PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans, and Insular Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · May 22, 2014
EEZ Clarification Act - Declares that the landward boundary of the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) between the area south of Montauk, New York, and the area south of Point Judith, Rhode Island, for purposes of all federal laws governing marine fisheries management, shall be considered to be a continuous line running: (1) from a point three miles south of the southernmost point of Montauk to a point three miles south of the southernmost point of Block Island, Rhode Island, and (2) from such point three miles south of the southernmost point of Block Island, Rhode Island, to a point three miles south of the southern most point of Point Judith.
Vests the authority to manage fisheries landward of such line in states and interstate marine fisheries management commissions that otherwise have jurisdiction over such waters.
Requires the Secretary of Commerce to report to Congress within three years on the impact of such boundary points and management authority.
People & committees
Rep. Bishop, Timothy H. [D-NY-1] · D–NY
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans, and Insular Affairs.
Referred to the House Committee on Natural 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: Aug 12, 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.4722 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.4722 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.4722 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.4722 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.