PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 307.
Congressional Research Service
Version 17 · Reported to House with amendment(s) · Jun 18, 2002
Species Protection and Conservation of the Environment Act - Establishes a program to control harmful nonnative species on Federal (and adjacent) land.(Sec. 4) Establishes the Aldo Leopold Native Heritage Grant Program which authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to make grants to eligible applicants, including State and local governments, interstate or regional agencies, or private persons, for qualified control projects to control and monitor harmful nonnative species on land or in water. Requires such projects to be conducted in partnership with a Federal agency and on adjacent lands, both Federal and non-Federal, in such a way as to prevent the future reintroduction or dispersal of harmful nonnative species. Requires the Secretary to consider the extent to which a project: (1) addresses the operational backlog of the National Wildlife Refuge System; (2) encourages intergovernmental and public- private cooperation; (3) aids the conservation of endangered species; and (4) includes pilot testing or a demonstration of an innovative technology.Authorizes the Secretary to make grants to States for assessment projects which address priorities for the restoration, management, or enhancement of native fish or wildlife and their natural habitats and processes through the control of harmful nonnative species.Requires the Secretary to consult with the National Invasive Species Council and its advisory board.States that grants shall be for up to two years for a control project, with a possibility of renewal, and for up to five years for a monitoring and maintenance plan. Requires grants to be balanced both geographically and according to the size of the projects.Limits the Federal share of costs of control projects on non-Federal lands to 75 percent (100 percent for Federal lands). Increases such share to 85 percent to cover innovative technology costs.Requires the Council to develop: (1) requirements for the monitoring and maintenance of a control project; and (2) a control project database which includes project techniques and monitoring data.Requires control project grantees to report annually to the Secretary on: (1) the number of acres of native fish and wildlife habitat restored, protected, or enhanced, including a description of the partnerships; (2) an estimate of the long-term success of varying conservation techniques used; (3) the environmental soundness of the projects; and (4) specific methods and techniques used.Directs the Secretary to report biennially to the appropriate congressional committees.Requires the participation of a non-Federal interest who will monitor and maintain the control project before a grant may be made for a control project on Federal lands.(Sec. 5) Authorizes the Secretary, at the request of a Governor, to financially assist a rapid response to outbreaks of harmful nonnative species when rapid eradication or control is: (1) necessary to protect native fish, wildlife, or their habitats; (2) technically feasible; and (3) minimally disruptive to the ecosystem. Requires the same monitoring and reporting as is required of control project grantees.(Sec. 7) Authorizes appropriations for FY 2003 through 2008, limiting administrative costs.
People & committees
Rep. Rahall, Nick J., II [D-WV-3] · D–WV
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 307.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 107-512.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 107-512.
Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health Discharged.
Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands Discharged.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Executive Comment Received from Interior.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee by Voice Vote.
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Joint Hearings held by the Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands, by the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health, and by the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans.
Joint Hearings held by the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health, by the Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands, and by the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans.
Joint Hearings held by the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans, by the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health, and by the Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands.
Executive Comment Requested from Interior.
Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans.
Referred to the House Committee on Resources.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E2391-2392)
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.3558 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.3558 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.3558 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.3558 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.