Advanced search Help
Searching for terms: EXACT: "Corn, M. Lynne (Mary Lynne), 1946-" in: author
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): Controversies for the 108th Congress [Updated January 13, 2004]
"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
-
Invasive Non-Native Species: Background and Issues for Congress [Updated November 25, 2002]
"For the first few centuries after the arrival of Europeans in North America, plants and animals of many species were sent between the two land masses. The transfer of non-natives consisted not only of intentional westbound species ranging from pigs to dandelions, but also intentional eastbound grey squirrels and tomatoes. And for those centuries the remaining non-native species crossing the Atlantic uninvited and often unwelcome, were ignored if they were noticed at all. National focus on non-native species arose in the 19th Century, primarily over losses in agriculture (due to weeds or plant diseases), the leading industry of the time. A few newly-arrived non-natives, and new estimates of adverse economic impacts exceeding $100 billion annually, have sharpened that focus. Very broadly, the unanswered question regarding non-native species is whose responsibility is it to ensure economic integrity and ecological stability in response to the actual or potential impacts of non-native species? As this report shows, the current answer is not simple, and may be "no one." It may depend on answers to many other questions: Is the introduction deliberate or accidental? Does it affect agriculture? By what pathway does it arrive? Is the potential harm from the species already known? Is the species already established in one area of the country? Finally, if the answers to any of these questions are unsatisfactory, what changes should be made?"
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Rawson, Jean M.; Buck, Eugene H.; Corn, M. Lynne (Mary Lynne), 1946-
2002-11-25
-
Biotechnology, Indigenous Peoples, and Intellectual Property Rights [April 16, 1993]
"Plant and animal species are estimated to become extinct as a result of natural processes at a rate of one to ten species a year. But human activities and the destruction of habitat are calculated to increase the extinction rate to 10,000-150,000 species a year. This process threatens the gene pool base that is important for food crops, undermines ecological balance, raises moral concerns about humankind's relationship with other species, adversely affects the development of new products useful to the modern world, and causes the demise of indigenous peoples dependent upon their immediate habitat. Several decades ago pharmaceutical companies and government research agencies devoted substantial efforts to screening plants and animals for useful medicinal properties. But the lack of widespread success and government budget cuts led to a decline in biodiversity screening in the 1970s in favor of efforts to synthesize new drugs in the laboratory. Now there has been a resurgence of interest in biodiversity screening. That resurgence has also been accompanied by a concern in some quarters to involve indigenous peoples in the screening process. […] Developing countries that host most indigenous peoples have generally subordinated protection for intellectual property to concerns about rapid economic development. The rights of indigenous peoples are as yet ill-defined. Existing and proposed international agreements pertaining to intellectual property provide little support for the notion. And the requirements of U.S. patent law that an invention be novel, useful, non-obvious, and not be a product of nature appear to be insuperable obstacles to any domestic protection for such knowledge."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Axt, Josephine R.; Corn, M. Lynne (Mary Lynne), 1946-; Ackerman, David M.
1993-04-16
