Passed
391 Yea18 Nay20 Not voting2/3 required
HR-2071-119
The title of the measure was amended. Agreed to without objection.
Sponsored by Troy Nehls (R-TX)
What it does
This bill would prohibit federal funds from being used through international financial institutions (such as the IMF) to finance foreign shrimp farming, shrimp processing, or shrimp export activities. It would also require the Department of the Treasury to make any U.S. contributions to those institutions conditional on those institutions not funding shrimp-related activities abroad. Additionally, it would direct the Government Accountability Office to investigate and report to Congress annually on whether U.S. representatives at those institutions are following Treasury's instructions to oppose financing for commodities — like shrimp — that compete with U.S. producers.
Who benefits
U.S. domestic shrimp fishers and shrimping businesses, particularly in Gulf Coast states (Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida) and South Atlantic states (Georgia, South Carolina) where the shrimping industry is concentrated. Shrimp processing plant workers and coastal fishing communities that depend on the industry economically. Domestic seafood distributors and retailers who source from U.S. shrimpers. Congressional oversight advocates who support greater accountability over U.S. participation in international financial institutions.
Who is hurt
Foreign shrimp-farming nations — particularly major exporters such as India, Ecuador, Indonesia, Vietnam, and Thailand — whose industries could lose access to international financing. Consumers who may face higher shrimp prices if foreign supply is reduced or constrained. U.S. importers and seafood companies that rely on lower-cost foreign shrimp. International financial institutions whose lending flexibility would be restricted. Development-focused organizations that view aquaculture financing as a tool for poverty reduction in developing countries.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that U.S. taxpayer money should not flow — even indirectly through international institutions — to foreign competitors that undercut American shrimpers on price. They contend that the domestic shrimping industry has suffered severe economic harm from a surge in cheap imported shrimp, with U.S. shrimp production declining sharply over the past two decades, and that existing law already directs Treasury to oppose such financing but lacks adequate enforcement and reporting mechanisms. The GAO reporting requirement, they argue, adds meaningful accountability to ensure U.S. representatives at these institutions are actually following through on those instructions.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that restricting international financial institution lending for shrimp farming in developing countries is an ineffective trade remedy that conflates development finance with direct competition — most foreign shrimp production is privately financed and would be unaffected by this bill. They contend that conditioning U.S. contributions to multilateral institutions on commodity-specific restrictions could damage U.S. diplomatic relationships and reduce American influence within those institutions, while doing little to address the underlying price competitiveness of foreign shrimp. They further argue that consumers and the broader seafood supply chain would bear costs without a commensurate benefit to domestic producers.
Passed