PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 49 · Public Law · Jan 4, 2011
(This measure has not been amended since it was passed by the Senate on December 20, 2010. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Title I: Shark Conservation Act of 2010 - Shark Conservation Act of 2010 - (Sec. 102) Amends the High Seas Driftnet Fishing Moratorium Protection Act to direct the Secretary of Commerce to urge international fishery management organizations to which the United States is a member to adopt shark conservation measures, including measures to prohibit removal any of the fins of a shark (including the tail) and discarding the shark carcass at sea. Requires the Secretary to seek to enter into international shark conservation agreements, including measures prohibiting fin removal and carcass disposal, that are comparable to those of the United States, taking into account different conditions. Directs the Secretary to include shark conservation measures when defining fishing activities that violate international fishery conservation and management agreements. Requires the Secretary to list a nation in the biennial report on international compliance if the nation's fishing vessels are or have been engaged in fishing activities that target or incidentally catch sharks in waters beyond their jurisdiction, and such nation has not adopted a regulatory program providing for shark conservation, including the fin removal and carcass disposal prohibitions. Requires such listing within one year after the enactment of this Act.
(Sec. 103) Amends the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to revise provisions prohibiting the removal of shark fins to make it a prohibited act to: (1) remove any shark fin (including the tail) at sea; (2) have a fin aboard a fishing vessel unless the fin is naturally attached to the carcass; (3) transfer a fin from one vessel to another or receive a fin unless it is naturally attached; or (4) land a fin that is not naturally attached to a carcass or land a carcass without fins naturally attached. Revises the current rebuttable presumption provision concerning shark fins on fishing vessels to create a rebuttable presumption that, if any shark fin (including the tail) is aboard a non-fishing vessel without being naturally attached, the fin was transferred from a fishing vessel in violation.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
(Sec. 104) Decreases authorizations under the Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act of 1986 for FY2011-FY2012.
Title II: International Fisheries Agreement - International Fisheries Agreement Clarification Act - (Sec. 202) Allows the Secretary and the New England Fishery Management Council, for purposes of rebuilding portions of fish stocks covered by the United States-Canada Transboundary Resource Sharing Understanding, to: (1) take into account such Understanding and decisions made under such Understanding when specifying a time period for rebuilding a fishery that is overfished; and (2) consider decisions under such Understanding as management measures under an international agreement in which the United States participates when determining whether a rebuilding may exceed 10 years. Permits the Secretary and the Council to establish catch levels for portions of fish stocks within their respective geographic areas that exceed catch levels otherwise required under the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan if: (1) overfishing is ended immediately; (2) the fishing mortality level ensures rebuilding within such a rebuilding time period; and (3) such catch levels are consistent with the Understanding.
Title III: Miscellaneous - (Sec. 301) Prohibits from being considered federal employees except for certain specified injury compensation or tort claims liability: (1) Commissioners of the Commission for the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean, other than officers or employees of the U.S. government; (2) certain advisory committee members; and (3) other specified appointees under the Pacific Whiting Act of 2006. (Current law considers such individuals to be federal employees for: (1) certain injury compensation purposes; (2) ethics, conflicts-of-interest, and corruption requirements; and (3) criminal or civil statutes or regulations governing conduct of federal employees in that capacity.)
(Sec. 302) Decreases the number of scientific experts on the joint technical committee under the Pacific Whiting Act of 2006 to 2 (currently at least 6 but not more than 12).
(Sec. 303) Authorizes the Secretary to promulgate regulations that allow for the replacement or rebuilding of a vessel qualified under specified provisions of the Department of Commerce and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2005.
People & committees
Del. Bordallo, Madeleine Z. [D-GU-At Large] · D–GU
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 111-348.
Became Public Law No: 111-348.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Cleared for White House.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion that the House suspend the rules and agree to the Senate amendment Agreed to by voice vote. (text as House agreed to the Senate amendment: CR H8790-8791)
Resolving differences -- House actions: On motion that the House suspend the rules and agree to the Senate amendment Agreed to by voice vote.(text as House agreed to the Senate amendment: CR H8790-8791)
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on the motion to concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 81.
Ms. Bordallo moved that the House suspend the rules and agree to the Senate amendment. (consideration: CR H8790-8792)
Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.
Measure laid before Senate by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR S10795)
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 Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H2879-2880)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H2879-2880)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 81.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H2879-2880)
Mr. Holt moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife.
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E21)
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.81 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.81 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.81 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.81 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.