PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 651.
Congressional Research Service
Version 17 · Reported to House with amendment(s) · Nov 17, 2016
Endangered Salmon and Fisheries Predation Prevention Act
(Sec. 3) This bill amends the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 to authorize the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to issue one-year permits to Washington, Oregon, Idaho, the Nez Perce Tribe, the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon, the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, and the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission for the lethal taking on the waters of the Columbia River or its tributaries of sea lions that are part of a population that is not categorized as depleted or listed as an endangered or threatened species in order to protect endangered and threatened species of salmon and other nonlisted fish species. These permits may be renewed by NOAA.
The permits may authorize the lethal taking of 10 sea lions or fewer. The cumulative annual taking of sea lions each year under all such permits is limited to 1% of the annual potential biological removal level.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
These permits are exempted from environmental review requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 for five years.
NOAA may suspend the issuance of such permits if, after five years, lethal removal authority is no longer necessary to protect salmonid and other fish species from sea lion predation.
Permit holders exercising lethal removal authority must be trained in wildlife management.
(Sec. 4) The bill: (1) states that it is a vital priority to prevent sea lions from preying on fish, recover listed salmonid stocks, and prevent future listings of fish stocks in the Columbia River; and (2) urges the federal government to fund lethal and nonlethal removal measures for preventing such predation.
People & committees
Rep. Herrera Beutler, Jaime [R-WA-3] · R–WA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 651.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 114-830.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 114-830.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 17 - 13.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans Discharged.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans.
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: Apr 7, 2025. 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.564 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.564 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.564 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.564 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.