Rhode Island Is Trying to Block Illegal Foreign Seafood From U.S. Markets – The Bill Just Advanced in the Legislature.

You can get a pretty good idea of what American fishing is like by standing on the docks at the Port of New Bedford on any given morning. You can see the crews offloading catch that will end up on plates from Boston to San Francisco, weathered boats arriving in heavy loads, and the smell of salt and diesel. It’s unglamorous, physically demanding work. And for years, the people who do it have been quietly losing ground to something they cannot see: fleets of foreign ships operating far out at sea, circumventing environmental regulations, disobeying quotas, and, in certain situations, engaging in what amounts to forced labor operations on board.

Congress’s most recent attempt to address that issue is the Fighting Foreign Illegal Seafood Harvest Act, or FISH Act. And it’s moving this time. The bill was unanimously passed by the Senate back in March and then by the House Natural Resources Committee on April 21. It’s not as common as it seems. These days, bipartisan agreement on anything in Washington is something to take note of. There’s a feeling that the political will has finally materialized.

The law focuses on illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing, or what the industry refers to as IUU fishing. It would order NOAA to create a blacklist of foreign ships found to be involved in these activities, prohibit those ships from entering American ports and waters, and approve sanctions against those involved in the operations. Additionally, it mandates that the administration take IUU fishing into account in any future international trade agreements and pushes the U.S. Coast Guard to increase its at-sea inspections. It’s a multi-layered strategy, and to be honest, considering how challenging it is to pursue this issue over a vast ocean, that complexity seems appropriate.

Representative Seth Magaziner, who co-leads the House version alongside Representatives Dan Crenshaw of Texas and Nick Begich of Alaska, has been straightforward about the true nature of this bill. During the April markup, he stated, “They’re just asking for a level playing field,” referring to the Rhode Island fishing communities he represents. The bill has likely gained support from both parties thanks to its framing, which calls for fair rules rather than special treatment. It’s difficult to argue against it without coming across as supporting the bad actors.

The complexity of the supply chain by the time illicit seafood reaches American consumers makes combating IUU fishing especially challenging. A fish that is illegally caught off the coast of one nation is processed in another, labeled differently, combined with legal products, and sold in a market thousands of miles away. At the grocery store, nobody is aware of it. Although it’s still unclear if even a strictly enforced blacklist can completely resolve that, making one is at the very least a significant first step.

The National Fisheries Institute and the conservation organization Oceana, which usually disagree on many issues, have both endorsed the bill. This alignment implies that rather than serving specific industry interests, the FISH Act is addressing something truly significant. According to Beth Lowell of Oceana, illegal fishing depletes oceans, takes advantage of workers, and floods markets with seafood that is too expensive for law-abiding fishermen to compete with.

Before the bill reaches the president’s desk, it must still pass the entire House. It was first introduced in 2022, but it has never quite succeeded. As this endeavor develops, there is a cautious optimism that things could be different this time. The Senate version was sponsored by Senator Dan Sullivan of Alaska, who stated simply, “We’re going to get this over the goal line.” The real question at hand is whether the entire House moves swiftly or allows momentum to stall once more.