Search

The article focuses on the U.S. Congressional Research Service's it reports on design and features of U.S. paper currency. It describes the history of paper money in the U.S., it mentions the introduction of greenbacks during the Civil War and the establishment of the Secret Service Division to combat counterfeiting. It discusses the current design of U.S. currency, including the portraits featured on bills, and the three levels of security features to guard against counterfeiting.

The article offers information on the transcripts of interviews with more than 400 U.S. and other policymakers that were carried out between 2014 and 2018 by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction. It mentions the U.S. policies in Afghanistan often were poorly planned, resourced; and also mentions that anti-corruption, counternarcotics, and other mission priorities rarely fit neatly under one agency or department's purview.

The article presents questions and answers related to archival records of the U.S. Congress, including a description of archival records in the Congressional context, the laws and customs governing the records of Congress, and guidance on managing these records.

The article focuses on the management of historical materials by congressional offices and committees, with archivists preserving these files to benefit future Congresses and researchers. Topics include variations in recordkeeping rules for different office types, status of materials in Members' offices as personal property, and the closure periods for public access to House and Senate records, along with guidance from the House and Senate archivists on accessing and managing archival records.

The article focuses on the U.S. Congress might use the process of amendment exchange and proposing alternatives in the form of amendments, until both chambers have agreed to the same text. It mentions decision to use the amendment exchange route has procedural implications and opportunity that is generally assured on initial consideration of a bill or joint resolution. it also mentions amendments between the houses are not subject to the same procedures as conference reports.

The article discusses the force structure transformation initiative of the 2024 Army. Topics include reasons that U.S. Army has reorganized or transformed its force structure on several occasions, the transformation of the force structure of the Army on four major occasions since 2000, and potential considerations for Congress.

The article discusses general and specific assistance provided by the U.S. government to automobile financing company General Motors Acceptance Corporation (GMAC), later renamed as bank holding company Ally Financial, during the 2008-2009 financial crisis. Assistance provided include Commercial Paper Funding Facility (CPFF) of Federal Reserve, Temporary Liquidity Guanrantee Program (TLGP) of Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP).

The article discusses the publication of peer-reviewed scientific papers in the U.S. for nanotechnology which is considered by some to be an indicator of a nation's scientific leadership. It notes the percentage share of the U.S. in nanotechnology papers, according to the 2005 report from the National Bureau of Economic Research. The increase in the number of papers in the periodical "Science Citation Index" related to nanotechnology discoveries is also noted.

Two Senate rules affect the authority of conferees to include in their report matter that was not passed by the House or Senate before the conference committee was appointed. Colloquially, such provisions are sometimes said to have been "airdropped" into the conference report. First, Rule XXVIII precludes conference agreements from including policy provisions that were not sufficiently related to either the House or the Senate version of the legislation sent to conference. Such provisions are considered to be "out of scope" under long-standing Senate rules and precedents. Second, Paragraph 8 of Rule XLIV establishes a point of order that can be raised against "new directed spending provisions," or provisions in a conference report that provide specific items of appropriations or direct spending that were not committed to the conference committee in either the House or Senate versions of the legislation. The process for disposing of either a Rule XXVIII or a Rule XLIV point of order allows the Senate to strike "out of scope matter" or "new directed spending provisions" from the conference report but agree to the rest of the terms of the compromise. It is not in order, however, for either chamber to alter the text of a conference report, and therefore the process converts the text of the conference compromise minus the "new matter" or "new directed spending provisions" into an amendment. If the Senate agrees to this amendment, it is then sent to the House for consideration in that chamber. The points of order under Rule XXVIII and Paragraph 8 of Rule XLIV can be waived with the support of three-fifths of all Senators duly chosen and sworn (60 Senators if there is no more than one vacancy). A figure at the end of the report outlines the procedural steps for disposing of these points of order when they are raised against conference reports. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the U.S. Congressional Research Service report which provides an overview of election administration in the country. It mentions that election officials can take steps to help ensure that vote counting systems perform as expected, and one available approach is to try to prevent any issues that could affect reported outcomes. It also mentions that one tool officials can use to help check the accuracy of election outcomes is t known as a risk-limiting audit.

The article provides information on the Maneuver Short-Range Air Defense (M-SHORAD) system that is being developed by the U.S. Army. Details are presented on M-SHORAD requirements, variants or increments, fiscal year 2024 M-SHORAD budget request, and oversight considerations for the U.S. Congress such as the Russo-Ukraine conflict and the 2024 "Army Force Structure Transformation" white paper which proposes additional M-SHORAD battalions.

Most voting systems used in U.S. elections rely on computers in some way. The most computerized is the direct recording electronic voting machine, or DRE. In this system, votes are recorded directly onto computer memory devices. While DREs have been in use since the early 1990s, questions about their security and reliability were previously a relatively minor issue, even following the November 2000 presidential election and the subsequent congressional deliberations leading to the enactment of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA, P.L. 107-252). However, at least two factors led to a sharp increase in public concerns about DREs beginning in 2003. First, the voting accessibility provisions in HAVA promote the use of DREs, which have been the only kind of voting system that can meet the HAVA requirements to permit persons with disabilities, including blindness, to vote privately and independently. Second, potential security vulnerabilities with DREs were publicized as a result of several studies. Several bills have been introduced in the 109th Congress that would address these issues in different ways. In the public debate about DREs, there has been some confusion about what the problems and issues are, arising to a significant degree from the complexity of DREs and of elections in general. This confusion can lead to misperceptions about facts as well as issues and options for resolving them. Points worth noting include the following: DREs do have unique security concerns and have not been thoroughly tested in the scientific community. However, most election problems in 2004 were not associated with DREs. Security flaws in them are not known to have compromised any elections, and it is not clear how much of a threat those vulnerabilities pose to election integrity in practice, especially in comparison to other kinds of threats. The different models of DREs in current use vary substantially in design, and problems that one model exhibits may not occur in others. Many of those problems are procedural, not weaknesses in the technology itself. It is not clear whether the unique security problems posed by DREs are best addressed by requiring that they produce paper ballots or by other means. While paper has useful security properties and is well-known, other methods exist that might be superior. Furthermore, paper ballots used with DREs (called voter-verified paper audit trails, or VVPAT) are largely unproven and it is not clear how well they can meet HAVA requirements for accessibility or other goals such as usability. As Congress considers proposals relating to DREs, salient issues might include the lack of information about DRE security, especially in relation to other systems and other components of election integrity; potential conflicts with HAVA requirements that might be associated with the proposals; how those proposals might impact voter confidence; and what impacts they might have on future innovation. This report will be updated in response to major developments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the second half of the 19th century, the federal government pursued a policy of confining Indian tribes to reservations. The federal statutes and treaties reserving such land for Indian reservations typically did not address the water needs of these reservations, a fact that has given rise to questions and disputes regarding Indian reserved water rights. Dating to a 1908 Supreme Court ruling, courts generally have held that many tribes have a reserved right to water sufficient to fulfill the purpose of their reservations and that this right took effect on the date the reservations were established. This means that, in the context of a state water law system of prior appropriations, which is common in many U.S. western states, many tribes have water rights senior to those of non-Indian users with water rights and access established subsequent to the Indian reservations' creation. Although many Indian tribes hold senior water rights through their reservations, the quantification of these rights is undetermined in many cases. Since 1990, the Department of the Interior's policy has been that Indian water rights should be resolved through negotiated settlements rather than litigation. These agreements allow tribes to quantify their water rights on paper, while also procuring access to water through infrastructure and other related expenses. In addition to tribes and federal government representatives, settlement negotiations may involve states, water districts, and private water users, among others. After congressional approval, federal projects associated with approved Indian water rights settlements generally have been implemented by the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) or the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), pursuant to congressional directions. Approval and implementation of Indian water rights settlements typically requires federal action-often in the form of congressional approval. As of October 2023, 39 Indian water rights settlements had been federally approved, with total estimated costs in excess of $8.5 billion (nominal dollars). Of these, 35 settlements were approved and enacted by Congress and 4 were administratively approved by the U.S. Departments of Justice and the Interior. One new settlement was approved in the 117th Congress, and another existing settlement was amended. Additional new and amended settlements have been proposed in the 118th Congress. Historically, federal funding for settlements generally has been provided through discretionary appropriations; Congress also has approved mandatory funding for some settlements. The Reclamation Water Settlements Fund was created in 2009 under P.L. 111-11 as a source of additional funding for existing and future settlements. It is scheduled to provide $120 million per year in mandatory funding for settlements through FY2029, with the availability of these funds set to expire in FY2034. In 2021, Congress approved and appropriated $2.5 billion for another Indian water rights fund, the Indian Water Rights Settlement Completion Fund, in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58). Primary issues for Congress may include the cost, contents, and sufficiency of federally authorized efforts to settle tribal water rights claims, as well as the circumstances under which these settlements are considered, approved, and funded. Many have noted that the resolution of Indian water rights settlements is a mutually beneficial means of resolving long-standing legal issues. Although there is little opposition to the generally stated principle that negotiated settlements are preferable to litigation, in some cases the executive branch and/or other water users oppose individual settlements (or elements thereof). Other questions include how to manage cost overruns associated with these settlements and what entity should have primary responsibility for settlement implementation and oversight. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses that fiscal policy and recovery from the Covid-19 recession in the U.S. It mentions the concerns about the spread of the Covid-19 pandemic and government policies aimed at limiting person-to-person contact. It also discusses the health concerns of the public and the stay-at-home and shutdown orders designed to limit contact reduced cash flow to businesses and increased the number of unemployed workers.

The 2007-2009 financial crisis led the Federal Reserve (Fed) to revive an obscure provision found in Section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 344) to extend credit to nonbank financial firms for the first time since the 1930s. Section 13(3) provides the Fed with greater flexibility than its normal lending authority. Using this authority, the Fed created six broadly based facilities (of which only five were used) to provide liquidity to "primary dealers" (certain large investment firms) and to revive demand for commercial paper and asset-backed securities. More controversially, the Fed provided special, tailored assistance exclusively to four firms that the Fed considered "too big to fail"--AIG, Bear Stearns, Citigroup, and Bank of America. In response to the financial turmoil caused by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the Fed reopened four of these broadly-based programs and created two new ones in 2020. Treasury pledged $50 billion of assets from the Exchange Stabilization Fund (ESF) to protect the Fed against losses in most of these programs. H.R. 748, referred to by some as the "third coronavirus stimulus" bill, was passed by the Senate on March 25, 2020. The bill would provide between $454 billion and $500 billion to support Fed liquidity facilities. The bill states that applicable requirements of Section 13(3) shall apply to these facilities. Credit outstanding (extended in the form of cash or securities) authorized by Section 13(3) peaked at $710 billion in November 2008. All credit extended under Section 13(3) during the financial crisis was repaid with interest. Contrary to popular belief, the Fed earned profits of more than $30 billion and did not suffer any losses on transactions authorized by Section 13(3). These transactions exposed the taxpayer to greater risks than traditional discount window lending to banks, however, because in some cases the terms of the programs had fewer safeguards. The Fed's use of Section 13(3) in the 2007-2009 crisis raised fundamental policy issues: Should the Fed be lender of last resort to banks only, or to all parts of the financial system? Should the Fed lend to firms that it does not supervise? How much discretion does the Fed need to be able respond to unpredictable financial crises? How can Congress ensure that taxpayers are not exposed to losses? Do the benefits of emergency lending outweigh the costs, including moral hazard? How can Congress ensure that Section 13(3) is not used to "bail out" failing firms? Should the Fed tell Congress and the public to whom it has lent?. The restrictions in Section 13(3) placed few limits on the Fed's actions in 2008. However, in 2010, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (P.L. 111-203) added more restrictions to Section 13(3), attempting to ban future assistance to failing firms while maintaining the Fed's ability to create broadly based facilities. The Dodd-Frank Act also required records for actions taken under Section 13(3) to be publicly released with a lag and required the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to audit those programs. Although Section 13(3) must be used "for the purpose of providing liquidity to the financial system," some Members of Congress have expressed interest in--while others have expressed opposition to--the Fed using Section 13(3) to assist financially struggling entities, including states, municipalities, and territories of the United States. Jeb Hensarling, former Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, contends that "Dodd-Frank tried but failed to rein in the Fed's emergency lending authority." Legislation was passed by the House in the 114th Congress (H.R. 3189) and 115th Congress (H.R. 10) that would have further limited the Fed's authority under Section 13(3). Then-Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen contended that such restrictions would "essentially repeal the Federal Reserve's remaining ability to act in a crisis." Current Fed Chairman Jerome Powell opposed further reducing the Fed's discretion under Section 13(3) on the grounds that the Fed needs "to be able to respond flexibly and nimbly" to threats to financial stability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian honor awarded by the U.S. President to individuals for significant contributions in various fields. Topics include the medal's history and design, the nomination and selection process, and the list of recipients since its establishment in 1963.

In the wake of what many believe is the worst U.S. financial crisis since the Great Depression, the Obama Administration has proposed sweeping reforms of the financial services regulatory system, the broad outline of which has been encompassed in a nearly 90-page document called the Administration’s White Paper (the White Paper or the Proposal). The Proposal seeks to meet five objectives: (1) “Promote robust supervision and regulation of financial firms”; (2) “Establish comprehensive supervision and regulation of financial markets”; (3) “Protect consumers and investors from financial abuse”; (4) “Improve tools for managing financial crises”; and (5) “Raise international regulatory standards and improve international cooperation.” The Administration subsequently offered specific legislative proposals that would implement each of the five objectives of the White Paper, including the Consumer Financial Protection Agency Act of 2009 (the CFPA Act or the Act). The Act would establish a new executive agency, the Consumer Financial Protection Agency (the CFPA or the Agency), to protect consumers of financial products and services. On July 8, 2009, Representative Barney Frank, Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, introduced similar legislation, H.R. 3126, which also is entitled the CFPA Act of 2009. H.R. 3126 was marked up and ordered to be reported by both the House Financial Services Committee and the House Energy and Commerce Committee. This report provides a brief summary of the Administration’s CFPA Act and delineates some of the substantive differences between it and H.R. 3126, as ordered to be reported by the House Financial Services Committee, as well as the version that was ordered to be reported by the House Energy and Commerce Committee. It then analyzes some of the policy implications of the proposal, focusing on the separation of safety and soundness regulation from consumer protection, financial innovation, and the scope of regulation. The report then raises some questions regarding state law preemption, sources of funding, and rulemaking procedures that the Act does not fully answer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the wake of what many believe is the worst U.S. financial crisis since the Great Depression, the Obama Administration has proposed sweeping reforms of the financial services regulatory system, the broad outline of which has been encompassed in a nearly 90-page document called the President's White Paper (the White Paper or the Proposal). The Proposal seeks to meet five objectives: (1) "Promote robust supervision and regulation of financial firms"; (2) "Establish comprehensive supervision and regulation of financial markets"; (3) "Protect consumers and investors from financial abuse"; (4) "Improve tools for managing financial crises"; and (5) "Raise international regulatory standards and improve international cooperation." The Administration likely will offer specific legislative proposals that would implement each of the five objectives of the White Paper. On June 30, 2009, the Obama Administration made available the first such legislative proposal, called the Consumer Financial Protection Agency Act of 2009 (the CFPA Act or the Act). The Act would establish a new executive agency, the Consumer Financial Protection Agency (the CFPA or the Agency), to protect consumers of financial products and services. On July 8, 2009, Representative Barney Frank, Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, introduced similar legislation, H.R. 3126, which also is entitled the CFPA Act of 2009. This report provides a brief summary of the President's CFPA Act and delineates some of the substantive differences between it and H.R. 3126, as introduced. It then analyzes some of the policy implications of the proposal, focusing on the separation of safety and soundness regulation from consumer protection, financial innovation, and the scope of regulation. The report then raises some questions regarding state law preemption, sources of funding, and rulemaking procedures that the Act does not fully answer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the wake of what many believe is the worst U.S. financial crisis since the Great Depression, the Obama Administration has proposed sweeping reforms of the financial services regulatory system, the broad outline of which has been encompassed in a nearly 90-page document called the President’s White Paper (the White Paper or the Proposal). The Proposal seeks to meet five objectives: (1) “Promote robust supervision and regulation of financial firms”; (2) “Establish comprehensive supervision and regulation of financial markets”; (3) “Protect consumers and investors from financial abuse”; (4) “Improve tools for managing financial crises”; and (5) “Raise international regulatory standards and improve international cooperation.” The Administration likely will offer specific legislative proposals that would implement each of the five objectives of the White Paper. On June 30, 2009, the Obama Administration made available the first such legislative proposal, called the Consumer Financial Protection Agency Act of 2009 (the CFPA Act or the Act). The Act would establish a new executive agency, the Consumer Financial Protection Agency (the CFPA or the Agency), to protect consumers of financial products and services. On July 8, 2009, Representative Barney Frank, Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, introduced very similar legislation, H.R. 3126, which also is entitled the CFPA Act of 2009. This report provides a brief summary of the President’s CFPA Act and delineates some of the substantive differences between it and H.R. 3126, as introduced. It then analyzes some of the policy implications of the proposal, focusing on the separation of safety and soundness regulation from consumer protection, financial innovation, and the scope of regulation. The report then raises some questions regarding state law preemption, sources of funding, and rulemaking procedures that the Act does not fully answer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the past half-century, in government and beyond, information creation, distribution, retention, and preservation activities have transitioned from a tangible, paper-based process to digital processes managed through computerized information technologies. Information is created as a digital object which then may be rendered as a text, image, or video file. Those files are then distributed through a myriad of outlets ranging from particular software applications and websites to social media platforms. The material may be produced in tangible, printed form, but typically remains in digital formats. The Government Publishing Office (GPO) is a legislative branch agency that serves all three branches of the national government as a centralized resource for gathering, cataloging, producing, providing, authenticating, and preserving published information. The agency is overseen by the Joint Committee on Printing (JCP), which in 1895 was charged with overseeing and regulating U.S. government printing. GPO operates on the basis of a number of statutory authorities first granted in the 19th and 20th centuries that presume the existence of government information in an ink-on-paper format, because no other format existed when those authorities were enacted. GPO's activities include the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP), which provides permanent public access to published federal government information, and which last received legislative consideration in 1962. In light of the governance and technological changes of the past four decades, a relevant question for Congress might arise: To what extent can decades-old authorities and work patterns meet the challenges of digital government information? For example, the widespread availability of government information in digital form has led some to question whether paper versions of some publications might be eliminated in favor of digital versions, but others note that paper versions are still required for a variety of reasons. Another area of concern focuses on questions about the capacity of current information dissemination authorities to enable the provision of digital government information in an effective and efficient manner. With regard to information retention, the emergence of a predominantly digital FDLP may raise questions about the capacity of GPO to manage the program given its existing statutory authorities. These questions are further complicated by the lack of a stable, robust set of digital information resources and management practices like those that were in place when Congress last considered current government information policies. The 1895 printing act was arguably an expression of the state-of-the-art standard of printing technology and provided a foundation which supported government information distribution for more than a century. By contrast, in the fourth or fifth decade of transitioning from the tangible written word to ubiquitous digital creation and distribution, the way ahead is not as clear, due in part to a lack of widely understood and accepted standards for managing digital information. This report examines three areas related to the production, distribution, retention, and management of government information in a primarily digital environment. These areas include • the Joint Committee on Printing; • the Federal Depository Library Program; and • government information management in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the second half of the 19th century, the federal government pursued a policy of confining Indian tribes to reservations. The federal statutes and treaties reserving such land for Indian reservations typically did not address the water needs of these reservations, a fact that has given rise to questions and disputes regarding Indian reserved water rights. Dating to a 1908 Supreme Court ruling, courts generally have held that many tribes have a reserved right to water sufficient to fulfill the purpose of their reservations and that this right took effect on the date the reservations were established. This means that, in the context of a state water law system of prior appropriations, which is common in many U.S. western states, many tribes have water rights senior to those of non-Indian users with water rights and access established subsequent to the Indian reservations' creation. Although many Indian tribes hold senior water rights through their reservations, the quantification of these rights is undetermined in many cases. Since 1990, the Department of the Interior's policy has been that Indian water rights should be resolved through negotiated settlements rather than litigation. These agreements allow tribes to quantify their water rights on paper, while also procuring access to water through infrastructure and other related expenses. In addition to tribes and federal government representatives, settlement negotiations may involve states, water districts, and private water users, among others. Approval and implementation of Indian water rights settlements typically requires federal action-often in the form of congressional approval. As of March 2023, 39 Indian water rights settlements had been federally approved, with total estimated costs in excess of $8.5 billion (nominal dollars). Of these, 35 settlements were approved and enacted by Congress and 4 were administratively approved by the U.S. Departments of Justice and the Interior. One new settlement was approved in the 117th Congress, and another existing settlement was amended. Additional new and amended settlements have been proposed in the 118th Congress. After congressional approval, federal projects associated with approved Indian water rights settlements generally have been implemented by the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) or the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), pursuant to congressional directions. Historically, federal funding for settlements generally has been provided through discretionary appropriations; Congress also has approved mandatory funding for some settlements. The Reclamation Water Settlements Fund was created in 2009 under P.L. 111-11 as a source of additional funding for existing and future settlements. It is scheduled to provide $120 million per year in mandatory funding for settlements through FY2029, with the availability of these funds set to expire in FY2034. More recently, in 2021, Congress approved and appropriated $2.5 billion for another Indian water rights fund, the Indian Water Rights Settlement Completion Fund, in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58). The FY2024 President's budget request for Reclamation proposed additional changes in funding for these settlements. At issue for Congress is under what circumstances new Indian water rights settlements should be considered, approved, and amended, and to what extent Congress should fund existing settlements. Many have noted that the resolution of Indian water rights settlements is a mutually beneficial means of resolving long-standing legal issues. Although there is little opposition to the generally stated principle that negotiated settlements are preferable to litigation, in some cases the executive branch and/or other water users oppose individual settlements (or elements thereof). Other questions include how to manage cost overruns associated with these settlements and who should be in charge of settlement implementation and oversight. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines how teacher perceptions impact the learning experiences of students with disabilities in physical education (PE). It highlights the complexities involved in inclusive PE, including issues related to teacher attitudes, preparation, and the overall educational environment's inclusivity.

The electronic and paper-based payments systems consist of the various means buyers and sellers use to transfer monetary value among themselves. Electronic payments have been playing a critical role on the wholesale side of the payments system for decades. Trillions of dollars per day have been transferred routinely and securely through the wholesale payments system among parties, such as banks, corporations, the Federal Reserve, the Department of the Treasury, and other government agencies. More recently, electronic payment technologies have migrated to the retail side of the system, to households and individuals. In retail, however, the most popular methods of payment remain the more costly paper-based cash and check payments. In 2000, by one estimate, paper-based transactions accounted for two-thirds of all consumer payments, despite the promise of cost savings and convenience. Nevertheless, the volume of electronic retail payments has increased more rapidly during the last decade. The increase in the volume of electronic payments using credit and debit cards grew from 14% of total consumer transactions in 1990 to 31% in 2000. Still, by 2010 consumers will still be making about 50% of their payments with paper, according to the Nilson Report, an industry publication. With the great majority of wholesale banking transactions (institution to institution) being conducted electronically, the cost savings and convenience of electronic payments are a normal part of wholesale banking. A major step towards widespread electronic retail payments was the evolution of the automated clearing house (ACH) system to process wholesale and retail payments. The prevalent deployment of automated teller machines (ATMs) and point-of-sale (POS) terminals has supported the progress. The Internet and other technologies have also encouraged the use of electronic banking by individuals and households. The migration of electronic banking to the retail side of the payments system raises concerns about whether current laws and regulations will adequately cover new technologies and new payment methods. Current statutes address consumer protections in financial transactions involving credit cards and electronic funds transfer. The regulatory agencies have focused on fostering safety and soundness while minimizing their intrusion into the innovation process so as to allow the marketplace flexibility for product development. In November of 2001 federal regulators jointly issued a report, mandated by law (P.L. 106-102), that reviews regulations affecting the delivery of financial products and services including online delivery. However, the speed with which electronic payment technologies are being developed increases the danger of being unprepared with the appropriate regulatory and supervisory policy to protect electronic payments users and providers in time of crisis. This report will be updated as legislative and financial developments warrant. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the Section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act which is invoked to provide exclusive, tailored assistance to prevent business failures. It outlines the four financial firms helped by the Federal Reserve which include the J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., American International Group Inc. and Citigroup.

The article discusses the U.S. Congressional Research Service report which provides an overview of Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H) as proposed by the President Joe Biden Administration. It discusses selected policy issues still under debate as Congress considers legislation that would explicitly authorize ARPA-H.

The Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM) is a measure of economic deprivation-having insufficient financial resources to achieve a specified standard of living. The SPM addresses some of the limitations of the official poverty measure, without supplanting it outright. Both the SPM and the official measure determine the poverty status of people and families by comparing their financial resources against poverty thresholds that are valued in dollars. For both measures, poverty thresholds vary by family size and composition, and families whose resources are lower than the thresholds are considered to be poor. The measures differ in their definitions of • need, as it is used in the thresholds (the dollar amounts used to determine poverty status), • financial resources that are considered relevant for comparing against the measure of need as specified in the thresholds, and • family, for the purpose of assigning thresholds and counting resources. Need The official poverty measure thresholds are based on the costs of austere food budgets developed using data from the 1950s and 1960s, with the threshold dollar amounts updated annually for inflation. The official poverty thresholds vary by family size and composition. In contrast, the SPM thresholds for any given year are based on a below-median level of consumer expenditures for food, clothing, shelter, and utilities developed using data for five recent years. The SPM thresholds vary to reflect that • housing costs differ between homeowners with mortgages, homeowners without mortgages, and renters; • housing costs differ geographically; and • costs differ by family size and composition. Financial Resources Financial resources to meet needs, whether in the SPM or the official measure, are based on the sum of income of all family members. While the official measure uses money income before taxes, the SPM makes additional adjustments and considers a wider range of resources. The SPM includes the value of certain in-kind benefits (such as food and housing subsidies), uses income after estimated federal and state taxes, and subtracts some expenses from income. These expenses include medical out-of-pocket costs, such as health insurance premiums, physician co-pays, and over-the-counter medications; child support paid outside of the household; and work expenses, such as child care and the cost of commuting, tools, uniforms, or licensing fees related to a person's employment. Work expenses, including child care, are capped at the amount of earnings from work of the lowest-earning family member. These expenses are subtracted from family income because they cannot be used to obtain the needs defined in the SPM thresholds. Unlike the official poverty measure, the range of financial resources included in the SPM is defined to be consistent with the types of needs used to compute the SPM poverty thresholds. Family Like the official measure, the SPM family unit definition includes people related by birth, marriage, or adoption living in the same housing unit. However, the SPM additionally includes cohabiting couples and their children, and foster children below age 22. How Does Poverty Look through the Lens of the SPM? The demographic profile of the poverty population is different under the SPM than under the official measure. Children have a comparatively lower poverty rate (percentage in poverty) under the SPM, and the aged (65 and older) have a comparatively higher poverty rate. Among workingage persons (18 to 64), the SPM poverty rate was lower than the official rate in 2020, although in previous years the reverse was true. These differences can be explained by the SPM's resource definition. The SPM includes tax credits and in-kind benefits that help families with children (in effect, boosting the measure of family income). Stimulus payments sent to households in 2020 help to explain the comparatively lower poverty rate among working-age persons in the SPM that year compared to the official measure. Typically, however, because the SPM subtracts workrelated expenses, the income for working-age adults appeared lower under the SPM than the official measure (before 2020), and as a result their SPM poverty rates had been comparatively higher. The SPM also subtracts medical out-of-pocket expenses, which disproportionately affects the aged (lowering their measure of income). Uses and Limits The SPM can give policymakers the tools to understand how taxes and government programs, including the noncash programs, affect the poor. It also illustrates how medical expenses and work-related expenses such as child care can affect a family's economic well-being. However, the SPM poverty estimates are derived from household survey data, and hence are affected by issues such as underreporting of income from government benefit programs, limitations on how tax liabilities and tax benefits can be estimated based on survey data, and differences in how noncash benefits and lump-sum tax refunds are valued by program recipients versus how they are valued for the purposes of poverty measurement. Additionally, the SPM does not directly value health insurance provided publicly or privately. Further, poverty has historically been measured in the United States as an absolute measure, based on how many people fall below a set standard of living. Questions have been raised about whether the SPM continues to measure poverty in that way, or represents a relative measure of poverty, based on how portions of the population rank in terms of well-being relative to each other. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Periodically, concerns have been raised about the number and variety of products created to document congressional activity. Other concerns focus on the process for authorizing and distributing printed government documents to Members of Congress, committees, and other officials in the House and Senate. These concerns reflect broader issues related to the manner in which government and private information is created, assembled, distributed, and preserved in light of the emergence of electronic publishing and distribution. From its establishment in 1861, the Government Printing Office (GPO) has compiled, formatted, printed, bound, and distributed documents that have recorded the activities of Congress (and the work of other governmental entities). In current practice, more than half of all government documents originate in digital form, and are distributed electronically. As a consequence of electronic production and dissemination, some congressional materials are now more readily available to wider congressional, governmental, and public audiences than when they were only produced and distributed in paper form. Some have argued that eliminating paper versions of some congressional documents, and relying instead on electronic versions, could result in further cost and resource savings and might provide environmental benefits. At the same time, however, current law regarding document production, authentication, and preservation, as well as some user demand, require a number of paper-based documents to be produced and distributed as part of the official record of congressional proceedings. As a result of requirements for both electronic and paper-based versions of congressional documents, GPO oversees an information distribution process that produces and distributes most of the congressional information for which it is responsible in both electronic and printed forms. This process provides the necessary information and appropriate formats for Congress to carry out and document its activities, but it may also result in some unwanted printed copies of congressional documents being delivered to congressional users who prefer to access those resources electronically. More broadly, the transition to electronic distribution of materials may raise questions about the capacity of current law and congressional practices to effectively oversee GPO's management and distribution responsibilities regarding congressional information. This report, which will be updated as events warrant, provides an overview and analysis of issues related to the processing and distribution of congressional information by the Government Printing Office. Subsequent sections address several issues, including funding congressional printing, printing authorizations, current printing practices, and options for Congress. Finally, the report provides congressional printing appropriations, production, and distribution data in a number of tables. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The U.S. newspaper industry is suffering through what could be its worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Advertising revenues are plummeting due to the severe economic downturn, while readership habits are changing as consumers turn to the Internet for free news and information. Some major newspaper chains are burdened by heavy debt loads. In the past year, seven major newspaper chains have declared bankruptcy, several big city papers have shut down, and many have laid off reporters and editors, imposed pay reductions, cut the size of the physical newspaper, or turned to Web-only publication. As the problems intensify, there are growing concerns that the rapid decline of the newspaper industry will impact civic and social life. Already there are fewer newspaper reporters covering state capitols and city halls, while the number of states with newspapers covering Congress full- time has dwindled to 23 from the most recent peak of 35 in 1985. As old-style, print newspapers decline, new journalism startups are developing around the country, aided by low entry costs on the Internet. The emerging ventures hold promise but do not have the experience, resources, and reach of shrinking mainstream newspapers. Congress has begun debating whether the financial problems in the newspaper industry pose a public policy issue that warrants federal action. Whether a congressional response to the current turmoil is justified may depend on the current causes of the crisis. If the causes are related to significant technological shifts (the Internet, smart phones and electronic readers) or societal changes that are disruptive to established business models and means of news dissemination, the policy options may be quite limited, especially if new models of reporting (and, equally important, advertising) are beginning to emerge. Governmental policy actions to bolster existing businesses could stall or retard such a shift. In this case, policymakers might stand back and allow the market to realign news gathering and delivery, as it has many times in the past. If, on the other hand, the current crisis is related to the struggle of some major newspapers to survive the current recession, possible policy options to ensure the continuing availability of in-depth local and national news coverage by newspapers might include providing tax breaks, relaxing antitrust policy, tightening copyright law, providing general support for the practice of journalism by increasing funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) or similar public programs, or helping newspapers reorganize as nonprofit organizations. Policymakers may also determine that some set of measures could ease the combination of social and technological transition and the recession-related financial distress of the industry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Through the National Archives and Records Administration, the federal government currently manages and maintains 12 presidential libraries. Inaugurated with the Presidential Libraries Act of 1955, these entities are privately constructed on behalf of former Presidents and, upon completion, are deeded to the federal government. Deposited within these edifices are the official records and papers of the former President, as well as documentary materials of his family and, often, his political associates. These holdings are made available for public examination in accordance with prevailing law concerning custody, official secrecy, personal privacy, and other similar restrictions. This report provides a brief overview of the federal presidential libraries system and tracks the progress of related legislation (H.R. 1254, H.R. 1255, H.R. 5811, S. 886). It will be updated as events recommend. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA, P.L. 107-252) gave the federal Election Assistance Commission (EAC) the responsibility to develop a set of Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG) to replace the current voluntary Voting Systems Standards (VSS). The VVSG are to provide a set of specifications and requirements to be used in the certification of computer-assisted voting systems, both paper-based and fully electronic. That was also the purpose of the VSS, which were developed in response to concerns raised about voting systems in the 1970s and 1980s. Most states have adopted the VSS in whole or in part, and most are expected to adopt the VVSG, which are scheduled to go into effect two years after approval. The draft VVSG, a partial revision of the VSS, was released in June 2005 for a 90-day comment period. Volume I provides performance guidelines for voting systems and is intended for a broad audience. It includes descriptions of functional requirements and performance standards, and requirements for vendors. The most extensive revisions are to the section on usability and accessibility and the section on security of voting systems. Standards are also included for the use of voter-verified paper audit trails (VVPAT), a recent security measure developed in response to concerns that electronic voting machines are vulnerable to tampering that might otherwise be difficult to detect. Volume II provides details of the testing process for certification of voting systems and has few revisions. Some issues associated with the VVSG have been controversial. Among them is the question of timing. Some vendors claim that there needs to be more time for technology development before the new guidelines become effective; some activists argue that problems with voting systems, and HAVA provisions, demand more rapid implementation of the VVSG. In any event, it is generally considered unlikely that the guidelines will have much direct impact on voting systems used in 2006, when HAVA requirements for voting systems go into effect. One exception may be the VVPAT provisions, since the VSS, under which most current voting systems are certified, have no provisions relating to this innovation. The VVSG will be voluntary, but some observers believe that a regulatory approach would be more appropriate given the importance of elections to the democratic process. However, since many states require that voting systems be certified, vendors are expected to treat the VVSG in the same way they have treated the VSS -- as effectively mandatory. Among the other issues being debated about the guidelines are whether they should be expanded to include voter registration systems, whether they impede innovation by focusing on integrated systems rather than components, how to treat commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) products that are incorporated in voting systems, and whether a graded certification would be more effective than the current pass/fail approach. Several bills introduced in the 109th Congress could affect the scope or other aspects of the VVSG by requiring VVPAT or other security provisions, addressing concerns about conflict of interest, and other measures. None have received committee or floor action in either chamber during the first session. This report will be updated in response to major developments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The deadlocked November 2000 presidential election focused national attention on previously obscure details of election administration. Congress responded with the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA; P.L. 107-252). HAVA created the Election Assistance Commission (EAC), established a set of election administration requirements, and provided federal funding, but it did not supplant state and local control over election administration. Several issues have arisen or persisted in the years since HAVA was enacted. Some observers have criticized the EAC for being obtrusive, slow, ineffectual, or even unnecessary. Others believe that the agency is an important resource for improving the election administration. The EAC lacked a quorum of commissioners between 2011 and 2015. HAVA requires computerized state voter registration systems, and its voting-system requirements promote the use of electronic voting systems. However, those systems, especially the kinds that record votes directly into a computer's memory (DREs), raise concerns about security and reliability. In response, many states have enacted requirements for paper ballot records that can be verified by the voter and used in recounts. All states now use paper-based optical scan systems for at least some voters, and most use them in at least some polling places. DRE systems are also used in most states, in many cases to meet HAVA accessibility requirements, but in several states to serve as the primary voting system in at least some jurisdictions. Several states also have jurisdictions that still use hand-counted paper ballots. Both DRE and optical scan voting systems are computerized, with votes counted electronically. All computerized systems, whether used in the polling place or the election office, are potentially vulnerable to unauthorized access aimed at stealing, deleting, or modifying the information that the systems store or process. Such vulnerabilities apply not only to systems with Internet connectivity but also those that can be accessed electronically through other means, such as memory cards. Documented intrusions into systems of state and local election offices and political organizations in 2016 have amplified concerns about attempts by nation-states such as Russia, or by nonstate actors, to use tampering or disinformation campaigns to influence the election. The Department of Homeland Security and the EAC are providing assistance to states to help them secure their systems. Whether such actions will be sufficient is a subject of ongoing debate, although many observers expect that the risk of tampering is minimal. HAVA's limited voter-identification provisions did not resolve the longstanding controversy over whether broad identification requirements are needed to prevent voter fraud, or whether such requirements would create an unacceptable risk of disenfranchising legitimate voters. Many states have enacted requirements that voters present identification documents at polling places. Also, while HAVA's voter-registration requirements may have improved that process, some observers have argued that more automated registration systems are needed to make further improvements. HAVA authorized $3.65 billion in payments to states to replace voting systems and meet the requirements of the act. Congress appropriated $3.28 billion of that amount between FY2003 and FY2010. Altogether, more than $3.5 billion of HAVA funds were appropriated through FY2016: the $3.28 billion in election reform payments to states, $196 million for the EAC and its programs, and more than $129 million in accessibility payments to states, administered by the Department of Health and Human Services. Numerous bills to amend HAVA have been considered in Congress, but none have been enacted except the 2009 MOVE Act, which made some amendments relating to uniformed services and overseas voters. In the 114th Congress, H.R. 195, reported by the Committee on House Administration, would eliminate the EAC and transfer its functions to the Federal Election Commission. House-passed appropriations bills for FY2014 and FY2015 would have defunded the EAC, but the agency has received about $10 million in final appropriations for each fiscal year since FY2012. Other bills in the 114th Congress would address a variety of issues, and some committees have held hearings on election issues, including security. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article reports on the six broadly based facilities created by the Federal Reserve of the U.S. under the Section 13 paragraph 3 of the Federal Reserve Act in 2008. It outlines the six facilities which include the Term Securities Lending Facility (TSLF), the Commercial Paper Funding Facility (CPFF) and the Money Market investor Funding Facility (MMIFF). It notes that the facilities were created to extend credit to all eligible borrowers within a particular class of nonbank financial firms.

The deepening of the financial crisis in 2008 led the Federal Reserve (Fed) to revive an obscure provision found in Section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 344) to extend credit to nonbank financial firms for the first time since the 1930s. Section 13(3) provides the Fed with greater flexibility than its normal lending authority. Using this authority, the Fed created six broadly based facilities (of which only five were used) to provide liquidity to "primary dealers" (i.e., certain large investment firms) and to revive demand for commercial paper and asset-backed securities. More controversially, the Fed provided special, tailored assistance exclusively to four firms that the Fed considered "too big to fail"-AIG, Bear Stearns, Citigroup, and Bank of America. Credit outstanding (extended in the form of cash or securities) authorized by Section 13(3) peaked at $710 billion in November 2008. At present, all credit extended under Section 13(3) has been repaid with interest and all Section 13(3) facilities have expired. Contrary to popular belief, the Fed earned income of more than $30 billion and did not suffer any losses on transactions authorized by Section 13(3). These transactions exposed the taxpayer to greater risks than traditional lending to banks through the discount window, however, because in some cases the terms of the programs had fewer safeguards. The Fed's use of Section 13(3) in the crisis raised fundamental policy issues: Should the Fed be lender of last resort to banks only, or to all parts of the financial system? Should the Fed lend to firms that it does not supervise? How much discretion does the Fed need to be able respond to unpredictable financial crises? How can Congress ensure that taxpayers are not exposed to losses? Do the benefits of emergency lending outweigh the costs, including moral hazard? How can Congress ensure that Section 13(3) is not used to "bail out" failing firms? Should the Fed tell Congress and the public to whom it has lent? The restrictions in Section 13(3) placed few limits on the Fed's actions in 2008. However, in 2010, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (P.L. 111-203) added more restrictions to Section 13(3), attempting to ban future assistance to failing firms while maintaining the Fed's ability to create broadly based facilities. The Dodd-Frank Act also required records for actions taken under Section 13(3) to be publicly released with a lag and required the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to audit those programs for operational integrity, accounting, financial reporting, internal controls, effectiveness of collateral policies, favoritism, and use of third-party contractors. Although Section 13(3) must be used "for the purpose of providing liquidity to the financial system," some Members of Congress have expressed interest in-while others have expressed opposition to-the Fed using Section 13(3) to assist financially struggling entities, including states, municipalities, and territories of the United States. Chairman Jeb Hensarling contends that "Dodd-Frank tried but failed to rein in the Fed's emergency lending authority." In the 114th Congress, legislation-including H.R. 2625, H.R. 3189, and S. 1320-has been introduced that would limit the Fed's discretion under Section 13(3). On November 19, 2015, H.R. 3189 was passed by the House. It would require the approval of three-quarters of the Fed regional presidents to activate Section 13(3), tighten the definition of solvency, limit borrowers to financial firms, and provide a formula for setting the interest rate above market rates. Chair Janet Yellen contends that this bill would "essentially repeal the Federal Reserve's remaining ability to act in a crisis." A Fed governor has opposed further reducing the Fed's discretion under Section 13(3) on the grounds that the Fed needs "to be able to respond flexibly and nimbly" to threats to financial stability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents the different definitions of biomass in several legislation passed by the U.S. Congress since 2004 including the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, and Tax Code 2007.

The article focuses on the U.S. Congressional Research Service and discusses the Internal Revenue Service's Free File Program (FFP), which enables eligible individuals to electronically (e-file) their federal income tax returns. Topics include the evolution of e-filing since its pilot program in 1986, the structure and history of the FFP, and ongoing policy issues such as low usage rates and proposed reforms like return-free filing or free direct e-filing.

An appendix is presented that discusses the concerns and differences between the October 2009 International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) draft proposal to Iran regarding its nuclear program and the May 2010 Tehran Declaration.

The article focuses on the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian honor in the United States, awarded by the President to individuals for significant achievements in various fields. Topics include the history and design of the medal, the criteria for its award, and the process for nominating and selecting recipients. The report also provides a comprehensive list of honorees from 1963 to 2022, including those who received the medal "with distinction."

The article presents several appendices related to articles published in the January 13, 2014 issue of the "Congress Research Service" including congressional trade agreements authority request by and granted to U.S. presidents since 1934, congressional timeline under Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), and expedited legislative procedures for passage of trade implementing bills under TPA.

On September 14, 2007, President George W. Bush signed the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-81), into law. The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act (HLOGA) amended the Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA) of 1995 (P.L. 104-65, as amended) to provide, among other changes to federal law and House and Senate rules, additional and more frequent disclosures of lobbying contacts and activities. This report explains the role of the Clerk of the House of Representatives and the Secretary of the Senate in the implementation and administration of lobbying registration and disclosure requirements and summarizes the guidance documents they have jointly issued. Under the LDA, the Clerk of the House and the Secretary of the Senate manage the registration, filing, and collection of documents submitted by lobbyists and lobbying firms. Prior to the HLOGA, lobbyists were required to file paper documents with both the Clerk and the Secretary. These forms are now filed electronically and jointly with the Clerk and the Secretary. In addition, the Clerk and the Secretary are responsible for making documents publicly available and reporting incorrect or false filings to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. Beginning in December 2007, the Clerk of the House and the Secretary of the Senate issued joint guidance documents for HLOGA implementation. The initial guidance document identified eight substantive changes to the 1995 Lobbying Disclosure Act, and discussed how the Clerk and Secretary interpret and implement the HLOGA's provisions. In addition, the guidance document provided direction on successful completion of quarterly registration and disclosure documents, the new semiannual campaign contribution reporting requirement, and interpretation of the Clerk and Secretary's role in referring noncompliance to the U.S. attorney. Since issuing the initial guidance document in 2007, the Clerk of the House and Secretary of the Senate, pursuant to 2 U.S.C. §1605, have conducted periodic reviews of existing guidance and have issued multiple updates. The document was last updated on January 31, 2017. That update reflected adjustments in registration thresholds pursuant to changes in the Consumer Price Index; provided additional clarifications on identifying clients and covered officials; provided additional examples for filing by outside lobbyists; clarified that all income and expenditure reporting should be rounded to the nearest $10,000; clarified that all "sole proprietors" are required to file two LD-203 disclosure forms-one for the registrant [firm] and one for the individual lobbyist; and encouraged filers to use the online public database for compliance purposes. For further analysis on the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act and the Lobbying Disclosure Act, see CRS Report R40245, Lobbying Registration and Disclosure: Bef ore and After the Enactment of the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007, by Jacob R. Straus; and CRS Report R44292, The Lobbying Disclosure Act at 20: Analysis and Issues f or Congress, by Jacob R. Straus. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers an overview of the state of the U.S. economy and explores the fiscal measures taken in response to the economic downturn caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. It discusses the two forms of fiscal policy responses during an economic downturn, the theoretical and empirical effects of fiscal policy, and an outlook on federal debt.

The article offers information on potential resources and considerations for drafting constitutional authority statements (CAS). Topics include available sources that may aid in interpreting the U.S. constitution, such as Farrand's Records, "The Federalist Papers," and "Founder's Constitution," potential constitutional bases for various types of legislation, and suggested CAS citations pursuant to House Rule XII, clause 7(c), for commonly introduced legislation.

The article focuses on the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H), a new agency proposed by the Biden Administration to advance biomedical and health research. It discusses the establishment and structure of ARPA-H, highlighting its similarities to other ARPA agencies and its potential to fund high-risk, high-reward research defining its role in the biomedical research ecosystem, facilitating the implementation of ARPA-H innovations, and determining adequate funding levels.

The article discusses voting systems and election administration in the U.S. It states that the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) funded replacement of punchcard and lever systems and improved election administration. Most jurisdictions use one of optical scan, in which voters mark choices on paper ballots, and direct recording electronic (DRE) systems, wherein voters mark choices via a computer interface. Controversy surround the security of direct recording electronic systems.

The article presents a reports of U.S. Congressional Research Service, related to the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) established by the U.S. Congress. It mentions that OTA has produced assessments, background papers, technical memoranda, case studies, and workshop proceedings spanning a wide range of topics. It mentions that the Congress could choose to create an existing technology assessment capability in legislative branch agency like Government Accountability Office.

Local election officials (LEOs) are critical to the administration of federal elections and the implementation of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA, P.L. 107-252). Two surveys of LEOs were performed, in 2004 and 2006, by Texas A&M University; the surveys were sponsored and coordinated by CRS. Although care needs to be taken in interpreting the results, they may have implications for several policy issues, such as how election officials are chosen and trained, the best ways to ensure that voting systems and election procedures are sufficiently effective, secure, and voter-friendly, and whether adjustments should be made to HAVA requirements. Major results include the following: The demographic characteristics of LEOs differ from those of other government officials. Almost three-quarters are women, and 5% are minorities. Most do not have a college degree, and most were elected. Some results suggest areas of potential improvement such as in training and participation in professional associations. LEOs believed that the federal government has too great an influence on the acquisition of voting systems, and that local elected officials have too little. Their concerns increased from 2004 to 2006 about the influence of the media, political parties, advocacy groups, and vendors. LEOs were highly satisfied with whatever voting system they used but were less supportive of other kinds. However, their satisfaction declined from 2004 to 2006 for all systems except lever machines. They also rated their primary voting systems as very accurate, secure, reliable, and voter- and pollworker-friendly, no matter what system they used. However, the most common incident reported by respondents in the 2006 election was malfunction of a direct recording (DRE) or optical scan (OS) electronic voting system. The incidence of long lines at polling places was highest in jurisdictions using DREs. Most DRE users did not believe that voter-verified paper audit trails (VVPAT) should be required, but nonusers believed they should be. However, the percentage of DRE users who supported VVPAT increased in 2006, and most VVPAT users were satisfied with them. On average, LEOs mildly supported requiring photo identification for all voters, even though they strongly believed that it will negatively affect turnout and did not believe that voter fraud is a problem in their jurisdictions. LEOs believed that HAVA is making moderate improvements in the electoral process, but the level of support declined from 2004 to 2006. They reported that HAVA has increased the accessibility of voting but has made elections more complicated and has increased their cost. LEOs spent much more time preparing for the election in 2006 than in 2004. They also believed that the increased complexity of elections is hindering recruitment of pollworkers. Most found the activities of the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) that HAVA created only moderately beneficial to them. They were neutral on average about the impacts of the requirement for a statewide voter-registration database. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There are more than 9,000 local election jurisdictions in the United States. Local election officials (LEOs) are responsible for administering elections in those jurisdictions. LEOs are therefore critical to the successful implementation of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA, P.L. 107-252) and state election laws, but there has been little objective information on the perceptions and attitudes of those officials about election reform. This report, which will not be updated, discusses the results of a recent scientific survey of LEOs. The findings may be useful to Congress in considering funding and possible reauthorization of HAVA. The demographic characteristics of LEOs are unusual for a group of government officials. Almost three-quarters are women, and 5% belong to minority groups. Most do not have a college degree, and most were elected to their positions. Some survey results suggest areas of potential professional improvement, such as in education and in professional involvement at the national level. Over the past 20 years, jurisdictions have turned increasingly to computer-assisted voting systems -- especially optical scan and direct recording electronic (DRE) systems. The most important factors reported by LEOs in the acquisition of new systems are federal and state requirements and funding. HAVA encourages but does not require systems that detect voter error, but it does require that voting machines be available that are fully accessible to persons with disabilities. About half of jurisdictions with optical scan systems use central-count, which cannot help voters to correct mistakes before casting the ballot. However, most jurisdictions acquiring new voting systems are choosing either precinct-count optical scan or DREs, both of which can help voters avoid errors. LEOs are generally highly satisfied with whatever voting systems they are using now. They have less confidence in the performance and security of other systems. DRE users generally oppose the use of voter-verified paper audit trails (VVPAT) for DREs, but users of other systems favor it. This result could mean that users are overconfident in DREs or that nonusers are insufficiently knowledgeable about them. LEOs also tend to favor new systems that have characteristics similar to what they have been using -- for example, lever machine users tend to favor DREs. LEOs trust the voting system vendors they work with but do not believe that those vendors are very influential in decisions about acquiring new voting systems. LEOs consider themselves knowledgeable about and familiar with HAVA. They support individual provisions of the act, most strongly for federal funding and least strongly for provisional balloting. To some extent, provisions rated more difficult to implement receive less support. Most LEOs believe that HAVA has resulted in some improvement in elections in their jurisdictions. Those rating HAVA higher overall tend to be younger, more comfortable with technology, and more familiar with the act. The areas for improvement of HAVA most commonly listed are federal funding and the requirements for registration, voter identification, and provisional balloting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The clearing process for checks is more expensive than other methods of payment which are cleared electronically, such as credit cards and Internet banking. The main reason is that check clearing requires banks to physically present and return checks unless they obtain legal agreements to clear electronically. The Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act of 2003 (H.R. 1474) would eliminate the requirement to physically return the original checks to the paying bank. On April 3, 2003, the Senate held its first hearing on the Fed's Check Truncation Act (CTA) proposal that was sent to banking committees of both Houses in December 2001. On June 5, 2003, the House passed H.R. 1474 and referred it to the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs. On June 18, 2003, at a markup, the Senate Banking Committee approved its Check Truncation Act of 2003 (S. 1334) and on June 27, 2003, the full Senate passed S. 1334 and incorporated it in H.R. 1474. On October 1, 2003, House and Senate conferees reported H.R. 1474 (Conference Report H.Rept. 108-291). Estimates of cost savings from moving to electronic check clearing vary widely because estimates of the cost of using a check and the number of checks written each year remain in dispute. Consequently, estimates of cost savings range from $1.4 billion annually for truncation alone to $68 billion for replacing checks with electronic payments. A significant part of the estimated savings comes from eliminating handling, sorting, and physically transporting checks to the paying bank. In testimony at the hearing of Senate and House banking committees in the 108th Congress, the Fed's CTA in the Senate and H.R. 1474 in the House were supported by the Federal Reserve Board, which testified that it would like to remove some of the consumer protection provisions that were in its 2001 proposal because they were unnecessary. The Fed argued that the regulatory burden these provisions would place on banks would outweigh the consumer benefits. Still, the bill is supported by America's Community Bankers, the American Bankers Association, the Consumer Bankers Association, and the Financial Services Roundtable. The opposition to the CTA came from the Consumers Union, supported in its testimony by the Consumer Federation of America, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, and the National Consumer Law Center. The Consumers Union argued that the Act would make it impossible for an estimated 45.8 million U.S. households who are currently getting their paper checks back to continue to do so. These consumers would be less protected from fraud under the Act than under the existing check clearing process when there are disputes about check payments. The Consumers Union's suggested changes in the proposed legislation would significantly increase consumer protection. At the same time, these changes would increase financial institutions' costs of voluntarily adopting check truncation. Other witnesses argued that those banks with decades of using truncated checks have not experienced many disputed check payments, and when they did they were quickly resolved. This report will be updated as legislative and financial developments warrant. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is routinely acknowledged that the success of the Internet and electronic commerce depends upon the resolution of issues related to the privacy of online personal information. This paper discusses some potential threats to the privacy of online personal information, and efforts by businesses, governments, and citizens to respond to them. The paper also provides an overview of the legal framework for the protection of personal information. Some advocate legal recognition of a right to "information privacy" for online transactions. The term "information privacy" refers to an individual's claim to control the terms under which personal information is acquired, disclosed, and used. In the United States there is no comprehensive legal protection for personal information. The Constitution protects the privacy of personal information in a limited number of ways, and extends only to the protection of the individual against government intrusions. However, many of the threats to the privacy of personal information occur in the private sector. Any limitations placed on the data processing activities of the private sector will be found not in the Constitution but in federal or state law. There is no comprehensive federal privacy statute that protects personal information held by both the public sector and the private sector. A federal statute exists to protect the privacy of personal information collected by the federal government. The private sector's collection and disclosure of personal information has been addressed by Congress on a sector-by-sector basis. With the exception of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998, none of these laws specifically covers the collection of online personal information. The federal government currently has limited authority over the collection and dissemination of personal data collected online. President Clinton's Information Infrastructure Task Force supports industry standards for privacy protection. The Federal Trade Commission Act prohibits unfair and deceptive practices in commerce, and the Commission has brought enforcement actions to address deceptive online information practices. In June 1998, the Federal Trade Commission presented a report to Congress titled Privacy Online which examined the information practices of over 1400 commercial Web sites, and found that the vast majority of online businesses have yet to adopt even the most fundamental fair information practice. The Commission issued a new report to Congress in July 1999 on Self-Regulation and Online Privacy and found that the vast majority of the sites surveyed collect personal information from consumers online, and that the implementation of fair information practices is not widespread. The FTC issued a new report in May 2000 after another survey of web sites. Notwithstanding measurable gains since the 1999 report to Congress, a majority of the Commission found that self-regulation alone, without some legislation, is unlikely to provide online consumers with the level of protection they seek and deserve, and recommended that Congress consider legislation to complement self-regulation. This report does not track legislation pending before Congress. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the regulatory framework governing securities disclosure in the United States, highlighting the importance of transparency for investors. Topics include the requirements set forth by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the principles of materiality and comparability in disclosures, and ongoing policy debates regarding the frequency and format of disclosure requirements.