PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Sep 28, 2004
Title 46 Codification Act of 2004 - Enacts into positive law title 46 of the United States Code, entitled "Shipping." Sets forth organizational and administrative provisions regarding the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC).
Amends Federal shipping law to make technical and conforming amendments and set forth requirements with respect to: (1) documentation of vessels; (2) maritime liability; (3) regulation of ocean shipping, including shipping in foreign trade; (4) the Merchant Marine and the Merchant Marine Service; (5) clearance of, and tonnage taxes and duties levied against, vessels; (6) maritime security and drug enforcement; (7) vessel wrecks and salvage; (8) ice patrol and the destruction or removal of vessel derelicts; (9) safe containers for international cargo; and (10) the Maritime Administration in the Department of Transportation.
Amends various Federal maritime laws to require the Secretary of Homeland Security (currently, the Secretary of the Treasury) to withhold or revoke clearance of a vessel that has committed certain maritime violations.
Repeals specified shipping laws.
People & committees
Rep. Sensenbrenner, F. James, Jr. [R-WI-5] · R–WI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate.
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. (text: CR H7590-7653)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H7590-7653)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 4319.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H7590-7654)
Mr. Sensenbrenner moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 224.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 108-690.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 108-690.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E797)
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: Apr 7, 2025. 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.4319 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.4319 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.4319 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.4319 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.