Saltonstall-Kennedy Act:
July 14, 2020
Background and Issues
Harold F. Upton
The Saltonstall-Kennedy (S-K) Act of 1954 (15 U.S.C. §713c-3) established a program to
Analyst in Natural
provide financial support for research and development of commercial fisheries. The S-K Act
Resources Policy
created a fund (known as the S-K fund) that is financed by a permanent appropriation of a portion

of import duties on marine 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, including but not

limited to harvesting, processing, marketing, and associated infrastructure. However, Congress
allocates most funding to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to fund agency activities related to marine fisheries
research and management. Some have questioned whether the allocation of S-K funds reflects the original intent of the S-K
Act and whether the S-K Grant Program addresses the needs and priorities of the fishing industry.
Since its creation, the S-K fund’s authorizing language and priorities have evolved with changes to the fishing industry, new
or amended federal laws governing fisheries management, and changing federal agency responsibilities. In 1980, the
American Fisheries Promotion Act (AFPA) 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. Both programs are administered by NMFS, part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA). In the 1980s, the S-K Grant Program focused on fisheries development, but in subsequent years, as
U.S. fisheries became fully or overexploited, priorities generally shifted to resource conservation and management. The S-K
Grant Program has supported a variety of different projects, such as gear technology research, seafood marketing,
aquaculture, and others.
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 1980 to $182.8 million in 2020. 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 for supporting 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 112th, 113th, and 114th Congresses, bills were introduced that would have used most S-K funds to establish a
regional fisheries grant program. By contrast, some have expressed concerns that if significant funding is 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 fish populations.
Some also have questioned whether the S-K Grant Program could be modified to provide the fishing industry with more
direct input into the S-K grant process. Currently, NMFS, in consultation with the fishing industry, identifies S-K Grant
Program priorities and selects the recipients of S-K grants. Over the last several Congresses, bills have been introduced that
would change the procedure for screening, evaluating, and awarding S-K grants. In the 116th Congress, the American
Fisheries Advisory Committee Act (H.R. 1218 and S. 494) would establish an industry advisory committee to identify the
needs of the fishing industry, develop requests for proposals, review grant applications, and select grant applications for
approval. S. 494 was reported on August 16, 2019, by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation; on
June 6, 2020, H.R. 1218 was reported by the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Congressional Research Service

link to page 5 Saltonstall-Kennedy Act: Background and Issues

Introduction
The Saltonstal -Kennedy (S-K) Act of 1954 (15 U.S.C. §713c-3) established a fund (known as the
S-K fund) to support U.S. fisheries development and research. Funding 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 mil ion in 1980 to $182.8 mil ion in 2020.
Currently, the bulk of P&D account revenue is transferred into the Operations, Research, and
Faculties (ORF) account, which supports fisheries science and management administered by
NMFS.2 The remaining funds support the Saltonstal -Kennedy Grant Program (S-K Grant
Program) and sometimes the National Program, which focus on fishing industry research and
development projects.
Historical y, the use of the S-K fund has evolved with changing fisheries management institutions
and changing needs of U.S. fisheries.3 Congress is continuing to consider whether current funding
from the P&D account meets the needs of U.S. fisheries and the U.S. fishing industry. Some have
questioned whether the U.S. commercial fishing industry receives sufficient opportunities to
provide input into the S-K competitive grant process.4 Due in part to what they perceive as a lack
of industry input, some critics assert that NMFS has not distributed funding in accordance with
the primary purposes of the S-K Act, such as supporting projects related to the marketing of fish.5
Another concern is the al ocation of funds, and specifical y 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 account.6 However, if funding were real ocated to provide
greater support of the S-K Grant Program, Congress 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. Figure 1 summarizes the flow of funding
from the P&D account into NOAA and the S-K program.

1 NMFS is also known as National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries.
2 T he ORF account, NOAA’s largest, funds a portion of all of NOAA’s line office budgets, including the National
Weather Service; National Ocean Service; Oceanic and At mospheric Research; NMFS; National Environmental
Satellite, Data, and Information Service; and the Office of Marine and Aviation Operations.
3 T he Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (P.L. 94-265) 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, recreat ional, and economic characteristics; and (B) any fishing for such
stocks.”
4 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.
5 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and T ransportation, American Fisheries Advisory
Com m ittee Act, committee print, prepared by Committee on Commerce, Science, and T ransportation, 115 th Cong., 1st
sess., December 11, 2017, p. 2.
6 “Senators Kerry and Snowe Will Introduce Bill to Restore Intent of Saltonstall-Kennedy Act,” Saving Seafood, March
9, 2012.
Congressional Research Service
1

Saltonstall-Kennedy Act: Background and Issues

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

Source: Adapted from NOAA Fisheries, Saltonstal -Kennedy Research Program, Presentation provided to New
England Fishery Management Council, December 6, 2018, at https://s3.amazonaws.com/nefmc.org/7_NE-Council-
Presentation_Feedback-Sessions-Final.pdf.
Notes: NMFS = National Marine Fisheries Service; Saltonstal -Kennedy (S-K) Act of 1954 (15 U.S.C. §713c-3).
The Saltonstall-Kennedy Act
Current Provisions
The S-K Act requires the Secretary of Agriculture to transfer 30% of duties on marine products
collected under the so-cal ed Section 32 Program to the Secretary of Commerce.7 These funds are
transferred into the P&D account and made available to NMFS. Currently, the uses of S-K funds
as specified in 15 U.S.C. 713c-3 include the following:8
 providing grants in support of fisheries research and development projects under
subsection (c),
 implementing a national fisheries research and development program under
subsection (d),
 implementing the Northwest Atlantic Ocean Fisheries Reinvestment Program,
and
 funding the federal share of a fisheries capacity reduction fund.

7 T he 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.
8 15 U.S.C. §713c-3(c) and (d).
Congressional Research Service
2

link to page 8 Saltonstall-Kennedy Act: Background and Issues

The S-K Act requires the Secretary of Commerce to use no less than 60% of funds to make direct
industry-assistance grants pursuant to subsection (c). Subsection (c) refers to topics that may be
addressed by research and development grants, including but not limited to harvesting,
processing, marketing, and associated infrastructures. Subsection (c) also identifies the terms and
conditions of grant awards.
The S-K Act requires the balance of S-K funds to be al ocated to finance NMFS activities that
support development of U.S. fisheries pursuant to subsection (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 deems appropriate.
History of the Saltonstall-Kennedy Act
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 al duties collected under customs laws.9 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 mil ion 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.10 Table 1 provides a history of legislative
changes to the S-K Act.
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.11 The S-K Act authorized the transfer from
the Secretary of Agriculture to the Secretary of the Interior, from the larger Section 32 account’s
funding, an amount equal to 30% of gross receipts from duties collected on fishery products.12
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 mil ion,
and the balance of the fund was not al owed to exceed $5 mil ion at the end of any year. In 1956,
the S-K Act was amended to remove the limit on annual expenditures from the fund. 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.13
In 1976, the Fishery Conservation and Management Act (FCMA; P.L. 94-265) established a 200-
nautical mile fishery conservation zone (FCZ) and brought marine fisheries within the FCZ under
domestic control.14 Foreign fishing was al owed to continue in the FCZ, but the domestic fishing

9 T he Act of August 24, 1935, Chapter 641, §32; 7 U.S.C. §612c. See CRS Report RL34081, Farm and Food Support
Under USDA’s Section 32 Program , coordinated by Jim Monke.
10 Act of August 11, 1939, Chapter 696; 15 U.S.C. §713c-2. T he Act of 1939 authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to
transfer these funds to the Federal Surplus Commodities Corporation under the Section 32 program.
11 Act of July 1, 1954, Chapter 447; 15 U.S.C. §713c-3.
12 Products included fish, shellfish, mollusks, crustaceans, aquatic plants and animals, and any products thereof,
including processed and manufactured products.
13 Act of July 1, 1954, Chapter 447, §2(c).
14 On March 10, 1983, President Reagan issued Proclamation 5030, which established the 200-nautical mile exclusive
Congressional Research Service
3

link to page 16 link to page 16 link to page 8 link to page 16 Saltonstall-Kennedy Act: Background and Issues

industry was granted priority fishing rights under the FCMA.15 In the following years, U.S. policy
emphasized development of domestic fisheries and replacement of foreign fishing with domestic
fishing in the FCZ.16 According to the Government Accountability Office, until 1979, NMFS used
nearly al S-K funds to support fisheries management and development activities; it granted only
smal amounts to the fishing industry for development projects.17 In 1979, likely because of
growing industry support of domestic fisheries development, NMFS made available
approximately $5.3 mil ion of S-K funds to regional fisheries development foundations,
universities, private industry, and state and local governments.18
In 1980, Congress formal y 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 mil ion (Table A-
1). The AFPA also formal y transferred responsibility for administering the fund from the
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.19 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).20
In subsequent years, Congress made additional changes to the al ocation 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 domestical y produced seafood. A portion of S-K
funds was transferred to the fund from FY1987 to FY1991 for this purpose (Table A-1).21

economic zone (EEZ). T he 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.
15 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.
16 T he 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.
17 U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), Uses of Saltonstall-Kennedy Fisheries Development Funds, August
30, 1985, at 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.
18 GAO, 1985.
19 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, American Fisheries Promotion Act, to
accompany H.R. 7039, 96th Cong., 2nd sess., June 26, 1980, H. Rept. 96-1138, p. 39.
20 5 U.S.C. App., Section 14 of 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 is otherwise provided by law.
21 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
4

Saltonstall-Kennedy Act: Background and Issues

Table 1. History of Legislation Related to the Saltonstall-Kennedy Act
Year
Act
Brief Description
1935
Act of August 24, 1935, Chapter
Established a permanent appropriation (§32) to set aside 30%
641, Section 32
of annual customs receipts; supported the farm sector by
purchasing surplus commodities and funding a variety of other
activities.
1939
Act of August 11, 1939 (P.L. 76-
Authorized the purchase and distribution of surplus fishery
392), Chapter 696, Section 1
products with funding of up to $1.5 mil ion per year.
1954
Act of July 1, 1954 (Saltonstal -
Required U.S. Department of Agriculture to transfer to the
Kennedy Act), Chapter 447
Department of Commerce 30% of duties on marine products
to fund U.S. fisheries and limited expenditures to no more
than $3 mil ion per year.
1956
Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, Act Removed limitation on annual expenditures.
of August 8, 1956, Chapter 1036,
Section 12(b)
1980
American Fisheries Act (P.L. 96-
Authorized competitive grants and national fisheries research
561), Title II, Section 210
and development programs; directed that at least 50% of
funds be used for competitive grant program, with the
balance for the National Program.
1983
Highway Improvement Act of
Increased competitive grant share to at least 60% of funds;
1982 (P.L. 97-424), Title IV,
stipulated that S-K funds were to be used exclusively for
Section 423(a)
promoting U.S. fisheries.
1986
Fish and Seafood Promotion Act
Expanded authorized uses of S-K funds to include the
of 1986 (P.L. 99-659), Title II,
Fisheries Promotion Fund for several years.
Section 209(e)
1992
National Oceanic and
Expanded authorized uses of S-K funds to include
Atmospheric Administration
implementation of the Northwest Atlantic Ocean Fisheries
Authorization Act of 1992 (P.L.
Reinvestment Program.
102-567), Title IX, Section 902(c)
1996
Sustainable Fisheries Act (P.L.
Expanded authorized uses of S-K funds to include the federal
104-297), Title I, Section 116(c)
share of a fishing capacity reduction program.
2013
Consolidated and Further
Restricted the use of the Promote and Develop Fisheries
Continuing Appropriations Act,
Products funds transferred to the Operations, Research, and
2013 (P.L. 113-6), Title I
Facilities account to cooperative research, annual stock
assessments, data col ection, interjurisdictional fisheries
grants, and fisheries information networks. Subsequent
appropriations acts have adopted similar language.
Source: CRS.
Revenue
The revenues that are transferred into the P&D account from USDA are derived from duties on
fishery products, “including fish, shel fish, mollusks, crustaceans, aquatic plants and animals, and
any products thereof, including processed and manufactured products.”22 The P&D account is a
mandatory fund that requires no periodic reauthorization or appropriation.23 Transfers from

22 Duties are collected by calendar year but not appropriated for use until the subsequent fiscal year (i.e., collect ions
from CY2012 would be appropriated in FY2014).
23 When funds from the 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
Congressional Research Service
5

link to page 9 link to page 16

Saltonstall-Kennedy Act: Background and Issues

USDA to NOAA’s P&D account have steadily increased from $26.7 mil ion in 1980 to $182.8
mil ion in 2020 (Figure 2).24 In CY2017, approximately 77% of revenues were from duties
collected on imports of nonedible marine products, including jewelry, ink, various chemicals, and
skins.25 The remaining 23% of revenues were from duties on imports of edible seafood products.
Tariffs on edible fish products have been reduced or eliminated for many seafood products, and
most remaining duties are collected on canned products such as tuna or processed products such
as fish sticks. In CY2017, most duties were collected on imports from India ($89.9 mil ion),
China ($86.2 mil ion), Thailand ($79.8 mil ion), Italy ($53.2 mil ion), and France ($36.2
mil ion).26
Figure 2. Total Funds Transferred From USDA and Funds Transferred to Operations,
Research, and Facilities (ORF)
(FY1979 to FY2019)

Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Budget Office, Email, January 20, 2020;
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Saltonstal -Kennedy Grant Program: Fisheries Research and Development
Reports 2008, 2001, 1991-1992, 1987-1990, and 1982-1986.
Notes: USDA = U.S. Department of Agriculture. For a detailed account of funding, see Table A-1.

Program are identified in law and used by NOAA as mandatory funding.
24 According to NOAA’s FY2021budget request, a legislative proposal is being developed to appropriate mandatory
funding to the Department of Commerce directly rather than as a transfer from USDA. T his change would be part of a
broader reform of the USDA Section 32 program.
25 NOAA Ocean and Coastal Budget Formulation and Communication, NOAA Budget Office, July 12, 2018. For more
information on tariffs on fish products, see Chapters 3 and 16 of the Harmonized T ariff Schedule, at
https://hts.usitc.gov/current.
26 NOAA Ocean and Coastal Budget Formulation and Communication, NOAA Budget Office, July 12, 2018.
Congressional Research Service
6

link to page 12 link to page 12 link to page 12 link to page 16 link to page 16 Saltonstall-Kennedy Act: Background and Issues

Use of Funds
Operations, Research, and Facilities Account
Congress has al ocated 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 mil ion, or 29% of the P&D account in 1979, to over $130 mil ion in
the five most recent years (FY2016-FY2020), which is more than 90% of the annual transfer into
the P&D account (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.”27 Often the al ocation of most funds to the OFR account limits the funding that is
available for the specified purposes of the S-K Act.
In the last three fiscal years (FY2018-FY2020), the NOAA budget request proposed that al P&D
account funding be transferred to the ORF account in support of NMFS activities. However, the
Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 (P.L. 113-6), restricted the use of
P&D funds that are transferred into the ORF account. 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.28
Remaining Funding
In most years, the majority of the 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
(c) of the S-K Act and the National Program as described in subsection (d) (Table 2).29 The
amount of remaining funding for the S-K Grant Program has varied considerably from year to
year, ranging from no funding in FY2011 and FY2012, when Congress did not leave any
remaining funding for S-K program, to its highest level of $29.5 mil ion in FY2009 (Table 2).
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 Secretary also is required 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 significantly lower in most years. In many years, Congress did not
fund the National Program or provided a smal portion of the remaining funds for that purpose.
Historical y, financial support also was provided for the Fisheries Promotion Fund, which was
funded between $750,000 and $3 mil ion from FY1987 to FY1990. (Table A-1). No funding has
been provided for the Fisheries Promotion Fund since 1991. From FY2003 to FY2006, most
funding remaining after the ORF transfer was used for congressional y directed projects that
supported several regional seafood marketing initiatives (Table A-1).30 Annual S-K reports and

27 NOAA, NMFS, The Saltonstall-Kennedy Grant Program: Fisheries Research and Development Report, 2011.
28 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. 115-141, P.L. 116-6,
and P.L. 116-93 included the S-K Grant Program, fishery data collection, surveys and assessments, and
interjurisdictional fisheries.
29 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.
30 S-K funds also 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.
Congressional Research Service
7

Saltonstall-Kennedy Act: Background and Issues

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.
Saltonstall-Kennedy Grant Program
According to NMFS, the S-K program’s general goals 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. Historical y,
examples of areas funded by the S-K Grant Program have included 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,
but other sectors—such as aquaculture and recreational fishing—also have been eligible for and
received support.
NMFS solicits proposals as a federal funding opportunity on the federal grants website, which
includes funding priorities, application requirements, and proposal evaluation criteria. Funding
priorities are developed in coordination with regional fishery management councils, interstate
fishery commissions, NMFS science centers, and NMFS regional offices. For example in 2020,
S-K program priorities are seafood promotion, development, and marketing, and science or
technology that promotes sustainable U.S. seafood production and harvesting.31
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
NOAA staff, a review by subject matter experts, and S-K program evaluation. Full review
includes administrative screening; technical review by federal, public, and private sector experts;
and funding recommendations by program and NMFS leadership. NMFS also may solicit
comments and evaluation from a constituent review panel composed of three or more
representatives chosen by the NMFS assistant administrator of fisheries.32
Funding of proposals is recommended by the S-K program manager; constituent panel ranking (if
applicable); and input from NMFS regional directors, science center directors, and office
directors. The agency selecting official, the NMFS assistant administrator, determines which
proposals wil be funded. The decision is based on the order of the proposals’ ranking and other
considerations, such as availability of funding, balance and distribution of funds, and
duplication.33 Recently, NMFS has been considering whether the program and fishing industry
would benefit from placing greater emphasis on monitoring approved projects and disseminating
results. 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.34

31 NOAA Fisheries, “ Saltonstall-Kennedy Grant Program: Funding Opportunities,” December 2019, at
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/grant/saltonstall-kennedy-grant-program.
32 Panelists are chosen from the fishing industry, state government, nongovernmental organizations, and others.
33 NMFS, “ FY20 Saltonstall-Kennedy Competition,” May 31, 2019, at https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/search-
grants.ht ml?keywords=saltonstall (search in “ Archived” status).
34 Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, “Saltonstall-Kennedy Grant Program - Public Feedback Webinar,” press
release, June 14, 2019, at http://www.mafmc.org/council-events/2019/saltonstall-kennedy-grant-program-public-
feedback-webinar.
Congressional Research Service
8

link to page 12 Saltonstall-Kennedy Act: Background and Issues

Table 2. Requested and Enacted ORF Transfers and S-K Grant Funding
(funding in thousands of dol ars)
Request ORF
Request S-K Grant
Enacted ORF
Remaining Funding
Year
Transfer
Funding
Transfer
for S-K 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
0
2012
66,200
5,000
109,098
0
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
0
144,000
10,664
2019
154,868
0
157,980
426
2020
158,407
0
174,774
8,009
Sources: NOAA, Budget Office, Email, January 20, 2020; NOAA, Budget Office, Email, December 2, 2019.
a. Includes the S-K Grant Program, National Program, and NMFS administrative costs.
Issues for Congress
Some fishing industry representatives have questioned whether the U.S. commercial fishing
industry and fishing communities could benefit from greater direct support from S-K funding.
Two of the main concerns have been whether the competitive grant process should include greater
fishing industry input and whether a greater portion of P&D funds should be al ocated to the
annual S-K Grant Program. Some assert 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.35 They contend that broader, more direct fishing industry participation is needed to inform
the process of identifying the needs and priorities of grant funding.
Another concern has been whether a greater portion of P&D funding should be al ocated to the S-
K Grant Program.36 Some contend that Congress, as reflected in statute, intended to provide at
least 60% of funds to the S-K Grant Program and remaining funding to the National Program for
fishing industry research and development.37 However, 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.

35 Senator Dan Sullivan, “Sullivan Applauds Senate Passage of American Fisheries Advisory Committee Act,” press
release, July 28, 2018.
36 Leslie T aylor, “Opinion: Don’t Be Fooled by NOAA Grants Increase,” October 24, 2014.
37 Senator Kerry, “Introduction of S. 2184,” Congressional Record, daily edition, March 12, 2012, p. S1579.
Congressional Research Service
9

Saltonstall-Kennedy Act: Background and Issues

Congressional Actions
Funding Allocation
Several bil s were introduced during the 112th, 113th, and 114th Congresses that would have
significantly changed the al ocation of P&D funding. Similar versions of the Fisheries Investment
and Regulatory Relief Act in each of these Congresses would have al ocated funding to fisheries
management regions and would have established a regional fisheries grant program.38 Under
these bil s, each regional fishery management council would have established a fishery
investment committee, which would focus resources on strengthening regional fisheries
management.39 Each fishery investment committee would have
 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 wel as corresponding actions to rebuild and maintain fish populations and
associated fisheries. Each regional investment plan would have been required to include topics
related to
 supporting stock surveys, stock assessments, and cooperative fishery research;
 improving the collection and accuracy of recreational and commercial data;
 analyzing social and economic impacts of fishery management decisions;
 providing financial assistance and investment for fishermen and fishing
communities;
 developing methods or technologies to improve the quality and value of landings;
 researching and developing conservation engineering technologies; and
 restoring and protecting fish habitat.40
Investment plans would have been reviewed by the Secretary of Commerce to ensure consistency
with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. §§1801 et
seq.). Limited funding also would have been provided for administrative costs of the grant
program and for the development and implementation of investment plans.
Under these versions of the Fisheries Investment and Regulatory Relief Act, the Secretary of
Commerce also would have established 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. The Secretary would have been required

38 T he 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.
39 Regional fishery management councils were established under the Fishery Conservation and Management Act
(currently known as the Magnuson-Stevens Act) to develop fishery management plans that conserve and manage
fisheries in federal waters.
40 Research priority plans are developed by regional fishery management councils according to 16 U.S.C. §1852(h)(7).
Congressional Research Service
10

Saltonstall-Kennedy Act: Background and Issues

to al ocate 70% of funds from the P&D account to the eight council regions. Half of this funding
would have been al ocated equal y 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. Funding would have been divided equal y among five general areas: (1)
regional fisheries commissions; (2) seafood promotion; (3) fisheries management; (4) fisheries
disasters; and (5) other needs, including highly migratory species and international fisheries. Each
of the bil s 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 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act and to make recommendations to streamline regulations and incorporate
new information into the management process.
Stopping the Transfer to the Operations, Research, and Facilities 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 bil , resolution, amendment, or conference report
that would reduce any amount in the fund (P&D account).41 This change in the Senate and House
rules would have al owed 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 is being violated. No further
action was taken following the introduction of S. 2991.
American Fisheries Advisory Committee Act
In the 116th Congress, identical versions of the American Fisheries Advisory Committee Act (S.
494 and H.R. 1218) were reported from the committees of jurisdiction in the Senate and the
House.42 The bil s would establish an American fisheries advisory committee and would change
the process for awarding S-K competitive grants. The committee would
 identify the needs of the seafood industry;
 develop requests for proposals;
 review grant applications; and
 select grant applications for approval.
Currently, NMFS is responsible for these functions, and NMFS considers industry input during
the selection process. Both bil s also would expand the specified purposes of fisheries research

41 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 Senate is being violated. If the chair sustains the point of order, the action in violation of the rule is
not permitted.
42 S. 494 was reported by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and T ransportation on August 16, 2019, and
H.R. 1218 was reported by the House Committee on Natural Resources on June 4, 2020. Similar versions also were
introduced in previous Congresses, including S. 3087, reported in the 114th Congress; S. 1322, passed the Senate in the
115th Congress; and H.R. 5775, introduced in the 114th Congress; and H.R. 214, introduced in the 115th Congress.
Congressional Research Service
11

Saltonstall-Kennedy Act: Background and Issues

and development projects by explicitly including projects that focus on fisheries science and
recreational fishing.43
The committee would be composed of representatives from six geographic regions of the United
States.44 The Secretary of Commerce would appoint 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 growing seafood, and (3) an individual who
represents the fisheries science community or the relevant regional fishery management council.
The Secretary also would appoint 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.45 The committee members would meet twice annual y, and
meetings would rotate among the six regions.
The Secretary of Commerce would identify three or more experts to undertake technical review
of grant applications, which would occur prior to committee review. The Secretary also would be
required to develop guidance related to technical review, including criteria for elimination of
applications that fail to meet a minimum level of technical merit. A grant would not be approved
unless the Secretary was satisfied with the applicant’s technical and financial capability. Based on
the committee’s recommendations, the Secretary would evaluate the proposed project according
to listed criteria and other criteria the Secretary may require. If the Secretary fails to provide
funds to a grant selected by the committee, the Secretary would be required to send a written
document to the committee justifying the decision.

43 Projects related to recreational fisheries and science historically have been included, but these projects are not
explicitly considered in the statute.
44 Region 1 would include Alaska and the Western Pacific, including Hawaii, the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands, and the territories of Guam and American Samoa. Region 2 would include Connecticut, Rhode Island,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Maine. Region 3 would include T exas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida,
Arkansas, Puerto Rico, and the T erritory of the U.S. Virgin Islands. Region 4 would include California, Oregon,
Washington, and Idaho. Region 5 would include New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North
Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. Region 6 would include Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana,
Ohio, and Pennsylvania.
45 Individuals with experience in recreational and commercial supply chains are defined as fishermen, manufacturers,
retailers, and distributers.
Congressional Research Service
12

link to page 17 link to page 17 link to page 17 link to page 17 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 dol ars)
Fiscal
Transfer to
Transfer to
NMFS ORF
Fisheries
Directed by
P&Da
P&D
Promotion
Year
(nominal $)
(real $b)
Offset
Fund
Congressc
Remainderd
1979
17,436
51,373
5,000
0
0
12.436
1980
26,679
72,265
5,000
0
0
21,697
1981
35,000
86,368
17,500
0
0
17,500
1982
26,200
60,433
10,000
0
0
16,200
1983
30,600
67,635
22,600
0
0
8,000
1984
33,600
71,705
23,600
0
0
10,000
1985
34,900
72,066
25,900
0
0
9,000
1986
43,700
88,241
34,100
0
0
9,600
1987
57,400
113,413
51,600
750
0
5,050
1988
56,300
107,701
44,400
2,600
0
9,300
1989
53,600
98,594
45,600
3,000
0
5,000
1990
61,900
109,813
55,000
2,000
0
4,900
1991
70,800
121,286
60,900
2,000
0
7,900
1992
64,100
107,116
63,100
0
0
1,000
1993
61,400
100,264
55,000
0
0
6,400
1994
61,944
98,985
54,800
0
0
7,144
1995
64,765
101,344
55,500
0
0
9,265
1996
72,893
111,947
63,000
0
0
9,893
1997
66,381
100,168
66,000
0
0
381
1998
65,730
97,967
62,380
0
0
3.350
1999
66,430
97,731
63,380
0
0
3,050
2000
69,920
100,807
68,000
0
0
1,920
2001
72,828
102,629
68,000
0
0
4,828
2002
79,127
109,709
68,000
0
0
11,127
2003
75,220
102,438
65,000
0
10,000
220
2004
79,724
106,016
62,000
0
17,250
474
2005
77,539
100,048
65,000
0
12,000
539
2006
79,284
99,143
67,000
0
12,000
284
2007
82,816
100,836
79,000
0
0
3,816
2008
84,594
100,884
77,000
0
0
7,594
Congressional Research Service
13

link to page 17 link to page 17 link to page 17 link to page 17 Saltonstall-Kennedy Act: Background and Issues

Transfer to
Transfer to
Fisheries
Fiscal
NMFS ORF
Directed by
Year
P&Da
P&D
Offset
Promotion
Congressc
Remainderd
(nominal $)
(real $b)
Fund
2009
108,511
127,897
79,001
0
0
29,510
2010
113,371
132,514
104,600
0
0
8,771
2011
90,239
103,425
90,239
0
0
0
2012
109,098
122,701
109,098
0
0
0
2013
130,236
143,849
119,064
0
0
11,172
2014
127,187
137,862
115,000
0
0
12,187
2015
142,615
152,731
116,000
0
0
26,615
2016
146,389
155,377
130,164
0
0
16,225
2017
145,073
151,359
130,164
0
0
14,909
2018
154,664
157,646
144,000
0
0
10,664
2019
158,406
158,406
157,980
0
0
426
2020
182,783
182,783
174,774
0
0
8,009
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 Saltonstal -Kennedy Grant Program: Fisheries Research and Development, Report 2008, August 1, 2008, p. 4;
NOAA, NMFS, The Saltonstal -Kennedy Grant Program, Fisheries Research and Development, Report 2001, August
1, 2001, p. 8; NOAA, NMFS, The Saltonstal -Kennedy Grant Program: Fisheries Research and Development, Report
1991-1992, 1992, p. 3; NOAA, NMFS, The Saltonstal -Kennedy Grant Program: Fisheries Research and Development,
Report 1987-1990, 1990, p. 3; NOAA, NMFS, The Saltonstal -Kennedy Grant Program, Fisheries Research and
Development, Report 1982-1986, 1986, p. 2.
a. Funds transferred from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to NOAA.
b. Real dol ars calculated from Bureau of Economic Analysis, GDP deflator, Table 1.1.7.
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 Saltonstal -Kennedy Grant Program, the National Program, and
administrative costs.

Author Information

Harold F. Upton

Analyst in Natural Resources Policy

Congressional Research Service
14

Saltonstall-Kennedy Act: Background and Issues

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 n ot 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 4 · UPDATED
15