This bill amends the federal grant programs that fund fishing-industry safety training and fishing-safety research. It broadens program scope to include behavioral and physical health risks and updates how grants are awarded and funded.
Why it matters: the amendment directs new federal grant resources toward worker health and wellness in commercial fishing, changes program administration language to center competitive awards with Coast Guard consultation, and provides a multi-year authorization intended to expand training and research capacity for a high-risk industry.
At a Glance
What It Does
SB3225 revises 46 U.S.C. 4502 to require that fishing-safety training grants and fishing-safety research grants address behavioral and physical health risks, explicitly naming substance use disorder and worker fatigue. It also requires that awards be made on a competitive basis and that selection criteria be developed in consultation with the Commandant of the Coast Guard. The bill replaces an outdated funding line with an authorization of $6,000,000 per year directed to the Secretary of Health and Human Services for fiscal years 2025–2029.
Who It Affects
Commercial fishing vessel operators and crewmembers (who are the focus of expanded training and research topics); entities that apply for training or research grants (universities, public-health organizations, training providers, regional fishery associations); the Department of Health and Human Services (as the recipient of the authorized funds); and the U.S. Coast Guard (as a consultative partner on grant criteria).
Why It Matters
The measure integrates behavioral-health issues into federally supported maritime safety work, creates new grant funding over multiple years, and changes the grant selection framework to be explicitly competitive with Coast Guard input—shifting some program emphasis toward public-health models and away from solely operational or equipment-focused safety training.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB3225 makes three kinds of changes to the statute that authorizes federal support for fishing-safety training and research. First, it expands the subject matter those grants are supposed to support: training and applied research must now address both behavioral and physical health risks faced by fishing-industry workers.
The text names substance use disorder and worker fatigue as examples, signaling that applicants should propose programs and studies that target those problems alongside traditional safety topics.
Second, the bill clarifies how grants are awarded. Where the statute previously tied award criteria to the Commandant of the Coast Guard, the amendment requires grants to be awarded on a competitive basis and directs that the criteria for awarding grants be developed in consultation with the Commandant.
That change retains Coast Guard input but frames selection as competitive and places criteria development in a consultative—not directive—role for the Coast Guard.Third, SB3225 updates the financing line in the statute. It removes a single-year ($3,000,000 for 2023) reference and replaces it with an explicit multi-year authorization directing $6,000,000 annually to the Secretary of Health and Human Services for each fiscal year from 2025 through 2029.
Because the money is tied to HHS in the statutory text, grant administration practices and review models typical to HHS (peer review, public-health metrics, reporting requirements) are likely to influence how programs are run.Taken together, these changes push the fishing-safety grant programs toward a public-health framing (behavioral health plus physical safety), formalize competitive grantmaking with Coast Guard consultation, and increase authorized resources over a five-year window. The statute-level edits are surgical rather than sweeping: they change priority language, the award framework, and the funding authorization rather than creating a new agency or enforcement regime.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill amends section 4502 of title 46, United States Code—the statutory home for the Fishing Safety Training Grants and Fishing Safety Research Grant programs.
It inserts a new subparagraph in subsection (i) requiring training that addresses behavioral and physical health risks, explicitly listing substance use disorder and worker fatigue.
The prior phrasing that tied selection to criteria established by the Commandant of the Coast Guard is removed and replaced with a two-part structure: awards must be competitive, and criteria must be developed in consultation with the Commandant.
The statute’s single-year funding reference is replaced with an authorization directing the Secretary of Health and Human Services to receive $6,000,000 for each fiscal year 2025 through 2029.
Parallel edits are made in subsection (j) so the fishing-safety research grant program is given the same behavioral-health research priority, competitive-award structure, and $6M/year funding authorization.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Gives the bill its name—the 'Fishing Industry Safety, Health, and Wellness Improvement Act of 2025'—which signals that the legislation frames fishing safety in broader health and wellness terms rather than only operational safety fixes.
Training grants: add behavioral health and change award language
Subsection (i) is updated in three places. The bill inserts a new subparagraph requiring safety and prevention training curricula to address behavioral and physical health risks, and explicitly names substance use disorder and worker fatigue. It also rewrites the award-language so grants are made on a competitive basis and requires the development of award criteria in consultation with the Commandant of the Coast Guard (rather than leaving criteria phrasing solely under Commandant-established terms). Finally, it replaces an outdated single-year appropriation reference with a multi-year authorization directing funds to HHS. Practically, applicants will need to show how their training proposals address behavioral-health components and meet competitive peer-review standards aligned with HHS expectations, while coordinating with Coast Guard safety priorities.
Research grants: prioritize behavioral-health research and align funding and selection
The research-grant subsection receives parallel changes. The bill expands research priorities to include understanding and mitigating behavioral and physical health risks (again naming substance use disorder and worker fatigue), mandates competitive award processes with criteria developed in consultation with the Commandant, and authorizes $6M per year to HHS for fiscal years 2025–2029. For researchers and institutions, this signals new funding channels for applied behavioral-health research tied to maritime workplaces and an expectation that studies will be designed to inform prevention and intervention strategies that are operationally relevant to the fishing industry.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Healthcare across all five countries.
Explore Healthcare in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Commercial fishing vessel operators and crewmembers — they are the direct target of expanded training and research priorities, which aim to reduce risk from substance use disorder, fatigue, and other behavioral-health factors that contribute to injuries and fatalities.
- Public-health organizations and researchers focusing on occupational safety — the bill creates a clearer funding stream for behavioral-health interventions and applied research tailored to maritime workforces.
- Training providers and regional fisheries associations — they gain new grant-eligible topics to develop programs (behavioral health, fatigue management, SUD prevention) and can compete for multi-year federal funding.
- Communities and families in fishing-dependent regions — improved training and research can translate into fewer accidents and better access to behavioral-health supports in remote coastal areas.
Who Bears the Cost
- Federal budget / taxpayers — the bill increases the authorized appropriation to $6M per year for five years, which represents a recurring federal outlay during that window.
- Department of Health and Human Services — HHS will receive and manage the authorized funds, requiring program administration, peer review infrastructure, monitoring, and reporting capacity.
- Coast Guard — although retained as a consultative partner, the Coast Guard will need to allocate staff time and technical input to develop award criteria and coordinate with HHS on program priorities.
- Grant applicants and small training providers — to be competitive they will likely need to expand curricula or research designs to include behavioral-health components, which raises development costs and administrative burden for smaller entities.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between broadening the program to cover behavioral-health issues (which requires public-health grantmaking expertise and softer, outcomes-focused interventions) and preserving a Coast Guard-informed, operationally focused safety regime; the bill leans toward public-health funding and HHS administration while retaining only consultative Coast Guard input, forcing a trade-off between clinical/public-health approaches and maritime operational priorities.
The bill expands program scope to include behavioral and physical health risks but does not attach performance metrics, reporting standards, or enforcement mechanisms specific to those new topics. That creates implementation questions: how will awardees demonstrate efficacy for behavioral-health interventions in a transient, hard-to-reach workforce, and what outcome measures will HHS require?
The switch to directing funds to HHS is significant in practice because HHS grant processes and evaluation frameworks differ from Coast Guard operational approaches; the statute leaves the nature of that interagency coordination undefined.
The consultative role for the Commandant preserves Coast Guard input but stops short of making the Coast Guard the decisionmaker for priorities or awards. That balance may ease interagency friction, but it also risks gaps where operational safety needs and public-health priorities diverge—for instance, in deciding whether to prioritize fatigue monitoring technologies, peer-support programs, or substance-use treatment access.
The authorized funding increase is meaningful at the program level but modest relative to the scale of the commercial fishing workforce and existing safety challenges. Finally, the bill does not alter eligibility rules or other statutory program mechanics (reporting, audits, or matching requirements), so many practical governance questions will be left to agency rulemaking and grant guidance.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.