PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jun 10, 1997
Prohibits, notwithstanding the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, any large fishing vessel from fishing for Atlantic herring or Atlantic mackerel in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone until: (1) the National Marine Fisheries Service has completed a new population survey regarding the discrete spawning stocks of those fish; and (2) the Secretary of Commerce has approved and implemented fishery management plans, developed by the appropriate regional fishery management council for those fish, that specifically allow participation of large fishing vessels. Defines "large fishing vessel" as being at least 165 feet long, having over 3,000 horsepower, and not having a documented landing in any east coast port as of May 1, 1997, of at least one pound of any species of fish caught under a Federal or State fishing or landing permit or license.
People & committees
Rep. Saxton, Jim [R-NJ-3] · R–NJ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.
DEBATE - The House resumed debate.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H5832-5834)
Mr. Saxton moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 130.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 105-209.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 105-209.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans Discharged.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans.
Executive Comment Requested from Commerce.
Referred to the House Committee on Resources.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
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 H.R.1855 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.1855 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.1855 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.1855 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.