H.R. 5625House111th Congress (2009-2011)In Committee

Permanent Prevention of Asian Carp Act of 2010

Legislative Activity

Stay on top of the latest movement without scrolling through every action

2 earlier actions

HouseCommittee Latest Action

Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.

Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee

June 30, 2010

View full timeline

HouseIntro Referral

Introduced in House

June 29, 2010

HouseIntro Referral

Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

Transportation and Infrastructure Committee

June 29, 2010

HouseCommittee

Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.

Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee

June 30, 2010

Floor Debate

1 member

What members said about H.R. 5625 on the floor

1 Republican

Rep. Candice S. MillerR-MI-10 · Dec 3, 2010

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 1421, The Asian Carp Prevention and Control Act. This bill bans the importation of bighead carp, more commonly known as ``Asian carp.'' These fish have…

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 1421, The Asian Carp Prevention and Control Act.

This bill bans the importation of bighead carp, more commonly known as ``Asian carp.'' These fish have voracious appetites and can grow to weigh more than 100 pounds while eating everything in their path. Making them yet more dangerous is that when agitated by sounds such as boat engines, these fish leap out of the water and have been known to harm boat passengers, resulting in broken bones or worse.

The real nightmare, however, Madam Speaker, is the impending devastation these fish can potentially wreak over the Great Lakes fishery. Asian carp eat up to 40 percent of their body weight every day, and would likely out-compete native species in this $7 billion fishery. This would result in the decimation of recreational and commercial fishing in the Great Lakes, which is currently known worldwide for its plentiful perch, walleye, whitefish, salmon, and much more.

While I'm happy to vote today in favor of S. 1421 to prevent more Asian carp from being imported into the country it will do nothing to stop the carp already here from entering the Great Lakes.

The fact of the matter is that the Federal Government's response to Asian carp has been woefully inadequate. What is really necessary is an ecological separation of the Great Lakes from the Chicago Waterway System, which is the waterway by which bighead carp are making their way toward the Great Lakes. Bighead carp DNA has already been found in Lake Michigan, and this separation must occur before it's too late and the fish get into the lake and take hold. I urge the President to move faster to address this threat as well as passage of more comprehensive legislation that would do more to prevent this dangerous invasive species from entering the Great Lakes.

The bills I sincerely wish we were voting on today, H.R. 4472: Close All Routes and Prevent Asian Carp Today Act of 2010 and H.R. 5625 Permanent Prevention of Asian Carp Act of 2010, both sponsored by my colleague from Michigan, Dave Camp, and of which I am a proud co- sponsor, which would enact a much stronger attack against the Asian carp which poses an imminent threat to our magnificent Great Lakes.

I urge passage of the Asian Carp Prevention and Control Act.

Bill Text

Latest available legislative text

Reading Mode

Raw Text PDF XML

Introduced in HouseIssued June 29, 2010

111th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. R. 5625

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

June 29, 2010

Mr. Camp (for himself, Mr. Upton, Mr. Rogers of Michigan, Ms. Kilpatrick of Michigan, Mr. Ehlers, Mrs. Miller of Michigan, Mr. Dingell, Mr. Kildee, Mr. Levin, Mr. Hoekstra, Mr. Peters, Mr. McCotter, Mr. Stupak, and Mr. Schauer) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

A BILL

To require the Secretary of the Army to study the feasibility of the hydrological separation of the Great Lakes and Mississippi River Basins.

Short title

This Act may be cited as the Permanent Prevention of Asian Carp Act of 2010.

Definitions

In this Act:

(1)

CAWS

The term CAWS means the Chicago Area Water System.

(2)

Hydrological separation

The term hydrological separation means a physical separation on the CAWS that—

(A)

would disconnect the Mississippi River from Lake Michigan; and

(B)

shall be designed to be adequate in scope to prevent the transfer of aquatic species between each water basin.

(3)

Secretary

The term Secretary means the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers.

(4)

Study

The term study means the study described in section 3(a).

Feasibility study

(a)

In general

Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary, pursuant to section 206 of the Flood Control Act of 1958 (Public Law 85–500; 72 Stat. 317), shall study the watersheds of the following rivers (including the tributaries of the rivers) that drain directly into Lake Michigan:

(1)

The Illinois River, at and in the vicinity of Chicago, Illinois.

(2)

The Chicago River in the State of Illinois.

(3)

The Calumet River in the States of Illinois and Indiana.

(b)

Purpose of study

The purpose of the study shall be to determine the feasibility and best means of implementing the hydrological separation of the Great Lakes and 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 CAWS and other aquatic pathways.

(c)

Requirements of study

(1)

Options

The study shall include options to address—

(A)

flooding;

(B)

Chicago wastewater and stormwater infrastructure;

(C)

waterway safety operations; and

(D)

barge and recreational vessel traffic alternatives, which shall include—

(i)

examining other modes of transportation for cargo and CAWS users; and

(ii)

creating engineering designs to move canal traffic from 1 body of water to another body of water without transferring aquatic species.

(2)

Cost-benefit analysis

The study shall contain a detailed analysis of the environmental benefits and costs of each option described in paragraph (1).

(3)

Association with other study

The study shall be conducted in association with the study required under section 3061(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1121).

(4)

Consultation

The Secretary shall consult with any relevant expert or stakeholder knowledgeable on the issues of hydrological separation and aquatic nuisance species.

(d)

Deadline

The Secretary shall complete the study by the date that is 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act.

Report

(a)

In general

The Secretary shall prepare a report on the waterways described in section 3(a) in accordance with—

(1)

the purpose described in section 3(b); and

(2)

each requirement described in section 3(c).

(b)

Deadlines

The Secretary shall submit to Congress and the President—

(1)

not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, an initial report under this section;

(2)

not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, a second report under this section; and

(3)

not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, a final report under this section.

Federal cost requirement

The Secretary shall carry out this Act at Federal expense.

Presidential oversight

The President, or the Council on Environmental Quality as a designee of the President, shall oversee the study to ensure the thoroughness and timely completion of the study.