The primary purpose of this issue brief is to focus on the current legislative action in the 107th Congress with respect to abortion; however, understanding that legislation requires a review of the U. S. Supreme Court’s leading decisions concerning a woman’s right to choose whether to terminate her pregnancy. For a detailed discussion of the case law, see CRS Report 95-724, Abortion Law Development: A Brief Overview.

None

Several dairy issues that were debated during the 108th Congress are expected to continue as issues of interest in the 109th Congress. Separate bills were introduced in the 108th Congress to extend authority for both the Milk Income Loss Contract (MILC) Program and the dairy forward pricing pilot program, and to address dairy producer concerns about the importation of milk protein concentrates.

Several major dairy policy issues are addressed in the context of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (P.L. 107- 171, the 2002 farm bill), which was signed into law on May 13, 2002. Included in the enacted 2002 farm bill are a reauthorization of the dairy price support program for an additional 5 ½ years, and new authorization for direct payments to dairy farmers through September 2005, triggered whenever the market price of farm milk falls below a target price level.

This report briefly discusses programs designed to provide income support, price support, and/or supply management for approximately 20 specified agricultural commodities. It specifically addresses the proposed farm bill legislation, meant to expand existing services and add new programs, in part to avert ad hoc measures to fill gaps.

This report discusses global climate change and the market-based strategies to reduce greenhouse gases.

In recent years conflicting budget priorities and divided political control have accentuated the institutional tensions between the executive and legislative branches inherent in the federal budget process. President Clinton, like his two predecessors, called for an item veto, or possibly expanded impoundment authority, to provide him with greater control over federal spending. This report provides a brief history of impoundment and discusses the debate surrounding the line item veto.

None

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. . . .” This language restricts government both more and less than it would if it were applied literally. It restricts government more in that it applies not only to Congress, but to all branches of the federal government, and to all branches of state and local government. It restricts government less in that it provides no protection to some types of speech and only limited protection to others. This report provides an overview of the major exceptions to the First Amendment — of the ways that the Supreme Court has interpreted the guarantee of freedom of speech and press to provide no protection or only limited protection for some types of speech.

None

The end of the Cold War and its impact on defense spending has created a strong need to reform Department of Defense’s (DOD) acquisition system. With procurement spending down, DOD expects to depend on savings from acquisition reform to help finance future force modernization. Policymakers believe that DOD should use more commercial products because, in many instances, they cost less and their quality is comparable to products built according to DOD military specifications. Many such reform proposals are based on recognition that DOD regulatory barriers and a Cold War acquisition “culture” have inhibited the introduction of commercial products.

None

None

None

The Department of Defense (DOD) administers five environmental programs in response to various requirements under federal environmental laws. These programs include environmental cleanup, environmental compliance, pollution prevention, environmental technology, and conservation. Additionally, the Department of Energy (DOE) is responsible for managing defense nuclear waste and cleaning up contaminated nuclear weapons sites. The Administration requested a total of $11.17 billion for these programs in FY2003, about $390 million more than the FY2002 funding level of $10.78 billion. Some of the ongoing issues associated with these programs are the adequacy, cost, and pace of cleanup, whether DOD and DOE adequately comply with environmental laws and regulations, and the extent to which environmental requirements encroach upon military readiness.

The Department of Defense (DOD) administers five environmental programs in response to various requirements under federal environmental laws. These programs include environmental cleanup, environmental compliance, pollution prevention, environmental technology, and conservation. Additionally, the Department of Energy (DOE) is responsible for managing defense nuclear waste and cleaning up contaminated nuclear weapons sites. The Administration requested a total of $11.17 billion for these programs in FY2003, about $390 million more than the FY2002 funding level of $10.78 billion. Some of the ongoing issues associated with these programs are the adequacy, cost, and pace of cleanup, whether DOD and DOE adequately comply with environmental laws and regulations, and the extent to which environmental requirements encroach upon military readiness.

In the 108th Congress, debate over energy efficiency programs has focused on budget, oil, natural gas, and electricity issues, and provisions in the omnibus energy policy bill, S. 2095, H.R. 6, and S. 14/S. 1149. The Bush Administration’s FY2005 budget request for the Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Energy Efficiency Program sought $875.9 million, including $543.9 for R&D and $332.0 million for grants. In the first session, the omnibus energy bill (H.R. 6) had several significant tax and regulatory measures for energy efficiency. It did not pass the Senate due to concerns about cost and an MTBE “safe harbor” provision.

None

None

The Bush Administration issued its plan for a national energy policy on May 16, 2001. The plan was controversial, characterized by some as leaner on conservation and renewables than Democratic proposals, and predisposed to trade off environmental considerations to increase supply. Comprehensive energy legislation was introduced in the Senate by both parties by late March (S. 388, S. 389, S. 596, S. 597). Bills reported by several House committees (H.R. 2436, H.R. 2460, H.R. 2511, and H.R. 2587) were combined in a single bill, H.R. 4, passed by the House, August 1, 2001. The House version of H.R. 4 would require a 5 billion gallon reduction in light-duty truck and SUV fuel consumption and would open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to leasing.

None

None

None

This issue brief views reorganization and management as involving the alteration of the program administrative structure and operations of the executive branch for reasons of efficiency, economy, and direction. The underlying issue is who reorganizes or sets management policy—Congress or the President— and by what authority and, also, for what purpose?