PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 270.
Congressional Research Service
Version 01 · Reported to Senate with amendment(s) · Feb 4, 2010
Shark Conservation Act of 2009 - Amends the High Seas Driftnet Fishing Moratorium Protection Act to direct the Secretary of Commerce to urge international fishery management organizations to which the United States is a member to adopt shark conservation measures, including measures to prohibit removal any of the fins of a shark (including the tail) and discarding the shark carcass at sea. Requires the Secretary to seek to enter into international shark conservation agreements, including measures prohibiting fin removal and carcass disposal, that are comparable to those of the United States, taking into account different conditions. Directs the Secretary to include shark conservation measures when defining fishing activities that violate international fishery conservation and management agreements. Requires the Secretary to list a nation in the biennial report on international compliance if the nation's fishing vessels are or have been engaged in fishing activities that target or incidentally catch sharks in waters beyond their jurisdiction, and such nation has not adopted a regulatory program providing for shark conservation, including the fin removal and carcass disposal prohibitions. Requires such listing within one year after the enactment of this Act.
Amends the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to revise provisions prohibiting the removal of shark fins to make it a prohibited act to: (1) remove any shark fin (including the tail) at sea; (2) have a fin aboard a fishing vessel unless the fin is naturally attached to the carcass; (3) transfer a fin from one vessel to another or receive a fin unless it is naturally attached; or (4) land a fin that is not naturally attached to a carcass or land a carcass without fins naturally attached. Revises the current rebuttable presumption provision concerning shark fins on fishing vessels to create a rebuttable presumption that, if any shark fin (including the tail) is aboard a non-fishing vessel without being naturally attached, the fin was transferred from a fishing vessel in violation.
People & committees
Sen. Kerry, John F. [D-MA] · D–MA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 270.
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Reported by Senator Rockefeller with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. With written report No. 111-124.
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Reported by Senator Rockefeller with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. With written report No. 111-124.
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
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 S.850 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 S.850 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 S.850 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 S.850 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.