PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce.
Congressional Research Service
Version 17 · Reported to House with amendment(s) · Apr 15, 1996
Cooperative Fisheries Management Act of 1996 - Amends the Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act of 1986 to authorize appropriations to carry out the Act and to support the efforts of specified interstate commissions to develop interstate fishery management plans. Revises requirements regarding assistance (currently, grants) for fishery disaster relief, including allowing assistance to State and local government agencies and nonprofit organizations as well as to individuals. Modifies assistance limits. Regulates the awarding of assistance under a fishing capacity reduction program in a fishery. Removes requirements that the Secretary of Commerce establish assistance limitations, terms, and conditions regarding the means of demonstrating loss. Amends the Anadromous Fish Conservation Act to authorize appropriations to carry out the Act.
People & committees
Rep. Saxton, Jim [R-NJ-3] · R–NJ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce.
Received in the Senate.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by recorded vote (2/3 required); 406 - 0 (Roll no. 128).
House roll call 128 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by recorded vote (2/3 required); 406 - 0 (Roll no. 128).
House roll call 128 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business.
At the conclusion of debate, the chair put the question on the motion to suspend the rules. Mr. Torkildsen objected to the vote on the grounds that a quorum was not present. Further proceedings on the motion were postponed. The point of no quorum was withdrawn.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H3687-3689, H3699)
Mr. Torkildsen moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 252.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 104-517.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 104-517.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee by Voice Vote.
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans.
Referred to the House Committee on Resources.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. 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.2160 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.2160 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.2160 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.2160 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.