PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Subcommittee on Water, Fisheries, and Wildlife. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 104-746.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Mar 29, 1996
National Invasive Species Act of 1996 - Amends the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 to mandate: (1) regulations to prevent the introduction and spread of aquatic nuisance species into the Great Lakes through ballast water; and (2) voluntary guidelines to prevent such introduction and spread in U.S. waters by ballast water and other vessel operations. Authorizes mandatory regulations if guideline compliance is inadequate. Provides for enforcement through revocation of clearance and civil and criminal penalties. Encourages negotiations with foreign governments to develop and implement an international program for preventing such introduction and spread in North American waters. Mandates studies of Lake Champlain, the Chesapeake Bay, San Francisco Bay, Honolulu Harbor, Prince William Sound, and other waters. Requires annual grants for six years for aquatic nuisance species prevention and control research in the Chesapeake Bay and the Gulf of Mexico. Establishes a clearinghouse of national data on ballasting practices and compliance with guidelines under this Act. Mandates a ballast water management program for the Navy's seagoing fleet to limit the risk of invasion by nonindigenous species from ballast water. Requires: (1) a ballast water management program to demonstrate technologies and practices to prevent aquatic nonindigenous species from being introduced into and spread through ballast water in U.S. waters; and (2) that the installation and construction of those technologies and practices be performed in a U.S. shipyard or ship repair facility. Modifies: (1) the composition and research priorities of the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force; and (2) zebra mussel demonstration program requirements. Requires the Task Force to encourage (including through financial assistance) the development and use of regional coordination panels and similar entities in regions other than the Great Lakes. Provides for interstate (in addition to existing State) aquatic nuisance species management plans, allowing Indian tribes as well as States to participate. Authorizes appropriations.
People & committees
Sen. Glenn, John H., Jr. [D-OH] · D–OH
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Subcommittee on Water, Fisheries, and Wildlife. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 104-746.
Ordered, that if and when reported the bill be referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation for not to exceed 20 calendar days to report or be discharged.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S3219-3221)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
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 S.1660 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 S.1660 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 S.1660 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 S.1660 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.