PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Aug 2, 2012
Transparent and Science-Based Fishery Management Act of 2012 - Amends the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to provide that a Regional Fishery Management Council is not required to develop an annual catch limit for: (1) an ecosystem component species; or (2) a species, fishery, or stock for which a survey and stock assessment have not been performed within the preceding five years.
Defines "ecosystem component species" as a stock of fish that is a nontarget, incidentally harvested stock of fish in a fishery, or a nontarget, incidentally harvested stock of fish, that a Council or the Secretary of Commerce has determined is not: (1) subject to overfishing, approaching an overfished condition, or overfished; and (2) likely to become subject to overfishing or overfished in the absence of conservation and management measures.
Requires each annual catch limit to take into account: (1) management measures under international agreements in which the United States participates, and (2) informal transboundary agreements under which management activities outside the exclusive economic zone by another country may hinder conservation efforts by U.S. fishermen for a species for which any of the recruitment, distribution, life history, or fishing activities are transboundary.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Prohibits the New England, Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, and Gulf of Mexico Councils, except with respect to the Gulf of Mexico commercial red snapper fishery, from submitting a fishery management plan or amendment that creates a catch share program for a fishery (and prohibits the Secretary from implementing a secretarial plan or amendment) unless the final program has been approved in a referendum by a majority of specified permit holders eligible to participate in the fishery.
Requires 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 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 extends the rebuilding 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.
Permits the Secretary to: (1) suspend annual catch limits under specified circumstances, and (2) use portions of fisheries enforcement penalties for data collection purposes.
Directs the Secretary to review and report to Congress on each fishery closure under federal law for which notice was published in the Federal Register that was not a normal and expected occurrence under the fishery management plan for the fishery concerned and was considered disruptive to sport, charter, or commercial fishing operations, and that was in effect for more than 120 days within the five-year period preceding the enactment of this Act.
People & committees
Rep. Runyan, Jon [R-NJ-3] · R–NJ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
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.6350 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.6350 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.6350 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.6350 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.