Wilderness: Legislation and Issues in the 113th Congress

Katie Hoover
Analyst in Natural Resources Policy

Kristina Alexander
Legislative Attorney

Sandra L. Johnson
Information Research Specialist

The Wilderness Act of 1964 established the National Wilderness Preservation System and directed that only Congress can designate federal lands as part of the system. Free-standing bills to designate wilderness areas are typically introduced and considered in each Congress; such bills are not amendments to the Wilderness Act, but typically refer to the act for management guidance and sometimes include special provisions. Numerous wilderness bills were introduced in the 112th Congress, but it was the first Congress since 1966 that did not add to the wilderness system. The 112th Congress was the first in decades not to designate additional wilderness; the only wilderness law that was enacted reduced the size of a wilderness area. Many bills to add to the wilderness system have been introduced in the 113th Congress.

Wilderness designation can be controversial. The designation generally prohibits commercial activities, motorized access, and human infrastructure from wilderness areas; however, there are several exceptions to this general rule. Advocates propose wilderness designations to preserve the generally undeveloped conditions of the areas. Opponents see such designations as preventing certain uses and potential economic development in rural areas where such opportunities are relatively limited.

Most bills direct management of designated wilderness in accordance with the Wilderness Act. However, proposed legislation also often seeks a compromise among interests by allowing other activities in the area. Pre-existing uses or conditions are often allowed to continue, sometimes temporarily, with nonconforming uses to be halted and/or nonconforming conditions to be rectified. More commonly, the authority is permanent, with limited access permitted for specific areas, uses, and times, or with the authority to operate and maintain pre-existing infrastructure. Wilderness bills often contain additional provisions, such as providing special access for particular purposes, for example, border security. Water rights associated with wilderness designations have also proved controversial; many statutes have addressed wilderness water rights.

Controversies regarding management of existing wilderness areas also have been the subject of legislation. Bills have been introduced to expand access to wilderness areas for border security; to guarantee access for hunting, fishing, and shooting; to release wilderness study areas from wilderness-like protection; and to limit agency review of the wilderness potential of their lands. The latter two issues have been contentious for Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands for two reasons. First, BLM is required by law to protect the wilderness characteristics of its wilderness study areas (WSAs) until Congress determines otherwise. Second, a December 2010 secretarial order directed BLM to maintain a wilderness inventory, to consider wilderness potential in planning, and to protect wilderness characteristics of those “Wild Lands” unless alternative management was deemed appropriate. The FY2012 Interior Appropriations Act (Division E of P.L. 112-74) prohibited using funds to implement the secretarial order, and bills were introduced to terminate the order. In June 2011, Secretary Salazar withdrew the order, but stated that BLM would maintain a wilderness inventory and continue to consider wilderness characteristics as required by law. Legislation in the 113th Congress proposes to eliminate several WSAs.


Date of Report: June 12, 2013
Number of Pages: 22
Order Number: R41610
Price: $29.95

  To Order:

R41610.pdf   to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Horse Slaughter Prevention Bills and Issues

Tadlock Cowan
Analyst in Natural Resources and Rural Development

In 2006, two Texas plants and one in Illinois slaughtered nearly 105,000 horses for human food, mainly for European and Asian consumers. In 2007, court action effectively closed the Texas plants, and a ban in Illinois closed the plant in that state. However, U.S. horses continue to be shipped to Mexico and Canada for slaughter. Several states have explored opening horse slaughtering facilities, and Oklahoma enacted to lift the state’s 50-year-old ban on processing horsemeat. Animal welfare activists and advocates for horses have continued to press Congress for a federal ban. The Prevention of Equine Cruelty Act of 2009 (H.R. 503/S. 727) in the 111th Congress would have made it a crime to knowingly possess, ship, transport, sell, deliver, or receive any horse, carcass, or horse flesh intended for human consumption. No further action on the bills was taken. Companion bills entitled the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act of 2011 (S. 1176 and H.R. 2966) were introduced in the 112th Congress. The bills would have amended the Horse Protection Act (P.L. 91-540) to prohibit shipping, transporting, possessing, purchasing, selling, or donating horses and other equines to be slaughtered for human consumption. No further action was taken on these bills.

A general provision in the House-passed FY2012 Agriculture appropriations bill (H.R. 2112, §739) would have continued to prohibit funds to pay salaries or expenses of Food Safety Inspection Service personnel to inspect horses under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 603). This provision was not included in the Senate-passed version of H.R. 2112 or in the final bill (P.L. 112-55). Although an amendment by Senator Landrieu to the FY2013 continuing resolution (H.R. 933) would have prohibited FSIS inspection, the CR continues the policy of P.L. 112-55, permitting FSIS to inspect horse meat through FY2013. A facility in New Mexico became the first to apply for a grant of inspection from FSIS following the lifting of the ban. USDA could approve that plant at any time, although the New Mexico Attorney General has stated the veterinary drugs administered to horses would make the meat adulterated and unfit for consumption under state law. Another facility in Missouri also has an application pending, and there have been reports that other plants are also seeking USDA permits.

The provision prohibiting FSIS inspection had been included in Agriculture appropriations bills since 2008. The ban does not prohibit the transport of U.S. horses to Canada or Mexico for slaughter. The ban’s absence in the FY2012 appropriations bill may have reflected a June 2011 Government Accountability Office report that recommended action on the unintended consequences of ending horse slaughter in 2007. That report provided evidence of a rise in state and local investigations for horse neglect and more abandoned horses since 2007. Some opponents of the horse slaughter ban, including the American Veterinary Medical Association, have argued that humane slaughter in the United States is preferable less-regulated slaughter in Mexican abattoirs, and more humane than abandoning unwanted horses to starve because owners can no longer afford to feed and care for the animals. Animal welfare groups have countered the argument that large numbers of unwanted horses are being abandoned.

Recent news from the EU that horse meat was found in various processed foods has raised the profile of the horse slaughter issue in the United States. The Safeguard American Food Exports (SAFE) Act (S. 541/H.R. 1094) was introduced in the 113th Congress. The bill would amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to prohibit the sale or transport of equines and equine parts in interstate or foreign commerce for human consumption. The House bill was referred to the both the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on Agriculture. The Senate bill was referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.


Date of Report: June 12, 2013
Number of Pages: 12
Order Number: RS21842
Price: $29.95

To Order:

RS21842.pdf   to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Army Corps of Engineers Water Resource Projects: Authorization and Appropriations

Nicole T. Carter
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy

Charles V. Stern
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers undertakes activities to maintain navigable channels, reduce flood and storm damage, and restore aquatic ecosystems. Congress directs the Corps through authorizations, appropriations, and oversight of its studies, construction projects, and other activities. This report summarizes congressional authorization and appropriations processes for the Corps. It also discusses agency activities under general authorities. 

Authorization of Water Resources Activities. Congress generally authorizes Corps activities and provides policy direction in Water Resources Development Acts (WRDAs). The most recent WRDA was enacted in 2007 (P.L. 110-114). The Senate passed a WRDA 2013, S. 601, on May 15, 2013. S. 601 would authorize Corps activities and modifications of existing authorizations that meet certain criteria; the bill includes numerous other provisions as it attempts to address issues with the duration and cost of Corps projects. The bill also would establish new procedures for using Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund monies, in an effort to expand spending above current levels.

Pressure to authorize new projects and modify existing projects promotes fairly regular WRDA consideration, while enactment has been less regular. WRDAs historically have been omnibus bills including many provisions for site-specific activities. How to construct a WRDA bill that complies with House rules related to a moratorium on Member-requested earmarks complicated WRDA consideration in the 112th Congress. 

Agency Appropriations. Federal funding for most Corps civil works activities is provided in annual Energy and Water Development appropriations acts or supplemental appropriations acts. At times these acts also have included Corps authorizations. In part because of competition for funds and because Corps authorizations outpace appropriations, many authorized activities have not received appropriations. There is a backlog of more than 1,000 authorized studies and construction projects. In recent years, few new studies and new construction activities have been in either the President’s budget request or enacted appropriations. 

Standard Project Development. The standard process for a Corps project requires two separate congressional authorizations—one for investigation and one for construction—as well as appropriations. The investigation phase starts with Congress authorizing a study; if it is funded, the Corps conducts an initial reconnaissance study followed by a more detailed feasibility study. Congressional authorization for construction is based on the feasibility study. For most activities, Congress requires a nonfederal sponsor to share some portion of study and construction costs. These cost-sharing requirements vary by the type of project. For many project types (e.g., levees), nonfederal sponsors are responsible for operation and maintenance once construction is complete. 

Other Corps Activities and Authorities. Although the project development process just described is standard, there are exceptions. Congress has granted the Corps some general authorities to undertake some studies, small projects, technical assistance, and emergency actions such as flood-fighting and repair of damaged levees. Additionally, the Corps conducts emergency response actions directed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.


Date of Report: June 11, 2013
Number of Pages: 22
Order Number: R41243
Price: $29.95

To Order:

R41243.pdf   to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

The Animal Welfare Act: Background and Selected Animal Welfare Legislation

Tadlock Cowan
Analyst in Natural Resources and Rural Development

In 1966, Congress passed the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act (P.L. 89-54) to prevent pets from being stolen for sale to research laboratories, and to regulate the humane care and handling of dogs, cats, and other laboratory animals. The law was amended in 1970 (P.L. 91-579), changing the name to the Animal Welfare Act (AWA). The AWA is administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. Congress periodically has amended the act to strengthen enforcement, expand coverage to more animals and activities, or curtail practices viewed as cruel, among other things. A 1976 amendment added Section 26 to the AWA, making illegal several activities that contributed to animal fighting. Farm animals are not covered by the AWA.

In the 113th Congress, the Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety Act (H.R. 847/S. 395) was reintroduced and referred to the House Agriculture and Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committees. The bill would require an AWA license from USDA for dog breeders who raise more than 50 dogs in a 12-month period and sell directly to the public. Also reintroduced is the Animal Fighting Spectator Prohibition Act (H.R. 366). This bill would impose criminal penalties for attendance at animal fighting exhibitions. This prohibition on attendance was also added to the 2012 Senate farm bill (§12213, S. 3240). Amendments to the Horse Protection Act (H.R. 1518) would modify the existing inspection system to detect soring and increase penalties for violations.

The Animal Fighting Spectator Prohibition Act of 2013 was also introduced in both the House (H.R. 366) and Senate (S. 666) n the 113th Congress. The bill would prohibit attendance at animal fighting events. Provisions in both the House (H.R. 1947) and Senate (S. 954) farm bills would also prohibit attendance at animal fighting events.

In the 112th Congress, two previously introduced bills were reintroduced, and several new bills were introduced. The Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety Act (H.R. 385) was reintroduced. The Pet Safety and Protection Act (H.R. 2256/S. 707) was also reintroduced and referred to the same subcommittee. The Animal Fighting Spectator Prohibition Act (S. 1947) was introduced. The Traveling Exotic Animal Protection Act (H.R. 3359) would have amended the AWA to prohibit the exhibition of an exotic or wild animal in any animal act if, during the previous 15 days, such animal was traveling in a mobile housing facility. H.Res. 736 expressed disapproval of using gas chambers to euthanize shelter animals. The Great Ape Protection and Cost Savings Act of 2011 (H.R. 1513/S. 810) was also reintroduced in the 112th Congress. The bill would have prohibited conducting invasive research on great apes (e.g., chimpanzee, bonobo, gorilla, orangutan, gibbon) and provided a retirement sanctuary for the nearly 1,000 great apes still used for research in the United States. No further action was taken on any of these bills.

In the 110th Congress, the Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act of 2007 (H.R. 137; P.L. 110-22) was enacted. The bill amended Section 26 of the AWA to strengthen provisions against animal fighting. The AWA was amended again in 2008 when provisions were included in the 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-246). These provisions ban the importation of puppies under six months of age for resale, tighten prohibitions on dog and other animal fighting activity, and increase penalties for violation of the act.


Date of Report: June 12, 2013
Number of Pages: 15
Order Number: RS22493
Price: $29.95

To Order:

RS22493.pdf   to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.