PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 22, 2004
Deep Sea Coral Protection Act - Requires the Secretary of Commerce to direct the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere to research and map deep sea corals and sponges.
Directs the Secretary to appoint an advisory panel.
Prohibits the use of mobile bottom-tending fishing gear in any Coral Management Area (CMA) and Coral Study Area (CSA).
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires the Secretary to designate: (1) as a CSA any area that is located within the exclusive economic zone which has not been fished using mobile bottom-tending gear for a three-year period, is determined beyond the reasonable depth limits of such gear, or where certain data indicate the actual or potential presence of a deep sea coral and sponge ecosystem; (2) CMAs according to specified coordinates; and (3) all or a part of a CSA as a CMA if there is a deep sea coral and sponge ecosystem in such area, and the use of mobile bottom-tending fishing gear in the area would cause more than minimal and temporary damage to deep sea corals or sponges.
Applies the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act's civil penalty and forfeiture requirements to persons who violate this Act's prohibition against the use of mobile bottom-tending gear.
Urges the President to identify, with foreign entities, areas in international waters that would benefit from additional protection.
People & committees
Rep. Greenwood, James C. [R-PA-8] · R–PA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Executive Comment Requested from Commerce.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards.
Referred to the Committee on Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Science, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Science, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Science, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
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 18, 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.4897 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.4897 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.4897 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.4897 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.