A Republican bill with 1 Democratic cosponsor · See all 3 cosponsors
Last activity — Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
In the other chamber's committee
Passed one chamber and has been handed to a committee in the other.
The committee decides whether it goes any further, and most bills that reach a committee never leave it. A committee that simply does nothing kills a bill without anyone ever voting against it, so no news from here is usually the news.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- Passed House voice vote
- In Senate committee
The House by voice vote (members called out yes or no together): no member's position on it was recorded.
What this bill would do
This Act, known as the "Cormorant Relief Act of 2025," directs the Secretary of the Interior to reissue the original depredation order regarding double-crested cormorants at aquaculture facilities. The new order will expand coverage to include specific States like California, Colorado, and several others, as well as lake and pond managers. It requires the use of modern terminology, simplified compliance provisions, and modernized recordkeeping. Additionally, the Act removes the expiration date that was present in the original order. The Secretary must renew this reissued order at least once every five years.
Yes
- Scored +4
Would business owners be better off under this?
The bill benefits aquaculture facility owners and land managers by streamlining bird control regulations.
- Scored +3
Would farmers be better off under this?
The bill assists aquaculture operators, which is a specialized form of agricultural management.
- Scored +3
Does this make it easier to run a small business?
The bill supports aquaculture and pond/lake managers by easing regulations on bird depredation.
The opposite
- Scored -2
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
By easing the regulation of cormorant taking, the bill may reduce environmental protections for migratory birds.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Expanded Coverage for Certain States and Managers: The bill expands the application of the depredation order to include specific states such as California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, as well as lake managers and pond managers (Section 2, subsection b, clause 1).
-
Simplified Compliance and Recordkeeping: The Act requires the new order to incorporate modern terminology, simplify provisions related to complying with Federal law, and modernize recordkeeping requirements (Section 2, subsection b, clauses 2, 3, and 4).
-
Removal of Expiration Date: The reissued order will no longer have the June 30, 2014, expiration date found in the original order (Section 2, subsection b, clause 5).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- No provision in the text specifies negative impacts.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would business owners be better off under this? — The bill benefits aquaculture facility owners and land managers by streamlining bird control regulations. Would farmers be better off under this? — The bill assists aquaculture operators, which is a specialized form of agricultural management.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this make it easier to run a small business? — The bill supports aquaculture and pond/lake managers by easing regulations on bird depredation.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — By easing the regulation of cormorant taking, the bill may reduce environmental protections for migratory birds.
- 12/10/2025
- Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
- 12/9/2025
- Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
- Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H5076-5077)
- On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H5076-5077)
- DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 2293.
- Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H5076-5077)
- Mr. Hurd (CO) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
- 9/15/2025
- Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 119-285.
- Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 241.
- 7/15/2025
- Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries Discharged
- Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
- Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute by Unanimous Consent.
- 4/8/2025
- Subcommittee Hearings Held
- 4/1/2025
- Referred to the Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries.
- 3/24/2025
- Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
- 3 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Michael GuestRepublican · Mississippi
Trent KellyRepublican · Mississippi
Bennie ThompsonDemocrat · Mississippi