PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Executive Comment Received from Commerce.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · May 16, 2002
Magnuson-Stevens Act Amendments of 2002 - Directs the Secretary of Commerce to report to the Congress on the 20 U.S. fisheries with the most severe examples of excess harvesting capacity and to make harvesting reduction recommendations.Amends the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to grant the appropriate Council for fisheries or the Governor of a State the right to request the Secretary of Commerce to conduct a fishery reduction program for a given fishery. Modifies provisions regarding payments to owners of scrapped fishing vessels.Includes seabirds under definition of bycatch. Permits fishery management plans to allow retention and donation for charitable purposes of all dead bycatch that cannot otherwise be avoided, as long as such retention is in accordance with Federal conservation and management measures.Directs the Secretary to work with the Councils and fishing industry participants to develop new fishing gear, or modifications to existing gear, to minimize bycatch in fisheries with significant bycatch problems. Authorizes the Secretary to make grants to minimize bycatch and to minimize adverse fishing gear impacts on habitats of particular concern.Modifies provisions dealing with individual quota systems for fisheries. Amends provisions dealing with fees to be collected by the Secretary with regard to quota programs.Directs the Secretary to develop and implement a cooperative stock assessment program, using vessels from the commercial black sea bass fishing industry if appropriate and available.Prohibits selling or purchasing any fish caught in recreational fishing.Establishes as U.S. policy that allocation of fishing rights to foreign nations shall depend, in addition to other factors, on the compliance of foreign nations with international fishing agreements and treaties.Permits the Councils or the Secretary to impose certain restrictions in fishery management plans to limit impact on habitat, bycatch impacts of gear, or impact on spawning congregations in specific geographical areas.Authorizes appropriations through FY 2007.
People & committees
Rep. Gilchrest, Wayne T. [R-MD-1] · R–MD
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Executive Comment Received from Commerce.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 466.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 107-746.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 107-746.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 23 - 17.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee by Voice Vote.
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans.
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: 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.4749 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.4749 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.4749 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.4749 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.