Search

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]

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.

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 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]

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 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 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.

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]

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 offers information about several issues related to the administration of tax benefits in the United States. It Includes concerns the application for tax benefits, which is the federal income tax return, and the verification of data provided on it; many households use paid preparers and commercial software to file their tax returns, which can affect the accuracy of the data provided.

The article examines the economic and societal benefits of nanotechnology. Topics mentioned include the National Nanotechnology Initiative launched in 2000 to advance nanotechnology research, development and commercialization, its structure and funding agency and program component area, and the implications of nanotechnology to the environment, health, and safety. Other selected issues discussed include competitiveness, scientific papers, and patents, as well as nanomanufacturing.

The article offers information on a series of proposals submitted by the U.S. since 2017 to the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) partners to relax its export guidelines for unmanned aerial systems (UAS). It discusses the objective of the MTCR, a white paper presented by the U.S. concerning exports of Category I UAS, exporters of Category I UAS, concerns of experts on UAS proliferation, and restrictions imposed by the U.S. on UAS exports.

The article offers information on capital income and its importance as a source of income in the U.S. Topics discussed include the effects of the trends in the distribution of wealth on income distribution, the mean value of family financial assets by percentile of income, and factor that contributes to high income inequality.

The article offers information on the election administration issues since the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) in the U.S. Topics include the use of computers in managing voter registration lists, vote counting, and other aspects of election administration, importance of cybersecurity, and adoption of direct-recording electronic (DRE) voting system.

The article discusses the lead of the U.S. in public investments in nanotechnology research and development (R&D), noting other nations that have established similar programs and increased funding. It notes the amount of investments in nanotechnology from public, private and corporations, led by the U.S. followed by Asia and Europe. It mentions that U.S. had fallen behind Russia and China in nanotechnology R&D funding on a purchasing power parity basis.

The article focuses on the evaluation of the U.S. refundable tax credit Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) through its efficiency on the labor force participation of unmarried workers.

The article presents a report of the U.S. Congressional Research Services on the U.S. Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's (ACA's) Risk Adjustment Program. Topics discussed include aims of the act to reduce incentives that insurers may have to avoid enrolling individuals at risk of high health care costs in the private health insurance market; permanent risk adjustment program as established by ACA; and role of risk adjustment in risk mitigation.

The article focuses on Government interventions to end the financial crises in U.S. Topics discussed include asset-backed securities ( ABS) faced financial crisis; several government programs by Congress such as the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and Federal Reserve; and contribution of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, housing government sponsored enterprises in financial investments.

The article focuses on the constitutional powers of Congress and the President regarding foreign trade agreements, examining the roles each branch plays in the negotiation and approval processes. It discusses the evolving landscape of trade agreements, particularly the emergence of hybrid agreements that blend congressional and executive authority, raising legal questions about their constitutionality and the implications for the balance of power in U.S. trade policy.

The article focuses on the development and strategic implications of hypersonic weapons by the U.S. as part of its conventional prompt global strike program. It highlights the distinction between hypersonic glide vehicles and hypersonic cruise missiles, emphasizing the increasing interest and funding from both the Pentagon and Congress due to advancements in hypersonic technology by adversaries like Russia and China.

The article focuses on the U.S. President Joe Biden Administration's executive actions affecting federal student loan programs, highlighting the modifications made to address the significant student debt crisis in the U.S. It outlines the various actions taken from Fiscal year 2021 to Fiscal Year 2023, their financial implications, and the contrasting views on their effectiveness and costs to the federal government.

The article provides information on the U.S. Navy's Virginia-class (SSN-774) nuclear-powered attack submarine program and AUKUS submarine (Pillar 1) project, as well as policy considerations for Congress. The budget proposed by the Navy for fiscal year 2025 seeks to procure one SSN-774 that would become the 41st boat in the class, with an estimated cost of 5,759.5 million dollars. Pillar 1 involves the deployment, selling and development of SSN by Australia, the United kingdom and the U.S.

The article provides information on the U.S. Navy's Constellation-class (FFG-62) frigate program and related considerations for Congress. The program aims to procure at least 20 FFG-62 frigates, including the six ships that have been acquired through fiscal year (FY) 2024. The budget proposed by the Navy for FY2025 requests 1,170.4 million dollars to procure the seventh ship in the program. Potential oversight issues to be considered by Congress include the risk of cost growth in the program.

The article provides information on the U.S. Navy's Arleigh Burke (DDG-51) and Zumwalt (DDG-1000) destroyer programs and related policy considerations for Congress. The Navy has procured 94 DDG-51 ships through fiscal year (FY) 2024. The budget proposed by the Navy for FY2025 seeks to procure two more DDG-51 costing about 2.5 billion dollars each. The Navy procured three DDG-1000 destroyers in FY2007 to FY2009 but plans no further procurement of the ships.

The article explores the potential use of coastal blue carbon ecosystems as a carbon dioxide removal (CDR) approach and related considerations for the U.S. Congress. It describes the nature of coastal blue carbon ecosystems and their CDR capacity, as well as the importance of improving the mapping of such ecosystems to determine their carbon sequestriation and carbon storage ability and durability. It discusses several legislative issues to be considered by Congress related to such ecosystems.

The Navy’s Columbia (SSBN-826) class ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) program is a program to design and build a class of 12 new SSBNs to replace the Navy’s current force of 14 aging Ohio-class SSBNs. Since 2013, the Navy has consistently identified the Columbia-class program as the Navy’s top priority program. The Navy procured the first Columbia-class boat in FY2021; the boat was funded with three-year incremental funding in FY2021-FY2023. The Navy procured the second Columbia-class boat in FY2024; the boat is being funded with two-year incremental funding (also called split funding) in FY2024-FY2025. The Navy wants to procure the remaining 10 boats in the program—boats 3 through 12—at a rate of one per year in FY2026- FY2035. The Navy’s FY2025 budget submission estimates the total procurement cost of the first boat at $15,179.1 million (i.e., about $15.2 billion) and the procurement cost of the second Columbia-class boat at $9,283.1 million (i.e., about $9.3 billion). The first boat’s procurement cost is much higher than that of subsequent boats in the class because the first boat includes most of the detail design/nonrecurring engineering (DD/NRE) costs for the class. (It is a long-standing Navy budgetary practice to incorporate the DD/NRE costs for a new class of ship into the total procurement cost of the first ship in the class.) The first boat’s estimated procurement cost includes $6,557.6 million for plans, meaning (essentially) the DD/NRE costs for the class. Excluding costs for plans, the estimated hands-on construction cost of the first ship is $8,621.5 million (i.e., about $8.6 billion). The Navy’s proposed FY2025 budget requests $3,341.2 million (i.e., about $3.3 billion) in procurement funding to complete the procurement cost of the second Columbia-class boat and $6,215.9 million (i.e., about $6.2 billion) in advance procurement (AP) funding for Columbia class boats to be procured in FY2026 and subsequent years. Issues for Congress for the Columbia-class program include the following: • The impact of an estimated 12- to 16-month delay in the delivery of the first Columbia-class boat on the Navy’s plans for replacing Ohio-class SSBNs on a timely basis; • industrial-base challenges of building both Columbia-class boats and Virginia-class attack submarines (SSNs) at the same time; • the risk of cost growth in the Columbia-class program; and • the potential impact of the Columbia-class program on funding that will be available for other Navy programs, including other shipbuilding programs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article explains the multiyear procurement (MYP) and block buy contracting (BBC) mechanisms that the U.S. Congress allows the Department of Defense to use for a limited number of defense acquisition programs, as well as related considerations for Congress. It describes similarities and differences between MYP and BBC, as well as the funding approaches of each contracting mechanism. It discusses issues to be faced by Congress, including the frequency of using MYP or BBC.

Industrial hemp is a variety of Cannabis sativa and is of the same plant species as marijuana. However, hemp is genetically different and distinguished by its use and chemical makeup. Hemp has long been cultivated for non-drug use in the production of industrial and other goods. Some estimate that the global market for hemp consists of more than 25,000 products. It can be grown as a fiber, seed, or other dual-purpose crop. Hemp fibers are used in a wide range of products, including fabrics and textiles, yarns and raw or processed spun fibers, paper, carpeting, home furnishings, construction and insulation materials, auto parts, and composites. The interior stalk (hurd) is used in various applications such as animal bedding, raw material inputs, low-quality papers, and composites. Hemp seed and oilcake are used in a range of foods and beverages, and can be an alternative food protein source. Oil from the crushed hemp seed is an ingredient in a range of body-care products and also nutritional supplements. Hemp seed is also used for industrial oils, cosmetics and personal care, and pharmaceuticals, among other composites. Precise data are not available on the size of the U.S. market for hemp-based products. Current industry estimates report that U.S. retail sales of all hemp-based products may exceed $300 million per year. Because there is no commercial industrial hemp production in the United States, the U.S. market is largely dependent on imports, both as finished hemp-containing products and as ingredients for use in further processing. Under the current U.S. drug policy, all cannabis varieties, including hemp, are considered Schedule I controlled substances under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA, 21 U.S.C. §§801 et seq.; Title 21 CFR Part 1308.11). As such, while there are legitimate industrial uses, these are controlled and regulated by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). Strictly speaking, the CSA does not make growing hemp illegal; rather, it places strict controls on its production and enforces standards governing the security conditions under which the crop must be grown, making it illegal to grow without a DEA permit. Currently, cannabis varieties may be legitimately grown for research purposes only. Among the concerns over changing current policies is how to allow for hemp production without undermining the agency's drug enforcement efforts and regulation of the production and distribution of marijuana. In the early 1990s a sustained resurgence of interest in allowing commercial cultivation of industrial hemp began in the United States. Several states have conducted economic or market studies, and have initiated or passed legislation to expand state-level resources and production. To date, nine states have legalized the cultivation and research of industrial hemp, including Hawaii, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Montana, North Dakota, Oregon, Vermont, and West Virginia. However, because federal law still prohibits cultivation, a grower still must get permission from the DEA in order to grow hemp, or face the possibility of federal charges or property confiscation, despite having a state-issued permit. Over the past few Congresses, Representative Ron Paul has introduced legislation that would open the way for commercial cultivation of industrial hemp in the United States (H.R. 1866, 111th Congress; H.R. 1009, 110th Congress; H.R. 3037, 109th Congress). The Industrial Hemp Farming Act would amend Section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802(16)) to specify that the term "marijuana" does not include industrial hemp, which the bill would define based on its content of delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), marijuana's primary psychoactive chemical. Such a change could remove low-THC hemp from being covered by the CSA as a controlled substance and subject to DEA regulation, thus allowing for industrial hemp to be grown and processed under some state laws. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Concern regarding the mounting U.S. trade deficit with China (which is designated a nonmarket economy country according to U.S. trade laws), combined with China's refusal to allow its exchange rate to float, has led some in Congress to introduce legislation proposing to make countervailing duty laws applicable to China and other nonmarket economy countries. This legislation seeks to provide for the assessment of additional duties on imports whose production and/or importation are found to be subsidized by a public entity in their country of origin and are injurious to a U.S. producer of similar merchandise. Antidumping, another kind of trade remedy action, addresses products sold in the United States at less than their fair value (as defined by law) in a similar manner. Although antidumping (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) laws and procedures generally parallel each other, CVD laws contain no specific provisions for investigations on imports from nonmarket economy (NME) countries, while the AD statute does provide such guidelines. Initial administrative attempts in 1983 to apply countervailing remedies to allegedly subsidized imports from several NME countries led to determinations by the International Trade Administration (ITA) of the Department of Commerce (the U.S. agency charged with determining the existence and extent of subsidies) that subsidies within the meaning of the countervailing law, cannot be found in nonmarket economies. These ITA determinations were challenged in the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT), which held that they were "not in accordance with the law," reversed them, and remanded the cases to the ITA. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed, and reinstated the ITA's original determinations -- thus affirming that the ITA has the discretion not to apply the CVD law to NME countries. The ITA has reevaluated this decision, at least with regard to the People's Republic of China, arguably in response to pressure from Congress. In a countervailing investigation on coated free sheet paper (CFS), the ITA reversed its position with regard to China, and on October 18, 2007 made a final affirmative determination of subsidies, finding that Chinese producers/exporters received net countervailable subsidies ranging from 7.40 to 44.25 percent. The investigation continues at the International Trade Commission, where a final injury determination is expected in mid-January. Legislation seeking to apply countervailing action to NME countries has been introduced in the 110th Congress. This legislation includes S. 364 (Rockefeller); H.R. 571 (Tancredo), H.R. 708 (English); H.R. 782 (Ryan/Hunter) H.R. 2942 (Ryan/Hunter) and related bill S. 796 (Bunning/Stabenow); H.R. 1229 (Davis/English) and related bills S. 974 (Collins/Bayh) and S. 1919 (Baucus, introduced August 1, 2007). The Bush Administration has also taken some recent steps to address the issue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Firms are said to be liquid when they are able to meet current obligations or short-term demand for funds. A firm is said to be solvent but illiquid when its assets exceed its liabilities but it is unable to liquidate assets rapidly enough to meet current obligations. Markets are said to be liquid when a large volume of financial securities can be traded without price distortions because there is a ready and willing supply of buyers and sellers. Liquid markets are a sign of normalcy. In August 2007, liquidity abruptly dried up for many firms and securities markets. Suddenly some firms were able to borrow and investors were able to sell certain securities only at prohibitive rates and prices, if at all. The liquidity crunch was most extreme for firms and securities with links to subprime mortgages, but it also spread rapidly into seemingly unrelated areas. The stock market experienced unusual volatility and investors rushed to buy the safest of all investments, U.S. Treasury securities. On August 31, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke noted that "[a]lthough this episode appears to have been triggered largely by heightened concerns about subprime mortgages, global financial losses have far exceeded even the most pessimistic projections of credit losses on those loans." The spread of disruptions from housing into other debt markets is an example of financial contagion, or systemic risk. Contagion spread among non-bank institutions: mortgage lenders, hedge funds, and issuers of various types of securities, including commercial paper, asset-backed securities, structured products, and debt supporting leveraged buyouts and takeovers. As fear of risk has increased, these institutions saw sources of credit vanish and struggled to meet existing financing commitments, to post additional collateral, and to cope with portfolio losses. Some financial institutions, primarily mortgage lenders and hedge funds, have been unable to resolve liquidity problems and have closed. In the months ahead, there may be more failures. Central banks, including the Federal Reserve, have responded by providing liquidity -- injecting cash into the banking system and lowering interest rates -- in order to prevent financial disruptions from slowing real economic growth. While financial "paper losses" have no direct effect on output or employment, there are channels through which changes in financial conditions may be transmitted to the real economy: for example, tight credit and equity markets restrain business investment in plant and equipment. In the wake of the liquidity crunch, policymakers may consider several areas for reform. Could regulation have prevented current problems in the mortgage market? Should credit rating agencies, like Moody's and Standard & Poor's, be subject to more oversight by the Securities and Exchange Commission? Should the non-bank institutions that have been central to this episode be subject to greater regulatory supervision or information disclosure requirements? This report analyzes the causes, progress, and broad policy issues raised by recent liquidity problems, but does not address proposals to alleviate distress in the housing sector. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

From the earliest days of the federal government, Presidents, exercising magisterial or executive power not unlike that of a monarch, from time to time have issued directives establishing new policy, decreeing the commencement or cessation of some action, or ordaining that notice be given to some declaration. The instruments used by Presidents in these regards have come to be known by various names, and some have prescribed forms and purposes. Executive orders and proclamations are probably two of the best-known types, largely because of their long-standing use and publication in the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations. Others are less familiar, some because they are cloaked in official secrecy. There is, as well, the oral presidential directive, the sense of which is captured in an announcement that records what the President has prescribed or instructed. This report provides an overview of the different kinds of directives that have primarily been utilized by 20th century Presidents. Presenting background on the historical development, accounting, use, and effect of such directives, it will be updated as events suggest. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Embryonic stem cells have the ability to develop into virtually any cell in the body, and they may have the potential to treat medical conditions such as diabetes and Parkinson's disease. In August 2001, President Bush announced that for the first time federal funds would be used to support research on human embryonic stem cells, but funding would be limited to "existing stem cell lines." NIH has established a registry listing the 78 human embryonic stem cell lines that are eligible for use in federally funded research, but only 22 cell lines are currently available. Scientists are concerned about the quality and longevity of these 22 stem cell lines. For a variety of reasons, many believe research advancement requires new embryonic stem cell lines, and for certain applications, stem cells derived from cloned embryos may offer the best hope for understanding and treating disease. However, an investigation by Seoul National University found that scientist Hwang Woo Suk had fabricated results on deriving patient-matched stem cells from cloned embryos -- a major setback for the field. A significant cohort of pro-life advocates supports stem cell research; those opposed are concerned that stem cell isolation requires embryo destruction. Some have argued that stem cell research be limited to adult stem cells obtained from tissues such as bone marrow or umbilical cord blood. They argue that adult stem cells should be pursued instead of embryonic stem cells because they believe the derivation of stem cells from embryos is ethically unacceptable. Other scientists believe adult stem cells should not be the sole target of research because of important scientific and technical limitations. Some scientists are exploring the possibility of obtaining human embryonic stem cells that bypass the destruction of living human embryos. The President's Council on Bioethics cite four potential alternative sources of human embryonic stem cells in a May 2005 paper. On May 24, 2005, the House passed H.R. 810 (Castle) which would allow federal support of research that utilizes human embryonic stem cells regardless of the date on which the stem cells were derived from a human embryo, thus negating the August 2001 Bush stem cell policy limitation on "existing stem cell lines." On July 29, 2005, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist announced his support for H.R. 810/S. 471 (Specter); President Bush has threatened a veto. Action on the Weldon bill (passed the House in the 107th and 108th and stalled in the Senate) is likely; it was reintroduced in the 109th Congress as H.R. 1357 and S. 658 (Brownback). The bill bans the process of cloning as well as the importation of any product derived from an embryo created via cloning. It bans not only reproductive applications, but also research on therapeutic uses, which has implications for stem cell research. Advocates of the legislative ban say that allowing any form of human cloning research to proceed raises serious ethical issues and will inevitably lead to the birth of a baby that is a human clone. Critics argue that the measure would curtail medical research and prevent Americans from receiving life-saving treatments created overseas. S. 876, H.R. 1822 and S. 1520 ban only human reproductive cloning. Bills focused on alternative sources of stem cells (H.R. 3144/S. 1557) have also been introduced. On December 20, 2005, the President signed H.R. 2520 (P.L. 109-129), which provides for the collection and maintenance of human cord blood stem cells for the treatment of patients and for research. This report will be updated as needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

From the earliest days of the federal government, Presidents, exercising magisterial or executive power not unlike that of a monarch, from time to time have issued directives establishing new policy, decreeing the commencement or cessation of some action, or ordaining that notice be given to some declaration. The instruments used by Presidents in these regards have come to be known by various names, and some have prescribed forms and purposes. Executive orders and proclamations are probably two of the best-known types, largely because of their long-standing use and publication in the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations. Others are less familiar, some because they are cloaked in official secrecy. There is, as well, the oral presidential directive, the sense of which is captured in an announcement that records what the President has prescribed or instructed. This report provides an overview of the different kinds of directives that have primarily been utilized by twentieth-century Presidents. Presenting background on the historical development, accounting, use, and effect of such directives, it will be updated as events suggest. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution declares in pertinent part that, "No person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." The United States Supreme Court has pointed that acts of production may fall within of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination under some circumstances. To do so they must satisfy the privilege's general demands that require a (1) personal, (2) governmentally compelled, (3) incriminating, (4) testimonial, (5) communication. The act of production doctrine is easily misunderstood for a number reasons. First, the protected communication is most often implicit. The privilege covers an individual's actions rather than his speech or writing, yet many incriminating actions such as providing a blood sample or a handwriting sample are ordinarily not protected because they are not testimonial. Second, no bright line divides communications that are testimonial from those that are not. Third, the privilege sometimes protects the act of producing existing documents which by themselves are not protected because they were originally prepared voluntarily. Fourth, the privilege protects not only intrinsically incriminating communications but also those that form a link in the chain of incrimination. Some of the uncertainty can be dissipated by a close examination of the facts and views of the Court in the cases where the issue has arisen. The Supreme Court has recognized a claim of privilege in two act of production cases, Doe I and Hubbell. Both cases involved sweeping subpoenas which demanded that individuals engage in the mental exercise of identifying, collecting, and organizing documents that incriminated them or that lead to incriminating evidence. This report is an abridged version o?= without footnotes o?= of CRS Report RL32184, Supreme Court Recognition of Fifth Amendment Protection for Acts of Production. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Al-Jazeera, the Arab world's first all-news network was started by the Persian Gulf monarchy of Qatar. It has come to be recognized as a key player in covering issues of central importance to U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East: the conflict in Iraq, the war on terrorism, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Al-Jazeera has become so publicly influential that U.S. officials now regularly appear on the network. Although Al-Jazeera has received praise for its uncensored format and for airing interviews with U.S. and Israeli officials, as well as Arab critics of the policies of Arab governments, it has drawn criticism from many observers in the United States and elsewhere for a perceived lack of objectivity in covering these conflicts, including the activities of Al Qaeda. For their part, officials from Al-Jazeera have claimed that they merely reflect Arab popular resentment of U.S. policy in the Middle East. This paper provides an overview of Al-Jazeera and explores the debate surrounding its objectivity. This report also analyzes Al-Jazeera's coverage of events in the Middle East, specifically, its coverage of events in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Israel and the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The final section of this report discusses policy options regarding U.S. public diplomacy efforts in the Middle East region. This paper will be updated periodically. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

From the earliest days of the federal government, Presidents, exercising magisterial or executive power not unlike that of a monarch, from time to time have issued directives establishing new policy, decreeing the commencement or cessation of some action, or ordaining that notice be given to some declaration. The instruments used by Presidents in these regards have come to be known by various names, and some have prescribed forms and purposes. Executive orders and proclamations are probably two of the best-known types, largely because of their long-standing use and publication in the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations. Others are less familiar, some because they are cloaked in official secrecy. There is, as well, the oral presidential directive, the sense of which is captured in an announcement that records what the President has prescribed or instructed. This report provides an overview of the different kinds of directives that have primarily been utilized by twentieth-century Presidents. Presenting background on the historical development, accounting, use, and effect of such directives, it will be updated as events suggest. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On July 11, 2002, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman William Thomas introduced H.R. 5095, the American Competitiveness and Corporate Accountability Act. The focus of this report is the bill's proposed changes in U.S. taxation of income from international transactions. The bill also contains provisions designed to restrict corporate tax shelters; the report does not discuss these. The bill's international proposals are in three general areas. First, the bill would repeal the extraterritorial income (ETI) tax benefit for exporting, thereby attempting to end a long-running dispute between the United States and the European Union (EU) over whether the U.S. tax benefit is an export subsidy prohibited by the World Trade Organization agreements. Second, the bill contains proposals aimed at offshore corporations with subsidiaries in the United States. In part, these proposals are aimed at corporate "inversions" where some U.S.-owned firms have reorganized to include paper parent corporations chartered in "tax haven" countries. In part, these proposals also address "earnings stripping," or the shifting of U.S. profits abroad by means of intra-firm transactions. Third, H.R. 5095 contains proposals altering the tax treatment of U.S. firms with foreign operations and investment. The bill terms these changes international tax "simplification;" the bulk of the provisions would have the effect of reducing U.S. tax on foreign-source income. The chief areas that would be affected are rules related to the foreign tax credit and provisions affecting the "deferral" tax benefit for overseas business operations. This report does not attempt a comprehensive economic analysis of H.R. 5095. Several likely broad effects, however, can be identified. First, taken alone, repeal of the ETI export benefit would likely not increase the U.S. trade deficit, but would reduce the overall level of U.S. trade o?= exports and imports alike o?= by a small amount. Because export subsidies generally reduce the aggregate economic welfare of the subsidizing country, repeal of the ETI provisions would likely increase U.S. economic welfare, while leading to a small contraction of the export sector and a small expansion of import competing sectors. Second, tax-motivated inversions are apparently events that chiefly occur on paper, involving little alteration of the location of economic activity. Their chief economic impact is probably a reduction in U.S. tax revenues. Thus, the chief impact of H.R. 5095's inversion provisions would probably be to reduce the extent to which inversions erode U.S. corporate tax collections. The bill's earnings stripping provisions may likewise reduce erosions in U.S. tax collections but an assessment of whether these provisions would reduce foreign investment in the United States is not attempted here. Third, the bill's foreign source income provisions would likely reduce the tax burden on foreignsource income. As a result, their impact would probably be to increase the level of U.S. investment abroad beyond what would otherwise occur. Preliminary estimates by the Joint Committee on Taxation indicate the bill would increase tax revenue by a net of $6.4 billion over five years and a net of $1.1 billion over 10 years. This report will be updated as legislative developments occur. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Administrative Simplification provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) instructed the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to issue standards to support the electronic transmission of health information. HIPAA also gave Congress 3 years to enact health privacy legislation, otherwise the Secretary was required to develop health privacy standards. Congress failed to meet its own deadline, so Clinton Administration issued a health privacy rule on December 28, 2000. The rule took effect on April 14, 2001. The privacy rule gives patients the right to inspect and amend their medical records and restricts access to and disclosure of individually identifiable health information. Health care providers must obtain a patient's general consent to use or disclose their medical information for treatment, payment, and other health care operations. In addition, both health plans and providers must obtain a patient's specific authorization in order to use and disclose information for non-routine and most non-health care purposes. The rule specifies certain national priority activities for which health information may be disclosed without a patient's authorization. Hospitals, health insurers, and pharmaceutical companies claim the privacy rule will compromise patient care by placing unacceptable restrictions on access to health information and be extremely costly to implement. They are especially critical of the rule's general consent provision and the requirement that, with the exception of treatment-related disclosures, providers and health plans use or disclose no more than the minimum amount of information necessary to accomplish the intended purpose. Industry groups have also criticized the rule for requiring providers and plans to enter into contracts with their business associates to ensure that these groups, which are not directly covered under HIPAA, adhere to the same privacy protections. In response to industry concerns, HHS will soon release a guidance document to help covered entities implement the privacy rule. Patient privacy advocates strongly support the rule, though they too have concerns. HIPAA did not grant HHS the authority to cover all entities that handle medical information, nor did it give patients the right to sue for violations of their health information privacy. Consumer advocates have urged HHS not to weaken any of the rule's privacy protections. Under HIPAA, HHS is also developing electronic health information standards. On August 17, 2000, HHS issued standards that specify the content and format for electronic health care claims and other common health care transactions. The transactions standards are intended to reduce the administrative burden on health plans and providers, which today exchange information using many different paper and electronic formats. On August 12, 1998, HHS proposed a set of administrative, physical, and technical security standards, which health plans and providers must include in their operations to safeguard confidential patient information against unauthorized access, use, and disclosure. A final security rule is expected later this year. Lawmakers have introduced two bills (S. 836, H.R. 1975) that would delay implementation of HIPAA until all the standards and enforcement regulations, with the exception of the privacy rule, are published in final form. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Presidents and scholars identify a variety of constitutional principles and practices to justify the withholding of documents and papers from Congress. No doubt reasonable grounds may be presented for withholding these materials and for preventing some executive officials from testifying before congressional committees. However, these executive arguments are subject to legal and political limits. Executive claims can be offset by equally persuasive arguments that Congress needs access to information to fulfill its constitutional duties. In many cases, legal and constitutional principles are overridden by the politics of the moment and practical considerations. Efforts to discover enduring and enforceable norms in this area invariably fall short. This report begins by reviewing the precedents established during the Washington Administration for withholding documents from Congress. Close examination reveals that the scope of presidential privilege is often exaggerated. Congress had access to more documentation than is commonly believed and might have had more had it pressed for it. Subsequent sections focus on various forms of congressional leverage: the power of the purse, the power to impeach, issuing congressional subpoenas, holding executive officials in contempt, House resolutions of inquiry, GAO investigations, and blocking nominations, all of which may force executive officials to release documents they would otherwise want to keep private and confidential. Even if Presidents announce perfectly plausible grounds for withholding documents, they may have to comply with the congressional will to achieve other more important goals. For a comprehensive CRS study of different techniques and authorities used by Congress to oversee executive branch activities, see "Congressional Oversight Manual," CRS Report RL30240 (June 25, 1999). Legal and historical analysis on these issues is covered by Morton Rosenberg, "Presidential Claims of Executive Privilege: History, Law, Practice and Recent Developments," CRS Report RS30319 (September 21, 1999). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]