Summary of the Bill

House Bill 9226, the "Domestic Seafood Production Act," introduces measures aimed at strengthening the United States' domestic seafood industry. It tasks the Secretaries of Agriculture and Commerce with developing incentives to increase domestic seafood processing capacity. The bill seeks to enhance local seafood supply chains, specifically prohibiting any federal agency from funding or regulating commercial finfish aquaculture in the Exclusive Economic Zone without direct congressional authority.

To achieve these aims, the bill outlines funding provisions to support infrastructure projects in selected communities that rely economically on fishing and mariculture. It also establishes a $90 million budget over two fiscal years (2025 and 2026) for grants and cooperative agreements aimed at encouraging seafood-processing projects. Additionally, it restricts offshore aquaculture operations, emphasizing domestic over offshore production.

Summary of Significant Issues

H.R. 9226 raises several notable issues. Firstly, while the bill earmarks a significant sum for funding, it lacks explicit oversight mechanisms to ensure the effective and efficient use of these funds. This absence creates a risk of mismanagement or wastage. Secondly, the prohibition on offshore aquaculture is all-encompassing, potentially hindering innovation or the adoption of environmentally sustainable practices that could be beneficial.

The criteria for determining "eligible communities" are open to interpretation and could lead to biased allocation of resources. Furthermore, the bill uses terms like "substantial quantity of seafood domestically" and "meaningful local-hire practices" without precise definitions, which may result in inconsistent implementation.

Another point of concern is the bill's lack of detail on how tribal consultations and public feedback during stakeholder engagement will be integrated into decision-making processes. There's also a strict 10% cap on indirect costs for grant recipients, which might deter participation from smaller entities unable to cover operational costs within this constraint. Lastly, while the bill nullifies Executive Order 13921, it fails to offer alternative strategies for maintaining or enhancing seafood market competitiveness.

Potential Impacts on the Public

If effectively managed, the bill could bolster local economies by enhancing seafood processing capabilities and creating jobs, especially in coastal communities dependent on fishing. Boosting domestic seafood production might also improve food security and ensure more sustainable seafood supply chains. However, without clear guidelines and oversight, the potential benefits may not be fully realized, and there could be inefficiencies in how funds and resources are allocated.

Impacts on Specific Stakeholders

Coastal communities and local entrepreneurs stand to gain significantly from infrastructure projects and local economic boosts. However, the bill's emphasis on "community-based" initiatives might exclude larger companies with more substantial processing capacities, potentially limiting the scale and impact of these initiatives.

Environmental advocates may appreciate the bill’s restriction on offshore aquaculture, though they could criticize the lack of provisions for environmentally sustainable practices. Fisheries involved in mariculture might benefit from improved infrastructure, but they must navigate potential regulatory changes and grant constraints.

Tribal communities could have opportunities to contribute to the action plan, but the lack of a clear mechanism for incorporating their input could lead to inadequate representation of their interests. Finally, agencies required to collaborate on this initiative need clarity on their roles to ensure coordinated and effective policy implementation.

The "Domestic Seafood Production Act," also known as H.R. 9226, outlines specific financial allocations aimed at bolstering domestic seafood processing capacity and strengthening local seafood supply chains. Financial references in the bill are primarily associated with funding initiatives to support these goals through competitive grants and cooperative agreements.

Financial Allocations

The legislation authorizes $45 million annually for fiscal years 2025 and 2026, totaling $90 million over this two-year period. These funds are designated for distributing grants and entering cooperative agreements under Section 2 of the bill. The funds are intended to support pilot projects that enhance seafood or mariculture processing infrastructure, provide local training and education, and favor community-based startups. Additionally, $200,000 is specifically reserved for carrying out the development of an action plan and for evaluating grants and cooperative agreements.

Relation to Identified Issues

One key issue linked to these financial allocations is the lack of a specific oversight mechanism to ensure the effective use of the authorized $90 million. This absence of oversight could potentially lead to the mismanagement or wastage of taxpayer money. Establishing detailed guidelines and accountability measures is critical to mitigate this concern and maximize the intended impact of the funding.

Moreover, the criteria for selecting "eligible communities" and the emphasis on "meaningful local-hire practices" accompanied by the stipulation to sell "a substantial quantity of seafood domestically" are somewhat vague. This lack of specificity could lead to inconsistent application and interpretation, potentially resulting in biased prioritization of certain communities over others. Clearer guidelines would help ensure that funds are distributed equitably and reach the communities that can benefit the most.

The bill also includes a 10% cap on indirect costs for recipients of grants, which could restrict participation from organizations unable to cover their operational expenses within this limit. This financial constraint may inadvertently exclude smaller entities that might be pivotal in achieving the bill's objectives.

Lastly, the reservation of funds for administration is capped at 5%, which is intended to limit bureaucratic overhead. While this can ensure more funds are directed towards the primary objectives, it's important that the cap does not hamper the necessary administrative support required for effective program execution.

In summary, while the financial provisions in the bill aim to foster the growth of domestic seafood industries, the implementation and distribution of funds require careful structuring to address potential inefficiencies and to ensure that the allocated resources achieve their intended outcomes effectively and equitably.