PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 22, 2010
Transparency in Job Loss from Fishery Closures Act of 2010 - Prohibits the Secretary of Commerce from implementing a closure of a fishery pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act that would have a direct or indirect effect of at least $50,000 on each of more than 25 small businesses that do business related to the recreational, charter, or commercial fishing industries involved in the fishery being closed, unless the Secretary has certified that: (1) the closure is the only option available for maintaining the fishery at a sustainable level; (2) the stock assessment of the fishery has been updated and peer reviewed within the preceding three years; and (3) such assessment was developed using at least two models that were subjected to outside peer review. Requires the Secretary to review, in order to meet such requirements, any fishery closure for which notice was published within 12 months prior to the date of enactment of this Act, and to include in such review the effects of the closure on coastal communities.
Directs the Secretary to report to Congress on fishery closures established within five years prior to the enactment of this Act.
People & committees
Rep. Brown, Henry E., Jr. [R-SC-1] · R–SC
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 Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife.
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 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.4634 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.4634 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.4634 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.4634 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.