PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Congressional Research Service
Version 07 · Reported to House · Feb 23, 2026
Mitigation Action and Watermen Support Act of 2026 or the MAWS Act of 2026
This bill requires the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to establish a pilot program to facilitate the purchase of blue catfish caught within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. (Blue catfish are considered an invasive species in the Chesapeake Bay.)
Under the program, NOAA must enter into cooperative agreements with manufacturers or processors of pet food, animal feed, or aquaculture feed for the purchase of blue catfish from watermen and seafood processors. NOAA must determine the minimum price per pound after considering market factors; feedback from watermen, seafood processors, and participants in the program; and differentiation of price points for fillet and byproduct.
The bill also requires NOAA to enter into a memorandum of understanding with nonfederal partners to develop abundance estimates of blue catfish in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. NOAA must make the first abundance estimate publicly available before beginning the pilot program.
People & committees
Rep. Elfreth, Sarah [D-MD-3] · D–MD
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 Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
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): 320 - 66 (Roll no. 88).
House roll call 88 · 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): 320 - 66 (Roll no. 88).
House roll call 88 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H2545)
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. 4294.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H2516-2519; text: CR H2516-2517)
Mr. Wittman moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 436.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 119-510.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 119-510.
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.
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: Sep 8, 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.4294 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.4294 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.4294 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.4294 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.