PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Subcommittee Hearings Held
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Ezell, Mike [R-MS-4] · R–MS
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Subcommittee Hearings Held
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries.
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
Source last updated: Feb 4, 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 H.R.1514 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.1514 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.1514 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.1514 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.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2025-02-24 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
This bill would create a Mississippi River Basin Fishery Commission within the Interior Department to coordinate management of fisheries shared across state borders and control invasive aquatic species. Eligible state, Tribal and federal entities could join voluntarily, and the Commission would administer competitive and formula-based grants for fisheries work. Its authority would be nonbinding, and state members would retain their lawmaking and fisheries enforcement powers. The bill would authorize funding; those authorizations would not themselves provide the money.
There is established in the Department of the Interior the Mississippi River Basin Fishery Commission.
Any eligible entity may join the Commission by notifying the executive director and existing members of the Commission in writing of its intent to join the Commission.
develop and coordinate inter-agency and inter-basin strategies to prevent the introduction and control the abundance and spread of invasive carps and other prioritized aquatic invasive species within the Mississippi River Basin
(1) a competitive grant program to award grants to entities to carry out an eligible project; and (2) a formula grant program to award grants to State member entities to carry out eligible interjurisdictional fisheries projects carried out in accordance with the recommendation of the Commission or the Joint Strategic Plan described in section 6(b)(1).
The authority of the Commission shall be nonbinding.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed— (1) to limit the powers of any member entity that is a State to repeal or enact State laws; or (2) to limit the enforcement of any requirement by any member entity that is a State imposing additional conditions and restrictions to conserve its fisheries within the borders of the State.
There are authorized to be appropriated
The bill's findings describe a need for coordinated fisheries management and invasive-species control across the basin. These are Congress's proposed rationale and objectives, not evidence that the Commission would achieve those results.
Congress acknowledges the need for the establishment of a Mississippi River Basin Fishery Commission for basin-wide, inter-agency collaboration in the establishment of shared management objectives, and the collaborative planning, implementation, and evaluation of management actions to provide for the long-term biologic and economic sustainability of interjurisdictional fishery resources in the basin.
it is the further purpose of this Commission to provide for coordinated, inter-agency, basin-wide management, control, and removal of invasive carps and other prioritized aquatic invasive species within the basin.
The bill would cover more than fish: its definition includes aquatic animals and plants other than mammals and birds. A resource would qualify as shared across jurisdictions if it occurs in waters under two or more basin states, migrates between such waters, or has an interstate management plan.
The term fishery resource means finfish, mollusks, crustaceans, and any other form of animal or plant life, other than mammals or birds.
The term interjurisdictional fishery resource means— (A) a fishery resource located in a fishery in waters under the jurisdiction of 2 or more Mississippi River Basin States; (B) a fishery resource for which there exists an interstate fishery management plan; or (C) a fishery resource that migrates between the waters under the jurisdiction of 2 or more Mississippi River Basin States.
Eligible members would include state and local government bodies regulating basin fisheries, Tribes or Tribal-controlled entities managing those fisheries, and the listed federal bodies. Membership would require written notice to the executive director and existing members.
The term eligible entity includes— (A) any political subdivision, agency, or department of a Mississippi River Basin State that regulates Mississippi River Basin fisheries; (B) an Indian Tribe (as defined in section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 5304)) or an entity controlled by an Indian Tribe that manages Mississippi River Basin fisheries; (C) the United States Geological Survey; (D) the United States Fish and Wildlife Service; (E) the United States Army Corps of Engineers; (F) the Engineer Research and Development Center of the United States Army Corps of Engineers; and (G) the Tennessee Valley Authority.
Any eligible entity may join the Commission by notifying the executive director and existing members of the Commission in writing of its intent to join the Commission.
For participating state-category entities, the fisheries director would be the voting delegate. Each participating Tribal or listed federal entity would appoint one voting delegate.
With respect to each eligible entity described in section 3(4)(A) that joins the Commission, the director of fisheries of such eligible entity shall serve as the voting delegate to represent such entity’s interests on the Commission.
With respect to each eligible entity described in any of subparagraphs (B) through (G) of section 3(4) that joins the Commission, such entity shall appoint 1 individual to serve as the voting delegate to represent such entity’s interests on the Commission.
The Commission would be a body corporate with the powers and duties specified in the bill, and members would establish its governance structure. The Commission would appoint a full-time executive director and needed staff, set their duties and pay, and retain authority to remove them. Those employees would have no Commission voting rights.
The Commission shall be a body corporate with the powers and duties described in this Act. The member entities shall establish a governance structure for the Commission.
The Commission shall— (1) appoint a full-time executive director and staff as needed to carry out the administrative duties of the Commission, who shall— (A) provide advice to, and carry out operational duties of, the Commission; and (B) have no voting rights on the Commission; and (2) at its pleasure, appoint, remove, or discharge such executive director and staff, as may be needed, and fix and determine their duties, qualifications, and compensation.
The Commission would elect a chair and vice chair from its members, adopt rules for its business, and meet at least annually. Any offices it established would have to be within the Mississippi River Basin.
The Commission shall elect a Chair and a Vice Chair of the Commission from the member entities.
The Commission shall adopt rules and regulations for the conduct of its business.
The Commission— (1) may establish and maintain 1 or more offices for the transaction of its business, which shall be located within the Mississippi River Basin; and (2) may meet at any time or place but not less often than annually.
Recommendations and actions about general affairs would require affirmative votes from a majority of member entities. The bill also directs the Commission to seek unanimity and operate by consensus, without explaining how those instructions fit together.
The Commission may make a recommendation or take an action regarding its general affairs only by an affirmative vote of a majority of the member entities. The Commission shall strive for unanimity in its decisions but shall operate by consensus in its decision making.
The Commission would receive an express exemption from chapter 10 of title 5 of the United States Code. The bill labels this provision “FACA not to apply,” but does not reproduce the requirements being excluded.
(h) FACA not to apply Chapter 10 of title 5, United States Code, shall not apply to the Commission.
The Commission would oversee management plans, implementation of management actions, and evaluation of their effectiveness in six sub-basins: Arkansas-Red-White, Lower Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Tennessee-Cumberland and Upper Mississippi.
The Commission shall oversee the management plans and the implementation and evaluation of the effectiveness of management actions of the 6 Mississippi River sub-basins described in paragraph (2) to provide for the long-term biologic and economic sustainability of interjurisdictional fisheries in the Mississippi River Basin.
The 6 Mississippi River sub-basins are the Arkansas-Red-White, the Lower Mississippi, the Missouri, the Ohio, the Tennessee-Cumberland, and the Upper Mississippi.
The Commission would have to use the Mississippi Interstate Cooperative Resource Association's joint strategic plan as its management framework. It would also work to research and implement the best scientific methods, practices and conditions for conserving and sustainably managing shared fisheries.
formed the Mississippi Interstate Cooperative Resource Association (MICRA) in 1991
As the framework for a management plan for the Commission, the Commission shall adopt and use the MICRA Joint Strategic Plan for Management of Mississippi River Fisheries
The Commission shall work to research and implement the best scientific methods, best practices, and best conditions to bring about the conservation and sustainable management of interjurisdictional fisheries in the Mississippi River Basin.
The Commission would coordinate strategies to prevent introductions and control the spread and abundance of invasive carp and other priority aquatic invasive species. It would advise participating agencies and recommend conservation strategies and regulations.
The Commission shall— (A) develop and coordinate inter-agency and inter-basin strategies to prevent the introduction and control the abundance and spread of invasive carps and other prioritized aquatic invasive species within the Mississippi River Basin; and (B) draft and recommend to the appropriate management agencies strategies and approaches for dealing with the conservation of interjurisdictional fisheries and the management and control of aquatic invasive species within the Mississippi River Basin.
The Commission shall consult with and advise the pertinent administrative agencies party to the Commission regarding problems connected with the fisheries in the Mississippi River Basin and recommend the adoption of such regulations as it determines advisable.
Within 30 years after enactment, the Commission would have to consult the Interior Secretary, reassess the strategic plan, identify completed work and needed updates, add new objectives if any, and report to Congress on fishery populations and invasive-species work.
Not later than 30 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Commission, in consultation with the Secretary, shall— (A) reexamine and evaluate the Joint Strategic Plan described in paragraph (1) to— (i) determine which portions of the Plan have been completed and which need updating; and (ii) add new objectives, if any, to the Plan; and (B) issue a report to Congress on the status of interjurisdictional fishery populations and the state of the ongoing work to eradicate, manage, and control aquatic invasive species in the Mississippi River Basin in accordance with the management plan of the Commission.
The term Secretary means the Secretary of the Interior.
Within two years after enactment, the Commission would have to establish two grant programs in consultation with the Interior Secretary: competitive awards and formula grants allocating funding to state member entities. Formula-funded projects would have to follow a Commission recommendation or the joint strategic plan.
Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Commission, in consultation with the Secretary, shall establish— (1) a competitive grant program to award grants to entities to carry out an eligible project; and (2) a formula grant program to award grants to State member entities to carry out eligible interjurisdictional fisheries projects carried out in accordance with the recommendation of the Commission or the Joint Strategic Plan described in section 6(b)(1).
The term Secretary means the Secretary of the Interior.
State member entities could receive either type of grant. Private entities, federal agencies, nongovernmental organizations, public and private colleges and universities, and partnerships among listed entities could receive competitive grants.
The Commission may provide— (1) formula grants and competitive grants to State member entities; and (2) competitive grants to private entities, Federal agencies, nongovernmental organizations, public and private institutions of higher education, and partnerships between entities described in this subsection.
Competitive applicants would follow application requirements set by the Commission. Applicants offering nonfederal matching contributions worth at least 10 percent of the grant award would receive priority; contributions could be cash or noncash support. The provision establishes a priority, rather than requiring every applicant to provide a match.
An entity desiring a competitive grant under this section shall submit to the Commission an application at such time, in such manner, and containing such information as the Commission may require.
In awarding competitive grants under this section, the Commission shall give priority to entities that will provide matching funds from non-Federal sources of not less than 10 percent of the grant award, which may be provided in cash or in-kind.
The Commission would determine each state member entity's annual formula-grant amount. This provision does not specify allocation percentages or a calculation method.
The Commission shall determine the amount that each State member entity shall receive annually under the formula grant program.
Competitive grants would have to follow the goals and objectives of both the joint strategic plan and each of the six sub-basin management plans. Formula grants would support eligible shared-fisheries projects following a Commission recommendation or the joint strategic plan. All funded work would have to be located wholly or partly in a state with waters draining into the Mississippi River Basin.
An entity that receives a grant under this section shall use the grant funds— (1) in the case of— (A) a competitive grant, in accordance with the goals and objectives of the Joint Strategic Plan described in section 6(b)(1) and each of the interjurisdictional fishery management plans of the 6 Mississippi River sub-basins described in section 6(a)(2); and (B) a formula grant, to carry out eligible interjurisdictional fishery projects carried out in accordance with the recommendation of the Commission or the Joint Strategic Plan described in section 6(b)(1); and (2) only for projects, research, personnel, work, and programs located wholly or partially in a Mississippi River Basin State.
The term Mississippi River Basin State means a State whose borders include waters that drain into the Mississippi River Basin
Grant recipients could spend no more than 5 percent of their awards on grant-related administrative costs.
An entity awarded a grant under this section may use not more than 5 percent of the grant funds for administrative costs relating to the grant.
Within one year after grant money was disbursed, the Commission chair would have to report to Congress on recipients, award amounts, uses of the money, and how awards enhanced fisheries management and sustainability. This is a reporting requirement, not proof of an improvement.
Not later than 1 year after the disbursement of grant funding under this section, the Chair of the Commission shall submit to Congress a report on— (1) the entities awarded grants under this section; (2) the amount each such grant; (3) how such entities used the grant awards; and (4) how such grant awards enhanced the management and sustainability of the interjurisdictional fisheries of the Mississippi River Basin.
The Commission's authority would be nonbinding. The bill would preserve state members' powers to enact or repeal laws and enforce additional conditions and restrictions to conserve fisheries within their borders.
The authority of the Commission shall be nonbinding.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed— (1) to limit the powers of any member entity that is a State to repeal or enact State laws; or (2) to limit the enforcement of any requirement by any member entity that is a State imposing additional conditions and restrictions to conserve its fisheries within the borders of the State.
A member wishing to withdraw would have to give written notice to the Commission and every other member at least six months before leaving.
A member entity that intends to withdraw from the Commission shall submit a notice of intent to withdraw in writing not later than 6 months before the date of the withdrawal to— (1) the Commission; and (2) each of the other member entities of the Commission.
The Commission would have to report to Congress by September 1 each year after enactment on its activities during the previous year.
Not later than September 1 of each year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Commission shall submit a report to Congress which shall set forth the activities of the Commission during the previous year.
The bill would authorize $1 million for fiscal year 2026 to establish and administer the Commission. It would separately authorize $500,000 annually for fiscal years 2026–2032 to the Interior Secretary for housing the Commission; those housing funds could remain available until spent.
There are authorized to be appropriated— (1) $1,000,000 for fiscal year 2026 to carry out the initial administrative steps necessary to set up operations, house, and administer the Commission
(3) $500,000 for each of fiscal years 2026 through 2032 to the Secretary of the Interior for housing the Commission, to remain available until expended.
For management duties and grants, the bill would authorize $30 million annually for fiscal years 2027–2029 and $50 million annually for fiscal years 2030–2032. These funds could remain available until spent. The language authorizes future appropriations rather than directly providing funding.
There are authorized to be appropriated
(2) to carry out sections 6 and 7— (A) $30,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2027 through 2029, to remain available until expended; and (B) $50,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2030 through 2032, to remain available until expended
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated February 4, 2026, records House introduction and referral to the House Committee on Natural Resources on February 24, 2025; referral to the Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries on November 12, 2025; and subcommittee hearings on November 19, 2025. That snapshot does not establish subsequent action or enactment.
Source snapshot updated 2026-02-04T09:06:45Z. 2025-11-19: Subcommittee Hearings Held 2025-11-12: Referred to the Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries. 2025-02-24: Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources. 2025-02-24: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-02-24. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No rider under the stated definition was identified after reviewing the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials, or any amendment's attachment history.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No earmark under the stated definition was identified after reviewing the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials. Formal earmark status may depend on disclosures and accompanying materials that are not supplied.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
Findings to examine
A narrow statutory exception is identified in the supplied introduced text. This classification is not a judgment about its justification or practical effects.
The proposed Commission would be specifically exempt from chapter 10 of title 5 of the United States Code under the provision headed “FACA not to apply.” This is special legal treatment for the body created to carry out the bill's central fisheries policy. The excluded statutory requirements are not reproduced in the bundle.
There is established in the Department of the Interior the Mississippi River Basin Fishery Commission.
(h) FACA not to apply Chapter 10 of title 5, United States Code, shall not apply to the Commission.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Feb 4, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI