Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding the imposition of trade sanctions on nations that are undermining the effectiveness of conservation and management measures for Atlantic marlin adopted by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas and that are threatening the continued viability of United States commercial and recreational fisheries.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jun 26, 2002
Expresses the sense of Congress that the President should: (1) direct the U.S. Commissioners to the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas to make Atlantic marlin conservation their highest priority; (2) encourage countries that fish in Commission regulatory areas to make every effort to end illegal, unregulated, and unreported fishing, including fishing that is not in compliance with Commission conservation recommendations especially with regard to Atlantic marlin mortality; (3) make full use of all appropriate diplomatic mechanisms, relevant international laws and agreements, and other appropriate mechanisms to ensure Commission compliance with conservation recommendations for all species under the Commission's management authority, including Atlantic marlin; and (4) encourage the Commission to adopt conservation recommendations authorizing the use of enforceable measures, including World Trade Organization-consistent trade measures and imposition of an import embargo, to prevent such nations that fish in the Commission regulatory area from taking actions that would undermine the effectiveness of conservation recommendations of the Commission.Declares that, if any vessel of a nation fishes in the Atlantic Ocean without complying with the Commission's conservation recommendations, such fishing should be considered to diminish the effectiveness of international fishery conservation recommendations and, therefore, such nation should be considered to be subject to import embargo under the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act of 1975 and certifiable under the Fishermen's Protective Act of 1967.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 2025. 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 H.Con.Res.427 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 H.Con.Res.427 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 H.Con.Res.427 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 H.Con.Res.427 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.