PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 396.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jun 15, 2006
Coral Reef Conservation Legacy Act of 2006 - Amends the Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2000 to extend the award of remaining coral reef conservation program grant funds, in addition to projects addressing emerging priorities or threats, to other appropriate projects, as determined by the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), including monitoring and assessment, research, pollution reduction, education, and technical support.
Establishes as additional coral reef conservation project approval criteria: (1) the minimization of the likelihood of damage to coral reefs; and (2) promoting and assisting of entities to work with local communities, and appropriate governmental and nongovernmental organizations, to support community-based planning and management initiatives for the protection of coral reef systems.
Authorizes the Administrator and the Secretary of the Interior to undertake emergency response actions to prevent or minimize the destruction or loss of, or injury to, coral reefs or coral ecosystems from vessel impacts or other physical damage to coral reefs, including damage from unforeseen or disaster-related circumstances.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Authorizes the Administrator to make community-based planning grants to certain persons to work with local communities and appropriate federal and state entities to implement plans for increased protection of high priority coral reefs.
Establishes the United States Coral Reef Task Force to coordinate federal actions to better preserve and protect coral reef ecosystems.
Reauthorizes the Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2000 and authorizes appropriations through FY2010 for: (1) the coral reef conservation program; and (2) community-based planning grants.
People & committees
Rep. Pombo, Richard W. [R-CA-11] · R–CA
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. 396.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 109-665.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 109-665.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the House Committee on Resources.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E1167-1168)
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
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.5622 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.5622 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.5622 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.5622 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.