PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Congressional Research Service
Version 07 · Reported to House · Aug 27, 2026
National Wildlife Refuge System Invasive Species Strike Team Act of 2025
This bill provides statutory authority for the Invasive Species Strike Team program carried out by the National Wildlife Refuge System within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). This program operates teams in each FWS region that coordinate with public and private entities to address invasive species and related conservation issues in and around the National Wildlife Refuge System.
The bill requires FWS to report to Congress on the program's work and progress towards addressing invasive species that pose a major concern to the environment, human health, or the economy.
People & committees
Rep. Case, Ed [D-HI-1] · D–HI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
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): 371 - 33 (Roll no. 296). (text: CR H5560-5561)
House roll call 296 · 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): 371 - 33 (Roll no. 296). (text: CR H5560-5561)
House roll call 296 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H5598-5599)
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. 4219.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H5560-5562)
Mr. Westerman moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 672.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 119-771.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 119-771.
Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute (Amended) 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.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E631)
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Oct 31, 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.4219 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.4219 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.4219 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.4219 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.