Because of wide-spread interest in possible amendments to the Endangered Species Act (ESA), CRS has received numerous requests for an analysis and critique of S.1180 and H.R. 2351. This report analyzes those bills. HR. 2351 was introduced on July 31, 1997 and S. 1180 on September 16, 1997. Each bill is discussed under various topic headings. The Senate bill will be described first, since it has been reported.
This report includes Findings and recommendations of a study about Environment, Natural Resources and Population conducted by the committee on Resources and Man of the National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council (NAS-NRC).
This report discusses the increasing concern, within the scientific community, that rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could detrimentally alter marine ecosystems. The report discusses how ocean acidification happens, its possible outcomes, as well as natural and human responses that could possibly limit or reduce the rate of the process.
Species found abundantly outside of their normal range can represent an ecological and economic hazard as great or greater than the most far-reaching efforts to protect an endangered species.
The severe 2000 fire season prompted a significant rise in funding for wildfire protection that has been sustained; wildfire appropriations in FY2005 were more than $2.9 billion. Most of the funds ($2.8 billion in FY2005) are to protect federal lands, with funds for reducing fuel loads, for equipment and training, for fighting fires, and for restoring burned sites. Federal funding ($98 million in FY2005) also supports state efforts to protect nonfederal lands. Some wildfire funding ($74 million in FY2005) is used for fire research, fire facilities, and programs to improve forest health. Congress continues to debate wildfire funding levels, with a growing focus on the cost of wildfire suppression.
This report examines the specialty metal provision which was originally part of the Berry Amendment; the potential oversight issues for Congress, and options that Congress may wish to consider. The debate over the specialty metal provision may also renew interest in the debate over the viability of other domestic source restrictions. There is congressional interest in the specialty metal provision because: (1) the specialty metal restriction affects major defense contractors who produce components for commercial airplanes; (2) some prime defense contractors as well as subcontractors on the second, third, and fourth tiers have stated that they were unable to comply with the Berry Amendment specialty metal requirement; (3) DOD has authorized the use of waivers to purchase non-compliant items (non-compliant specialty metal are metal that do not meet the 100% domestic source requirement of the Berry Amendment); and (4) the long-term impact of the specialty metal provision on the costs of defense equipment and programs, particularly on the requirement that weapon system components be certified as made in the United States.
Several resource issues that are designed to generate revenue for the federal Treasury have been proposed for the FY2006 budget reconciliation bill. The most controversial of these provisions recommended by the House Resources Committee and Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee would open part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) for oil and gas development. The House panel also approved a provision that would allow coastal states to “opt out” of the current offshore oil and gas development moratoria, increase fees for hardrock mining and patents, dispose of certain federal lands, and begin an oil shale and tar sands leasing program.
Twice in the past, the Supreme Court has grappled with issues as to the geographic scope of the wetlands permitting program in the federal Clean Water Act (CWA). On October 11, 2005, the Supreme Court agreed to hear two more cases (consolidated by the Court) addressing such questions — both from the SixthCircuit. In Rapanos v. United States, the issue is whether the permitting program applies to wetlands that are only distantly connected to traditional navigable waters — i.e., or at least do not actually abut them. In Carabell v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the issue is whether the program reaches wetlands that are not hydrologically connected to any “water of the United States,” the CWA term that defines the act’s geographic reach. Both cases also raise a constitutional question: assuming that the disputed CWA coverage exists, did Congress, in enacting the CWA, exceed its authority under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution? Implicating hot-button legal issues such as federal-state relations under the Commerce Clause and private property rights, and affecting the reach of several CWA provisions outside the permitting program, the Court’s decision is sure to be of great interest.
Twice in the past, the Supreme Court has grappled with issues as to the geographic scope of the wetlands permitting program in the federal Clean Water Act (CWA). On October 11, 2005, the Supreme Court agreed to hear two more cases (consolidated by the Court) addressing such questions — both from the SixthCircuit. In Rapanos v. United States, the issue is whether the permitting program applies to wetlands that are only distantly connected to traditional navigable waters — i.e., or at least do not actually abut them. In Carabell v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the issue is whether the program reaches wetlands that are not hydrologically connected to any “water of the United States,” the CWA term that defines the act’s geographic reach. Both cases also raise a constitutional question: assuming that the disputed CWA coverage exists, did Congress, in enacting the CWA, exceed its authority under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution? Implicating hot-button legal issues such as federal-state relations under the Commerce Clause and private property rights, and affecting the reach of several CWA provisions outside the permitting program, the Court’s decision is sure to be of great interest. 0
This report provides an overview of Arctic-related issues for Congress, and refers readers to more in-depth CRS reports on specific Arctic-related issues.
This report provides an overview of Arctic-related issues for Congress, and refers readers to more in-depth CRS reports on specific Arctic-related issues. Some general issues include Arctic territorial disputes; commercial shipping through the Arctic; Arctic oil, gas, and mineral exploration; endangered Arctic species; and increased military operations in the Arctic, which could cause the region in coming years to become an arena of international cooperation or competition. 2018 fiscal year funding requests are included.
This report provides an overview of Arctic-related issues for Congress, and refers readers to more in-depth CRS reports on specific Arctic-related issues.
This report provides an overview of Arctic-related issues for Congress, and refers readers to more in-depth CRS reports on specific Arctic-related issues.
This report discusses the two sections of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Protection Act (Dodd-Frank) that require the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC or Commission) to issue regulations to make public the involvement of U.S. companies in conflict minerals and in resource extraction payments.
This report discusses the two sections of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Protection Act (Dodd-Frank) that require the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC or Commission) to issue regulations to make public the involvement of U.S. companies in conflict minerals and in resource extraction payments.
Since 1937, a cooperative program between the federal and state governments has existed for wildlife restoration. This program provides federal grants-in-aid to state agencies for conservation through land and water management for wild birds and mammals. While up to 8% of the collected revenues from excise taxes dedicated to the program may be retained by the federal government for administration, all remaining funds are apportioned to the states and territories for use either in wildlife restoration or hunter safety and education programs. Wildlife restoration programs receive all funds generated from the excise tax on firearms other than pistols and revolvers and all funds collected from shells and cartridges. Additionally, one-half of the excise taxes collected from pistols, revolvers, and archery equipment goes for wildlife restoration purposes. Hunter safety and education programs are funded from the remaining half of excise taxes collected on pistols, revolvers, and archery equipment. The states have been authorized by law to use hunter safety and education funds for wildlife restoration projects.
This report provides an overview of how federal lands and resources are managed, the agencies that manage the lands, the authorities under which these lands are managed, and some of the issues associated with federal land management. The report is divided into nine sections.
This dialog allows you to filter your current search.
Each of the Serial/Series Titles listed note their name and the number of records that will be limited down to if you choose that option.
This dialog allows you to filter your current search.
Each of the World Regions listed note their name and the number of records that will be limited down to if you choose that option.
This dialog allows you to filter your current search.
Each of the Countries listed note their name and the number of records that will be limited down to if you choose that option.
This dialog allows you to filter your current search.
Each of the Decades listed note their name and the number of records that will be limited down to if you choose that option.
This dialog allows you to filter your current search.
Each of the Years listed note their name and the number of records that will be limited down to if you choose that option.
The list can be sorted by name or the count.
This dialog allows you to filter your current search.
Each of the Months listed note their name and the number of records that will be limited down to if you choose that option.
The list can be sorted by name or the count.