Advanced search    Help

Clear all search criteria

Only 2/3! You are seeing results from the Public Collection, not the complete Full Collection. Sign in to search everything (see eligibility).

• Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): Legislative Actions Through the 109th Congress [Updated April 9, 2007]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "A major part of the energy debate is whether to approve energy development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in northeastern Alaska, and if so, under what conditions, or whether to continue to prohibit development to protect the area's biological resources. ANWR is rich in fauna, flora, and commercial oil potential. Its development has been debated for over 40 years, but increases in gasoline and natural gas prices, terrorist attacks, and infrastructure damage from hurricanes have intensified the debate. Current law forbids energy leasing in ANWR. This report is intended to provide a summary of legislative attempts to address issues of energy development and preservation in the Refuge from the 95th Congress through the 109th Congress, with emphasis on the 107th through 109th Congresses. This history has been cited by many, in and out of Congress, as background for issues that may be raised in the 110th Congress. The report contains little analysis of the substance of this issue, which is covered in other CRS reports. See CRS Report RL33872, 'Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): New Directions in the 110th Congress', for information on actions in the 110th Congress relative to ANWR."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Baldwin, Pamela; Gelb, Bernard A.; Corn, M. Lynne (Mary Lynne), 1946- . . .

  2007-04-09
• Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): Controversies for the 109th Congress [Updated December 16, 2005]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "One major element of the energy debate is whether to approve energy development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in northeastern Alaska, and if so, under what conditions, or whether to continue to prohibit development to protect the area's biological recreational, and subsistence values. ANWR is rich in fauna, flora, and commercial oil potential. Its development has been debated for over 40 years, but sharp increases in gasoline and natural gas prices from late 2000 to early 2001, terrorist attacks, further increases in 2004-2005, and infrastructure damage from hurricanes have intensified the debate. Few onshore U.S. areas stir as much industry interest as the northern area of ANWR. At the same time, few areas are considered more worthy of protection in the eyes of conservation and some Native groups. Current law forbids energy leasing in the Refuge. The FY2006 Budget Resolution (H.Con.Res. 95, H.Rept. 109-62) required that the House Resources and Senate Energy Committees achieve savings targets that would be difficult without including ANWR legislation. On October 19, 2005, the Senate Committee reported its title for reconciliation (S. 1932) to the Senate Budget Committee. The Committee's title would open ANWR; supporters designed it to meet the savings target and Senate procedural restrictions on matters included in reconciliation bills."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Baldwin, Pamela; Gelb, Bernard A.; Corn, M. Lynne (Mary Lynne), 1946-

  2005-12-16
• Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): Controversies for the 108th Congress [Updated January 13, 2004]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "One major element of the energy debate in the 108th Congress is whether to approve energy development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in northeastern Alaska, and if so, under what conditions, or whether to continue to prohibit development to protect the area's biological resources. The Refuge is an area rich in fauna, flora, and commercial oil potential. Sharp increases in prices of gasoline and natural gas from late 2000 to early 2001, followed by terrorist attacks, and further increases in 2003, have renewed the ANWR debate for the first time in 7 years; however, its development has been debated for over 40 years. Few U.S. locations onshore stir as much industry interest as the northern area of ANWR. Current law forbids energy leasing in the Refuge. The first key vote in the 108th Congress came in the Senate. On March 19, the Senate passed an amendment by Senator Boxer to strip language from the Senate Budget Resolution that would have facilitated subsequent passage of ANWR development legislation. The second group of votes came April 10 in the House on the way to passage of a comprehensive energy bill (H.R. 6). The House adopted an amendment by Representative Wilson (NM) to limit certain features of federal leasing development to no more than 2,000 acres. It rejected an amendment by Representative Markey to delete ANWR development from the bill. The Senate passed its version of H.R. 6 by adopting the provisions of the Senate's version of omnibus energy legislation from the 107th Congress. The Senate version contained no provision to open the Refuge to development. The conference committee did not include ANWR development in the conference report. Many observers feel that passage of ANWR development legislation in the remainder of the 108th Congress is now unlikely. If Congress does not act, the status quo, which prohibits development unless Congress acts, will continue."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Corn, M. Lynne (Mary Lynne), 1946-; Gelb, Bernard A.; Baldwin, Pamela

  2004-01-13
• Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): New Directions in the 110th Congress [February 8, 2007]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "One part of the energy debate has been whether to approve energy development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in northeastern Alaska -- and if so, under what conditions -- or whether to continue to prohibit development to protect the area's biological, recreational, and subsistence values. ANWR is rich in fauna, flora, and oil potential. Its development has been debated for over 40 years, but sharp increases in energy prices from late 2000 to early 2001, terrorist attacks, more price increases in 2004-2006, and energy infrastructure damage from hurricanes have intensified debate. Few onshore U.S. areas stir as much industry interest as ANWR. At the same time, few areas are considered more worthy of protection in the eyes of conservation and some Native groups. Current law prohibits oil and gas leasing in the Refuge. Changes in party control in the 110th Congress have encouraged those who seek wilderness protection for this portion of ANWR. However, any change from the status quo appears just as difficult for proponents of wilderness designation who seek to provide additional statutory protection as it did for development advocates in the 109th Congress."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Corn, M. Lynne (Mary Lynne), 1946-; Gelb, Bernard A.; Baldwin, Pamela

  2007-02-08
• Endangered Species Act and 'Sound Science' [September 27, 2007]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "The adequacy of the science supporting implementation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is receiving increased congressional attention. While some critics accuse agencies responsible for implementing the ESA of using 'junk science,' others counter that decisions that should rest on science are instead being dictated by political concerns. Under the ESA, certain species of plants and animals (both vertebrate and invertebrate) are listed as either 'endangered' or 'threatened' according to assessments of the risk of their extinction. Once a species is listed, powerful legal tools are available to protect the species and its habitat. Efforts to list, protect, and recover threatened or endangered species under the ESA can be controversial. Some of this controversy stems from the substantive provisions of this law, which can affect the use of both federal and nonfederal lands. The scientific underpinnings of decisions under the ESA are especially important, given their importance for species and their possible impacts on land use and development. […] Several bills affecting science as used in the ESA have been introduced in recent Congresses, but to date none have been enacted. Legislative activity in the 109th Congress is summarized in CRS [Congressional Research Service] Report RL33468, 'The Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the 109th Congress: Conflicting Values and Difficult Choices'. This report provides a context for evaluating legislative proposals through examples of how science has been used in selected cases, a discussion of the nature and role of science in general, and its role in the ESA process in particular, together with general and agency information quality requirements and policies, and a review of how the courts have viewed agency use of science. This report will be updated as events warrant."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Buck, Eugene H.; Corn, M. Lynne (Mary Lynne), 1946-; Baldwin, Pamela

  2007-09-27
• Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the 109th Congress: Conflicting Values and Difficult Choices [Updated November 16, 2005]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "The 109th Congress is considering various proposals to amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA; P.L. 93-205; 16 U.S.C. §§1531-1543). Major issues in recent years have included changing the role of science in decision-making, modifying critical habitat (CH) procedures, reducing conflicts with Department of Defense activities, incorporating further protection and incentives for property owners, and increasing protection of listed species, among others. In addition, many have advocated enacting as law some ESA regulations promulgated during the Clinton Administration. The ESA has been one of the more contentious environmental laws. This may stem from its strict substantive provisions, which can affect the use of both federal and nonfederal lands and resources. Under the ESA, species of plants and animals (both vertebrate and invertebrate) can be listed as 'endangered' or 'threatened' according to assessments of their risk of extinction. Once a species is listed, powerful legal tools are available to aid its recovery and protect its habitat. The ESA may also be controversial because dwindling species are usually harbingers of broader ecosystem decline: the most common cause of listing species is habitat loss."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Corn, M. Lynne (Mary Lynne), 1946-; Buck, Eugene H.; Sheikh, Pervaze A. . . .

  2005-11-16
• Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): Controversies for the 109th Congress [Updated July 7, 2006]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "One part of the energy debate is whether to approve energy development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in northeastern Alaska, and if so, under what conditions, or whether to continue to prohibit development to protect the area's biological, recreational, and subsistence values. ANWR is rich in fauna, flora, and oil potential. Its development has been debated for over 40 years, but sharp increases in energy prices from late 2000 to early 2001, terrorist attacks, more price increases in 2004-2006, and energy infrastructure damage from hurricanes have intensified debate. Few onshore U.S. areas stir as much industry interest as ANWR. At the same time, few areas are considered more worthy of protection in the eyes of conservation and some Native groups. Current law prohibits oil and gas leasing in the Refuge. In the first session of the 109th Congress, development advocates added ANWR development to the conference report for the Defense appropriations bill (H.R. 2863). The House passed the conference report with the ANWR provision, but the ANWR title was removed from the bill (P.L. 109-148) after failure of a cloture motion in the Senate. In the second session, on March 16, 2006, the Senate passed S.Con.Res. 83, the FY2007 budget resolution. Its sole reconciliation instruction was to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, and it assumed revenues from leasing in ANWR. On May 25, 2006, the House passed the American-Made Energy and Good Jobs Act (H.R. 5429), which would open ANWR to development."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Corn, M. Lynne (Mary Lynne), 1946-; Gelb, Bernard A.; Baldwin, Pamela

  2006-07-06
• Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): Controversies for the 109th Congress [Updated July 15, 2005]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "One major element of the energy debate is whether to approve energy development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in northeastern Alaska, and if so, under what conditions, or whether to continue to prohibit development to protect the area's biological resources, along with its recreational and subsistence values. The Refuge is an area rich in fauna, flora, and commercial oil potential. Sharp increases in gasoline and natural gas prices from late 2000 to early 2001, followed by terrorist attacks, and increases again in 2004-2005, have renewed the ANWR debate; however, its development has been debated for more than 40 years. Few onshore U.S. locations stir as much industry interest as the northern area of ANWR. At the same time, few areas are considered more worthy of protection in the eyes of conservation and some Native groups. Current law forbids energy leasing in the Refuge. On April 20, 2005, the House rejected the Markey/Johnson amendment (H.Amdt. 73) to strike the ANWR title from H.R. 6, the omnibus energy bill, which passed the House passed on April 22. The Senate version of H.R. 6 contained no ANWR title. On March 16, 2005, the Senate rejected the Cantwell amendment (striking language related to ANWR development, S.Amdt. 168, yeas 49, nays 51, Roll Call #52) to S.Con.Res. 18, the Senate budget resolution. The amendment would have struck §102(a)(4) instructing the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. As a result, development proponents may be able to include ANWR development in a reconciliation bill, since reconciliation bills are not subject to filibusters. In the end, the House and Senate approved a requirement that the House Resources and Senate Energy Committees achieve savings targets that would be difficult to meet without passing ANWR legislation."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Corn, M. Lynne (Mary Lynne), 1946-; Gelb, Bernard A.; Baldwin, Pamela

  2005-07-15
• Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): Controversies for the 109th Congress [Updated January 31, 2006]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "One major element of the energy debate is whether to approve energy development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in northeastern Alaska, and if so, under what conditions, or whether to continue to prohibit development to protect the area's biological recreational, and subsistence values. ANWR is rich in fauna, flora, and commercial oil potential. Its development has been debated for over 40 years, but sharp increases in gasoline and natural gas prices from late 2000 to early 2001, terrorist attacks, further increases in 2004-2005, and infrastructure damage from hurricanes have intensified the debate. Few onshore U.S. areas stir as much industry interest as the northern area of ANWR. At the same time, few areas are considered more worthy of protection in the eyes of conservation and some Native groups. Current law forbids oil and gas leasing in the Refuge. The FY2006 Budget Resolution (H.Con.Res. 95, H.Rept. 109-62) required that the House Resources and Senate Energy Committees achieve savings targets that would be difficult without including ANWR legislation. The Senate Budget Committee reported a title in S. 1932 (reconciliation) to open ANWR; supporters designed it to meet the savings target and Senate procedural restrictions on matters included in reconciliation bills."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Baldwin, Pamela; Gelb, Bernard A.; Corn, M. Lynne (Mary Lynne), 1946-

  2006-01-31
• Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): Controversies for the 109th Congress [Updated January 26, 2006]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "One major element of the energy debate is whether to approve energy development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in northeastern Alaska, and if so, under what conditions, or whether to continue to prohibit development to protect the area's biological recreational, and subsistence values. ANWR is rich in fauna, flora, and commercial oil potential. Its development has been debated for over 40 years, but sharp increases in gasoline and natural gas prices from late 2000 to early 2001, terrorist attacks, further increases in 2004-2005, and infrastructure damage from hurricanes have intensified the debate. Few onshore U.S. areas stir as much industry interest as the northern area of ANWR. At the same time, few areas are considered more worthy of protection in the eyes of conservation and some Native groups. Current law forbids energy leasing in the Refuge. The FY2006 Budget Resolution (H.Con.Res. 95, H.Rept. 109-62) required that the House Resources and Senate Energy Committees achieve savings targets that would be difficult without including ANWR legislation. The Senate Budget Committee reported a title in S. 1932 (reconciliation) to open ANWR; supporters designed it to meet the savings target and Senate procedural restrictions on matters included in reconciliation bills."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Corn, M. Lynne (Mary Lynne), 1946-; Gelb, Bernard A.; Baldwin, Pamela

  2006-01-26
• Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): Controversies for the 109th Congress [Updated March 11, 2005]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "One major element of the energy debate in the 109th Congress is whether to approve energy development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in northeastern Alaska, and if so, under what conditions, or whether to continue to prohibit development to protect the area's biological resources, along with its recreational and subsistence values. The Refuge is an area rich in fauna, flora, and commercial oil potential. Sharp increases in prices of gasoline and natural gas from late 2000 to early 2001, followed by terrorist attacks, and increases again in 2004- 2005, have renewed the ANWR debate; however, its development has been debated for more than 40 years. Few onshore U.S. locations stir as much industry interest as the northern area of ANWR. At the same time, few areas are considered more worthy of protection in the eyes of conservation and some Native groups. Current law forbids energy leasing in the Refuge. On March 9, 2005, the House Budget Committee ordered the FY2006 budget resolution (number not yet available) to be reported; the measure did not contain assumptions regarding ANWR revenues. A day later, the Senate Budget Committee ordered S.Con.Res. 18 to be reported. Its version of the resolution contained instructions to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources that assumed revenues from the sale of ANWR leases."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Baldwin, Pamela; Gelb, Bernard A.; Corn, M. Lynne (Mary Lynne), 1946-

  2005-03-11
• Reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act (ESA): A Comparison of Pending Bills and a Proposed Amendment with Current Law [March 13, 2006]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "The Endangered Species Act (ESA) protects species that are determined to be either endangered or threatened according to assessments of their risk of extinction. The ESA has not been reauthorized since September 30, 1992, and efforts to do so have been controversial and complex. Some observers assert that the current ESA is a failure because few species have recovered, and that it unduly and unevenly restricts the use of private lands. Others assert that since the act's passage, few species have become extinct, many have improved, and that restrictions to preserve species do not place a greater burden on landowners than many other federal, state, and local laws. This report provides a side-by-side analysis of two bills and a proposed amendment that would amend the ESA. This analysis compares H.R. 3824, the Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act of 2005, as passed by the House; proposed House Amendment 588 to H.R. 3824 (Miller/Boehlert Amendment); and S. 2110, the Collaboration for the Recovery of Endangered Species Act."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Sheikh, Pervaze A.; Baldwin, Pamela; Lunder, Erika . . .

  2006-03-13
• Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the 109th Congress: Conflicting Values and Difficult Choices [Updated January 25, 2006]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "The 109th Congress is considering various proposals to amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA; P.L. 93-205, 16 U.S.C. §§1531-1543). Major issues in recent years have included changing the role of science in decision-making, modifying critical habitat (CH) procedures, reducing conflicts with Department of Defense activities, incorporating further protection and incentives for property owners, and increasing protection of listed species, among others. In addition, many have advocated enacting as law some ESA regulations promulgated during the Clinton Administration. The ESA has been one of the more contentious environmental laws. This may stem from its strict substantive provisions, which can affect the use of both federal and nonfederal lands and resources. Under the ESA, species of plants and animals (both vertebrate and invertebrate) can be listed as 'endangered' or 'threatened' according to assessments of their risk of extinction. Once a species is listed, powerful legal tools are available to aid its recovery and protect its habitat. The ESA may also be controversial because dwindling species are usually harbingers of broader ecosystem decline: the most common cause of listing species is habitat loss."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Buck, Eugene H.; Corn, M. Lynne (Mary Lynne), 1946-; Sheikh, Pervaze A. . . .

  2006-01-25