PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans, and Insular Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 3, 2011
Stop Asian Carp Act - Directs the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, to study the watersheds of the Illinois, Chicago, and Calumet Rivers, including their tributaries, that drain directly into Lake Michigan to determine the feasibility and best means of implementing the hydrologic separation of the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River Basins to prevent the introduction or establishment of populations of aquatic nuisance species between the Great Lakes and Mississippi River Basins through the Chicago Area Water System (CAWS) and other aquatic pathways.
Requires the study to: (1) include options to address flooding, Chicago wastewater and stormwater infrastructure, waterway safety operations, and barge and recreational vessel traffic alternatives; and (2) contain a detailed analysis of the environmental benefits and costs of each option.
Directs: (1) the Secretary to carry out this Act at full federal cost; and (2) the President, or the Council on Environmental Quality as a designee to the President, to oversee the study to ensure its thoroughness and timely completion.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires the Director of the United States Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, to: (1) monitor and survey all waters that connect to the Great Lakes Basin or could connect to it due to flooding, underground hydrological connection, or human-made diversion to identify additional threats that could allow Asian Carp to enter the Basin; and (2) prioritize each threat and help identify means to impede the passage of Asian Carp to the Basin.
People & committees
Rep. Camp, Dave [R-MI-4] · R–MI
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, Oceans, and Insular Affairs.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water and Power.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Natural Resources, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Natural Resources, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 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.892 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.892 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.892 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.892 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.