Like Causes?

Install the App
TRY NOW
Countable Is Officially Causes.com

house Bill H.R. 200

Reforming a 10-Year Timeline to Rebuild Depleted Fisheries & Giving Regional Fisheries Councils More Flexibility

Argument in favor

Letting the Fisheries Management Councils develop a regional plan to manage fisheries that takes into account local fish populations and ecosystems is as common sense as it gets. This will help fishing communities survive and prosper.

Nancy d.'s Opinion
···
07/12/2018
We must protect wildlife from the President and his damning administration!
Like (15)
Follow
Share
Anthony4520's Opinion
···
07/11/2018
Any bill which promotes conservation and outdoor recreational sporting I will support. Liberals know nothing about real conservation because they are opposed to outdoor sporting- ie. hunting and fishing. It is upsetting and sad to see how many NAY votes there are. The left doesn’t want anyone enjoying outdoor sports of any kind. Ps... there are no guns involved in fishing!!
Like (13)
Follow
Share
SneakyPete's Opinion
···
07/11/2018
👍🏻H.R. 200 The Magnuson-Stevens Act👍🏻 I support the H.R. 200 bill (The Magnuson-Stevens Act) which would reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens Act — the primary law governing how fisheries are managed and general fishing activities in federal waters — for five years through fiscal year 2022 with $397 million in annual funding. The original Magnuson-Stevens Act created eight Regional Fishery Management Councils, and this reauthorization aims to offer more resources and flexibility to Councils for managing their fisheries by reforming the process for designating and rebuilding depleted fisheries and setting annual catch limits. Letting the Fisheries Management Councils develop a regional plan to manage fisheries that takes into account local fish populations and ecosystems is as common sense as it gets. This will help fishing communities survive and prosper. 7*10*18 ...... which would reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens Act — the primary law governing how fisheries are managed and general fishing activities in federal waters — for five years through fiscal year 2022 with $397 million in annual funding. The original Magnuson-Stevens Act created eight Regional Fishery Management Councils, and this reauthorization aims to offer more resources and flexibility to Councils for managing their fisheries by reforming the process for designating and rebuilding depleted fisheries and setting annual catch limits. Letting the Fisheries Management Councils develop a regional plan to manage fisheries that takes into account local fish populations and ecosystems is as common sense as it gets. This will help fishing communities survive and prosper. 7*10*18 ......
Like (7)
Follow
Share

Argument opposed

Giving up authority to regional management councils will lead to overfishing. Taking away the 10-year standard for rebuilding depleted fisheries — in favor of a "biology-based approach" — is shortsighted and bad for fish ecosystems.

davidf's Opinion
···
07/11/2018
Given that this bill is introduced by a Republican, and the Republican opposition to any kind of environmental protections, this bill is immediately suspect. When looked at more closely it looks like an effort to undermine protections on existing fisheries and lower the threshold to protect them in favor of industry. The fishing industry may achieve short term profits but will do so at the risk of long term survival. In fact, many in the fishing industry are against this bill. That speaks volumes!
Like (131)
Follow
Share
Judi 's Opinion
···
07/08/2018
This bill would increase the chances of overfishing and reverse decades of science-based, common-sense management that's now in place under the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA). This will have a devastating effect on marine wildlife, including the seabirds that need fish to survive. Human beings need a bio-diverse world in order to survive as a species. We can not survive if we continue to kill off species after species of wildlife and I personally wouldn't care to live in a world without the amazing natural wonders that exist. Please vote NO.
Like (78)
Follow
Share
Robert's Opinion
···
07/08/2018
When it comes to environmental or wildlife management legislation, Republicans are not to be trusted.
Like (68)
Follow
Share

bill Progress

  • Not enacted
    The President has not signed this bill
  • The senate has not voted
      senate Committees
      Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
  • The house Passed July 11th, 2018
    Roll Call Vote 222 Yea / 193 Nay
      house Committees
      Water, Oceans, and Wildlife
      Committee on Natural Resources
    IntroducedJanuary 3rd, 2017
Log in or create an account to see how your Reps voted!

Bill Activity

  • action
    Introduced in House
  • referral
    Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
  • referral
    Referred to the Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans.
  • action
    Subcommittee Hearings Held.
  • action
    Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans Discharged.
  • action
    Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
  • action
    Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
  • calendar
    Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 23 - 17.
  • action
    Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 115-758.
  • calendar
    Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 591.
  • action
    Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 965 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 200. Motion to recommit with or without instructions allowed. The resolution makes in order as original text for the purpose of amendment, the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Natural Resources now printed in the bill. The resolution makes in order only those amendments printed in the Rules Committee report.
  • action
    Rule H. Res. 965 passed House.
  • action
    Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 965.
  • action
    Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 200. Motion to recommit with or without instructions allowed. The resolution makes in order as original text for the purpose of amendment, the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Natural Resources now printed in the bill. The resolution makes in order only those amendments printed in the Rules Committee report.
  • action
    House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union pursuant to H. Res. 965 and Rule XVIII.
  • action
    The Speaker designated the Honorable Mike Bost to act as Chairman of the Committee.
  • action
    GENERAL DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with one hour of general debate on H.R. 200.
  • action
    DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H.Res. 965, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Young(AK) amendment No. 1.
  • action
    DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H.Res. 965, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Courtney amendment No. 2.
  • action
    DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H.Res. 965, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Langevin amendment No. 3.
  • action
    DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H.Res. 965, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Huffman amendment No. 4.
  • action
    DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H.Res. 965, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Webster amendment No. 5.
  • action
    DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H.Res. 965, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Graves (LA) amendment No. 6, as modified.
  • action
    DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H.Res. 965, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Keating amendment No. 7.
  • action
    DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H.Res. 965, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Poliquin amendment No. 8.
  • action
    DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H.Res. 965, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Zeldin amendment No. 9.
  • action
    DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H.Res. 965, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Keating amendment No. 10.
  • action
    DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H.Res. 965, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Gaetz amendment No. 11, as modified.
  • action
    The House rose from the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union to report H.R. 200.
  • action
    The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule.
  • action
    The House adopted the amendment in the nature of a substitute as agreed to by the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.
  • action
    Mr. Gomez moved to recommit with instructions to the Committee on Natural Resources.
  • action
    DEBATE - The House proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Gomez motion to recommit with instructions, pending a reservation of a point of order. The instructions contained in the motion seek to require the bill to be reported back to the House with an amendment to impose unilateral tariffs by other countries on any US seafood exports or unilateral tariffs imposed by any country on materials necessary for the economic viability of the US fishing industry. Subsequently, the reservation was withdrawn.
  • action
    The previous question on the motion to recommit with instructions was ordered without objection.
  • action
    On motion to recommit with instructions Failed by the Yeas and Nays: 187 - 228 (Roll no. 320).
  • vote
    On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 222 - 193 (Roll no. 321).
  • action
    Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
  • action
    UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST - Mr. Young (AK) asked unanimous consent that the engrossment of the bill, H.R. 200, the Clerk be authorized to make technical corrections and conforming changes to the bill. The technical corrections was place at the desk and reads as follows: Page 14, line 15, strike '''including'''. Agreed to without objection.
  • referral
    Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

bill Progress

  • Not enacted
    The President has not signed this bill
  • The senate has not voted
      senate Committees
      Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
  • The house Passed July 11th, 2018
    Roll Call Vote 222 Yea / 193 Nay
      house Committees
      Water, Oceans, and Wildlife
      Committee on Natural Resources
    IntroducedJanuary 3rd, 2017
Log in or create an account to see how your Reps voted!
    Nancy d.'s Opinion In Favor
    ···
    07/12/2018
    We must protect wildlife from the President and his damning administration!
    Like (15)
    Follow
    Share
    davidf's Opinion Against
    ···
    07/11/2018
    Given that this bill is introduced by a Republican, and the Republican opposition to any kind of environmental protections, this bill is immediately suspect. When looked at more closely it looks like an effort to undermine protections on existing fisheries and lower the threshold to protect them in favor of industry. The fishing industry may achieve short term profits but will do so at the risk of long term survival. In fact, many in the fishing industry are against this bill. That speaks volumes!
    Like (131)
    Follow
    Share
    Judi 's Opinion Against
    ···
    07/08/2018
    This bill would increase the chances of overfishing and reverse decades of science-based, common-sense management that's now in place under the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA). This will have a devastating effect on marine wildlife, including the seabirds that need fish to survive. Human beings need a bio-diverse world in order to survive as a species. We can not survive if we continue to kill off species after species of wildlife and I personally wouldn't care to live in a world without the amazing natural wonders that exist. Please vote NO.
    Like (78)
    Follow
    Share
    Robert's Opinion Against
    ···
    07/08/2018
    When it comes to environmental or wildlife management legislation, Republicans are not to be trusted.
    Like (68)
    Follow
    Share
    Chickie's Opinion Against
    ···
    07/11/2018
    The Magnuson-Stevens Act is working. The main reason this administration want to remove it is because it has to do with conservation. This administration is only looking out for large corporations and their big money. The middle class, working class and the poor are just dead goldfish being flushed down the toilet.
    Like (33)
    Follow
    Share
    Doug's Opinion Against
    ···
    07/08/2018
    Reading below, and considering the source (Rep Don Young), this sounds like a significant weakening of fisheries protection when in fact much more protection is needed.
    Like (22)
    Follow
    Share
    Andrea's Opinion Against
    ···
    07/11/2018
    I would like seeing more conservation efforts, tightening up fisheries, and more regulations for our waterways.
    Like (17)
    Follow
    Share
    Anthony4520's Opinion In Favor
    ···
    07/11/2018
    Any bill which promotes conservation and outdoor recreational sporting I will support. Liberals know nothing about real conservation because they are opposed to outdoor sporting- ie. hunting and fishing. It is upsetting and sad to see how many NAY votes there are. The left doesn’t want anyone enjoying outdoor sports of any kind. Ps... there are no guns involved in fishing!!
    Like (13)
    Follow
    Share
    Jean's Opinion Against
    ···
    07/08/2018
    This reads just like yet another GOP give away to industry, to to hell with the environment, lip service to the problem, and never mind the science. There are already fisheries that will not recover, at least not in my lifetime, and never if they are not carefully nurtured. I can't see that this proposal helps one whit.
    Like (9)
    Follow
    Share
    Leo's Opinion Against
    ···
    07/08/2018
    The fisheries are already near depletion. This would allow for continued use of overfished areas. Not very wise if you want your kids to keep eating in their future.
    Like (8)
    Follow
    Share
    SneakyPete's Opinion In Favor
    ···
    07/11/2018
    👍🏻H.R. 200 The Magnuson-Stevens Act👍🏻 I support the H.R. 200 bill (The Magnuson-Stevens Act) which would reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens Act — the primary law governing how fisheries are managed and general fishing activities in federal waters — for five years through fiscal year 2022 with $397 million in annual funding. The original Magnuson-Stevens Act created eight Regional Fishery Management Councils, and this reauthorization aims to offer more resources and flexibility to Councils for managing their fisheries by reforming the process for designating and rebuilding depleted fisheries and setting annual catch limits. Letting the Fisheries Management Councils develop a regional plan to manage fisheries that takes into account local fish populations and ecosystems is as common sense as it gets. This will help fishing communities survive and prosper. 7*10*18 ...... which would reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens Act — the primary law governing how fisheries are managed and general fishing activities in federal waters — for five years through fiscal year 2022 with $397 million in annual funding. The original Magnuson-Stevens Act created eight Regional Fishery Management Councils, and this reauthorization aims to offer more resources and flexibility to Councils for managing their fisheries by reforming the process for designating and rebuilding depleted fisheries and setting annual catch limits. Letting the Fisheries Management Councils develop a regional plan to manage fisheries that takes into account local fish populations and ecosystems is as common sense as it gets. This will help fishing communities survive and prosper. 7*10*18 ......
    Like (7)
    Follow
    Share
    KansasTamale's Opinion Against
    ···
    07/11/2018
    The federal government should be in charge, just like with parks & national lands. With this administration in charge it’s scary that they are in charge, but leaving the care of fish and hatcheries in the hands of differentiating groups is putting the fish in danger. Ridiculous to put our wildlife in such dyer straights.
    Like (7)
    Follow
    Share
    Melissa's Opinion Against
    ···
    07/09/2018
    The way this is worded sounds like it will allow for better protection of fisheries, but to give more flexibility could mean lessening limits meant to be protective. I don't trust it without more information.
    Like (7)
    Follow
    Share
    SocialistScientist's Opinion Against
    ···
    07/09/2018
    It appears that this bill does not appreciate the complexity of fished ecosystems, and has unearned confidence in our current ability to manage ecosystems without causing lasting damage. Conservation should be the norm not the exception at this tumultuous time for the planet.
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    Mark's Opinion Against
    ···
    07/11/2018
    A bill that does the opposite of what the title suggests. This is becoming status quo for the Republicans.
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    Dicr's Opinion Against
    ···
    07/11/2018
    Not any kind of expert in this field but I can smell a republican bs scam coming from a mile away.
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    Bruce's Opinion Against
    ···
    07/08/2018
    The current Magnusson-Stevens Act has worked extremely well. It has prevented the boom then bust of off shore fisheries that plagued the US coastal waters before it was implemented.
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    Nancy's Opinion Against
    ···
    07/09/2018
    Sounds more like letting the fishing industry doing whatever it wants to make a profit!
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    Christina's Opinion Against
    ···
    07/11/2018
    This bill would be bad for fish ecosystems in the long run and lead to overfishing. The 10-year standard for rebuilding depleted fisheries should be maintained.
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    Phyllis's Opinion Against
    ···
    07/09/2018
    Another Republican attempt to cash in on creation at the expense of future generations.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    MORE