PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Apr 19, 2012
Stop Invasive Species Act - Directs the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, to: (1) expedite a feasibility study under the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 on the range of options and technologies available to prevent the spread of aquatic nuisance species (including Asian carp) between the Great Lakes and Mississippi River Basins through the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal and other aquatic pathways; and (2) if the project is justified, proceed directly to project preconstruction engineering and design.
Requires the report on the study to focus on: (1) such prevention as the permanent hydrological separation of the Great Lakes and Mississippi River Basins, and (2) specified watersheds of rivers and tributaries in Illinois and Indiana associated with the Chicago Area Waterway System (CAWS).
Defines "hydrological separation" as a physical separation on the CAWS that would disconnect the Mississippi River watershed from the Lake Michigan watershed and prevent the transfer of all aquatic species between such bodies of water.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires, within 90 days after enactment of this Act, an interim report to Congress on milestones that will be met prior to final completion of the study. Requires the final report to be completed within 18 months.
People & committees
Sen. Stabenow, Debbie [D-MI] · D–MI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
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.2317 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.2317 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.2317 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.2317 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.