Tim Walberg (R-MI)
Responsible Cormorant Management and Control Act of 2026
A Republican bill with 6 Republican cosponsors · See all 6 cosponsors
Last activity — Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 754.
Cleared committee, waiting for its first floor vote
A committee approved it and it is on the calendar of the chamber it started in.
This is further than most bills get, and still no promise of a vote: the calendar is a queue, and the majority leadership decides what is called. A bill can sit here until the Congress ends.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- On Calendar
What this bill would do
This bill requires the Secretary of the Interior to create regional management frameworks for handling double-crested cormorants. It directs the Secretary to issue regulations based on the best available scientific information within one year. The frameworks must ensure that breeding populations stay at a sustainable level and outline allowed methods and time periods for taking the birds. The bill also requires regular population surveys, updates every five years, and a report on the feasibility of issuing hunting licenses. Finally, the entire Act will stop having any force or effect starting on January 1, 2034.
Yes· 3 of 5
- Scored +4
Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests?
The bill authorizes specific management actions within the National Wildlife Refuge System to control cormorant populations.
- Scored +3
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
The bill establishes management frameworks to protect fisheries, vegetation, and other bird species from overabundant cormorant populations.
- Scored +3
Would Native Americans be better off under this?
The bill includes Indian Tribes as entities that may perform management actions and meet management objectives.
The opposite
- Scored -2
Does this give the federal government more power?
The bill requires the Secretary of the Interior to develop and update regional management frameworks.
How the text last changed
Reported in House (10/29/2026), compared with Introduced in House. Each change is on the Text tab.
The newer version of the bill changes several rules regarding the management of double-crested cormorants, moving the deadline for the Secretary to issue regulations from 180 days to 1 year after enactment. It adds requirements that regional frameworks ensure populations are conserved at biologically sustainable levels, include public annual reporting on take, detail non-lethal measures, and incorporate a long-term monitoring plan. Additionally, the revised text adds a new reporting requirement due not later than 90 days after enactment, a sunset date rendering the Act ineffective beginning on January 1, 2034, and an expiration date for certain authorized entities by removing State-licensed hunters from the list.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Section 2(b)(2)(C) requires annual reporting of total take to be made publicly available, which holds officials accountable and keeps the public informed.
-
Section 2(b)(5) requires the frameworks to consider effects on fisheries, human health and safety, and water quality, which could protect local resources and community well-being.
-
Section 2(b)(8) develops best practices for non-lethal deterrents, habitat restoration, and rebuilding flora and fauna, which helps restore ecosystems harmed by the birds.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Section 2(b)(2)(A) and Section 2(b)(2)(B) allow for the take of double-crested cormorants, which could be seen as burdensome or negative by individuals or groups who oppose the culling of wildlife.
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.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests? — The bill authorizes specific management actions within the National Wildlife Refuge System to control cormorant populations. Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — The bill establishes management frameworks to protect fisheries, vegetation, and other bird species from overabundant cormorant populations.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would Native Americans be better off under this? — The bill includes Indian Tribes as entities that may perform management actions and meet management objectives. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — The bill empowers local entities like lake and pond managers to take control of cormorant populations.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this leave more decisions to the states? — The bill empowers State and Tribal agencies to take specific management actions regarding cormorant populations. Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill requires the Secretary of the Interior to develop and update regional management frameworks.
A committee approved it and sent it to the floor
What changed from Introduced in House
The newer version of the bill changes several rules regarding the management of double-crested cormorants, moving the deadline for the Secretary to issue regulations from 180 days to 1 year after enactment. It adds requirements that regional frameworks ensure populations are conserved at biologically sustainable levels, include public annual reporting on take, detail non-lethal measures, and incorporate a long-term monitoring plan. Additionally, the revised text adds a new reporting requirement due not later than 90 days after enactment, a sunset date rendering the Act ineffective beginning on January 1, 2034, and an expiration date for certain authorized entities by removing State-licensed hunters from the list.
Each change
- Section 2(a): Changed the deadline for the Secretary to issue regulations from 180 days to 1 year after enactment, added coordination with Regional Flyway Councils in accordance with section 3 of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and changed the directive from developing a framework for each region to issuing regulations for the development of regional management frameworks based on the best available scientific information.
- Section 2(b)(1): Removed the requirement to maintain breeding populations at a sustainable level and replaced it with a requirement to ensure each breeding population is managed at a level sufficient for conservation, keeping cumulative authorized take at a biologically sustainable level using best available scientific information, consistent with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and compatible with conventions, and informed by the most recent population-level survey.
- Section 2(b)(2): Changed allowed methods of take to allowable methods of take, and added requirements for public annual reporting of total take, measures to avoid take of non-target species, documented conflicts at identified locations, and required non-lethal measures.
- Section 2(b)(3): Changed entities that may conduct take from "shall include" to "may include", added that State and Tribal agencies must be fish and wildlife agencies, added that other entities must be permitted and trained, and removed State-licensed or otherwise authorized hunters from the list of required entities while keeping lake and pond managers.
- Section 2(b)(5): Changed the requirement to account for overabundant populations to considering documented effects of double-crested cormorants within the applicable region.
- Section 2(b)(6), (7) and (8): Added requirements for a long-term monitoring plan, consideration of effects on non-target birds and conservation concern species, and the development of best practices for non-lethal measures, habitat modifications, restoration, and methods to rebuild or stabilize affected fauna and flora.
- Section 2(c): Changed the Secretary's role regarding the National Wildlife Refuge System from identifying appropriate management actions to making recommendations that comply with the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966.
- Section 2(f): Added a requirement for the Secretary to submit a report to the House Committee on Natural Resources and the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works not later than 90 days after enactment regarding the feasibility of issuing hunting licenses.
- Section 2(g): Added a sunset provision stating the Act has no force or effect beginning on January 1, 2034.
- Section 2(h) and (i): Added a provision allowing the Secretary to issue necessary regulations, and relettered the definitions subsection from (f) to (i).
Written by an AI model from a comparison of this version’s text with the one before it, not by a person. .
- 10/29/2026
- Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 119-857.
- Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 754.
- 10/19/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 9/15/2026
- 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.
- 8/17/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 6/8/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 5/12/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 4/21/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 4/16/2026
- Subcommittee Hearings Held
- 4/14/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 4/9/2026
- Referred to the Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries.
- 4/2/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
- 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.
Jack BergmanRepublican · Michigan
Mike EzellRepublican · Mississippi
Ronny JacksonRepublican · Texas
John JamesRepublican · Michigan
Nicholas LangworthyRepublican · New York
Claudia TenneyRepublican · New York