PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jun 26, 2002
Amends the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (the Act) to make a provision requiring the minimization of adverse effects of fishing on essential fish habitat a permissible (that is, it will be required to the extent practicable) element for fishery management plans prepared by Regional Fishery Management Councils or by the Secretary of Commerce instead of a mandatory one.Specifies new conditions under which fishery management plans, amendments, or proposed regulations for overfished fisheries may exceed ten years.Declares that any fishery management plan, amendment to such a plan, or regulation implementing such a plan that is prepared in accordance with certain specified provisions of the Act meets the requirements of certain specified provisions regarding reports and recommendations in the Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
People & committees
Rep. Young, Don [R-AK-At Large] · R–AK
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 Fisheries Conservation, 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.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Jan 2, 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.5030 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.5030 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.5030 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.5030 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.