PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 49 · Public Law · Jan 4, 2025
Fishery Improvement to Streamline untimely regulatory Hurdles post Emergency Situation Act or the FISHES Act
This act establishes procedures for the review of spend plans submitted to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) by requesters seeking fishery resource disaster assistance funding.
The act requires NOAA to review a spend plan within 10 days of its submission and determine whether it is complete. If such spend plan is not complete, NOAA must provide the requester (i.e., prospective grantee) with a detailed description of the information that is necessary for the spend plan to be determined complete. Further, NOAA must notify a requester when the spend plan has been determined to be complete.
Under current law, fishery resource disaster assistance funds must be disbursed to approved grantees within 90 days after NOAA has received a completed spend plan. The act provides that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) may review a completed spend plan concurrently with NOAA, provided OMB's review does not delay the 90-day timeline for providing funds to the grantee.
People & committees
Rep. Donalds, Byron [R-FL-19] · R–FL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 118-229.
Became Public Law No: 118-229.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S7317)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation discharged by Unanimous Consent.
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation discharged by Unanimous Consent.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
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 voice vote. (text: CR H6268)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H6268)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 5103.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H6268-6269)
Mr. Westerman moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 618.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 118-733.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 118-733.
Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife, and Fisheries Discharged
Subcommittee Hearings Held
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife, and Fisheries.
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: 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.5103 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.5103 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.5103 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.5103 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.