PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate. Read twice. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 427.
Congressional Research Service
Version 07 · Reported to House · Jan 12, 2026
Northwest Straits Marine Conservation Initiative Reauthorization Act of 2025
This bill revises and reauthorizes for seven years the Northwest Straits Marine Conservation Initiative and its Northwest Straits Advisory Commission. The initiative and the commission work to protect and restore marine waters, habitats, and species of the Northwest Straits region (i.e., the waters of the Strait of Juan de Fuca and of Puget Sound from the Canadian border to the south end of Snohomish County in Washington state).
Among other duties, the commission must provide resources and technical support for marine resources committees, develop scientifically sound restoration and protection recommendations, and serve as a public forum for informal policy discussions about the marine ecosystem of the Northwest Straits region.
People & committees
Rep. Larsen, Rick [D-WA-2] · D–WA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate. Read twice. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 427.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 374 - 49 (Roll no. 196).
House roll call 196 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 374 - 49 (Roll no. 196).
House roll call 196 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H3810-3811)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 2860.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H3769-3771; text: CR H3769-3770)
Mr. Westerman moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 376.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 119-437.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 119-437.
Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries Discharged
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 currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Jul 13, 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.2860 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.2860 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.2860 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.2860 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.