and to allocate remaining funding to the National Program for fishing

industry research and development.78 A counterargument is that shifting significant funding from

current NMFS activities may prompt questions about whether additional discretionary funding

would be forthcoming to support other NMFS functions, such as data collection and fish

population assessments.

71 Joint Explanatory Statement Submitted by Mr. Leahy, Chair of the Senate Committee on Appropriations,

Regarding H.R. 2617, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 168, no. 198

(December 20, 2022), p. S7908.

72 Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, “Saltonstall-Kennedy Grant Program - Public Feedback Webinar,” press

release, June 14, 2019, http://www.mafmc.org/council-events/2019/saltonstall-kennedy-grant-program-publicfeedback-webinar.

73 Alaska Fisheries Development Foundation, 2012; and Kirk Moore, “Money for Fishing: How Fishermen Can Sell

Directly,” National Fisherman, November 8, 2023, https://www.nationalfisherman.com/west-coast-pacific/money-forfishing-how-fishermen-can-sell-directly (hereinafter Moore, National Fisherman, 2023).

74 Moore, National Fisherman, 2023.

75 Senator Dan Sullivan, “Sullivan Applauds Senate Passage of American Fisheries Advisory Committee Act,” press

release, July 28, 2018.

76 Edward Carver, “Sweeping Cuts and Deregulation Imperil U.S. Fisheries, Experts Warn,” Mongabay, April 21,

2025, https://news.mongabay.com/2025/04/sweeping-cuts-and-deregulation-imperil-u-s-fisheries-experts-warn/.

77 Leslie Taylor, “Opinion: Don’t Be Fooled by NOAA Grants Increase,” October 24, 2014.

78 Senator Kerry, “Introduction of S. 2184,” Congressional Record, daily edition, March 12, 2012, p. S1579; Senator

Ed Markey, “Senator Markey Amendment to Critical Fisheries Research Grant Program Passes Senate as Part of

Sullivan Legislation,” press release, August 29, 2018; and Senator Lisa Murkowski, “Working Waterfronts

Framework: A Plan to Grow and Support Alaska’s Coastal and River Communities,”

https://www.murkowski.senate.gov/download/working-waterfronts-framework.

Congressional Research Service

Saltonstall-Kennedy Act: Background and Issues

Additional issues of interest may include potential impacts of tariffs imposed by the Trump

Administration on future P&D funding amounts,79 as well as potential implications of Executive

Order (E.O.) 14276, “Restoring America’s Seafood Competitiveness,” and NOAA staffing

priorities for ongoing activities with respect to the promotion and development of U.S. fisheries.80

The impacts of tariffs and E.O. 14276 on S-K funding and the S-K Grant Program are unclear at

present, as are NOAA’s ongoing priorities for these efforts under the second Trump

administration.

Congressional Actions

The below sections summarize selected legislation and legislative proposals in the current and

past Congresses, with respect to addressing funding allocations for the S-K Grant Program,

transfers to the NOAA ORF account, and funding priorities for fisheries research and

development projects.

Funding Allocation

Some Members of Congress have introduced legislation seeking to address the allocation of P&D

funding for projects supported through the S-K Grant Program. In the 119th Congress, the

Working Waterfronts Act of 2025 (S. 1968, Section 204) would amend the S-K Act to stipulate

that 25% of all marine product duty receipts transferred from USDA to NOAA’s P&D account is

to be used for promoting U.S. fisheries. The bill would direct the Secretary of Commerce to make

available not less than 75% of P&D funding (i.e., 18.75% of all marine product duty receipts

transferred) for direct industry assistance grants under the S-K Grant Program. Additionally, the

bill would direct the Secretary to make available no less than 20% of P&D funding (i.e., 5% of all

marine product duty receipts transferred) to carry out the Young Fishermen’s Development Act

(33 U.S.C. §§1141-1144).81 The balance of money in the fund would be allocated to the NMFS

National Program. This language in Section 204 of S. 1968 also was included in S. 3785 in the

118th Congress. If the language were enacted, it remains uncertain whether Congress would

follow the authorizing language with respect to apportioning funding into the NOAA ORF

account and these other programs during the annual appropriations process.

Some previously introduced bills proposed changing the allocation of P&D funding to support

different priorities. For example, several proposals in the 112th-114th Congresses would have

allocated funding to fisheries management regions and would have established a regional

fisheries grant program.82 Under these bills, each regional fishery management council would

have established a fishery investment committee, which would have focused resources on

strengthening regional fisheries management.83 Each fishery investment committee would have

79 For more information, see CRS Report R48549, Presidential 2025 Tariff Actions: Timeline and Status, by Keigh E.

Hammond and William F. Burkhart.

E.O. 14276and CRS In Focus IF13017, President Trump’s April 2025 Executive Order on American Seafood

Competitiveness: Considerations for U.S. Fisheries, by Anthony R. Marshak.

81 NOAA National Sea Grant Program, “Young Fishermen’s Development Program,” https://seagrant.noaa.gov/howwe-work/topics/youngfishermen/.

82 The Fisheries Investment and Regulatory Relief Act of 2012 (H.R. 4208 and S. 2184) was introduced during the

112th Congress; the Fisheries Disaster Relief and Research Investment Act (H.R. 799) was introduced during the 113th

Congress; and the Fisheries Investment and Regulatory Relief Act of 2015 (H.R. 2106) was introduced in the 114th

Congress. No further action was taken following introduction of any of these bills.

83 Regional fishery management councils were established under the MSA to develop fishery management plans that

conserve and manage fisheries in federal waters. For more information, see CRS Report R47645, U.S. Regional

Fishery Management Councils, by Anthony R. Marshak.

Congressional Research Service

Saltonstall-Kennedy Act: Background and Issues

•

developed a regional fishery investment plan,

reviewed grant applications and projects to implement regional fishery

investment plans, and

made recommendations on grant applications.

The regional fishery investment plans would have identified research, conservation, and

management needs, as well as corresponding actions to rebuild and maintain fish populations and

associated fisheries. Each regional investment plan would have been required to include specific

topics (e.g., supporting stock surveys, stock assessments, and cooperative fishery research).84

Further, the Secretary of Commerce would have been required to establish a regional fisheries

grant program to provide funds to advance the regional priorities identified in the regional fishery

investment plans. The Secretary would have awarded grants only to projects that would

implement regional fishery investment plans and to projects recommended by respective regional

fishery investment committees and approved by each regional fishery management council.

Under these bills, the Secretary of Commerce would have been required to allocate 70% of funds

from the P&D account to the eight council regions. Half of this funding would have been

allocated equally among the councils, and half would have been distributed according to the

combined economic impact of recreational and commercial fisheries in each region. The

Secretary also would have been required to allocate 20% of funds for a national fisheries

investment program that would support rebuilding and maintaining fish populations and promote

sustainable fisheries. Each of the bills would have limited the transfer of ORF funding from the

P&D account to 10% of receipts. The legislation also included a provision to provide funding to

review regulations and procedures used to implement management under the MSA and make

recommendations to streamline regulations and incorporate new information into the management

process.

Congress has not seen similar legislation proposing a regional fisheries grant program since the

114th Congress. S-K-related legislation introduced in the 114th-117th Congresses primarily focused

on passage of the American Fisheries Advisory Committee Act and establishment of the AFAC.85

Stopping the Transfer to the Operations, Research, and Facilities Account

In recent Congresses (i.e., since the 113th Congress), no proposals have been introduced seeking

to prevent the transfer of P&D funds to NOAA’s ORF account. In the 113th Congress, a section of

the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2014 (S.

2991) would have attempted to stop the transfer of P&D funds to the ORF account. According to

Section 205 of S. 2991, it would not be in order in the Senate or in the House of Representatives

to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would reduce any amount

in the fund (P&D account);86 this proposed change in the Senate and House rules would have

allowed any Senator or Representative to stop the transfer of P&D funds to the ORF discretionary

account by making a point of order that a rule was being violated. No further action was taken

following the introduction of S. 2991.

84 Research priority plans are developed by regional fishery management councils according to 16 U.S.C. §1852(h)(7).

85 Prior to the enactment of the American Fisheries Advisory Committee Act (P.L. 117-121), similar bills were

introduced in the 114th (H.R. 5775/S. 3087), 115th (H.R. 214/S. 1322), 116th (H.R. 1218/S. 494), and 117th (H.R.

3128/S. 497) Congresses.

86 A point of order is a claim from the floor made by a Senator or Representative that a rule of the House of

Representatives or the Senate is being violated. If the chair sustains the point of order, the action in violation of the rule

is not permitted.

Congressional Research Service

Saltonstall-Kennedy Act: Background and Issues

Past Proposals to Amend S-K Funding Priorities

In past Congresses, several bills have been introduced seeking to amend S-K funding priorities,

including for the S-K Grant Program. In the 117th Congress, a section of H.R. 3764 would have

amended language with respect to fisheries research and development projects supported through

the S-K Grant Program. Among its contents, the bill would have amended current language to

focus research and development projects to areas including “harvesting, processing, packaging,

marketing, and associated infrastructures.” Additionally, the bill would have expanded the S-K

Grant Program to include the marketing and promoted consumption of

•

local or domestic marine fishery products,

“environmentally and climate-friendly” marine fishery products that minimize

and avoid bycatch and impacts to marine mammals,87

invasive species, or

“well-managed” but less known species.

Further, another section of the bill would have directed the Secretary of Commerce, acting

through the NOAA Administrator, to prioritize the S-K Grant Program when carrying out

programs relating to aquaculture research and development.88

In the 115th Congress, H.R. 6966/S. 3138 would have included similar considerations for the

Secretary to use existing programs, such as the S-K Grant Program, when carrying out an

aquaculture research and development program. Additionally, among its contents, H.R. 1335 in

the 114th Congress would have included a real-time reporting and data collection program for the

Gulf red snapper fishery as a priority for S-K funding and would have allowed the Secretary to

use S-K funding to carry out a cooperative research program in the Gulf and South Atlantic

regions, with priority to data-poor fisheries in those regions.89

87 The MSA, under 16 U.S.C. §1802(2), defines bycatch as “fish which are harvested in a fishery, but which are not

sold or kept for personal use, and includes economic discards and regulatory discards. Such term does not include fish

released alive under a recreational catch and release fishery management program.” Some experts also use the term in

the context of non-targeted protected species (e.g., marine mammals, threatened and endangered species) that may be

captured during fishing practices.

88 The National Aquaculture Act, under 16 U.S.C. §2802(1), defines aquaculture as “the propagation and rearing of

aquatic species in controlled or selected environments, including, but not limited to, ocean ranching (except private

ocean ranching of Pacific salmon for profit in those States where such ranching is prohibited by law).”

89 16 U.S.C. §1867; and NOAA, NMFS, “National Cooperative Research Program,” https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/

sustainable-fisheries/national-cooperative-research-program.

Congressional Research Service

Saltonstall-Kennedy Act: Background and Issues

Appendix. History of Financing Under the

Saltonstall-Kennedy Act

Table A-1. Financing History of the Saltonstall-Kennedy Program

(in thousands of dollars)

Fiscal

Year

Transfer to

P&Da

(nominal $)

Transfer to

P&D

(real $b)

NMFS ORF

Offset

1979

17,436

84,186

5,000

1980

26,700

115,029

1981

35,000

1982

Fisheries

Promotion

Fund

Directed by

Congressc

Remainderd

12,436

5,000

21,700

133,717

17,500

26,200

90,880

10,000

16,200

1983

30,600

100,954

22,600

8,000

1984

33,600

107,778

23,600

10,000

1985

34,900

107,377

25,900

9,000

1986

43,700

130,246

34,100

9,600

1987

57,400

168,597

51,600

750

5,050

1988

56,300

158,195

44,400

2,600

9,300

1989

53,600

144,469

45,600

3,000

5,000

1990

61,900

159,667

55,000

2,000

4,900

1991

70,800

171,817

60,900

2,000

7,900

1992

64,100

151,142

63,100

1,000

1993

61,400

140,283

55,000

6,400

1994

61,944

133,738

54,800

7,144

1995

64,765

140,350

55,500

9,265

1996

72,893

153,647

63,000

9,893

1997

66,381

135,855

66,000

381

1998

65,730

131,776

62,380

3,350

1999

66,430

131,230

63,380

3,050

2000

69,920

134,675

68,000

1,920

2001

72,828

135,601

68,000

4,828

2002

79,127

144,261

68,000

11,127

2003

75,220

134,415

65,000

10,000

220

2004

79,724

139,614

62,000

17,250

474

2005

77,539

131,591

65,000

12,000

539

2006

79,284

128,946

67,000

12,000

284

2007

82,816

132,955

79,000

3,816

2008

84,594

131,171

77,000

7,594

Congressional Research Service

Saltonstall-Kennedy Act: Background and Issues

Fiscal

Year

Transfer to

P&Da

(nominal $)

Transfer to

P&D

(real $b)

NMFS ORF

Offset

2009

108,510

162,324

79,000

2010

113,371

169,905

2011

90,239

2012

Fisheries

Promotion

Fund

Directed by

Congressc

Remainderd

29,510

104,600

8,771

133,671

90,239

109,098

156,104

109,098

2013

130,236

182,405

119,064

11,172

2014

127,187

176,434

115,000

12,187

2015

142,615

194,597

116,000

26,615

2016

146,389

199,407

130,164

16,225

2017

145,073

194,433

130,164

14,909

2018

154,664

203,141

144,000

10,664

2019

158,406

202,937

157,980

426

2020

182,783

230,108

174,774

8,009

2021

258,171

321,218

246,171

12,000

2022

254,160

297,704

243,532

10,628

2023

356,401

387,452

344,901

11,500

2024

376,522

396,476

369,522

7,000

2025

345,294

N/A

Sources: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Budget Office, 2020, January 20, 2020;

NOAA, Budget Office, FY2007–FY2019, December 2, 2019; NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS),

The Saltonstall-Kennedy Grant Program: Fisheries Research and Development, Report 2008, August 1, 2008, p. 4;

NOAA, NMFS, The Saltonstall-Kennedy Grant Program, Fisheries Research and Development, Report 2001, August

1, 2001, p. 8; NOAA, NMFS, The Saltonstall-Kennedy Grant Program: Fisheries Research and Development, Report

1991-1992, 1992, p. 3; NOAA, NMFS, The Saltonstall-Kennedy Grant Program: Fisheries Research and Development,

Report 1987-1990, 1990, p. 3; NOAA, NMFS, The Saltonstall-Kennedy Grant Program, Fisheries Research and

Development, Report 1982-1986, 1986, p. 2; NOAA, “Budget and Reports,” https://www.noaa.gov/organization/

budget-finance-performance/budget-and-reports; U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), “Congressional

Justifications,” https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/general-information/staff-offices/office-budget-and-programanalysis/congressional-justifications; and U.S. Government Accountability Office, Uses of Saltonstall/Kennedy

Fisheries Development Funds, RCED-85-145, August 30, 1985, pp. 1-64, https://www.gao.gov/products/rced-85145.

Notes: N/A = Not available; ORF = NOAA Operations, Research, and Facilities account; P&D = NOAA

Promote and Develop American Fisheries Products and Research Pertaining to American Fisheries Fund. Some

values are rounded based on earlier reporting.

a. Balance of funds transferred from USDA to NOAA and other reported financing in NOAA budget

justifications. For FY2025, the value only reflects total funds transferred from USDA to NOAA, as included

in USDA budget justifications. No additional information regarding FY2025 P&D funding, or associated ORF

offset and remainder of funds, was included in the FY2026 NOAA budget justification.

b. Real dollars (2025 USD) calculated using the Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index,

https://www.bls.gov/cpi/.

c. Funding appropriated by Congress to seafood marketing boards and programs in FY2003, P.L. 108-7;

FY2004, P.L. 108-199; FY2005, P.L. 108-447, and FY2006, P.L. 109-108.

d. Remainder includes funds used for the Saltonstall-Kennedy Grant Program, the National Program, and

administrative costs.

Congressional Research Service

Saltonstall-Kennedy Act: Background and Issues

Author Information

Anthony R. Marshak

Analyst in Natural Resources Policy

Acknowledgments

Harold F. Upton, Analyst in Natural Resources Policy (retired), wrote the original version of this report.

Disclaimer

This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan

shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and

under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other

than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in

connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not

subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in

its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or

material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to

copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service

R46335 · VERSION 8 · UPDATED

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.