The International Whaling Convention (IWC) and Legal Issues Related to Aboriginal Rights

Kristina Alexander
Legislative Attorney

The International Whaling Commission (IWC) has 88 members divided almost evenly between countries that condone whaling and those that favor whale conservation. This situation leads to contentious votes and accusations that decisions are not based on science but on politics, in particular, whether or not a country favors whaling. Members of Congress have introduced measures to advance U.S. policy within the Commission to respond to IWC actions. One area of contention is the right of aboriginal groups to hunt whales (sometimes referred to as indigenous whaling). Aboriginal subsistence whaling catch limits are set by the IWC for aboriginal peoples in four countries: the United States (bowhead and gray); Denmark (Greenland) (fin, minke, bowhead, and humpback); Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (humpback); and Russia (gray and bowhead).

The International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (the Convention) has addressed aboriginal whaling since it was signed on December 2, 1946, by the United States and 14 other countries. The Convention limits how many bowhead or gray whales U.S. aboriginal groups may harvest by setting catch limits for five-year periods. The parties could not agree to limits for the current period of 2013 through 2018 for all aboriginal groups, but the United States’ catch limits were set at 336 for the period, with no more than 67 strikes per year.

Whaling also is restricted in the United States by three domestic laws: the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA); the Endangered Species Act (ESA); and the Whaling Convention Act (WCA). The MMPA prohibits all whaling except for subsistence use by Alaska Natives. Similarly, the ESA prohibits taking listed whales except for subsistence use by Alaska Natives. The WCA, the enabling act for the Convention, allows whaling by aboriginal peoples to the extent it does not conflict with the Convention. Despite these statutory exceptions allowing aboriginal whaling, the Secretary of Commerce can restrict such whaling by adopting specific regulations under either the MMPA or the ESA. Currently, only the Cook Inlet stock of beluga whales is protected under such regulation. The Makah Tribe (in the state of Washington) is the only non-Alaska indigenous group in the United States with the legal right to kill whales. This right is based on treaty, but the Makah must still comply with the MMPA by receiving a permit that allows whale harvest. Compliance with U.S. law and the Convention determines the types and numbers of whales and where and when they are killed.

More recent legislation regarding whaling typically is done by resolution. The only legislation proposed in the 113th Congress is an amendment to end the tax deduction allowed to Alaska Native whaling (S.Amdt. 414 to S.Con.Res. 8). It was withdrawn. Legislation proposed in the 111th and 112th Congresses addressed ending all nonaboriginal whaling, including scientific whaling (H.Res. 714 (112th Congress); H.R. 2455, S. 3116 (111th Congress)), and would have made the U.S. representative to the IWC a federal employee (H.R. 2955 (111th Congress)). Previous Congresses have addressed whaling in general, and aboriginal whaling in particular. Legislative measures, primarily in the form of concurrent resolutions, have been proposed in four categories: protesting commercial, scientific, or community (nonaboriginal) whaling; ensuring aboriginal whaling rights; providing a tax break for aboriginal whaling captains; and addressing the United States’ policy at the annual meetings of the IWC.


Date of Report: July 22, 2013
Number of Pages: 21
Order Number: R40571
Price: $29.95

To Order:

R40571.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.

Ocean Acidification

Harold F. Upton
Analyst in Natural Resources Policy

Peter Folger
Specialist in Energy and Natural Resources Policy

With increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere, the extent of effects on the ocean and marine resources is an increasing concern. One aspect of this issue is the ongoing process (known as ocean acidification) whereby seawater becomes less alkaline as more CO2 dissolves in it, causing hydrogen ion concentration in seawater to increase. Scientists are concerned that increasing hydrogen ion concentration could reduce growth or even cause death of shell-forming animals (e.g., corals, mollusks, and certain planktonic organisms) as well as disrupt marine food webs and the reproductive physiology of certain species. While not yet fully understood, the ecological and economic consequences of ocean acidification could be substantial.

Scientists are concerned that increasing hydrogen ion concentration in seawater could alter biogeochemical cycles, disrupt physiological processes of marine organisms, and damage marine ecosystems. This report does not discuss the effects of increasing thermal stress to marine organisms and ecosystems (e.g., coral bleaching) related to climate change. However, marine ecosystems are likely to be affected by the synergistic effects of factors involved in both thermal and chemical processes.

Congress is beginning to focus attention on better understanding ocean acidification and determining how this concern might be addressed. In the 111th Congress, the Federal Ocean Acidification Research and Monitoring Act of 2009 (Title XII, Subtitle D, of P.L. 111-11) directed the Secretary of Commerce to establish an ocean acidification program within NOAA, established an interagency committee to develop an ocean acidification research and monitoring plan, and authorized appropriations through FY2012 for NOAA and the National Science Foundation. The only bill related to ocean acidification that has been introduced during the 113th Congress is the Coral Reef Conservation Act Amendments of 2013 (S. 839). S. 839 would include ocean acidification in the criteria used to evaluate project proposals for studying threats to coral reefs and developing responses to coral reef losses. No further action has been taken on this bill.


Date of Report: July 30, 2013
Number of Pages: 17
Order Number: R40143
Price: $29.95

To Order

R40143.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.

Earthquakes: Risk, Detection, Warning, and Research

Peter Folger
Specialist in Energy and Natural Resources Policy

Portions of all 50 states and the District of Columbia are vulnerable to earthquake hazards, although risks vary greatly across the country and within individual states. Seismic hazards are greatest in the western United States, particularly in California, Washington, Oregon, and Alaska and Hawaii. California has more citizens and infrastructure at risk than any other state because of the state’s frequent seismic activity combined with its large population and developed infrastructure.

The United States faces the possibility of large economic losses from earthquake-damaged buildings and infrastructure. The Federal Emergency Management Agency has estimated that earthquakes cost the United States, on average, over $5 billion per year. California, Oregon, and Washington account for nearly $4.1 billion (77%) of the U.S. total estimated average annualized loss. California alone accounts for most of the estimated annualized earthquake losses for the nation.

A single large earthquake, however, can cause far more damage than the average annual estimate. The 1994 Northridge (CA) earthquake caused as much as $26 billion (in 2005 dollars) in damage and was one of the costliest natural disasters to strike the United States. One study of the damage caused by a hypothetical magnitude 7.8 earthquake along the San Andreas Fault in southern California projected as many as 1,800 fatalities and more than $200 billion in economic losses.

Unlike other natural hazards, such as hurricanes, where predicting the location and timing of landfall is becoming increasingly accurate, the scientific understanding of earthquakes does not yet allow for precise earthquake prediction. Instead, notification and warning typically involve communicating the location and magnitude of an earthquake as soon as possible after the event to emergency response providers and others who need the information.

A precise relationship between earthquake mitigation measures, federal earthquake-related activities such as earthquake research, and reduced losses from an actual earthquake may never be possible. However, as more accurate seismic hazard maps evolve, and as understanding of the relationship between ground motion and building safety improves, trends denoting the effectiveness of mitigation strategies and earthquake research and other activities may emerge more clearly. Without an ability to precisely predict earthquakes, Congress is likely to face an ongoing challenge in determining the most effective federal approach to increasing the nation’s resilience to low-probability but high-impact major earthquakes.


Date of Report: July 18, 2013
Number of Pages: 26
Order Number: RL33861
Price: $29.95


To Order:

RL33861.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.

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: Brief Overview of the President’s FY2014 Appropriations Request

Carol Hardy Vincent
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy

The Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill includes funding for most of the Department of the Interior (DOI) and for agencies within other departments—including the Forest Service within the Department of Agriculture and the Indian Health Service within the Department of Health and Human Services. It also provides funding for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), arts and cultural agencies, and numerous other entities.

The President’s FY2014 discretionary appropriations request contained $30.03 billion for approximately 30 agencies and entities typically funded in the annual Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations law. For the 10 major DOI agencies in Title I of the bill, the request was $10.83 billion, or 36% of the total. For EPA, funded by Title II of the bill, the request was $8.15 billion, or 27% of the total. For about 20 agencies and other entities typically funded in Title III of the bill, the President requested $11.04 billion, or 37% of the total.

Direct comparisons between FY2014 discretionary appropriations requested by the President and amounts appropriated for FY2013 for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies are difficult. This is primarily because complete information on FY2013 budgetary resources affected by the President’s March 1, 2013, sequester order and the effects of a 0.2% across-the-board rescission (under P.L. 113-6) is not readily available. However, the President’s FY2014 request can be compared with FY2012 enacted appropriations. The total request would be an overall increase of $803.1 million (2.7%) above the $29.23 billion appropriated for FY2012. Together, DOI agencies would increase by $534.2 million (5.2%), EPA would decrease by $296.4 million (3.5%), and related agencies would increase by $565.2 million (5.4%).

Other comparisons can be made between the President’s FY2014 request and the FY2013 appropriations excluding the sequester and the across-the-board rescission. The President’s FY2014 request was $145.0 million (0.5%) higher than the pre-sequester/pre-rescission FY2013 appropriation of $29.89 billion prior to the reductions. While it was $376.1 million (3.6%) higher for DOI agencies, it was $189.9 million (2.3%) lower for EPA, and $41.2 million (0.4%) lower for related agencies. Overall, the FY2014 request was $1.30 billion (4.1%) less than the FY2013 pre-sequester/pre-rescission appropriation of $31.33 billion, which included $1.44 billion in supplemental funding for disaster relief (P.L. 113-2). In the absence of complete information on FY2013 appropriations including the sequester and the rescission, CRS is not able to calculate the amount or percent of change under the President’s request from final FY2013 appropriations.

For DOI agencies, it is possible to compare the President’s FY2014 request with FY2013 appropriations reflecting the sequester and the across-the-board rescission. This is because these reductions are reflected in DOI operating plans which are readily available to the public. The FY2014 request of $10.83 billion for DOI agencies would be an increase of $136.9 million (1.3%) above the FY2013 post-sequester/post-rescission level of $10.70 billion (including supplemental funding).


Date of Report: July 9, 2013
Number of Pages: 17
Order Number: R43142
Price: $29.95

To Order:

R43142.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 National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP): Issues in Brief

Peter Folger
Specialist in Energy and Natural Resources Policy

Under the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP), four federal agencies have responsibility for long-term earthquake risk reduction: the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). These agencies assess U.S. earthquake hazards, deliver notifications of seismic events, develop measures to reduce earthquake hazards, and conduct research to help reduce overall U.S. vulnerability to earthquakes. Congressional oversight of the NEHRP program encompasses how well the four agencies coordinate their activities to address the earthquake hazard. Better coordination was a concern that led to changes to the program in legislation enacted in 2004 (P.L. 108-360).

P.L. 108-360 authorized appropriations for NEHRP through FY2009. Total funding enacted from reauthorization through FY2009 was $613.2 million, approximately 68% of the total amount of $902.4 million authorized by P.L. 108-360. Although authorization for appropriations expired in 2009, Congress has continued to appropriate funds for NEHRP activities. NEHRP agencies spent $125.5 million for program activities in FY2012, slightly less than FY2011 spending of $126.6 million. Also, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA; P.L. 111-5) provided some additional funding for earthquake activities under NEHRP.

What effect funding at the levels enacted through FY2013 under NEHRP has had on the U.S. capability to detect earthquakes and minimize losses after an earthquake occurs is difficult to assess. The effectiveness of the NEHRP program is a perennial issue for Congress: it is inherently difficult to capture precisely, in terms of dollars saved or fatalities prevented, the effectiveness of mitigation measures taken before an earthquake occurs. A major earthquake in a populated urban area within the United States would cause damage, and in question is how much damage would be prevented by mitigation strategies underpinned by the NEHRP program.

Legislation introduced during the 113th Congress, Title 1 of H.R. 2132, would make changes to the program and would authorize appropriations totaling $906 million over five years through FY2017 for NEHRP. Ninety percent of the funding would be designated for the USGS and NSF, and the remainder for FEMA and NIST. H.R. 2132 awaits further action in the House.


Date of Report: July 9, 2013
Number of Pages: 10
Order Number: R43141
Price: $29.95

To Order:

R43141.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.