Referred to the Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 01 · Reported to Senate with amendment(s) · Dec 11, 2017
American Fisheries Advisory Committee Act
This bill amends the Saltonstall-Kennedy Act to direct the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to establish the American Fisheries Advisory Committee to advise on an existing grant program to address the needs of fishing communities, optimize economic benefits by building and maintaining sustainable fisheries, and increase opportunities to keep working waterfronts viable.
NOAA must establish six regions within the committee. The committee must consist of members chosen regionally and across all sectors of the fishing industry. Additionally, the committee must: (1) identify the needs of the fishing industry, (2) develop grant proposals to fund projects that address the industry needs, (3) review grant applications, and (4) provide NOAA with grant applicants for approval.
NOAA may not approve a grant application unless the application selected for funding meets the proposal criteria developed by the committee.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans.
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Received in the House.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent. (text: CR S3867-3868)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.(text: CR S3867-3868)
The committee substitute withdrawn by Unanimous Consent.
Measure laid before Senate by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR S5866-5868)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 283.
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Reported by Senator Thune with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. With written report No. 115-193.
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Reported by Senator Thune with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. With written report No. 115-193.
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Bill text & related measures
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
Explore the bill from different angles
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.
Neutral evidence review
Objective
Analyze S.1322 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.
View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact
Progressive lens
Examine S.1322 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.
View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope
Conservative lens
Examine S.1322 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.
View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power
Liberty lens
Examine S.1322 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.