PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Sep 5, 1996
Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act of 1996 - Amends the Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act of 1990 to: (1) include among the Act's purposes to develop and implement proposals for the restoration of fish and wildlife resources in the Great Lakes Basin (Basin); and (2) include microorganisms within the definition of "nonindigenous species." Requires the Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) to: (1) ensure that proposals resulting from recommendations of the Great Lakes fishery resources restoration study or identified through an annual request to specified State and tribal entities are developed and that the highest priority proposals are implemented; and (2) annually request that State Directors and Indian Tribes submit fish and wildlife resources restoration proposals based on the results of the study or other sources. Requires the Great Lakes Fishery Commission to retain authority and responsibility for formulation and implementation of a comprehensive program for eradicating or minimizing sea lamprey populations in the Basin. Authorizes the Secretary of the Army, at the Commission's request, to construct and improve water resources projects related to sea lamprey management. Establishes the Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Proposal Review Committee. Directs the Secretary to select proposals to be implemented and, within available appropriations, fund their implementation. Sets forth cost-sharing requirements. Authorizes appropriations for the operation of the three offices for each of FY 1998 through 2002. Revises the Act to require the Director to maintain the functions of the Great Lakes Coordination Office in East Lansing, Michigan, and of the Upper and Lower Great Lakes Fishery Resources Offices and to provide administrative and technical support services. Requires the Director, within six months after the end of every second fiscal year, to submit to specified congressional committees a report describing actions taken to implement the process for the indentification, review, and implementation of proposals, and the results of proposals so implemented. Authorizes appropriations for implementation of specified fish and wildlife restoration proposals for FY 1996 through 2002.
People & committees
Rep. LaTourette, Steven C. [R-OH-19] · R–OH
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans.
Referred to the House Committee on 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: Aug 21, 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.4028 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.4028 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.4028 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.4028 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.