Congressional Research Service Reports - 951 Matching Results

Search Results

prev Results: 51 - 100 next
Global Climate Change: Coal Use in China and Other Asian Developing Countries
Report discussing factors behind China's planned reliance on coal for future energy growth, including background information, factors in Asian coal use trends, Asian and world energy demands, the Asian coal and world markets, CO2 emissions trends, projected energy supply and emissions from other sources, and general conclusions regarding the issues.
Climate Change Technology Initiative (CCTI): Research, Technology, and Related Programs
The Climate Change Technology Initiative (CCTI) was the Clinton Administration's package of R&D (to develop renewable energy sources and more energy efficient technologies), targeted tax credits (to encourage purchase and deployment of more efficient technologies), and voluntary information programs (to help businesses and schools be better informed when making purchasing and operating decisions that involve energy use and emissions). This report describes the R&D, voluntary information programs, and funding aspects of the CCTI.
Climate Change: Federal Research, Technology, and Related Programs
A major focus of efforts to address possible global climate change has been on energy use, given that carbon dioxide, the major “greenhouse gas,” is added to the atmosphere when fossil fuels are burned. Federal programs to increase energy efficiency and the use of renewable energy resources have a history that goes back well over two decades. While many of these efforts were aimed at reducing U.S. dependence on oil imports and addressing electricity needs, they also are relevant to environmental concerns, including climate change.
Global Climate Change: The Kyoto Protocol
This report discusses the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) that was completed December 11, 1997, committing the industrialized nations to specified, legally binding reductions in emissions of six “greenhouse gases.”
Global Climate Change: The Kyoto Protocol
This report discusses the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) that was completed December 11, 1997, committing the industrialized nations to specified, legally binding reductions in emissions of six “greenhouse gases.”
Global Climate Change: The Kyoto Protocol
This report discusses the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) that was completed December 11, 1997, committing the industrialized nations to specified, legally binding reductions in emissions of six “greenhouse gases.”
Global Climate Change: The Kyoto Protocol
This report discusses the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) that was completed December 11, 1997, committing the industrialized nations to specified, legally binding reductions in emissions of six “greenhouse gases.”
Global Climate Change: The Kyoto Protocol
This report discusses the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) that was completed December 11, 1997, committing the industrialized nations to specified, legally binding reductions in emissions of six “greenhouse gases.”
Climate Change Legislation in the 108th Congress
Climate change and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions have been an issue in the 108th Congress, as they have been over the past decade. Bills directly addressing climate change issues range from those focused primarily on climate change research (H.R. 1578 and S. 1164) to comprehensive emissions cap and trading programs for all six greenhouse gases (S. 139 and H.R. 4067). This report briefly discusses basic concepts on which these bills are based, and compares major provisions of the bills in each of the following categories: climate change research, GHG reporting and registries, and cap and trade programs.
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): Controversies for the 108th Congress
This report discusses the ongoing debate about whether or not to approve energy development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Current law forbids energy leasing in the Refuge. This report addresses several legislative options on the issue, as well as policymakers' arguments for and against development, especially in the wake of increasing terrorism since 2000-2001.
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): Controversies for the 108th Congress
This report discusses the ongoing debate about whether or not to approve energy development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Current law forbids energy leasing in the Refuge. This report addresses several legislative options on the issue, as well as policymakers' arguments for and against development, especially in the wake of increasing terrorism since 2000-2001.
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): Controversies for the 108th Congress
This report discusses the ongoing debate about whether or not to approve energy development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Current law forbids energy leasing in the Refuge. This report addresses several legislative options on the issue, as well as policymakers' arguments for and against development, especially in the wake of increasing terrorism since 2000-2001.
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): Controversies for the 108th Congress
This report discusses the ongoing debate about whether or not to approve energy development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Current law forbids energy leasing in the Refuge. This report addresses several legislative options on the issue, as well as policymakers' arguments for and against development, especially in the wake of increasing terrorism since 2000-2001.
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): Controversies for the 108th Congress
This report discusses the ongoing debate about whether or not to approve energy development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Current law forbids energy leasing in the Refuge. This report addresses several legislative options on the issue, as well as policymakers' arguments for and against development, especially in the wake of increasing terrorism since 2000-2001.
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): Controversies for the 108th Congress
This report discusses the ongoing debate about whether or not to approve energy development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Current law forbids energy leasing in the Refuge. This report addresses several legislative options on the issue, as well as policymakers' arguments for and against development, especially in the wake of increasing terrorism since 2000-2001.
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): Controversies for the 108th Congress
This report discusses the ongoing debate about whether or not to approve energy development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Current law forbids energy leasing in the Refuge. This report addresses several legislative options on the issue, as well as policymakers' arguments for and against development, especially in the wake of increasing terrorism since 2000-2001.
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): Controversies for the 108th Congress
This report discusses the ongoing debate about whether or not to approve energy development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Current law forbids energy leasing in the Refuge. This report addresses several legislative options on the issue, as well as policymakers' arguments for and against development, especially in the wake of increasing terrorism since 2000-2001.
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): Controversies for the 108th Congress
This report discusses the ongoing debate about whether or not to approve energy development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Current law forbids energy leasing in the Refuge. This report addresses several legislative options on the issue, as well as policymakers' arguments for and against development, especially in the wake of increasing terrorism since 2000-2001.
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Background and Issues
This report discusses the ongoing debate about whether or not to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) for energy development. The report discusses arguments for and against such development and related pieces of legislation. It does not analyze specific proposals to develop or protect the Refuge. Rather, it provides basic material for analyzing possibilities and implications of the major issues that have been the focus of the legislative debate over its fate.
The Role of Designation of Critical Habitat under the Endangered Species Act
On June 14th, 1999, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) called for public comment on its current procedures for designating critical habitat. In addition, a proposal is before the Senate (S.1100) to move the time at which critical habitat must be designated for a species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) from being (basically) concurrent with the listing of the species to the time a recovery plan is finalized for that species. This report is written as background for considering the current legislative proposal and the FWS notice and may be updated as circumstances warrant.
Water Infrastructure Financing: History of EPA Appropriations
No Description Available.
Water Infrastructure Financing: History of EPA Appropriations
No Description Available.
Water Infrastructure Financing: History of EPA Appropriations
No Description Available.
Environmental Protection Agency: FY2000 Budget Issues
State and local wastewater and drinking water capital needs were the most prominent budgetary issues. Senate and House authorizing and appropriating chairmen expressed concern over the requested 17% decrease in the State and Tribal Assistance Grants account from $3.41 billion in FY1999 to $2.84 billion in FY2000. The conference agreement on H.R. 2684 provides a total of $3.47 billion. For clean water state revolving funds, the conference committee approved the Senate's level of $1.35 billion, about $175 million more than the House approved and roughly $550 million more than requested. The conference agreement included $332 million for special project grants, about $73 million more than the House's proposal, roughly $232 million more than the Senate approved, and about $304 million more than requested. For drinking water state revolving funds, the conference committee approved $820 million, $45 million more than the House's amount and $5 million less than the Senate approved and the President requested. The conference committee also approved the Administration's request of $885 million for state and tribal administrative grants, which is roughly the same as the amount enacted for FY1999.
Environmental Protection Agency: FY2001 Budget Issues
The request for state and local wastewater and drinking water capital needs was a key issue. The request of $2.91 billion for State and Tribal Assistance Grants, which fund these needs, was about one-half billion less than in FY2000. The House passed $3.18 billion, the Senate $3.32 billion, and the conferees $3.62 billion. The request included $800 million for Clean Water State Revolving Funds, $550 million less than in FY2000. The House passed $1.20 billion, the Senate $1.35 billion and the conferees $1.35 billion. Conferees approved the $825 million requested for Drinking Water State Revolving Funds. Congress denied the Administration's request for a new Clean Air Partnership program. EPA requested $100 million for Mexican border water projects and $15 million for State of Alaska projects. Conferees approved $75 million and $35 million respectively. For state and tribal administrative grants, the conferees approved roughly the requested amount of $1.0 billion.
The Environmental Protection Agency's FY2002 Budget
On April 9, 2001, the President requested $7.3 billion in discretionary budget authority for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for FY2002, $512.0 million (or 7%) less than the FY2001 funding level of $7.8 billion. The request would not have continued funding of about $500 million for activities earmarked for FY2001, and contained provisions shifting more enforcement responsibilities to the states. Popular wastewater infrastructure funding, state roles, and the future of Superfund were some of the predominant topics. On July 17, the House Appropriations Committee recommended $7.545 billion,$229 million more than requested (H.R. 2620, H. Rept. 107-159).
The Environmental Protection Agency's FY2003 Budget
On April 9, 2001, the President requested $7.3 billion in discretionary budget authority for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for FY2002, $512.0 million (or 7%) less than the FY2001 funding level of $7.8 billion. The request would not have continued funding of about $500 million for activities earmarked for FY2001, and contained provisions shifting more enforcement responsibilities to the states. Popular wastewater infrastructure funding, state roles, and the future of Superfund were some of the predominant topics. On July 17, the House Appropriations Committee recommended $7.545 billion,$229 million more than requested (H.R. 2620, H. Rept. 107-159).
The Environmental Protection Agency's FY2003 Budget
On April 9, 2001, the President requested $7.3 billion in discretionary budget authority for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for FY2002, $512.0 million (or 7%) less than the FY2001 funding level of $7.8 billion. The request would not have continued funding of about $500 million for activities earmarked for FY2001, and contained provisions shifting more enforcement responsibilities to the states. Popular wastewater infrastructure funding, state roles, and the future of Superfund were some of the predominant topics. On July 17, the House Appropriations Committee recommended $7.545 billion,$229 million more than requested (H.R. 2620, H. Rept. 107-159).
The Environmental Protection Agency's FY2003 Budget
On April 9, 2001, the President requested $7.3 billion in discretionary budget authority for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for FY2002, $512.0 million (or 7%) less than the FY2001 funding level of $7.8 billion. The request would not have continued funding of about $500 million for activities earmarked for FY2001, and contained provisions shifting more enforcement responsibilities to the states. Popular wastewater infrastructure funding, state roles, and the future of Superfund were some of the predominant topics. On July 17, the House Appropriations Committee recommended $7.545 billion,$229 million more than requested (H.R. 2620, H. Rept. 107-159).
The Environmental Protection Agency's FY2003 Budget
On April 9, 2001, the President requested $7.3 billion in discretionary budget authority for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for FY2002, $512.0 million (or 7%) less than the FY2001 funding level of $7.8 billion. The request would not have continued funding of about $500 million for activities earmarked for FY2001, and contained provisions shifting more enforcement responsibilities to the states. Popular wastewater infrastructure funding, state roles, and the future of Superfund were some of the predominant topics. On July 17, the House Appropriations Committee recommended $7.545 billion,$229 million more than requested (H.R. 2620, H. Rept. 107-159).
The Environmental Protection Agency's FY2003 Budget
On April 9, 2001, the President requested $7.3 billion in discretionary budget authority for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for FY2002, $512.0 million (or 7%) less than the FY2001 funding level of $7.8 billion. The request would not have continued funding of about $500 million for activities earmarked for FY2001, and contained provisions shifting more enforcement responsibilities to the states. Popular wastewater infrastructure funding, state roles, and the future of Superfund were some of the predominant topics. On July 17, the House Appropriations Committee recommended $7.545 billion,$229 million more than requested (H.R. 2620, H. Rept. 107-159).
The Environmental Protection Agency's FY2003 Budget
On April 9, 2001, the President requested $7.3 billion in discretionary budget authority for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for FY2002, $512.0 million (or 7%) less than the FY2001 funding level of $7.8 billion. The request would not have continued funding of about $500 million for activities earmarked for FY2001, and contained provisions shifting more enforcement responsibilities to the states. Popular wastewater infrastructure funding, state roles, and the future of Superfund were some of the predominant topics. On July 17, the House Appropriations Committee recommended $7.545 billion,$229 million more than requested (H.R. 2620, H. Rept. 107-159).
The Environmental Protection Agency's FY2003 Budget
On April 9, 2001, the President requested $7.3 billion in discretionary budget authority for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for FY2002, $512.0 million (or 7%) less than the FY2001 funding level of $7.8 billion. The request would not have continued funding of about $500 million for activities earmarked for FY2001, and contained provisions shifting more enforcement responsibilities to the states. Popular wastewater infrastructure funding, state roles, and the future of Superfund were some of the predominant topics. On July 17, the House Appropriations Committee recommended $7.545 billion,$229 million more than requested (H.R. 2620, H. Rept. 107-159).
The Environmental Protection Agency's FY2003 Budget
In the 107th Congress, S. 2797 (S.Rept. 107-222) would have provided $8.30 billion for EPA in FY2003. H.R. 5605 (H.Rept. 107- 740) would have provide $8.20 billion. Both bills would restore much of the water infrastructure funding but there was no final action by the end of Congress. Continuing resolutions funded at the same level as in FY2002. In the 108th Congress, P.L. 108-7 (H.J.Res. 2) provides EPA with $8.08 billion for FY2003.
The Environmental Protection Agency's FY2003 Budget
In the 107th Congress, S. 2797 (S.Rept. 107-222) would have provided $8.30 billion for EPA in FY2003. H.R. 5605 (H.Rept. 107- 740) would have provide $8.20 billion. Both bills would restore much of the water infrastructure funding but there was no final action by the end of Congress. Continuing resolutions funded at the same level as in FY2002. In the 108th Congress, P.L. 108-7 (H.J.Res. 2) provides EPA with $8.08 billion for FY2003.
The Environmental Protection Agency's FY2004 Budget
For FY2004, the President’s budget requested $7.6 billion in budget authority for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), $448 million (or 6%) less than the $8.1 billion current funding level. The House approved $8.0 billion in H.R. 2861 (H.Rept. 108-235) on July 25. Senate action is anticipated in September. The request consisted of $3.1 billion for EPA operating expenses, $3.1 billion for assisting state and local governments, and $1.4 billion for cleaning up Superfund toxic waste sites. Wastewater infrastructure needs and the future of Superfund are prominent topics.
The Environmental Protection Agency's FY2004 Budget
For FY2004, the President’s budget requested $7.6 billion in budget authority for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), $448 million (or 6%) less than the $8.1 billion current funding level. The House approved $8.0 billion in H.R. 2861 (H.Rept. 108-235) on July 25. Senate action is anticipated in September. The request consisted of $3.1 billion for EPA operating expenses, $3.1 billion for assisting state and local governments, and $1.4 billion for cleaning up Superfund toxic waste sites. Wastewater infrastructure needs and the future of Superfund are prominent topics.
The Environmental Protection Agency's FY2004 Budget
For FY2004, the President’s budget requested $7.6 billion in budget authority for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), $448 million (or 6%) less than the $8.1 billion current funding level. The House approved $8.0 billion in H.R. 2861 (H.Rept. 108-235) on July 25. Senate action is anticipated in September. The request consisted of $3.1 billion for EPA operating expenses, $3.1 billion for assisting state and local governments, and $1.4 billion for cleaning up Superfund toxic waste sites. Wastewater infrastructure needs and the future of Superfund are prominent topics.
Environmental Protection Agency: FY1998 Budget
EPA appropriations are included in the annual VA-HUD-Independent Agencies Appropriation Bill. Two major issues were whether Superfund cleanups should be accelerated in the absence of statutory reforms and whether the requested state assistance funds are adequate. Because the House and Senate were in agreement on not granting the requested 50% increase in Superfund and in passing increased state funds, the chief conference issue focused on the roughly $225 million difference between the House and Senate versions.
Environmental Protection Agency: FY1998 Budget
EPA appropriations are included in the annual VA-HUD-Independent Agencies Appropriation Bill. Two major issues were whether Superfund cleanups should be accelerated in the absence of statutory reforms and whether the requested state assistance funds are adequate. Because the House and Senate were in agreement on not granting the requested 50% increase in Superfund and in passing increased state funds, the chief conference issue was expected to focus on the roughly $225 million difference between the House and Senate versions. However, a veto threat over Superfund program funding made this a key conference issue.
Environmental Protection Agency: An Analysis of Key FY1999 Budget Issues
On February 2, 1998, the President requested $7.8 billion for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in FY1999. The Senate Appropriations Committee reported S. 2168 (S.Rept. 105-216) on June 12; the full Senate passed the bill on July 17. The House Committee reported H.R. 4194 (H.Rept. 105-610) on July 8, 1998; the full House passed it on July 29; and the Senate passed it on July 30 after incorporating S. 2168's provisions. During the week of October 6, the House and Senate approved the conference report, H.Rept. 105-769, which includes $7.5 billion, thus clearing the bill for the President's signature of October 21 (P.L. 105-276). The Omnibus Appropriations Act (P.L. 105-277) added $30 million more in FY1999 funds.
Fast-Track Trade Authority: Which Environmental Issues are "Directly Related to Trade"?
This report discusses fast-track negotiating authority, which provides that Congress will consider trade agreements within mandatory deadlines, with limited debate, and without amendment. Trade negotiating objectives have generally been included in fast-track legislation to establish priorities for trade negotiators.
Fast-Track Trade Authority Proposals: Which Environmental Issues are Included in the Principal Negotiating Objectives?
This report discusses fast-track negotiating authority, which provides that Congress will consider trade agreements within mandatory deadlines, with limited debate, and without amendment. Environmental provisions are eligible for the fast-track procedure only if they meet at least one of the principal trade negotiating objectives.
Clean Water Act and TMDLs
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires states to identify waters that are impaired by pollution, even after application of pollution controls. For those waters, states must establish a total maximum daily load (TMDL) of pollutants to ensure that water quality standards can be attained. Implementation of this provision has been dormant until recently, when states and EPA were prodded by numerous lawsuits. The TMDL issue has become controversial, in part because of requirements and costs now facing states to implement a 25-year-old provision of the law. Congressional activity to reauthorize the Act, a possibility in the 2nd Session of the 105th Congress, could include TMDL issues, but the direction for any such action is unclear at this time.
Clean Water Act and Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) of Pollutants
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires states to identify waters that are impaired by pollution, even after application of pollution controls. For those waters, states must establish a total maximum daily load (TMDL) of pollutants to ensure that water quality standards can be attained. Implementation was dormant until recently, when states and EPA were prodded by numerous lawsuits.
Clean Water Act and Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) of Pollutants
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires states to identify waters that are impaired by pollution, even after application of pollution controls. For those waters, states must establish a total maximum daily load (TMDL) of pollutants to ensure that water quality standards can be attained. Implementation was dormant until recently, when states and EPA were prodded by numerous lawsuits.
Clean Water Act and Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) of Pollutants
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires states to identify waters that are impaired by pollution, even after application of pollution controls. For those waters, states must establish a total maximum daily load (TMDL) of pollutants to ensure that water quality standards can be attained. Implementation was dormant until recently, when states and EPA were prodded by numerous lawsuits.
Highway Fund Sanctions for Clean Air Act Violations
This report provides information concerning the authority to impose sanctions, lists the 14 areas that have been subject to sanctions since 1990, describes their status as of October 1997, and discusses the role of sanctions and alternatives under the Act.
Air Quality: EPA's Ozone Transport Rule, OTAG, and Section 216 Petitions - A Hazy Situation?
The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments provided the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the states with new tool to address the problem of interstate transport of air pollutants. This report discusses the actions undertaken as a direct result of this act, additional pollution reduction enforcement measures pursued by the EPA, and actions undertaken by states to reduce offending emissions not in compliance with these measures.
Air Quality: EPA's Proposed Ozone Transport Rule, OTAG, and Section 216 Petitions - A Hazy Situation?
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is currently engaged in a series of regulatory actions to address the transport of ozone pollution in the eastern United States. This report reviews this situation with respect to an EPA-proposed Ozone Transport Rule and other activities.
Back to Top of Screen