Modernizing Access to Our Public Oceans Act

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/s/759
Last Updated: March 30, 2026

Sponsored by

Sen. Cruz, Ted [R-TX]

ID: C001098

Follow the money

The bill

Modernizing Access to Our Public Oceans Act

S. 759, 119th Congress — read as touching Telecommunications.

The sponsor

Sen. Cruz, Ted [R-TX]

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The money

$1,525,021 raised

30 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.

The alignment

62% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Introduction" section, p. 563-565 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Held at the desk.

September 10, 2025

Introduced

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

Floor Action

Passed Senate

🏛️

House Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, brought to you by the same geniuses who thought it was a good idea to put warning labels on coffee cups.

Let's dissect this "Modernizing Access to Our Public Oceans Act" (S 759) and see what kind of diseased thinking is behind it. This bill claims to standardize, publish, and make accessible data related to public outdoor recreational use of federal waterways. Wow, how exciting! I can barely contain my enthusiasm.

**New Regulations:**

* The Secretary of Commerce will develop standards for coordinating and disseminating geospatial data on fishing restrictions, recreational vessel usage, and access to federal waters. * A publicly accessible website will be created to display this data, including information on: + Fishing restrictions + Recreational vessel usage in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) + Navigation information within the EEZ

**Affected Industries:**

* Commercial fishing industry: Will have to comply with new regulations and provide proprietary information (but don't worry, it'll be kept secret... until someone leaks it). * Recreational boating and diving industries: Will need to adapt to new restrictions and guidelines for accessing federal waters. * Native Hawaiian organizations and Indian tribes: Will have a say in the development of standards and data dissemination (because tokenism is always a good idea).

**Compliance Requirements and Timelines:**

* The Secretary has 31 months to develop and adopt standards for geospatial data coordination and dissemination. * The website must be up and running within 4 years, with regular updates every 2 years.

**Enforcement Mechanisms and Penalties:**

* None explicitly stated in the bill. But hey, who needs enforcement when you've got a fancy new website?

**Economic and Operational Impacts:**

* Increased costs for commercial fishing and recreational boating industries due to compliance requirements. * Potential loss of revenue for businesses that rely on access to federal waters. * More bureaucratic red tape for Native Hawaiian organizations and Indian tribes, because they clearly don't have enough to deal with already.

**Diagnosis:**

This bill is a classic case of "Regulatory Creep-itis," where the government tries to solve a non-existent problem by creating more regulations and bureaucracy. The real disease here is the politicians' addiction to power and control. They're using this bill as a Trojan horse to expand their authority over public waters, all while pretending to care about transparency and accessibility.

**Treatment:**

A healthy dose of skepticism and scrutiny would be a good start. But let's be real, this bill will likely pass with flying colors, because who doesn't love more regulations and bureaucratic nonsense?

Related Topics

Water & Air Quality RegulationsWildlife & Endangered SpeciesPublic Lands & Natural Resources
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Cruz, Ted [R-TX]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$1,525,021
23 donors
PACs
$1,497,892
Organizations
$27,129
Committees
$0
Individuals
$0
1
WINRED
2 transactions
$1,497,892
1
FASKEN MANAGEMENT
1 transaction
$10,000
2
REPUBLICAN PARTY OF HARRISON COUNTY
1 transaction
$4,000
3
FOLAD ENTERPRISES LLC
1 transaction
$2,000
4
JOHNSEY
7 transactions
$1,854
5
BALCH & BINGHAM LLP
1 transaction
$1,000
6
PARTNERS HOTEL GROUP LLC
1 transaction
$1,000
7
KHAT INVESTMENS LLC
1 transaction
$1,000
8
PJB INVESTMENT ADVISORS LLC
1 transaction
$800
9
GRANT MORELAND LP LLC
1 transaction
$750
10
BL PARTNERS GROUP LLC
1 transaction
$750
11
MILLE'S LLC
1 transaction
$500
12
HARRY M BETTIS JR LLC
1 transaction
$500
13
ROBDON L.P.
1 transaction
$500
14
JAMES E. JOHNSON LLC
1 transaction
$500
15
FALSE RIVER VIEW LLC
1 transaction
$500
16
MURDOCK PROPERTIES LLC
1 transaction
$325
17
RESEDA HOLDINGS LLC
1 transaction
$250
18
DIXON RENTAL PROPERTIES LLC
1 transaction
$250
19
ROGERS LIVESTOCK LLC
1 transaction
$250
20
MISRASI CONCRETE LLC
1 transaction
$200
21
JOUETT LLC
1 transaction
$100
22
FORCE CONSTRUCTION OF LA LLC
1 transaction
$100

No committee contributions found

No individual contributions found

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 1 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Sen. King, Angus S., Jr. [I-ME]

ID: K000383

Top Contributors

10

1
2120 SEA ISLAND LLC
OrganizationRIVER FOREST, IL
$3,300
Oct 26, 2023
2
THE CHICKASAW NATION
OrganizationADA, OK
$3,300
May 22, 2024
3
THE CHICKASAW NATION
OrganizationADA, OK
$2,000
Mar 29, 2024
4
THE CHICKASAW NATION
OrganizationADA, OK
$1,300
May 22, 2024
5
SMITH, BRAD
MICROSOFT CORPORATIONATTORNEY
IndividualBELLEVUE, WA
$6,600
Feb 13, 2024
6
SMITH, BRAD
IndividualBELLEVUE, WA
$6,600
Feb 20, 2024
7
DOWNEY, NANCY A.
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$5,000
Sep 4, 2024
8
DOWNEY, NANCY A.
NOT EMPLOYEDRETIRED
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$5,000
Aug 31, 2024
9
OTTEN, LESLIE B.
AMERICAN SKIING COMPANYOWNER
IndividualBETHEL, ME
$5,000
Oct 4, 2024
10
BEKENSTEIN, ANITA
NOT EMPLOYEDRETIRED
IndividualWAYLAND, MA
$3,300
Oct 24, 2024

Donor Network - Sen. Cruz, Ted [R-TX]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Loading...

Showing 35 nodes and 33 connections (37 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $1,533,621

Top Donors - Sen. Cruz, Ted [R-TX]

Showing top 23 donors by contribution amount

1 PAC22 Orgs

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 2 helped.

  • +Telecommunicationsconfidence 0.80

    Section 5(a)(1)(E) allows coordination with experts in data science, analytics, and operations research, and Section 5(a)(1)(F) includes the private sector, including technology or geospatial data industries, which could benefit telecommunications firms involved in data transmission and geospatial services.

  • Section 5(a)(1)(F) includes the private sector, including technology or geospatial data industries, which may involve engineering firms contracted to develop GIS platforms, data collection systems, or website infrastructure under Sections 3 and 4.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Sen. Cruz, Ted [R-TX])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.

Industries this bill HELPS

  • from 139 contributions
    • REID, THOMAS JOHN$11,600
    • ERGEN, CANTEY$9,900
    • ERGEN, CHARLES$9,900
    • RICCIO, CLIFF$4,000
    • MCBRIDE, RPERLEY$3,000
  • from 93 contributions
    • KIEWIT, SCOTT$8,100
    • RUDD, WILLIAM$3,300
    • KURT, STRATMANN$2,000
    • DEATHERAGE, ROBERT$1,445
    • GOUNDRY, PHILIP$1,000

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.

Introduction

Moderate62.1%
Pages: 563-565

— 531 — Department of the Interior Wildlife and Waters. Throughout Alaska’s history, the federal government has treated Alaska as less than a sovereign state. This is especially the case when it comes to two of Alaska’s most valued resources, its wildlife and its waters. Immediate action is required to end, at least in part, this injustice. A new Admin- istration should: l Revoke National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service rules regarding predator control and bear baiting, which are matters for state regulation. Such revocation is permitted under the 2017 Congressional Review Act.62 l Recognize Alaska’s authority to manage fish and game on all federal lands in accordance with ANILCA as during the Reagan Administration, when each DOI agency in Alaska signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game ceding to the state the lead on fish and wildlife management matters.63 l Issue a secretarial order declaring navigable waters in Alaska to be owned by the state so that the lands beneath these waters belong to Alaska. This will force the BLM to prove that water is not navigable, since in the case of non-navigability, any submerged lands belong to the BLM. Currently, BLM requires Alaska to prove navigability at its own expense—including the BLM’s preposterous assertion that the mighty Yukon River is non-navigable. l Reinstate President Trump’s 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule64 for the Tongass National Forest in Alaska, which was replaced by a Biden Roadless Rule that continues a 2001 Clinton rule affecting 9.37 million of the forest’s 16.7 million acres.65 The Clinton rule affects an area where communities are in small islands with no road access. It has prevented multiple infrastructure projects, including roads, electric transmission lines, and water and sewer projects, and it forces residents to use a heavily subsidized ferry system. Logging has been shut down to the extent that New York harvests more timber than does all of Alaska. OTHER ACTIONS The 30 by 30 Plan.66 President Biden’s Executive Order 14008 (30 by 30 plan)67 requires that the federal government, which already owns one-third of the country: (1) remove vast amounts of private property from productive use; and (2) end congressionally mandated uses of all federal land. The end result will be “total federal control of an additional 440 million acres of land or oceans in the U.S. by 2030.”68 — 532 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Although the new President should vacate that order, DOI under a conservative President must take immediate action on the 30 by 30 plan by vacating a secre- tarial order issued by the Biden DOI69 that eliminated the Trump Administration’s requirement for the approval of state and local governments before federal acquisi- tion of private property with monies from the Land and Water Conservation Fund.70 National Monument Designations. As has every Democratic President before him beginning with Jimmy Carter, Joe Biden has abused his authority under the Antiquities Act of 1906. Like the outrageous, unilateral withdrawals from public use of multiple use federal land under the Carter, Clinton, and Obama Administrations, Biden’s first national monument was one in Colorado—adopted over the objections of scores of local groups and at least one American Indian tribe.71 In the days before the 2024 election, Biden will likely designate more western monuments. Although President Trump courageously ordered a review of national mon- ument designations, the result of that review was insufficient in that only two national monuments in one state (Utah) were adjusted.72 Monuments in Maine and Oregon, for example, should have been adjusted downward given the finding of Secretary Ryan Zinke’s review that they were improperly designated. The new Administration’s review will permit a fresh look at past monument decrees and new ones by President Biden. Furthermore, the new Administration must vigorously defend the downward adjustments it makes to permit a ruling on a President’s authority to reduce the size of national monuments by the U.S. Supreme Court. Finally, the new Administration must seek repeal of the Antiquities Act of 1906, which permitted emergency action by a President long before the statutory author- ity existed for the protection of special federal lands, such as those with wild and scenic rivers, endangered specials, or other unique places. Moreover, in recent years, Congress has designated as national monuments those areas deserving of such congressional action. Oregon and California Lands Act. One national monument worthy of down- ward adjustment is in Oregon, where its designation and subsequent expansion interfere with the federal obligation to residents to harvest timber on its BLM lands. A federal district court ruled in 2019 that land subject to the Oregon and California (O&C) Grant Lands Act of 193773 was set aside by Congress to be har- vested for the benefit of the people of Oregon. Specifically, those federal lands are to be “managed…for permanent forest production” and its timber “sold, cut, and removed in conformity with the princip[le] of sustained yield.”74 As the district court concluded,75 beginning in 1990, the federal government erected a trifecta of illegal barriers to the accomplishment of the congressional mandate, beginning with a response to the listing of the northern spotted owl,76 continuing a decade later with the designation of the Cascade–Siskiyou National Monument,77 and concluding in 2017 with an expansion of that monument.78 In

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.

Full Policy Text

Related Bills