The House passed H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2005, on April 21, 2005 (249-183). The legislation includes a “safe harbor” provision to protect methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) refiners from product liability suits, which was retained after a close vote on an amendment to drop the language (213-219). In the 108th Congress, there was opposition to this provision in the Senate. It is unclear how its inclusion may affect Senate passage of an energy bill in the 109th Congress. House Republicans have indicated that a compromise will be sought to satisfy the other body. Language in the House-passed bill would also authorize opening of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to exploration and development. An amendment to delete the ANWR provisions from H.R. 6 was defeated (200-231).

This report provides the information related to the fishery, aquaculture, and marine mammal issues in the 109th Congress

A number of issues affecting U.S. agriculture are receiving attention during the 109th Congress. Some are related to new initiatives or to unfinished legislation from the 108th Congress; others have been the focus of ongoing congressional oversight. Although the current (2002) farm bill (P.L. 107-171) generally does not expire until 2007, the agriculture committees could begin hearings on a new measure later this year. Meanwhile, the agriculture committees are required by the adopted FY2006 budget resolution to report legislation that reduces spending on mandatory food and agriculture support programs by $3 billion over the next five years. Other issues of importance to agriculture during the 109th Congress include the possible reauthorization of an expiring dairy support program; multilateral and bilateral trade negotiations; concerns about agroterrorism, food safety, and animal and plant diseases (e.g., “mad cow” disease and Asian soybean rust); high energy costs; environmental issues; and a number of agricultural marketing matters. This report will be updated if significant developments ensue.

This CRS report summarizes and compares the pertinent parts of the two bills. Specifically, the report compares the homeland security assistance distribution formulas in S. 21 and H.R. 1544, presents estimated guaranteed amounts each state would receive under the House and Senate formulas , and a stepby-step process for distribution of federal homeland security assistance (Appendix A and B), as proposed by these two bills.