Homeland Security Digital Library

Homeland Security Digital Library

SEARCH THE HSDL

Advanced search Help

Searching for terms: EXACT: "Gorte, Ross W." in: author

Set an Alert to get future results

Results 1 - 30 (of 32) sorted by relevance sort by date

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).

Biomass: Comparison of Definitions in Legislation Through the 111th Congress [October 28, 2010]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"The use of biomass as an energy feedstock is emerging as a potentially viable alternative to address U.S. energy security concerns, foreign oil dependence, rural economic development, and diminishing sources of conventional energy. Biomass (organic matter that can be converted into energy) may include food crops, crops for energy (e.g., switchgrass or prairie perennials), crop residues, wood waste and byproducts, and animal manure. Most legislation involving biomass has focused on encouraging the production of liquid fuels from corn. Efforts to promote the use of biomass for power generation have focused on wood, wood residues, and milling waste. Comparatively less emphasis has been placed on the use of non-corn based biomass feedstocks-- other food crops, non-food crops, crop residues, animal manure, and more--as renewable energy sources for liquid fuel use or for power generation. This is partly due to the variety, lack of availability, and dispersed location of non-corn based biomass feedstock. The technology development status and costs to convert non-corn based biomass into energy are also viewed by some as an obstacle to rapid technology deployment. For over 30 years, the term biomass has been a part of legislation enacted by Congress for various programs, indicating some interest by the general public and policymakers in expanding its use. To aid understanding of why U.S. consumers, utility groups, refinery managers, and others have not fully adopted biomass as an energy resource, this report investigates the characterization of biomass in legislation."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Bracmort, Kelsi; Gorte, Ross W.

2010-10-28
Forest Fire Protection [December 5, 2000]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"The 2000 fire season was, by most standards, one of the worst in the past half century. National attention began to focus on wildfires when a prescribed burn in May escaped control and burned 235 homes in Los Alamos, NM [New Mexico]. In September, the Clinton Administration proposed an additional $1.6 billion for wildfire management, and Congress enacted much of this proposal in the FY2001 Interior Appropriations Act (P.L. 106-291). However, Congress still faces questions about forestry practices, continued funding, and the federal role in wildland fire protection. Many factors contribute to the threat of wildfire damages; two major factors are the decline in forest and rangeland health and the expansion of residential areas into wildlands--the urban-wildland interface. Over the past century, aggressive wildfire suppression, as well as past grazing and logging practices, have altered many ecosystems, especially those where light, surface fires were frequent. Many areas now have unnaturally high fuel loads (e.g., dead trees and dense thickets) and an historically unnatural mix of plant species (e.g., exotic invaders). Fuel treatments have been proposed to reduce the wildfire threats. Prescribed burning -- setting fires under identified conditions -- can reduce the fine fuels that spread wildfires, but can escape and become catastrophic wildfires, especially if fuel 'ladders' and wind spread the fire into the forest canopy. Commercial timber harvesting is often proposed, and can reduce heavy fuels and fuel ladders, but can increase the threat unless the slash (tree tops and limbs) is properly disposed of."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Gorte, Ross W.

2000-12-05
Wildfire Fuels and Fuel Reduction [September 16, 2009]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"Severe wildfires have been burning more area and more houses in recent years. Some assert that climate change is at least partly to blame; others claim that the increasing number of homes in and near the forest (the wildland-urban interface) is a major cause. However, most observers agree that wildfire suppression and historic land management practices have led to unnaturally high accumulations of biomass in many forests, primarily in the intermountain West. While high-intensity conflagrations (wildfires that burn the forest canopy) occur naturally in some ecosystems (called crown-fire or stand-replacement fire ecosystems), abnormally high biomass levels can lead to conflagrations in ecosystems when such crown fires were rare (called frequent-surface-fire ecosystems). Thus, many propose activities to reduce forest biomass fuels. [...]. The issues for Congress include the appropriate level of funding for prescribed burning and thinning for fuel reduction and the appropriate reporting of accomplishments. Current reporting does not identify ecosystems being treated and the effectiveness of the treatments. Similarly, current appropriations and reporting do not distinguish thinning for fuel reduction from thinning for other purposes, such as enhancing timber productivity. More complete reporting could allow Congress to better target its appropriations for fuel reduction to enhance wildfire protection."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Gorte, Ross W.

2009-09-16
Wildfire Protection Funding [Updated May 2, 2005]

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

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Gorte, Ross W.

2005-05-02
Forest Fire/Wildfire Protection [Updated January 18, 2006]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
From the Document: "Congress continues to face questions about forestry practices, funding levels, and the federal role in wildland fire protection. Several recent fire seasons have been, by most standards, among the worst in the past half century. National attention began to focus on wildfires when a prescribed burn in May 2000 escaped control and burned 239 homes in Los Alamos, NM. President Clinton responded by requesting a doubling of wildfire management funds, and Congress enacted much of this proposal in the FY2001 Interior Appropriations Act (P.L. 106-291). President Bush responded to the severe 2002 fires by proposing a Healthy Forests Initiative to reduce fuel loads by expediting review processes. Many factors contribute to the threat of wildfire damages. Two major factors are the decline in forest and rangeland health and the expansion of residential areas into wildlands - the urban-wildland interface. Over the past century, aggressive wildfire suppression, as well as past grazing and logging practices, have altered many ecosystems, especially those where light, surface fires were frequent. Many areas now have unnaturally high fuel loads (e.g., dead trees and dense thickets) and an historically unnatural mix of plant species (e.g., exotic invaders)."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Gorte, Ross W.

2006-01-18
Forest Fire/Wildfire Protection [Updated February 14, 2005]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
From the Document: "Congress continues to face questions about forestry practices, funding levels, and the federal role in wildland fire protection. The 2000 and 2002 fire seasons were, by most standards, among the worst in the past half century. National attention began to focus on wildfires when a prescribed burn in May 2000 escaped control and burned 239 homes in Los Alamos, NM. President Clinton responded by requesting a doubling of wildfire management funds, and Congress enacted much of this proposal in the FY2001 Interior Appropriations Act (P.L. 106-291). President Bush responded to the severe 2002 fires by proposing a Healthy Forests Initiative to reduce fuel loads by expediting review processes. Many factors contribute to the threat of wildfire damages. Two major factors are the decline in forest and rangeland health and the expansion of residential areas into wildlands - the urban-wildland interface. Over the past century, aggressive wildfire suppression, as well as past grazing and logging practices, have altered many ecosystems, especially those where light, surface fires were frequent. Many areas now have unnaturally high fuel loads (e.g., dead trees and dense thickets) and an historically unnatural mix of plant species (e.g., exotic invaders)."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Gorte, Ross W.

2005-02-14
Federal Assistance for Wildfire Response and Recovery [June 6, 2011]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
From the Document: "Raging wildfires, burned homes, and the evacuation of thousands make headlines nearly every fire season. Options for federal support and assistance--during the fires, in the aftermath, and aimed at preventing a recurrence--have been raised by many concerned about the ongoing disasters. This report briefly describes these federal options."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Gorte, Ross W.

2011-06-06
Forest Fire/Wildfire Protection [January 29, 2009]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
From the Document: "Congress continues to face questions about forestry practices, funding levels, and the federal role in wildland fire protection. Recent fire seasons have been, by most standards, among the worst in the past half century. National attention began to focus on wildfires when a prescribed burn in May 2000 escaped control and burned 239 homes in Los Alamos, NM. President Clinton responded by requesting a doubling of wildfire management funds, and Congress enacted much of this proposal in the FY2001 Interior appropriations act (P.L. 106-291). President Bush responded to the severe 2002 fires by proposing a Healthy Forests Initiative to reduce fuel loads by expediting review processes. Many factors contribute to the threat of wildfire damages. Two major factors are the decline in forest and rangeland health and the expansion of residential areas into wildlands--the wildlandurban interface. Over the past century, aggressive wildfire suppression, as well as past grazing and logging practices, have altered many ecosystems, especially those where light, surface fires were frequent. Many areas now have unnaturally high fuel loads (e.g., dead trees and dense thickets) and an historically unnatural mix of plant species (e.g., exotic invaders). Fuel treatments have been proposed to reduce the wildfire threats."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Gorte, Ross W.

2009-01-29
Bali Agreements and Forests [February 13, 2008]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"Climate change and its drivers are receiving increasing global attention. Negotiations in the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Bali, Indonesia, in December 2007 led to an action plan and decision on slowing the rate of deforestation to reduce atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide. The decision to reduce deforestation and forest degradation, especially in developing countries in the tropics, is seen as a significant step toward reducing carbon dioxide emissions, although many believe that much more is needed to halt or reverse greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation. This report describes the portions of the Bali Action Plan and Decision that relate to forests."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Gorte, Ross W.; Sheikh, Pervaze A.

2008-02-13
Federal Assistance for Wildfire Response and Recovery [September 6, 2011]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
From the Document: "Raging wildfires, burned homes, and the evacuation of thousands make headlines nearly every fire season. Severe wildfires in 2011 occurred in Arizona and New Mexico in the late spring, and in Texas and Arizona in the late summer. Options for federal support and assistance--during the fires, in the aftermath, and aimed at preventing a recurrence--have been raised by many concerned about the ongoing disasters. This report briefly describes these federal options."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Gorte, Ross W.

2011-09-06
Wildfire Protection in the Wildland-Urban Interface [January 23, 2012]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"Congressional interest in funding to protect against wildfire threats has focused on communities in and near forests, an area known as the wildland-urban interface (WUI). The WUI is expanding in size and population, leading to increased concern for life and property that could potentially be damaged by wildfires. Approximately 9% of all land in the lower 48 states is classified as WUI. A significant concentration lies along the East Coast, although western states have the highest proportions of homes in the WUI. Federal funding for wildfire protection has increased significantly over the last decade. The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and the Department of the Interior (DOI) receive the bulk of funding to prevent and suppress wildfires. Nearly half of the USFS budget in 2010 was allocated for wildfire funding. A portion of this funding is spent on WUI efforts."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Gorte, Ross W.; Bracmort, Kelsi

2012-01-23
Forest Fire/Wildfire Protection [Updated January 17, 2008]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
This report discusses the risks, causes and effects of forest/wildfires while providing historical background, current issues and fire control policies. From the report: "Congress continues to face questions about forestry practices, funding levels, and the federal role in wildland fire protection. Recent fire seasons have been, by most standards, among the worst in the past half century. National attention began to focus on wildfires when a prescribed burn in May 2000 escaped control and burned 239 homes in Los Alamos, NM. President Clinton responded by requesting a doubling of wildfire management funds, and Congress enacted much of this proposal in the FY2001 Interior appropriations act (P.L. 106-291). President Bush responded to the severe 2002 fires by proposing a Healthy Forests Initiative to reduce fuel loads by expediting review processes. Many factors contribute to the threat of wildfire damages. Two major factors are the decline in forest and rangeland health and the expansion of residential areas into wildlands -- the urban-wildland interface. Over the past century, aggressive wildfire suppression, as well as past grazing and logging practices, have altered many ecosystems, especially those where light, surface fires were frequent. Many areas now have unnaturally high fuel loads (e.g., dead trees and dense thickets) and an historically unnatural mix of plant species (e.g., exotic invaders)."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Gorte, Ross W.

2008-01-17
Forest Fire/Wildfire Protection [March 7, 2012]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
From the Document: "Congress continues to face questions about forestry practices, funding levels, and the federal role in wildfire protection. Recent fire seasons have been, by most standards, among the worst in the past half century. National attention began to focus on wildfires when a prescribed burn in May 2000 escaped control and burned 239 homes in Los Alamos, NM. President Clinton responded by requesting a doubling of wildfire management funds, and Congress enacted much of this proposal in the FY2001 Interior appropriations act (P.L. 106-291). […] Many factors contribute to the threat of wildfire damages. Two major factors are the decline in forest and rangeland health and the expansion of residential areas into wildlands--the wildland-urban interface. Over the past century, aggressive wildfire suppression, as well as past grazing and logging practices, have altered many ecosystems, especially those where light, surface fires were frequent. Many areas now have unnaturally high fuel loads (e.g., dead trees and dense thickets) and an historically unnatural mix of plant species (e.g., exotic invaders). Fuel treatments have been proposed to reduce the wildfire threats."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Gorte, Ross W.; Bracmort, Kelsi

2012-03-07
Biomass: Comparison of Definitions in Legislation Through the 111th Congress [March 7, 2012]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"The use of biomass as an energy feedstock is emerging as a potentially viable alternative to address U.S. energy security concerns, foreign oil dependence, rural economic development, and diminishing sources of conventional energy. Biomass (organic matter that can be converted into energy) may include food crops, crops for energy (e.g., switchgrass or prairie perennials), crop residues, wood waste and byproducts, and animal manure. Most legislation involving biomass has focused on encouraging the production of liquid fuels from corn. Efforts to promote the use of biomass for power generation have focused on wood, wood residues, and milling waste. Comparatively less emphasis has been placed on the use of non-corn based biomass feedstocks-- other food crops, non-food crops, crop residues, animal manure, and more--as renewable energy sources for liquid fuel use or for power generation. This is partly due to the variety, lack of availability, and dispersed location of non-corn based biomass feedstock. The technology development status and costs to convert non-corn based biomass into energy are also viewed by some as an obstacle to rapid technology deployment. For over 30 years, the term biomass has been a part of legislation enacted by Congress for various programs, indicating some interest by the general public and policymakers in expanding its use. To aid understanding of why U.S. consumers, utility groups, refinery managers, and others have not fully adopted biomass as an energy resource, this report investigates the characterization of biomass in legislation."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Bracmort, Kelsi; Gorte, Ross W.

2012-03-07
Federal Funding for Wildfire Control and Management [February 13, 2012]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"The Forest Service (FS) and the Department of the Interior (DOI) are responsible for protecting most federal lands from wildfires. [...] There are three basic categories of federal programs for wildfire: federal lands protection, non-federal lands protection, and other fire-related expenditures. The vast majority (about 95%) of federal wildfire funds are spent to protect federal lands--for fire preparedness (equipment, baseline personnel, and training); fire suppression operations (including emergency funding); post-fire rehabilitation (to help sites recover after the wildfire); and fuel reduction (to reduce wildfire damages by reducing fuel levels). [...] Four issues have dominated wildfire funding debates. One is the high cost of fire management and its effects on other agency programs. [...] Another issue is funding for fuel reduction. [...] A third issue is the federal role in protecting non-federal lands, communities, and private structures. [...] A federal policy review recommended increased state and local efforts to match their responsibilities, but federal programs to protect non-federal lands have also expanded, reducing incentives for local participation in fire protection. Finally, post-fire rehabilitation is raising concerns. Agency regulations and legislation in the 109th Congress focused on expediting such activities, but opponents expressed concerns that this would restrict environmental review of and public involvement in salvage logging decisions, leading to greater environmental damage. Legislation was introduced but not enacted in the 110th Congress to provide alternative means of addressing post-fire restoration in particular areas. The large wildfires to date in 2011 have reignited concerns about post-fire rehabilitation."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Bracmort, Kelsi; Gorte, Ross W.

2012-02-13
Wildfire Damages to Homes and Resources: Understanding Causes and Reducing Losses [June 2, 2008]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
This CRS report discusses the background surrounding wildfires causes and damage to houses and other structures and resources. "Wildfires are getting more severe, with more acres and houses burned and more people at risk. This results from excess biomass in the forests, due to past logging and grazing and a century of fire suppression, combined with an expanding wildland urban interface -- more people and houses in and near the forests -- along with climate change, exacerbating drought and insect and disease problems. Some assert that current efforts to reduce biomass (fuel treatments, such as thinning) and to protect houses are inadequate, and that public objections to activities on federal lands raise costs and delay action. Others counter that proposals for federal lands allow timber harvesting, with substantial environmental damage and little fire protection. Congress is addressing these issues through various legislative proposals and through funding for protection programs." This report also includes one appendix.

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Gorte, Ross W.

2008-06-02
Federal Funding for Wildfire Control and Management [July 5, 2011]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"The Forest Service (FS) and the Department of the Interior (DOI) are responsible for protecting most federal lands from wildfires. Wildfire appropriations nearly doubled in FY2001, following a severe fire season in the summer of 2000, and have remained at relatively high levels. The acres burned annually have also increased over the past 50 years, with the six highest annual totals occurring since 2000. Many in Congress are concerned that wildfire costs are spiraling upward without a reduction in damages. With emergency supplemental funding, FY2008 wildfire funding was $4.46 billion, more than in any previous year. The vast majority (about 95%) of federal wildfire funds are spent to protect federal lands--for fire preparedness (equipment, baseline personnel, and training); fire suppression operations (including emergency funding); post-fire rehabilitation (to help sites recover after the wildfire); and fuel reduction (to reduce wildfire damages by reducing fuel levels). Since FY2001, FS fire appropriations have included funds for state fire assistance, volunteer fire assistance, and forest health management (to supplement other funds for these three programs), economic action and community assistance, fire research, and fire facilities. […] Finally, post-fire rehabilitation is raising concerns. Agency regulations and legislation in the 109th Congress focused on expediting such activities, but opponents expressed concerns that this would restrict environmental review of and public involvement in salvage logging decisions, leading to greater environmental damage. Legislation was introduced but not enacted in the 110th Congress to provide alternative means of addressing post-fire restoration in particular areas. The large wildfires to date in 2011 have reignited concerns about post-fire rehabilitation."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Gorte, Ross W.

2011-07-05
California Wildfires and Federal Assistance [October 25, 2007]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"Wildfires in southern California have destroyed homes and forced thousands to evacuate. The federal government is assisting state and local efforts to control the fires and evacuate those at risk. Federal programs also exist to assist in recovery efforts after the fires are out. Preventing a recurrence of catastrophic wildfires is impossible, but research has shown how to protect homes even while wildfires are burning. Raging wildfires, burned homes, and the evacuation of thousands of Californians have been making headlines. Options for federal support and assistance -- during the fires, in the aftermath, and aimed at preventing a recurrence -- have been raised by many concerned about the ongoing disaster. This report addresses these federal options."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Gorte, Ross W.

2007-10-25
Forestry in the 2007 Farm Bill [Updated August 20, 2007]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"Many programs authorized in the 2002 farm bill (P.L. 107-171) will expire at the end of FY2007, and the House has passed and Senate Agriculture Committee is likely to consider bills to reauthorize these programs. General forestry legislation is within the jurisdiction of the Agriculture Committees, and past farm bills have included provisions addressing forestry, especially on private lands. Most federal forestry programs are permanently authorized, and thus do not require periodic reauthorization in the farm bill. Nonetheless, the 2002 farm bill reauthorized one office (international forestry), created a new private landowner cost-share assistance program (the Forest Land Enhancement Program) replacing two previously existing programs, and enacted a new Community Fire Protection Program. A 2007 farm bill may also include forestry provisions addressing various issues. […]The Administration's 2007 proposed farm bill includes a forestry title. It proposes four new programs: (1) comprehensive statewide forest planning; (2) competitive landscape-scale forestry grants; (3) a 10-year, $150 million forest wood-to-energy technology development program; and (4) financial and technical assistance to communities for acquiring, planning for, and conserving community forests. […]"

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Gorte, Ross W.

2007-08-20
Compensating State and Local Governments for the Tax-Exempt Status of Federal Lands: What is Fair and Consistent? [March 22, 2012]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"The federal government owns significant amounts of land and resources that are exempt from state and local taxation. State and local governments provide a wide variety of services-- education, social services, public safety, transportation facilities, utilities, and much more. These services are funded through intergovernmental transfers (federal grants to state governments and federal and state grants to local governments), user fees, and state and local levied taxation-- property taxes, income taxes, sales and use taxes, excise taxes, severance taxes, and more. Congress has established programs to compensate state and local governments for the tax-exempt status of federal lands. Some propose that 'fair' compensation would provide payments that are equivalent to the taxes that would be paid if the lands were privately owned. Assessing such tax equivalency, however, is difficult because of the substantial variability in state and local reliance on and rates for the various types of taxes. Others suggest that 'fair' compensation would provide payments that offset the costs imposed on state and local governments from the federal lands, although this would exclude payments for governmental services that are not paid by the beneficiaries (e.g., social services). Providing consistent payments is a challenge; permanent appropriations are the most stable, but are difficult to establish and create permanent obligations. Finally, which lands to include for federal payments may seem straightforward, but lack of precise data on the federal lands might compromise accuracy of payments, and federal responsibility for tax-exempt Indian lands is unclear."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Gorte, Ross W.; Corn, M. Lynne (Mary Lynne), 1946-

2012-03-22
Climate Change and International Deforestation: Legislative Analysis [August 22, 2008]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"Deforestation accounts for nearly 20% of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions in the world. Deforestation results in carbon emissions when trees and underlying vegetation are burning or decomposing. Deforested areas that are later cultivated also release carbon to the atmosphere when soil carbon is oxidized. Further, deforested areas converted to other land uses (e.g., pastures) might sequester less carbon than forests, enabling greater levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. Providing incentives to prevent deforestation in foreign countries has been proposed in climate change legislation. An objective of this legislation is to provide funding from carbon markets to assist foreign countries in reducing deforestation and increasing forest restoration and afforestation. Challenges to this approach include implementing deforestation reduction activities in developing countries that may lack the capacity to monitor and enforce measures, avoiding harm to indigenous communities who rely on forest resources, and matching policies with the various drivers of deforestation in different regions around the world. Legislative policies on deforestation and climate change are analyzed in this report, and challenges for restoring forests in the tropics are discussed."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Sheikh, Pervaze A.; Gorte, Ross W.; Sidener, Jessica

2008-08-22
Deforestation and Climate Change [March 24, 2010]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"Forests exist at many latitudes. Many are concerned about the possible impacts of losing boreal and temperate forests, but existing data show little, if any, net deforestation, and their loss has relatively modest carbon consequences. In contrast, tropical deforestation is substantial and continuing, and releases large amounts of CO2, because of the carbon stored in the vegetation and released when tropical forests are cut down. There are many causes of tropical deforestation--commercial logging, large-scale agriculture (e.g., cattle ranching, soybean production, oil palm plantations), small-scale permanent or shifting (slash-and-burn) agriculture, fuelwood removal, and more. Often, these causes combine to exacerbate deforestation; for example, commercial logging often includes road construction, which in turn opens the forest for subsistence farmers. At times, tropical deforestation results from weak land tenure and/or weak or corrupt governance to protect the forests. Congress and international bodies are discussing various policies to reduce carbon emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD). Reducing deforestation in the tropics is likely to have additional benefits as well, such as preserving biological diversity and sustaining livelihoods for the rural poor and for indigenous communities and cultures. Proposals may be adapted to address local and regional causes of deforestation. Various forestry practices can reduce the impacts of deforestation, and several market approaches are evolving to compensate landowners for preserving their forests."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Gorte, Ross W.; Sheikh, Pervaze A.

2010-03-24
Farm Bill Legislative Action in the 110th Congress [Updated June 19, 2008]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"'On May 14, 2008, the House passed the conference agreement on the 2008 farm bill (H.R. 2419, The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008) by a vote of 318-106. The next day, the Senate passed the same bill by a vote of 81-15. Concurrently, on May 14, both the House and Senate passed, by voice vote, the final temporary extension of current law lasting until the earlier of May 23, 2008, or the date the 2008 farm bill was signed into law. […] The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates the total cost of the 2008 bill (i.e., baseline plus new funding, using the March 2007 baseline) at just under $287 billion over FY2008-FY2012. Of the $287 billion in total five-year budget authority for programs under the new law -- not including revenue and cost-offset provisions in the bill -- about $42 billion (14%) in projected spending will support commodity crops, $189 billion (65%) will support the cost of food stamps and commodity assistance, $24 billion (8%) will support conservation programs, and $22 billion (8%) will support crop insurance. Another $8 billion is expected to be spent on trade, horticulture and livestock production, rural development, research, forestry and energy, and other programs. For FY2008-FY2012, the conference bill also includes nearly $4 billion in costs to pay for supplemental disaster assistance (included under Title XV). Over the full 10-year period (2008-2017), other tax-related provisions in that bill title, particularly from customs user fees in the bill, will generate additional funding for provisions throughout the conference bill, including in the nutrition, conservation, and energy titles, among others. This report will be updated."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Marples, Donald; Richardson, Joe; Schnepf, Randall Dean, 1954- . . .

2008-06-19
Farm Bill Legislative Action in the 110th Congress [Updated June 13, 2008]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"On May 14, 2008, the House passed the conference agreement on the 2008 farm bill (H.R. 2419, The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008) by a vote of 318-106. The next day, the Senate passed the same bill by a vote of 81-15. Concurrently, on May 14, both the House and Senate passed, by voice vote, the final temporary extension of current law lasting until the earlier of May 23, 2008, or the date the 2008 farm bill was signed into law. On May 21, the Bush Administration vetoed the legislation. Both the House and the Senate voted to override the veto, and the conference bill became law on May 22, 2008 (P.L. 110-234). […] The conference agreement contains 15 titles covering support for commodity crops, horticulture and livestock production, conservation, nutrition, trade and food aid, agricultural research, farm credit, rural development, energy, forestry, and other related programs. It also includes tax-related provisions that would make certain changes to tax laws, in order to offset new spending initiatives in the respective bills. The bill is intended to replace the most recent 2002 farm bill (P.L. 107-171) and to guide most federal farm and food policies through FY2012. Many provisions of the 2002 farm bill expired in September 2007, but were extended under a series of temporary extensions enacted during the farm bill debate."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Jickling, Mark; Johnson, Renée; Becker, Geoffrey S. . . .

2008-06-13
Farm Bill Legislative Action in the 110th Congress [Updated May 9, 2008]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"The farm bill governs federal farm and food policy and is renewed about every five years. The 110th Congress is seeking to revise the current farm bill (P.L. 107- 171), which covers a wide range of programs including commodity price and income support, agricultural conservation, farm credit, research, rural development, and foreign and domestic food programs, among others. The House completed floor action on its version of the farm bill (H.R. 2419) on July 27, 2007. The Senate Agriculture Committee approved its version (S. 2302) on October 25, 2007. On December 14, the Senate completed floor action on the farm bill, which was offered as a substitute to the House bill. Conference negotiations were initially delayed because of differences between committee leadership and the Administration. Consequently, Congress temporarily extended portions of the expiring 2002 farm bill until March 15, 2008, as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2008 (P.L. 110-161). Since March, Congress has approved a one-month extension, followed by three consecutive short-term extensions lasting through May 16. […] Provisions in both the House and Senate farm bills seek many of the same types of changes to existing legislation and programs, but there are numerous differences. For farm commodities (Title I), both the House and Senate bills generally continue the framework of the 2002 farm bill, with certain changes to payment limitations and support prices for some commodities; however, the bills differ regarding other proposed programmatic changes. Both bills also add new provisions to address horticulture and livestock issues, and expand borrowing opportunities for beginning and socially disadvantaged farmers."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Johnson, Renée; Becker, Geoffrey S.; Capehart, Tom . . .

2008-05-09
Farm Bill Legislative Action in the 110th Congress [Updated April 10, 2008]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"The farm bill governs federal farm and food policy and is renewed about every five years. The 110th Congress is seeking to revise the current farm bill (P.L. 107- 171), which covers a wide range of programs including commodity price and income support, agricultural conservation, farm credit, research, rural development, and foreign and domestic food programs, among others. The House completed floor action on its version of the farm bill (H.R. 2419) on July 27, 2007. The Senate Agriculture Committee approved its version (S. 2302) on October 25, 2007. On December 14, the Senate completed floor action on the farm bill, which was offered as a substitute to the House bill. Conference negotiations have been delayed because of differences between committee leadership and the Administration. Consequently, Congress temporarily extended portions of the expiring 2002 farm bill until March 15, 2008, as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2008 (P.L. 110-161). […] The nutrition title (Title IV) of both bills diverge substantially on both the total level of new funding provided for nutrition programs and the allocation of the new funding among programs. However, in most cases, the bills include very similar policy changes: increased food stamp benefits and loosened eligibility standards, and increased funding for fresh fruits and vegetables in most domestic food programs. For conservation (Title II), international trade and food aid (Title III), credit (Title V), rural development (Title VI), research (Title VII), forestry (Title VIII), and energy (Title IX), both bills reauthorize, expand, and/or modify many of the existing programs, create new programs and initiatives, or allow some programs to expire. For credit, both bills expand borrowing opportunities for beginning and socially disadvantaged farmers."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Hanrahan, Charles; Gorte, Ross W.; Cowan, Tadlock . . .

2008-04-10
Potential Implications of a Carbon Offset Program to Farmers and Landowners [ February 26, 2010]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"Congress is currently debating climate legislation which could affect the U.S. agriculture and forestry sectors. In June 2009, the House passed H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. In November 2009, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works completed markup of S. 1733, the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act, by approving a 'Manager's Amendment' as a substitute, and ordered S. 1733 reported. Both the House-passed and the Senate-reported bills would establish cap-and-trade systems to regulate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, as well as address energy efficiency, renewable energy, and other energy topics. Both bills would require major reductions in GHG emissions from entities comprising roughly 85% of current U.S. GHG emissions. Covered sectors would include electricity production, natural gas distribution, petroleum refining, and specific industrial sectors. These and related bills and issues are currently being debated in Congress. For more detailed information see CRS [Congressional Research Service] Report R40896, 'Climate Change: Comparison of the Cap-and-Trade Provisions in H.R. 2454 and S. 1733'. Numerous studies have attempted to estimate the economic effects of potential climate legislation currently being considered by Congress. These studies have examined both the economy-wide effects, as well as the effects to specific sectors, such as the U.S. agriculture and forestry sectors. Some of these studies have also examined the potential market and industry effects from the proposed climate legislation, including possible resource shifts such as land use conversions and related crop production changes. Some studies further examine the potential economy-wide market effects, such as possible changes to retail food prices and supplies. This first section of this report describes results from some of the studies and discusses limitations and uncertainties associated with the economic models and their results. The second and third sections examine two particular concerns raised by the modeling results, involving (1) lands converted from agriculture to forestry, and (2) potential unequal opportunities and costs of carbon markets in various sectors of the agricultural community. The final section provides some conclusions."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Stubbs, Megan; Gorte, Ross W.; Ramseur, Jonathan L. . . .

2010-02-26
Previewing a 2007 Farm Bill [Updated January 3, 2007]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"Federal farm support, food assistance, agricultural trade, marketing, and rural development policies are governed by a variety of separate laws. However, many of these laws periodically are evaluated, revised, and renewed through an omnibus, multi-year 'farm bill.' The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (P.L. [Public Law] 107-171) was the most recent omnibus farm bill, and many of its provisions expire in 2007, so reauthorization is expected to be addressed in the first session of the 110th Congress. The heart of every omnibus farm bill is farm income and commodity price support policy -- namely, the methods and levels of support that the federal government provides to agricultural producers. However, farm bills typically include titles on agricultural trade and foreign food aid, conservation and environment, forestry, domestic food assistance (primarily food stamps), agricultural credit, rural development, agricultural research and education, and marketing-related programs. Often, such 'miscellaneous' provisions as food safety, marketing orders, animal health and welfare, and energy are added. This omnibus nature of the farm bill creates a broad coalition of support among sometimes conflicting interests for policies that, individually, might not survive the legislative process. The scope and direction of a new farm bill may be shaped by such factors as financial conditions in the agricultural economy, competition among various interests, international trade obligations, and -- possibly most important -- a tight limit on federal funds."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Womach, Jasper; Becker, Geoffrey S.; Chite, Ralph M. . . .

2007-01-03
Forest Carbon Markets: Potential and Drawbacks [July 3, 2008]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"Forests are major carbon sinks (storehouses), and activities that alter forests can release or sequester carbon dioxide (CO2), the most common greenhouse gas (GHG). Some carbon markets have been formed under mandatory GHG reduction regimes, such as the Kyoto Protocol and various regional and state initiatives in the United States. Other markets have formed for voluntary efforts to reduce GHG emissions. Offsets, or credits for sequestering carbon or reducing emissions in unregulated sectors, are typically allowed in both mandatory and voluntary markets. Forestry activities are among the largest-volume and lowest-cost opportunities for generating offsets. Various forestry activities may be feasible for carbon offsets. […] Forestry projects may offer considerable market opportunities for carbon offsets, but several issues have generated concerns and controversy. One concern, especially for compliance markets, is whether the project is additional to business as usual. An activity that is common practice or industry standard, or a project that is required under current federal, state, or local laws, cannot be used as an offset. Functional carbon markets also require cost-effective practices to verify carbon sequestration. Current measurement and monitoring practices are costly and have several implementation challenges. Another concern is that, compared to other types of offsets, forestry projects present the greatest risk of leakage. Emission leakage can occur if carbon sequestered in one location (e.g., by avoided deforestation) leads to carbon release (e.g., from increased harvesting) in another location. Product leakage could occur if forest carbon sequestration encourages use of more carbon-intensive substitutes (e.g., cement or steel). Forest carbon projects are expected to generate offsets for decades."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Gorte, Ross W.; Ramseur, Jonathan L.

2008-07-03
Carbon Sequestration in Forests [August 6, 2009]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"Global climate change is a widespread and growing concern that has led to extensive international discussions and negotiations. Responses to this concern have focused on reducing emissions of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide, and on measuring carbon absorbed by and stored in forests, soils, and oceans. One option for slowing the rise of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, and thus possible climate change, is to increase the amount of carbon removed by and stored in forests. As Congress debates climate change and options for addressing the issue, ideas for increasing carbon sequestration in forests are likely to be discussed. This report examines basic questions concerning carbon sequestration in forests. The first section provides a brief background on congressional interest in forest carbon sequestration. The second describes the basic carbon cycle in forests, with an overview of how carbon cycling and storage vary among different types of forests. The third section then addresses how forest carbon is considered in the global climate change debate. This third section begins with an overview of accounting for forest carbon, then discusses the carbon consequences of forest management practices, the effects of changes in land use, and 'leakage.' The section then concludes with a summary of existing federal programs that could affect forest carbon sequestration."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Gorte, Ross W.

2009-08-06

1 2