PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Committee Hearings Held.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 21, 2011
Asset Forfeiture Fund Reform and Distribution Act of 2011 - Amends the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to require the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) or the Secretary of the Treasury, after September 30, 2011, to use each of the sums received as fines, penalties, and forfeitures of property for violations of any provisions of such Act, or of any other fishery resource law enforced by the Secretary, to make a payment to: (1) the state in which the violation occurred, (2) the state in which the vessel involved in the violation is homeported if the violation did not occur in a state, or (3) the state most directly affected by a violation neither occurring in a state nor involving a vessel. (Current law authorizes using such sums for certain civil and criminal enforcement costs.)
Directs states to use such amounts for specified research and monitoring activities.
Sets forth transitional rules authorizing the Secretary to use such amounts received before October 1, 2011, to reimburse appropriate legal fees and costs, up to $200,000 per person, to specified persons the Secretary directed to receive a remittance of at least a portion of a fisheries enforcement penalty.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Prohibits the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) from assigning specified rulemaking or adjudication proceedings to an individual who has served as an NOAA administrative law judge for at least a five-year period if such proceeding pertains to the same fishery management region to which the majority of such proceedings that the individual presided over within the period pertained.
People & committees
Rep. Frank, Barney [D-MA-4] · D–MA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Committee Hearings Held.
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.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 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.2610 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.2610 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.2610 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.2610 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.