CRS Reports

World Trade Organization Negotiations: The Doha Development Agenda

On November 9-14, 2001, trade ministers from WTO countries met in Doha, Qatar for their fourth Ministerial Conference. At that meeting, they agreed to a work program for a new round of multilateral trade negotiations to conclude by January 1, 2005. The work program folds on-going negotiations on agriculture and services into a broader agenda that includes industrial tariffs, topics of interest to developing countries, changes in WTO rules, and other provisions. Because of the influence that developing countries had in setting the work program, the round has become known as the Doha Development Agenda. Agriculture has been the linchpin in the Doha Development Agenda. U.S. goals were substantial reduction of trade-distorting domestic support; elimination of export subsidies, and improved market access. Industrial trade barriers and services are other market access topics in the negotiations.

Aug 6, 2004

Social Security Benefits for Noncitizens: Current Policy and Legislation

Jul 22, 2004

Iran: U.S. Concerns and Policy Responses

Jul 20, 2004

Information Warfare and Cyberwar: Capabilities and Related Policy Issues

Jul 19, 2004

U.S. Army's Modular Redesign: Issues for Congress

Jul 19, 2004

Venezuela: Political Conditions and U.S. Policy

Jul 17, 2004

Assistance to Firefighters Program: Distribution of Fire Grant Funding

Jul 15, 2004

Debt-for-Nature Initiatives and the Tropical Forest Conservation Act: Status and Implementation

Jul 12, 2004

Social Security: The Government Pension Offset (GPO)

This report discusses the social security benefits and the spousal benefits of individuals who are not financially dependent on their spouses because they receive benefits based on their own work records.

Jul 6, 2004

Cruise Ship Pollution: Background, Laws and Regulations, and Current Issues

Jul 2, 2004

Millennium Challenge Account: Implementation of a New U.S. Foreign Aid Initiative

Jun 30, 2004

Military Funeral Honors: Frequently Asked Questions

This report is written in response to commonly asked questions about military funeral honors. It provides information on the eligibility criteria, required components of the honor detail, and the funeral ceremony. It also cites legislation that mandates that the Department of Defense (DOD) make military funeral honors available to every eligible veteran upon request.

Jun 29, 2004

Defense Procurement: Full Funding Policy — Background, Issues, and Options for Congress

Jun 29, 2004

Federal Prison Industries

Jun 15, 2004

Particulate Matter (PM2.5): National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) Implementation

Jun 15, 2004

U.S.-Canada Wheat Trade Dispute

Jun 14, 2004

Federal Employees’ Retirement System: The Role of the Thrift Savings Plan

Jun 10, 2004

Survivor Benefits for Families of Civilian Federal Employees and Retirees

Jun 2, 2004

Navy Attack Submarine Force-Level Goal and Procurement Rate: Background and Issues for Congress

Jun 2, 2004

Federal Rulemaking: The Role of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs

May 28, 2004

Title IX, Sex Discrimination, and Intercollegiate Athletics: A Legal Overview

This report provides an overview of Title IX in general and of the intercollegiate athletics regulations in particular. It includes a summary of the report issued by the Commission on Opportunity in Athletics and the Department of Education's (ED's) response with a discussion of recent legal challenges to the regulations and to the three-part test.

May 24, 2004

Federal Employee Retirement Programs: Budget and Trust Fund Issues

Retirement annuities for civilian federal employees are provided mainly through two programs: the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) and the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS). These annuities are financed through a combination of employee contributions and payments made by the federal government to the civil service retirement trust fund. This report discusses the two programs, how they work, and how they are financed.

May 24, 2004

Extradition Between the United States and Great Britain: The 2003 Treaty

May 6, 2004

Immigration-Related Detention: Current Legislative Issues

Apr 28, 2004

The Berry Amendment: Requiring Defense Procurement To Come From Domestic Sources

Mar 18, 2004

Agricultural Biotechnology: The U.S.-EU Dispute

Mar 16, 2004

Restricting Trademark Rights of Cubans: WTO Decision and Congressional Response

The Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) of the World Trade Organization (WTO) has ruled against certain restrictions on the trademark rights of Cubans imposed under § 211 of the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1998. Congress has responded with several proposals to comply with the ruling, some focused on repeal of § 211 as part of broader proposed amendments to Cuban trade sanctions, others on repeal coupled with alternative methods of ensuring Cuba’s protection of trademark rights of Americans. This report will be updated as legislative activity occurs or other events warrant.

Mar 9, 2004

Missile Survey: Ballistic and Cruise Missiles of Foreign Countries

Mar 5, 2004

Small Business Tax Benefits: Overview and Economic Analysis

Mar 3, 2004

The Postal Revenue Forgone Appropriation: Overview and Current Issues

Mar 1, 2004

The Budget Reconciliation Process: The Senate's "Byrd" Rule

Reconciliation is a procedure under the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 by which Congress implements budget resolution policies affecting mainly permanent spending and revenue programs. The principal focus in the reconciliation process has been deficit reduction, but in recent years reconciliation has encompassed revenue reduction generally and spending increases in selected program areas. The Byrd rule provides six definitions of what constitutes extraneous matter for purposes of the rule (and several exceptions thereto), but the term is generally described as covering provisions unrelated to achieving the goals of the reconciliation instructions.

Feb 19, 2004

U.S. Immigration Policy on Permanent Admissions

Feb 18, 2004

Visa Waiver Program

Feb 10, 2004

Federal Taxation of Aliens Working in the United States

Feb 6, 2004

Commonly Used Motions and Requests in the House of Representatives

Jan 29, 2004

The Congressional Budget Process: A Brief Overview

Jan 28, 2004

Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children

Jan 23, 2004

National Park System: Establishing New Units

Jan 23, 2004

Social Security: Trust Fund Investment Practices

Jan 13, 2004

Indian Reserved Water Rights: An Overview

Jan 12, 2004

Monitoring Foreign Students in the United States: The Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS)

Jan 8, 2004

Dependent Care: Current Tax Benefits and Legislative Issues

Jan 6, 2004

The Risk Retention Acts: Background and Issues

Dec 18, 2003

Insurance Guaranty Funds

Nov 30, 2003

Western Sahara: The United Nations Shifts Course

Nov 18, 2003

The Civil Works Program of the Army Corps of Engineers: A Primer

Nov 5, 2003

Nuclear Weapon Initiatives: Low-Yield R&D, Advanced Concepts, Earth Penetrators, Test Readiness

Oct 28, 2003

Presidential Appointee Positions Requiring Senate Confirmation and Committees Handling Nominations

Oct 27, 2003

The History of the Blue Slip in the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 1917-Present

The blue-slip process had its genesis in the Senate tradition of senatorial courtesy. Under this informal custom, the Senate would refuse to confirm a nomination unless the nominee had been approved by the home-state Senators of the President's party. The Senate Committee on the Judiciary created the blue slip (so called because of its color) out of this practice in the early 1900s. Initially, the blue slip permitted Senators, regardless of party affiliation, to voice their opinion on a President's nomination to a district court in their state or to a circuit court judgeship traditionally appointed from their home state. Over the years, the blue slip has evolved into a tool used by Senators to delay, and often times prevent, the confirmation of nominees they find objectionable. The following six periods highlight the major changes that various chairmen of the Judiciary Committee undertook in their blue-slip policy: From 1917 through 1955: The blue-slip policy allowed home-state Senators to state their objections but committee action to move forward on a nomination. If a Senator objected to his/her home-state nominee, the committee would report the nominee adversely to the Senate, where the contesting Senator would have the option of stating his/her objections to the nominee before the Senate would vote on confirmation. From 1956 through 1978: A single home-state Senator could stop all committee action on a judicial nominee by either returning a negative blue slip or failing to return a blue slip to the committee. From 1979 to mid-1989: A home-state Senator's failure to return a blue slip would not necessarily prevent committee action on a nominee. From mid-1989 through June 5, 2001: In a public letter (1989) on the committee's blue-slip policy, the chairman wrote that one negative blue slip would be "a significant factor to be weighed" but would "not preclude consideration" of a nominee "unless the Administration has not consulted with both home state Senators." The committee would take no action, regardless of presidential consultation, if both home-state Senators returned negative blue slips. From June 6, 2001, to 2003: The chairman's blue-slip policy allowed movement on a judicial nominee only if both home-state Senators returned positive blue slips to the committee. If one home-state Senator returned a negative blue slip, no further action would be taken on the nominee. 2003: A return of a negative blue slip by one or both home-state Senators does not prevent the committee from moving forward with the nomination -- provided that the Administration has engaged in pre-nomination consultation with both of the home-state Senators. The blue-slip process has been the subject of growing scholarly and legal debate; a selected list of reading material is included at the end of this report. This report will be updated to reflect future blue-slip policy developments.

Oct 22, 2003

Reorganization of the House of Representatives: Modern Reform Efforts

On January 7, 2003, the House created a Select Committee on Homeland Security. One of its responsibilities is to conduct a "thorough and complete study of the operation and implementation of the rules of the House, including Rule X, with respect to the issue of homeland security." The select committee is required to submit its recommendations on possible changes to the Committee on Rules not later than September 30, 2004. Numerous official and unofficial reviews by Congress have been conducted in the past 60 years. Three joint committees, two select committees, two commissions, and party caucuses and conferences have studied various aspects of the House and its committee system. The contemporary system is primarily a product of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, which, among other things, codified committee jurisdictions, streamlined the committee system, and instituted a professional committee staffing structure. The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 opened Congress to public scrutiny, modified committee and floor procedures, and enhanced Congress's research and budget capabilities. The Committee Reform Amendments of 1974 (Bolling committee) recommended major changes in House committee jurisdiction and referral procedures, although an alternative plan was adopted. The work of the Commission on Administrative Review (Obey commission) and the Commission on Information and Facilities (Brooks commission) focused on the administrative structure of the House. The Select Committee on Committees (Patterson committee) recommended modifications in House energy jurisdiction, committee assignment process, and committee procedures. The Joint Committee on the Organization of the Congress altered aspects of congressional organization and operations. Many decisions affecting committee and floor operations are within the purview of the respective party caucuses; they too have modified party and House rules on several occasions since 1946. This report discusses the reform efforts to reorganize the House committee system since the 1940s. This report will be updated if events warrant. For related information on congressional reorganization efforts, see CRS Report RL32112(pdf) , Reorganization of the Senate: Modern Reform Efforts , by Judy Schneider, Colton Campbell, Christopher M. Davis, and Betsy Palmer.

Oct 20, 2003