PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Committee Hearings Held.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Sep 23, 2011
Flexibility and Access in Rebuilding American Fisheries Act of 2011 - Amends the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to require fishery management plans, amendments, or regulations for overfished fisheries to specify a time period for ending overfishing and rebuilding the fishery that is as short as practicable (under current law, as short as possible). Modifies the exceptions to the requirement that such period not exceed 10 years.
Requires consideration, in evaluating progress to end overfishing and rebuild overfished stocks, of factors other than commercial and recreational fishing.
Requires, when the Secretary of Commerce extends the period under specified provisions, that the maximum rebuilding time not exceed the sum of the initial 10-year period, the expected time to rebuild the stock absent any fishing mortality and under prevailing environmental conditions, and the mean generation time of the stock.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Directs Regional Fishery Management Councils to consider data on recreational fishermen when specifying annual catch limits in a fishery management plan.
Authorizes the Secretary to suspend application of the annual catch limits to a fishery for any period that: (1) the fishery is neither overfished nor approaching such condition, (2) any stock previously affected by overfishing is rebuilt, and (3) scientific advice of the relevant Council committee is insufficient to ensure consistency with the national standard.
Requires the fishery impact statement of a fishery management plan to address the impacts and possible mitigation measures for coastal businesses dependent on recreational and commercial fishing industries.
Directs: (1) each Council to submit an annual impact statement to the Secretary describing whether each fishery management plan is projected to have any adverse economic impact (and the estimated dollar amount of any impact) on such recreational and commercial fishermen and coastal businesses, and (2) the Secretary to mitigate any such impacts.
People & committees
Rep. Pallone, Frank, Jr. [D-NJ-6] · D–NJ
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.3061 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.3061 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.3061 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.3061 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.