Agricultural interests have been following trade policy developments against a backdrop of weak foreign demand and large world supplies of agricultural products. The U.S. Department of Agriculture reports that the value of U.S. agricultural exports fell between FY1996 (a record year) and FY1999 by almost $11 billion. USDA forecasts agricultural exports at $50.5 billion in FY2000 and $51.5 billion in FY2001. However, the projected agricultural trade surpluses for those years, of $11.5 billion and $12 billion, would be less than half the FY1996 surplus of $27.2 billion. Many agricultural groups and their supporters in Congress believe that the sector's future prosperity depends upon such U.S. trade policies as: 1) encouraging China's entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO), with its binding rules and responsibilities; 2) exempting agriculture from U.S. unilateral economic sanctions; 3) fully using export and food aid programs; and 4) aggressively battling foreign-imposed barriers to the movement of U.S. farm products. A few U.S. farm groups are wary of such approaches.

The 106th Congress considered a number of trade policy developments against a backdrop of weak foreign demand and large world supplies of agricultural commodities. The U.S. Department of Agriculture reports that the value of U.S. agricultural exports fell between FY1996 (a record year) and FY1999 by almost $11 billion, to $49.2 billion. Agricultural exports did climb back to $50.9 billion in FY2000, and are now projected at $53 billion in FY2001. However, the pace of recovery concerned many agricultural groups and their supporters in Congress. Although they recognize that many world economic, farm production, political, and weather factors influence exports, many of these groups believe that the agricultural sector's future prosperity also depends upon such U.S. trade policies as: 1) encouraging China's entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO), with its binding rules and responsibilities; 2) exempting agricultural exports from U.S. unilateral economic sanctions; 3) fully using export and food aid programs; and 4) aggressively battling foreign-imposed barriers to the movement of U.S. farm products. A few U.S. farm groups are wary of such approaches.

This report discusses issues regarding Agriculture funding, specifically the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform (FAIR) Act (P.L. 104-127), which prescribed farm commodity support policy through 2002.

Most congressional interest in agriculture in the 106th Congress was focused on persistent low prices for major commodities and proposals to redress declining farm income. Six emergency farm aid bills were approved, increasing agricultural spending by nearly $27 billion for fiscal years 1999-2001. These bills provided disaster relief along with short term “market loss payments”to farmers to shore up farm income. Some longer term changes also were enacted as part of emergency farm legislation, which this report discusses in brief.

This report discusses the Airport Improvement Program (AIP), which provides federal grants to airports for capital development. This report also discusses the Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century, also referred to as AIR21, which includes provisions for increases in AIP spending, among other things. Primarily, this report discusses the legislative processes surrounding the enaction of these laws and the various appropriations the laws authorize.

Proposals for a two-year budget cycle have previously been reported in the Senate in 1988, 1990, 1994, and 1997. Another such proposal, S. 92, was reported by the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee on March 10, 1999 (S.Rept. 106-12). S. 92 calls for the House and Senate to use the first year of each Congress to consider a two-year budget resolution and two-year appropriation bills, and the second year to consider multiyear authorizations and conduct oversight. More recently, biennial budgeting has also been a topic of interest in the House where the Rules Committee conducted a series of hearings on February 16, March 10, and March 16, 2000.

Congressional Research Service (CRS) report entailing background information and legislative proposals in the 106th Congress in regards to school facilities and infrastructure. Topics include, legislative action, enrollment projections and construction, estimates of construction needs, etc..

None

None

None

None

None

Although Congress described its 1997 changes to discipline provisions in the Individuals withDisabilitiesEducationAct (IDEA) as a “carefulbalance,” it was not long before amendmentsto change the provisionssurfaced. In 1999 the Senate passed S. 254, 106th Cong., the Violent and Repeat Juvenile Accountability and Rehabilitation Act of 1999, and the House passed H.R. 1501, 106th Cong., the Child Safety and Protection Act, both of which contained amendments to IDEA. These amendments would have changed section 615 of IDEA to eliminate IDEA’s different disciplinary procedures for children with disabilities in certain situations. In the Senate the amendment applied to children with disabilities who carry a gun or firearm while in the House the amendment would cover a weapon. These amendments were not enacted.

On May 23, 2000, President Clinton and Speaker Dennis Hastert announced a bipartisan agreement on a renewal communities and new markets legislative initiative which would provide tax credits and investment guarantees designed to draw equity capital into impoverished areas. Following two months of negotiations over the specific language of the initiative, H.R. 4923 was introduced on July 24, and passed by the House under suspension of the rules the following day

On September 14, the House passed H.R. 417 on a vote of 252-177, as amended by three perfecting amendments: Bereuter/Wicker #6; Faleomavaega #1; and Sweeney #21. This report features two tables. Table 1 summarizes and compares the ten perfecting amendments, current law, and the Shays-Meehan proposal. Table 2 summarizes and compares current law, the Shays-Meehan bill, and the three substitute amendments.

On September 14, 1999, the House passed the Shays-Meehan bill--H.R. 417, the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 1999, as amended, by a vote of 252-177. Senate sponsors of the companion measure, S. 26 (McCain-Feingold), revised their proposal and, on September 16, introduced S. 1593, containing just four sections of H.R. 417 and S. 26. The Senate debated S. 1593 from October 13-20, culminating in unsuccessful cloture votes October 19 on two amendments: Daschle amendment 2298, substituting text nearly identical to the House-passed H.R. 417; and Reid amendment 2229 (a perfecting amendment to no. 2298), substituting text of S. 1593 as offered, plus McCain amendment 2294 (adopted October 14), which added certain disclosure requirements. This report compares provisions of the House-passed bill with the one considered by the Senate in October 1999. No further updates are planned.

The quality and quantity of public elementary and secondary school teachers are of increasing concern to the 106th Congress. Although states and localities are responsible for most aspects of teacher preparation, recruitment, and employment, the federal government supports a wide array of programs for teachers. Several of these programs are being considered for amendment and extension by the 106th Congress including the Eisenhower Professional Development program and the Class Size Reduction program. The 106th Congress has before it a wide array of legislative proposals to address teacher issues. Action has occurred on several proposals. This report tracks such action and will be updated as it occurs.

The Administration initiative to shift federal emergency management policy away from a "response and recovery" emphasis has generated little congressional controversy, although some have raised concerns about the cost effectiveness of implementing a mitigation strategy. Greater attention, it is generally argued, should be given to mitigation (loss reduction) efforts before disasters occur in order to reduce future losses. Legislation (H.R. 707, S. 1691) pending before the 106th Congress would amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (the Stafford Act) which authorizes federal assistance when the President declares that a catastrophe has overwhelmed state and local resources.

In the 106th Congress, no comprehensive activity on reauthorizing the Clean Water Act occurred, although a number of individual clean water bills were enacted. Other issues have been debated recently, such as reforming the law to provide regulatory relief for industry, states and cities, and individual landowners. The debate over many of these issues highlights differing views of the Act and its implementation by some who seek to strengthen existing requirements and others who believe that costs and benefits should be more carefully weighed before additional control programs are mandated.

This report discuses issues such as Reforming Superfund, defense cleanup compliance, funding measures, beach assessment, air-related risk management plans, and research received congressional attention in the 106th Congress, first session. In the remaining days, there may be action related on water quality programs involving specific water bodies, and funding of environmental programs.

The Clean Air Act and its 1990 amendments appear to have contributed to a marked improvement in air quality nationwide. Of nearly 100 metropolitan areas not meeting air quality standards for ozone in 1990, more than two-thirds now do so. Even greater progress has been achieved with carbon monoxide: 36 of 42 areas not in attainment in 1990 now meet the standard. Nevertheless, EPA remains concerned about air pollution. In 1997, the Agency promulgated major revisions to its air quality standards for ozone and particulates, an action that would require most states and urban areas to establish additional controls on a wide range of pollution sources. The revised standards were challenged by numerous parties and the courts have remanded the standards to EPA. Implementation is currently in limbo, pending resolution of appeals by the Supreme Court.

This report compares existing law with H.R. 701, as passed by the House(HP) and H.R. 701, as reported by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee (SCR). Both versions, also known as the Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA), would have created a new fund, the CARA Fund. Both bills would have created and funded a new coastal energy impact assistance program, amended and funded the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), funded the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program and the Historic Preservation Fund, increased funding for wildlife conservation, funded land restoration and easement programs, and funded the Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) Program.1 The SCR version would also have funded additional programs to protect natural and cultural resources.

A number of legislative proposals to restructure or eliminate the Department of Energy (DOE) and the DOE laboratories have been introduced since the end of the Cold War, especially since the beginning of the 104th Congress. This legislation has been introduced because of perceived major problems with DOE, including its overall mission. Sponsors state, for example, that about 85% of DOE's budget is for non-energy programs, even though the nation's dependency on foreign energy sources has increased since the establishment of the department. Also of concern is the department's failure to go far enough, in their view, in solving its long-term management problems, downsizing, and reducing budgets.

None