PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 2, 2015
Healthy Fisheries through Better Science Act
This bill amends the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to require the Department of Commerce to develop and publish a plan to conduct stock assessments for all stocks of fish for which a fishery management plan is in effect. A "stock assessment" is an evaluation of the past, present, and future status of a stock of fish, including: (1) a range of life history characteristics, including the stock's geographical boundaries, age, growth, natural mortality, sexual maturity and reproduction, feeding habits, and habitat preferences; and (2) fishing for the stock. The plan must be developed and published on the same schedule as required for the fisheries research strategic plan.
The plan must: (1) establish schedules for conducting initial stock assessments and updating previously conducted assessments, and (2) identify data and analysis that would reduce uncertainty in and improve the accuracy of future stock assessments. A stock assessment is not required for a stock of fish in the plan if Commerce determines that the assessment is not necessary and justifies the determination in the Federal Register notice.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Commerce must develop and publish in the Federal Register guidelines to incorporate data, analysis, and stock assessments from nongovernmental sources into fisheries management decisions and to establish a registry of information providers. Commerce and Regional Fishery Management Councils must use all data and analyses that meet the guidelines published as the best scientific information available in fisheries management decisions, unless otherwise determined by the science and statistical committees of the Councils.
Commerce may not collect certain fishing permit fees and North Pacific Council fisheries research plan implementation fees before identifying the costs that will be recovered by such fee.
People & committees
Rep. Wittman, Robert J. [R-VA-1] · R–VA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans.
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 12, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1207 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1207 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1207 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1207 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.