PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. (text of measure as introduced: CR S6985-6987)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · May 22, 2003
Fishing Quota Act of 2003 - Amends the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to require the Regional Fishery Management Councils and the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) or his designee, when developing a limited access system for fisheries to achieve optimum yield, to take into account: (1) the conservation requirements of this Act with respect to fisheries; and (2) the fair and equitable distribution of a public resource.
Authorizes the establishment of a fishing quota system in a fishery management plan or amendment prepared by any Regional Fishery Management Council or the Secretary.
Specifies fishing quota system: (1) requirements the Councils and Secretary must ensure that any proposal meet; (2) right, tittle, and interest scope and limitations; (3) eligibility requirements; (4) duration; and (5) referendum procedures. Prohibits approval or implementation by the Secretary of any fishery management plan (or amendment) unless it has been approved by more than two-thirds of those voting in a referendum among eligible permit holders.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Authorizes the Secretary to approve and implement a program submitted by a Council which reserves up to 25 percent of the fees collected from fisheries for costs related to the management and enforcement of fishing quota programs for issuance of obligations that aid in financing the: (1) purchase of fishing quotas by small vessel fishermen; and (2) first-time purchase of fishing quotas by entry level fisherman.
Requires the National Research Council to provide an independent review, every five years, of the effectiveness of fishing quota systems conducted in Federal fisheries.
Requires the Secretary to issue regulations which establish requirements for a fishing quota system.
People & committees
Sen. Snowe, Olympia J. [R-ME] · R–ME
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. (text of measure as introduced: CR S6985-6987)
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S6985)
Introduced in Senate
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: 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 S.1106 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 S.1106 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 S.1106 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 S.1106 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.