CRS Reports

China’s “Intended Nationally Determined Contribution” to Addressing Climate Change in 2020 and Beyond

Jul 6, 2015

The Philippines

This report discusses the relations between U.S. and Philippines, the political situation, economics and trade.

Jul 6, 2015

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Budget for FY2016

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) conducts scientific research in areas such as ecosystems, climate, global climate change, weather, and oceans; supplies information and data on the oceans and atmosphere; and manages coastal and marine organisms and environments. In 1970, Reorganization Plan No. 4 created NOAA in the Department of Commerce. Reorganization Plan No. 4 brought together environmental agencies from within the Department of Commerce, such as the National Weather Service, and from other departments and agencies, such as the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Commercial Fisheries and the National Science Foundation’s National Sea Grant Program. The reorganization was intended to unify the nation’s environmental activities related to oceanic and atmospheric management and research and to provide a systematic approach for monitoring, analyzing, and protecting the environment. One of NOAA’s main challenges is related to this diverse mission of science, service, and stewardship. A review of research undertaken by the agency found that “the major challenge for NOAA is connecting the pieces of its research program and ensuring research is linked to the broader science needs of the agency.” The Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act of 2015 (P.L. 113-235), provided $5.441 billion for NOAA. President Obama has requested $5.975 billion for NOAA’s FY2016 budget. This amount is $533.7 million (9.8%) more than the FY2015 enacted appropriation level. On June 3, 2015, the House passed the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016 (H.R. 2578). The House-passed bill would provide a total of $5.169 billion for NOAA in FY2016. This amount is $271.7 million (5.0%) less than the FY2015 enacted appropriation level and $805.4 million (13.5%) less than the Administration’s FY2016 request. On June 16, 2015, the Senate Committee on Appropriations reported the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016. The Senate committee-reported bill would provide a total of $5.382 billion for NOAA in FY2016. This amount is $59.4 million (1.1%) less than the FY2015- enacted appropriation, $593.1 million (9.9%) less than the Administration’s FY2016 request, and $212.3 million (4.1%) more than the House-passed bill. The following report provides a summary of actions taken by the Administration and Congress to appropriate funding for NOAA in FY2016. The summary compares the FY2015 enacted appropriations, the FY2016 Administration request, the House-passed bill, and the Senate committee-reported bill for NOAA’s accounts, line offices, and selected programs. NOAA’s two main accounts are Operations, Research, and Facilities (ORF) and Procurement, Acquisition, and Construction (PAC). NOAA’s line offices include the National Ocean Service (NOS); National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS); Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR); National Weather Service (NWS); and National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service (NESDIS). In addition to NOAA’s five line offices, Program Support (PS) provides cross-cutting services for the agency and includes the Office of Marine and Aviation Operations (OMAO), Corporate Services, the Office of Education, and Facilities.

Jul 6, 2015

Estimated FY2015 State Grants Under Title I-A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)

Jul 2, 2015

How the Federal Sentencing Guidelines Work: An Overview

Sentencing for all serious federal noncapital crimes begins with the federal Sentencing Guidelines. Congress establishes the maximum penalty and sometimes the minimum penalty for every federal crime by statute. In between, the Guidelines establish a series of escalating sentencing ranges based on the circumstances of the offense and the criminal record of the offender. The Guidelines do so using a score-keeping procedure. The Guidelines process involves: I. Identification of the most appropriate Guidelines section for the crime(s) of conviction, based on the nature of the offense (the most commonly applicable are noted in the Guidelines Index) II. Identification of the applicable base offense level indicated by the section III. Addition/subtraction of offense levels per section instructions for the circumstances in the case at hand IV. Addition/subtraction of offense levels per instructions in those chapters of the Guidelines relating to A. Victim related matters B. Role in the offense C. Obstruction D. Multiple counts E. Acceptance of responsibility V. Calculation of the criminal history score VI. Consideration of departures (more/less severe treatment) which the Guidelines permit VII. Application Guidelines instructions relating to A. Imprisonment (Sentencing Table) B. Probation C. Supervised release D. Special assessments E. Fines F. Restitution G. Forfeiture VIII. Sentencing of Organizations IX. Deviation based on the sentencing principles in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a). This report is available in an abridged version entitled CRS Report R41697, How the Federal Sentencing Guidelines Work: An Abridged Overview.

Jul 2, 2015

Acquisition Reform in House- and Senate-Passed Versions of the FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 1735)

For purposes of this analysis, CRS selected 35 sections of the House-passed version of FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 1735), and 47 sections of the Senate-passed version of FY2016 NDAA (also H.R. 1735) that appear closely linked to the respective committee’s efforts to reform the acquisition system (excluding Sense of Congress). Each section is identified as fitting into one (or more) of the following four overarching categories: gathering information for future action, streamlining the current process, improving the effectiveness of the current process, and/or improving the performance of the workforce (through recruitment, professional development, or empowering decision-making).

Jul 2, 2015

Meat Animal Research Center: The Animal Welfare Act and Farm Animal Research

Jul 1, 2015

Puerto Rico’s Current Fiscal Challenges: In Brief

Jun 30, 2015

California Agricultural Production and Irrigated Water Use

California ranks as the leading agricultural state in the United States in terms of farm-level sales. In 2012, California’s farm-level sales totaled nearly $45 billion and accounted for 11% of total U.S. agricultural sales. Five counties—Tulare, Kern, Fresno, Monterey, and Merced—rank among the leading agricultural counties in the nation. Given current drought conditions in California, however, there has been much attention on the use of water to grow agricultural crops in the state. Depending on the data source, irrigated agriculture accounts for roughly 40% to 80% of total water supplies. Such discrepancies are largely based on different survey methods and assumptions, including the baseline amount of water estimated for use (e.g., what constitutes “available” supplies). Two primary data sources are the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the California Department of Water Resources (DWR). USGS estimates water use for agricultural irrigation in California at 25.8 million acre-feet (MAF), accounting for 61% of USGS’s estimates of total withdrawals. DWR estimates water use withdrawals for agricultural irrigation at 33 MAF, or about 41% of total use. Both of these estimates are based on available data for 2010. These estimates differ from other widely cited estimates indicating that agricultural use accounts for 80% of California’s available water supplies, as reported in media and news reports. Attention has also focused on trends in California toward growing more permanent orchard crops, such as fruit and nut trees and vineyard crops, as well as production of grain and pasture crops, much of which is used to support the state’s meat and dairy industries. Orchard crops refer to tree or vineyard crops that are planted once, require continuous watering to reach maturation, and cannot be fallowed during dry years without loss of investment. In contrast, most vegetables and other row crops (including grain and pasture crops) are annual crops that are sown and harvested during the same production year, sometimes more than once, and may be fallowed in dry years. Between 2004 and 2013, overall harvested acres in California increased for almonds, walnuts, pistachios, raisins, grapes, berries, cherries, pomegranates, and olives, but also for corn. During the same period, overall harvested acreage decreased for some field crops (cotton, alfalfa, rice, wheat), but also for certain orchard crops (wine grapes and some citrus and tree fruits). This shift to growing more permanent crops, especially tree nuts, appears to be largely market-driven. The availability of irrigation water has been a major factor in the development of California’s agricultural production. California has the largest number of irrigated farmed acres compared to other states and accounts for about one-fourth of total applied acre-feet of irrigated water in the United States. Water use per acre in California is also high compared to other states. Available data for 2013 indicate that, of total irrigated acres harvested in California, about 31% of irrigated acres were land in orchards and 18% were land in vegetables. Another 46% of irrigated acres harvested were land in alfalfa, hay, pastureland, rice, corn, and cotton. Congressional interest in California agriculture and water use centers largely on the Bureau of Reclamation’s Central Valley Project (CVP), which supplies water to numerous agricultural and municipal contractors. In recent years, the CVP has cut back water deliveries due to drought and environmental factors. Congress also authorizes and oversees U.S. Department of Agriculture support for individual crops and farmers, and some Members have expressed concern over the broader implications of decreased agricultural production and/or lack of water availability throughout the state.

Jun 30, 2015

Greenhouse Gas Pledges by Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

This report briefly summarizes the existing commitments and pledges of selected national and regional governments to limit their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions as contributions to the global effort.

Jun 29, 2015

France: Efforts to Counter Islamist Terrorism and Radicalization

This report briefly discusses heightened concern regarding the threat of Islamist terrorism in France and Europe.

Jun 29, 2015

Life-Cycle Greenhouse Gas Assessment of Coal and Natural Gas in the Power Sector

Recent expansion in natural gas production has made the resource an increasingly significant component in the U.S. energy market. Further, a number of policies recently proposed and/or promulgated at the federal, state, and local levels may serve to accelerate this development. Examples of federal policies include U.S. Environmental Protection Agency air standards for power plants and vehicles, as well as bills introduced in the 114th Congress to promote increased natural gas production on federal lands, amend provisions in the tax code to incentivize natural gas production and use, and streamline the approval, permitting, and/or construction of natural gas infrastructure. Many of these proposals promote technology and infrastructure investments that could be significant and long lasting. For this reason, some stakeholders recommend a thorough analysis of the costs and benefits of these proposals as well as a full assessment of the economic and environmental impacts of increased natural gas development. Fuel-switching strategies from other fossil fuels to natural gas have the potential to impact many segments of the general economy, including jobs, investments, infrastructure, national security, human health, safety, and the environment. A full assessment of the costs and benefits of these strategies would demand an integrated analysis across all issues. Some contend that an important component of this assessment would be a comparative analysis of the various fuels’ greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. However, reports in the scientific literature and popular press have created some confusion about the climate implications of natural gas. On the one hand, a shift to natural gas is promoted as climate change mitigation because natural gas combustion has a lower carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions intensity than either oil or coal. On the other hand, methane, the primary constituent of natural gas, is itself a more potent GHG than CO2, and some contend that methane leakage from the production, transport, and use of natural gas has the potential to offset the GHG emissions benefits of switching. The net climate impact of replacing other fossil fuels with natural gas depends upon a number of analytic assumptions, including the choice of fuel, end-use sector, equipment, and processes modeled. This report presents a comparative analysis of the potential climate implications of switching from coal to natural gas in the domestic electric power generating sector. The findings include the following: Natural gas, when combusted at different types of existing U.S. power plants, produces anywhere from 42% to 63% of the CO2 emissions of coal, depending upon the power plant technology. However, in order to more fully assess the climate impacts of a fuel employed in the power sector, analyses aim to aggregate emissions across the entire supply and utilization chain (i.e., from extraction to end use). Such analyses are referred to as life-cycle assessments (LCAs). Due to its potency as a GHG, methane lost to the atmosphere during the production and transport of fossil fuels (i.e., fugitive emissions) can greatly impact the life-cycle GHG emissions estimates for power generation. The Department of Energy currently estimates a fugitive emissions rate (FER) of around 1% in natural gas systems; a number of academic studies estimate rates in the range of 2%-4%. Further, due to its chemical composition, methane’s climate impacts are significantly more pronounced in the short term as compared to the long term. Thus, when considering existing power plants, the average natural-gas-fired combined cycle technology produces approximately 50% of the life-cycle GHG emissions of coal-fired steam generation, both in the short and the long terms, given a FER of around 1%. However, when considering other existing natural-gas-fired technologies (e.g. single cycle) or advanced technologies, the comparative life-cycle emissions benefits of natural gas are reduced. Further, when considering the possibility of higher FERs (e.g., 2%-4%), the life-cycle GHG emissions of both existing and advanced natural-gas-fired technology may be comparable to coal-fired technology in the short term and could remain within range of coal-fired technology for several decades after emissions.

Jun 26, 2015

U.S.-North Korea Relations

Jun 25, 2015

U.S. Capital Markets and International Accounting Standards: GAAP Versus IFRS

Capital markets function most efficiently when investors and creditors have a high degree of trust in the quality of information communicated by firms. Financial reports and disclosures are the primary means by which firms communicate about their performance with investors, creditors, regulators, and the public. Since the creation of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in 1930s, domestic companies in the United States have used U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (U.S. GAAP) to issue financial reports. In 2002, the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) was established by select countries, including the United States, to develop International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), a new global accounting standard. Since the creation of IFRS, more than 100 countries have either fully adopted IFRS or have converged their local accounting standards in varying degrees to more closely resemble IFRS. In addition, there has been an ongoing debate in the United States as to which accounting standard best suits the needs of U.S. capital markets. IFRS by design is a principles-based accounting standard that is subject to each jurisdiction’s interpretation and institutional infrastructure. In contrast to IFRS, U.S. GAAP is generally understood to be a rules-based accounting standard that is less subject to interpretation. U.S. GAAP has evolved over 80 years within the U.S. institutional infrastructure to address the specific needs of the world’s largest capital market—the United States. Principles-based accounting standards provide broad flexible guidelines that can be applied to a range of situations, but they can lead to inconsistent interpretation and application. In contrast, rules-based accounting standards require specific guidelines to be followed, but they may not address unforeseen issues that arise in the normal course of business. At issue is whether the United States should adopt or converge with IFRS or remain on U.S. GAAP. Congress has asked the SEC to consult Congress as the SEC contemplates future actions on the issue of convergence. The SEC was created under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (P.L. 73-291) to protect investors; maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets; and facilitate capital formation. Congress also gave the SEC authority to establish accounting standards for the private sector in the United States; Congress retains its oversight responsibilities over the SEC. The SEC has historically delegated its responsibility for establishing accounting standards to a private entity, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB). To date, the SEC has not given a clear indication as to whether the United States should remain on U.S. GAAP or adopt or converge with IFRS; neither has the SEC taken any concrete steps to adopt or converge with IFRS. In its desire to ensure that capital markets function efficiently, Congress has continued to maintain interest in the IFRS issue through legislation, hearings, and a letter issued to the SEC Chairman. At a March 2015 budget hearing for SEC’s FY2016 budget, some Members of Congress voiced concerns over converging with IFRS. Similarly, in 2014, the Congressional Caucus on CPAs and Accountants also raised concerns over issues surrounding convergence with IFRS. This report briefly explains the different accounting standards and U.S. capital markets. It examines several IFRS policy options Congress might consider and the benefits and challenges of each of those options. One option is to maintain the independence of U.S. GAAP but continue to seek common ground (limited convergence) with IASB. Within the scope of this option, the SEC and FASB could consider developing an international version of U.S. GAAP (I-GAAP). Another option is to adopt IFRS. The last option discussed in this report examines various hybrid methods of allowing U.S. GAAP and IFRS to coexist in the United States.

Jun 25, 2015

Preemption in Proposed Amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA): Side-by-Side Analysis of S. 697 and H.R. 2576

The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) was enacted in 1976 to govern the regulation of chemical substances in U.S. commerce. Its core provisions have not been significantly amended since that time. Under TSCA, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has implemented a chemicals management program over the past four decades. EPA has issued a very limited number of risk management rules under TSCA to restrict chemicals it has found to present unreasonable risks of injury to human health or the environment. Meanwhile, states and, in a few cases, local subdivisions of states have enacted an increasing number of their own chemical programs and restrictions. The federal preemption doctrine derives from the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which provides that federal laws “shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” Congress can expressly preempt state and local laws by statute, and the scope of preemption is determined by Congress’s intent. Because TSCA preemption is based on EPA’s issuance of certain types of rules and orders targeting particular chemicals (subject to exceptions), state and local chemical programs and restrictions—for the most part targeting chemicals not subject to EPA risk management rules—generally have not faced preemption under TSCA. As legislative proposals to amend TSCA have been discussed in recent years, one major topic of debate has been the extent to which the scope of TSCA’s preemption of state chemical regulations should be preserved, expanded, or reduced. This report provides a brief background on preemption in current TSCA. The report then provides a side-by-side comparison of the preemption provisions of House and Senate bills in the 114th Congress to amend TSCA. S. 697, the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, was ordered to be reported out of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on April 28, 2015, on a 15-5 vote. It was reported, as amended, on June 17, 2015, and placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar. H.R. 2576, the TSCA Modernization Act of 2015, was first released as a discussion draft on April 7, 2015. It was introduced as H.R. 2576 on May 26, 2015, and passed the House as amended on June 23, 2015, on a 398-1 vote. Both bills would expand EPA’s authority to regulate chemicals in a number of ways, similar in some respects, although S. 697 is a longer and more detailed bill that would make more changes to TSCA’s language than H.R. 2576. The preemption provisions of the two bills have many similarities as well, including in their overall structure, which retains TSCA’s approach of only preempting state and local laws on a chemical-by-chemical basis after EPA action on a chemical. Both bills would also exclude from preemption state and some local chemical requirements in effect as of August 1, 2015, and any state or local requirements arising from long-standing state chemical laws such as California’s Proposition 65. However, the bills have a number of differences with respect to preemption. For example, S. 697 would preempt new restrictions on a chemical while EPA prepared a safety assessment on that chemical, a period of up to several years; H.R. 2576 may impose somewhat broader preemption on the basis of EPA actions for new chemicals and new uses than S. 697. Various other similarities and differences between the two bills regarding preemptive EPA actions, exceptions, exemptions, and waivers are also compared. A third proposal to amend TSCA, S. 725, the Alan Reinstein and Trevor Schaefer Toxic Chemical Protection Act, would eliminate express TSCA preemption entirely. S. 725 is not included in this report’s comparison.

Jun 25, 2015

Comparison of Post-9/11 GI Bill® and Pell Grant Administration

This report compares and contrasts the administration of the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2008 (Post-9/11 GI Bill®)—enacted as Title V of the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-252)—and Federal Pell Grants, as authorized by Title IV-A-1 of the Higher Education Act (HEA). The Post-9/11 GI Bill provides educational assistance payments to eligible servicemembers and veterans, and their dependents. One of its primary objectives is readjustment of veterans to civilian life and the workforce. The federal Pell Grant program provides grant aid payments to eligible and financially needy undergraduate students, regardless of military service record. One of its primary objectives is to increase postsecondary education access of low-income individuals. The report investigates whether the administrative processes supporting Pell Grants can provide lessons for achieving more timely, efficient, and student-friendly administration of the Post-9/11 GI Bill, thus ensuring that it achieves its policy objectives with respect to educational achievement of the target population. There are several differences between the programs and their administration. Post-9/11 GI Bill eligibility is contingent on service in the uniformed services, whereas Pell Grant eligibility is contingent on financial need. Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits must be used within several years of discharge from active duty, whereas Pell Grants can be used at any stage of an individual’s life. The Post-9/11 GI Bill benefit was designed to meet most costs of education, whereas the Pell Grants were designed to meet a portion of an individual’s financial need. Eligible individuals may receive both benefits concurrently. When comparing the administrative processes of the programs, there are at least three important considerations. One is the difference in the number of beneficiaries/recipients—estimates indicate there were fewer than 1 million Post-9/11 GI Bill participants and more than 9 million Pell Grant recipients in FY2014, which leads to economies of scale and greater familiarity for Pell Grant administrators. Another is the greater variety of programs of education approved for the Post-9/11 GI Bill, which increases administrative complexity. Finally, while the Post-9/11 GI Bill went into effect in 2009, the Pell Grant administrative processes are more mature, having been developed and administered for decades. There are areas in which the Post-9/11 GI Bill processes and procedures arguably could be improved if compared to the Pell Grant program. The key area would be a larger investment in system automation and internal controls to more fully automate the processes and maintain them with respect to ongoing legislative changes. For example, Post-9/11 GI Bill eligibility determinations could be more fully automated. VA systems could choose the most advantageous GI Bill programs based on applicant information. Exact payments and unmet costs may be estimated for Post-9/11 GI Bill participants prior to enrollment to encourage informed enrollment. Providing payments to educational institutions to disburse to students may eliminate an extra processing step by the VA and speed payments and adjustments. Overpayments of Post-9/11 GI Bill payments could be resolved through deductions from subsequent Post-9/11 GI Bill payments or other VA benefit payments. However, there may be underlying issues that prevent or hinder improvements and may suggest a limited advantage from them. For example, a single lump sum housing allowance payment before the start or at the beginning of the academic term may help pay early housing expenses; however, it may increase the incidence and amount of overpayments and debts.

Jun 24, 2015

Sifting Domestic Terrorism from Other Illegal Activity

This report briefly discusses key differences between domestic terrorism and ordinary criminal activity. Unlike ordinary criminals--who are often driven by self-centered motives such as profit and tend to opportunistically seek easy prey--domestic terrorists are driven by a cause or ideology.

Jun 24, 2015

Wildfire Statistics

Jun 23, 2015

Procedures for Congressional Action in Relation to a Nuclear Agreement with Iran: In Brief

This report provides, in brief, analysis of the congressional procedural provisions laid out in the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 (P.L. 114-17). Only provisions relating to congressional actions are covered in this report.

Jun 23, 2015

Pass-Throughs, Corporations, and Small Businesses: A Look at Firm Size

In debates over tax policy, it is not uncommon for pass-throughs to be viewed as small businesses and for corporations to be viewed as large businesses. This report uses 2011 U.S. Census data to investigate how the size of businesses varies by legal form (corporate versus pass-through). Firm size is based on employment. The analysis finds that the majority of both corporations and pass-throughs in 2011 had fewer than five employees (56% of C corporations and 65% of pass-throughs). Over 99% of both corporations and pass-throughs had fewer than 500 employees, the most common employment-based threshold used by the Small Business Administration (SBA). Thus, when using an employment-based measure of size, the majority of all businesses can be considered small, with the exact share depending on the chosen definition of small. Analysis of the data also reveals that while the majority of firms were small, the largest firms accounted for the majority of employment. Slightly more than 50% of all employees worked at firms (corporate and pass-through) with 500 or more employees in 2011. Looking at this statistic separately for corporations and pass-throughs, roughly 73% of corporate employees worked at firms with more than 500 employees, while about 24% of pass-through employees worked at firms with more than 500 employees. Thus, while a greater proportion of workers in the corporate sector were employed by the largest firms, the proportion of pass-through employees employed at the largest firms was not small. The average number of employees at large firms (more than 500 employees) is computed to gain insight into how large the largest firms were in 2011. There was a substantial difference in the average number of employees at large firms that were corporations as opposed to pass-throughs in 2011. The average number of employees at the largest C corporations (500 or more employees) was just above 4,000, while the average number of employees for pass-throughs was just over 1,000. Among large pass-throughs, partnerships tended to have the most employees on average with 1,156, S-corporations fall in the middle with 1,041 employees on average, and sole proprietorships have the fewest with 876 employees on average. Understanding the data presented in this report may help policymakers when considering tax and non-tax policies. Specifically, it may help to better target policies that are geared toward affecting businesses of a particular size.

Jun 23, 2015

Risk and Needs Assessment in the Criminal Justice System

This report provides information on the use of risk and needs assessment in the criminal justice system. It starts with an overview of risk and needs assessment and a discussion of some of the critiques of it. The report concludes with a discussion of the issues policymakers might consider if they debate legislation to expand the use of risk and needs assessment in the federal prison system.

Jun 22, 2015

Appointment and Confirmation of Executive Branch Leadership: An Overview

The Constitution divides the responsibility for populating the top positions in the executive branch of the federal government between the President and the Senate. Article II, Section 2 empowers the President to nominate and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint the principal officers of the United States, as well as some subordinate officers. These positions are generally filled through the advice and consent process, which can be divided into three stages: First, the White House selects and clears a prospective appointee before sending a formal nomination to the Senate. Second, the Senate determines whether to confirm a nomination. For most nominations, much of this process occurs at the committee level. Third, the confirmed nominee is given a commission and sworn into office, after which he or she has full authority to carry out the duties of the office. The President may also be able to fill vacancies in advice and consent positions in the executive branch temporarily through other means. If circumstances permit and conditions are met, the President could choose to give a recess appointment to an individual. Such an appointment would last until the end of the next session of the Senate. Alternatively, in some cases, the President may be able to designate an official to serve in a vacant position on a temporary basis under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act or under statutory authority specific to the position. Congress has selectively included certain types of statutory provisions when establishing specific executive branch positions. These provisions include those that require appointees to have specified qualifications, that set fixed terms of office, that limit the circumstances under which the President can remove an officeholder, that specify how the chair of a collegial board or commission will be selected and may be removed, and that allow an incumbent to remain in office past the end of a term until a successor is appointed (hold over). Although these types of provisions may be found in the establishing statutes for a variety of positions, they are particularly common for members of regulatory and other collegial boards and commissions. In some cases, these types of provisions have influenced the dynamics of the Senate confirmation process. They also may be factored into the selection and vetting process in the Administration.

Jun 22, 2015

Hong Kong’s Legislative Council Votes Down Chief Executive Election Reform

Jun 22, 2015

Social Networking and Committee Communications: Use of Twitter and Facebook in the 113th Congress

Communications between congressional committees and constituents and stakeholder groups have changed with the development of social networking services. Many committees now use email, official websites, blogs, YouTube channels, Twitter, Facebook, and other services—technologies that were either nonexistent or not widely available until recently—to communicate with Members of Congress, constituents, and stakeholder groups. Social networking services have arguably served to enhance the ability of congressional committees to reach Members of Congress, constituents, and stakeholder groups and to widely disseminate committee actions and announcements. In addition, electronic communication technology has reduced the marginal cost of communication; unlike postal letters, social media can reach a large audience for a fixed cost. These advances are altering how Members organize and manage their personal and committee offices and impacting the ability of Members to gather support for political and policy goals. Perhaps most importantly, they may transform the very nature of representation in the United States. This report examines committee adoption and use of two social networking services: Twitter and Facebook. The report analyzes data on committee use of Twitter and Facebook collected by an academic institution in collaboration with the Congressional Research Service during a 4½-month period between June and October 2013. This report analyzes the following questions related to committee use of Twitter and Facebook: How many committees have adopted Twitter and Facebook? How widely are committee social media accounts followed? How much are committees using Twitter and Facebook? What are committees tweeting and posting about? Are committees interacting with other users on Twitter and Facebook? This report provides a snapshot of a dynamic process. As with any new technology, the number of committees using Twitter and Facebook, and the patterns of use, may change rapidly in short periods of time. As a result, the conclusions drawn from these data cannot be easily generalized or used to predict future behavior. Finally, the report examines the possible implications of committees using Twitter and Facebook. The analysis focuses on interaction between committees and the public, real-time communications and changes in constituent feedback, and outreach to the public through social media.

Jun 19, 2015

Wildfire Spending: Background, Issues, and Legislation in the 114th Congress

Jun 19, 2015

Civilian Federal Retirement: Current Law, Recent Changes, and Reform Proposals

Jun 18, 2015

Judiciary Appropriations FY2016

This report provides an overview of the consideration of FY2016 judiciary appropriations, with subsections covering each major action, including the initial submission of the request on February 2, 2015; hearings held by the House and Senate Financial Services Subcommittees; and the House subcommittee markup on June 10, 2015. This overview is followed by a section on prior-year actions and funding and then an overview of judiciary accounts.

Jun 18, 2015

Municipal Broadband: Background and Policy Debate

Jun 18, 2015

Independence Day: Fact Sheet

Independence Day, often called the Fourth of July, is a federal holiday celebrating the adoption of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776. This guide is designed to assist congressional offices with work related to Independence Day celebrations. It contains links to census and demographic information, CRS reports, sample speeches and remarks from the Congressional Record, and presidential proclamations and remarks. It also contains links to selected historical and cultural resources.

Jun 17, 2015

Puerto Rico: Political Status and Background

Jun 17, 2015

The Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB): Frequently Asked Questions

Jun 16, 2015

Chinese Land Reclamation in the South China Sea: Implications and Policy Options

This report assesses legal, military/operational, and diplomatic implications of the reclamation and construction activity. It surveys U.S. and Chinese statements on the situation, provides a history of reclamation activity by other nations including the United States and other South China Sea claimants, and discusses U.S. strategy and potential options for U.S. policymakers.

Jun 16, 2015

Department of Transportation (DOT): FY2016 Appropriations

Jun 15, 2015

South Korea: Background and U.S. Relations

Jun 12, 2015

President Obama Pledges Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets as Contribution to 2015 Global Climate Change Deal

Jun 12, 2015

Cybersecurity and Information Sharing: Comparison of Legislative Proposals in the 114th Congress

This report compares two House bills and one Senate bill that address information sharing and related activities in cybersecurity. It also discusses some of the issues that those and other bills address.

Jun 12, 2015

Agriculture Issues in U.S.-EU Trade Negotiations

Jun 12, 2015

H.R. 6: The 21st Century Cures Act

Jun 11, 2015

Department of Housing and Urban Development: FY2016 Appropriations

Jun 11, 2015

Overview of Health Insurance Exchanges

Jun 10, 2015

National Park Service: FY2015 and FY2016 Appropriations

Jun 5, 2015

Congressional Action on FY2016 Appropriations Measures

This report provides information on the congressional consideration of the FY2016 regular appropriations bills. It also discusses the statutory and procedural budget enforcement framework for FY2016 appropriations.

Jun 5, 2015

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations in Brief

This report focuses on FY2016 appropriations for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. It presents a brief overview of the appropriations requested by the President for FY2016 for agencies in the bill. It also briefly compares the FY2016 requested appropriations with appropriations enacted for FY2015. Finally, it provides the appropriations enacted for the bill for the last nine years (FY2007-FY2015) in current dollars (not adjusted for inflation) and constant dollars (adjusted for inflation).

Jun 5, 2015

Ending Cash Flow Financing to Egypt: Issues for Congress

On March 31, 2015, after a phone call between President Obama and Egyptian President Abdelfattah al Sisi, the White House announced that beginning in FY2018, the United States would stop providing cash flow financing (CFF) to Egypt. Cash flow financing is the financial mechanism that enables foreign governments to pay for U.S. defense equipment in partial installments over time rather than all at once; successive Administrations have authorized CFF for Egypt since 1979. In recent years, as public scrutiny of U.S. military aid to Egypt has increased, some observers have criticized the provision of CFF to Egypt. Critics argue that the financing of expensive conventional weapons systems is based on an assumption of future appropriations from Congress. Others argue that as the Egyptian military combats terrorism in the Sinai Peninsula and elsewhere, now may not be the optimal time to alter U.S. military aid to Egypt. The Administration’s proposed policy change comes after its lengthy review of U.S. foreign assistance policy toward Egypt, a process that began immediately following the Egyptian military’s ouster of former president Mohammed Morsi, a leading figure in the Muslim Brotherhood. The House draft FY2016 Foreign Operations Appropriations bill specifies that the Secretary of State shall consult with the Committees on Appropriations on any plans to restructure military assistance for Egypt. This report analyzes this proposed change in U.S. foreign assistance to Egypt; it provides background on the history of CFF and reviews various issues for Congress. For more on U.S. policy toward Egypt, please see CRS Report RL33003, Egypt: Background and U.S. Relations, by Jeremy M. Sharp.

Jun 4, 2015

Overview of EPA and the Army Corps’ Rule to Define “Waters of the United States”

This report describes the revised rule of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) which defines the scope of waters protected under the Clean Water Act (CWA).

Jun 3, 2015

The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC): An Economic Analysis

This report discusses the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), which is a refundable tax credit available to eligible workers earning relatively low wages

Jun 2, 2015

The Budget Reconciliation Process: Stages of Consideration

The purpose of the reconciliation process is to enhance Congress’s ability to bring existing spending, revenue, and debt limit laws into compliance with current fiscal priorities and goals established in the annual budget resolution. In adopting a budget resolution, Congress is agreeing upon its budgetary goals for the upcoming fiscal year. Because it is in the form of a concurrent resolution, however, it is not presented to the President or enacted into law. As a consequence, any statutory changes concerning spending or revenues that are necessary to implement these policies must be enacted in separate legislation. Budget reconciliation is an optional congressional process that operates as an adjunct to the budget resolution process and occurs only if reconciliation instructions are included in the budget resolution. Reconciliation instructions are the means by which Congress can establish the roles that specific committees will play in achieving these budgetary goals. Reconciliation consists of several different stages, which are described in this report. For more information on budget reconciliation bills enacted into law, please see CRS Report R40480, Budget Reconciliation Measures Enacted Into Law: 1980-2010, by Megan S. Lynch.

Jun 2, 2015

National Park Service: FY2016 Appropriations and Recent Trends

May 29, 2015

Worker Rights Provisions in Free Trade Agreements (FTAs)

May 28, 2015

Environmental Provisions in Free Trade Agreements (FTAs)

May 28, 2015