PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 109-326.
Congressional Research Service
Version 49 · Public Law · Oct 11, 2006
(This measure has not been amended since it was passed by the House on September 27, 2006. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act of 2006 - Reauthorizes the Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act of 1990.
(Sec. 4) Requires the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to encourage and implement fish and wildlife restoration proposals and regional projects if funding is available. Defines "regional projects" as authorized activities of FWS related to fish and wildlife resource protection, restoration, maintenance, and enhancement impacting multiple states or Indian tribes with fish and wildlife management authority in the Great Lakes basin.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires proposals or regional projects to be consistent with: (1) the goals of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, as amended; (2) the 1954 Great Lakes Fisheries Convention; (3) the 1980 Joint Strategic Plan for Management of Great Lakes Fisheries, and Fish Community Objectives for each Great Lake and connecting water as established under the Joint Strategic Plan; (4) the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990; (5) the North American Waterfowl Management Plan and joint ventures established under the plan; and (6) the strategies outlined through the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration authorized under Executive Order 13340.
Reauthorizes provisions concerning the Great Lakes Fishery Commission's retention of authority and responsibility for the formulation and implementation of a comprehensive program for eradicating or minimizing sea lamprey populations in the Great Lakes Basin.
Requires the Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Proposal Review Committee to operate under the guidance of FWS (currently, under the guidance of the Council of Lake Committees of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission) and revises Committee membership requirements. Requires the Committee to meet annually.
(Sec. 5) Revises the goals of FWS programs related to the Great Lakes fish and wildlife resources to include restoring and maintaining self-sustaining fish and wildlife resources.
(Sec. 6) Requires the Great Lakes Coordination Office to: (1) ensure that information acquired under such Act is made available to the public; and (2) report to the FWS Director of Region Three, Great Lakes Big Rivers.
Includes within the responsibilities of the Lower Great Lakes Fishery Resources Office and the Upper Great Lakes Fishery Resources Offices FWS operational activities related to fishery resource protection, restoration, maintenance, and enhancement in the offices' respective regions.
(Sec. 7) Requires the Director to: (1) submit a report to Congress no later than December 31, 2011, that describes actions taken to solicit and review proposals, the results of the implemented proposals, and progress toward the accomplishment of the Act's goals; (2) make available through a public website of the Department information concerning the proposals, progress, proposed funding priorities, and actions taken in support of the recommendations of the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration for FY2007-FY2012; and (3) submit to Congress no later than June 30, 2007, the 2002 report required under the Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act of 1990.
(Sec. 8) Requires the Director to continue to monitor the status and the assessment, management, and restoration needs of the Great Lakes Basin's fish and wildlife resources. Authorizes the Director to reassess and update the findings and recommendations of the Great Lakes Fishery Resources Restoration Study.
(Sec. 9) Authorizes appropriations for FY2007-FY2012 for: (1) the implementation of fish and wildlife restoration proposals; and (2) the activities of the Great Lakes Coordination Office in East Lansing, Michigan, the Upper Great Lakes Fishery Resources Office, and the Lower Great Lakes Fishery Resources Office.
People & committees
Sen. DeWine, Mike [R-OH] · R–OH
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 109-326.
Became Public Law No: 109-326.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Senate agreed to House amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR 9/29/2006 S10791-10793; text as Senate agreed to House amendment: CR 9/29/2006 S10791-10793)
Resolving differences -- Senate actions: Senate agreed to House amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR 9/29/2006 S10791-10793; text as Senate agreed to House amendment: CR 9/29/2006 S10791-10793)
Message on House action received in Senate and at desk: House amendment to Senate bill.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H7659-7660)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H7659-7660)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on S. 2430.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H7659-7661)
Mr. Gohmert moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Executive Comment Requested from Interior.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Fisheries and Oceans.
Referred to the House Committee on Resources.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Received in the House.
Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S7358-7359; text as passed Senate: CR S7358-7359)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S7358-7359; text as passed Senate: CR S7358-7359)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 497.
Committee on Environment and Public Works. Reported by Senator Inhofe with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. With written report No. 109-270.
Committee on Environment and Public Works. Reported by Senator Inhofe with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. With written report No. 109-270.
Committee on Environment and Public Works. Ordered to be reported with an amendment favorably.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. (text of measure as introduced: CR S2321-2323)
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S2321)
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.2430 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.2430 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.2430 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.2430 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.