VoteWire
Sign inStart voting
H.R. 9436House bill · 119th CongressIn progressAnimals

Northeast Lobsterman Protection Act of 2026

Sponsored byMichael LawlerR-NY-17Introduced Jun 24, 2026Full text on congress.gov ↗

Latest action (Sep 1, 2026) — Motion to reconsider Agreed to without objection.

What it does

Congressional Research Service, Aug 27, 2026

This bill extends the deadline from 2028 to 2035 for the National Marine Fisheries Service to issue new regulations that protect the endangered Atlantic large whale from certain lobster and crab fishing gear. Under current law, the new regulations must include requirements for the American lobster and Jonah crab fisheries to utilize existing and innovative fishing gear technologies as appropriate to reduce the risk of whales becoming entangled in their gear.

Face Value

as reported to the House
100Narrow

How much of this bill its name accounts for.

  • Every bill starts at100
  • Nothing counted against it: one area of law, and short enough that length doesn't register.

Face Value measures reach, not honesty. A big bill can be accurately named, and a low score is not an accusation — it means the contents reach further than any short title could describe. Count it yourself ↗ How this is worked out

What Congress did

2 recorded

  • decisive vote

    House · Sep 1, 2026

    Whether the bill passes the House. This is the vote most people mean.

    219 – 196

    Passed

    Every vote →

  • On

    House · Sep 1, 2026

    The minority party's last attempt to change the bill by sending it back to committee. It usually fails and is usually about forcing an awkward vote.

    202 – 212

    Failed

    Every vote →

Discussion

15 comments

Sign in to join the discussion and put your vote on the record.

Sort
9
cecilia_ruizDemoMI-3voted Nay1d ago
The reporting requirements are the useful part. You can't argue about something nobody is required to measure. None of that is settled by the summary.
2
wxriveraDemoMN-4voted Nay1d ago
That's true of almost every bill though, isn't it? At some point the objection stops being about this one.
8
delta_dawn_laDemoHI-2voted Yea6d ago
The pilot-programme framing is the part I'd watch. Pilots have a way of becoming permanent at the next reauthorisation. I'd rather see it fixed in committee than argued about on the floor.
7
lauren_vDemoOK-2voted Nay4d ago
What I'd want before deciding: who administers it, out of which budget, and who they answer to when it doesn't work. That's a drafting question rather than a political one.
7
sylvie_civicDemoFL-11voted Yea6d ago
This looks like it codifies practice that already exists informally. Worth doing — informal practice evaporates when an administration changes.
5
RedRiverRonDemoNJ-16d ago
Honest question, not a trap: what would change your mind?
6
arthur.oduyaDemoTX-4voted Yea4d ago
I'd like to see the fiscal note before taking a position. The summary is silent on cost, which is normally the whole argument. The same objection applied to the last version and went unanswered.
3
BudgetHawk88DemoUT-3voted Nay4d ago
The cost estimate assumes full compliance, and full compliance never happens. That gap is where these things go wrong. I'd rather see it fixed in committee than argued about on the floor.
2
elena.papadakisDemoGA-54d ago
"The states are doing it" cuts the other way for me. If it works there, why federalise it?
3
grantwoodDemoVA-4voted Yea5d ago
I'd support this and still say the effective date is optimistic. Everything downstream of it assumes agencies move faster than they do. The floor version may not be this version, which is the usual problem.
2
wxriveraDemoMN-4voted Nay1d ago
Genuine question rather than a gotcha: what does success look like in five years? If we can't say, what are we actually voting on? None of that is settled by the summary.
2
hollow_porchDemoHI-1voted Nay5d ago
My hesitation is the absence of a sunset. Authorities that never expire never get re-examined either. I'd want the cost estimate before I'd defend either position.
2
dustin_reyesDemoNJ-11voted Nay5d ago
What I'd want before deciding: who administers it, out of which budget, and who they answer to when it doesn't work.
2
n_farhadiDemoMO-4voted Nay5d ago
The cost estimate assumes full compliance, and full compliance never happens. That gap is where these things go wrong. It'll come down to what the agency does with it.
1
JMTanakaDemoTX-1voted Nay1d ago
No from me. Pushing the cost to states without saying so is still an unfunded mandate. Someone closer to this than me should say whether that's right.
Your position on H.R. 9436No positions yet