CRS Reports

Introduction to Financial Services: The Housing Finance System

Feb 5, 2015

Small Business Administration (SBA) Funding: Overview and Recent Trends

Feb 5, 2015

Cybersecurity: Data, Statistics, and Glossaries

This report describes data and statistics from government, industry, and information technology (IT) security firms regarding the current state of cybersecurity threats in the United States and internationally. These include incident estimates, costs, and annual reports on data security breaches, identity thefts, cybercrimes, malwares, and network securities.

Feb 5, 2015

U.S.-China Relations

Feb 4, 2015

Forest Service Appropriations: Five-Year Trends and FY2016 Budget Request

Feb 4, 2015

Proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP)

Feb 4, 2015

U.S. Sanctions on Russia: Economic Implications

In response to Russia’s annexation of the Crimean region of Ukraine and ongoing military intervention in eastern Ukraine, the United States has imposed a number of economic sanctions on Russian individuals, entities, and sectors. The United States coordinated its sanctions with other countries, particularly the European Union (EU). Russia has retaliated against sanctions by banning imports of certain agricultural products from countries imposing sanctions, including the United States, for one year. Many Members of Congress have been strong proponents of economic sanctions on Russia. In December 2014, Congress unanimously passed the Ukraine Freedom Support Act of 2014 (P.L. 113-272), which authorizes the President to impose sanctions on specific Russian individuals and entities. The President signed the bill but also stated that he would not impose additional sanctions on Russia at this time. As the conflict in Ukraine continues, some Members of Congress are calling for tighter economic sanctions on Russia, in addition to other measures. Analysts have debated the potential effects of current U.S. sanctions on Russia and Russia’s retaliatory measures. Russia is a major player in the international economy; it has the world's ninth-largest economy and it is a major producer and exporter of natural gas and oil. However, there is relatively little overall trade and investment between the United States and Russia, although ties at the firm-level are significant in some instances. Economic conditions in Russia have deteriorated at a faster rate in recent months. Capital flight from Russia has accelerated, the ruble has depreciated by more than 50%, inflation has increased, and the Russian economy is projected to contract by 3.0% in 2015. It is difficult to assess whether, and if so how much, targeted U.S. sanctions on Russian individuals and entities have contributed to worsening economic conditions in Russia, since other factors are likely contributing to Russia’s economic challenges. In particular, oil prices have fallen by 50% in the past six months, and oil is a major Russian export and source of revenue for the government. However, many analysts, including senior officials at the International Monetary Fund, have argued that sanctions are at least one factor contributing to the increasingly difficult economic situation in Russia. U.S. business groups have raised concerns that sanctions will harm American manufacturers, jeopardize American jobs, and cede business opportunities to firms from other countries. However, there are questions about the extent to which the sanctions and retaliatory measures will affect U.S. economic interests. Russia is a relatively minor trading and investment partner for the United States overall. U.S. sanctions target a specific subset of Russian individuals and entities and, in some cases, restrict only specific types of economic transactions. The full economic impact on U.S. firms and the U.S. economy remains to be seen. To date, news reports have cited a number of U.S. firms have been adversely affected by U.S. sanctions on Russia and Russia’s retaliatory measures. Russia is taking steps to develop alternative economic partners, particularly in emerging markets. Some analysts argue that the impact on U.S. firms should not be overstated; some firms were able to prepare for the disruptions, and the impact could be minimized as alternative markets are located. More broadly, U.S. exports to Russia have remained relatively robust but a weaker ruble and a contraction of the Russian economy may provide additional challenges to U.S. exports to Russia.

Feb 4, 2015

Alien Removals and Returns: Overview and Trends

The ability to remove foreign nationals (aliens) who violate U.S. immigration law is central to the immigration enforcement system. Some lawful migrants violate the terms of their admittance, and some aliens enter the United States illegally, despite U.S. immigration laws and enforcement. In 2012, there were an estimated 11.4 million resident unauthorized aliens; estimates of other removable aliens, such as lawful permanent residents who commit crimes, are elusive. With total repatriations of over 600,000 people in FY2013—including about 440,000 formal removals—the removal and return of such aliens have become important policy issues for Congress, and key issues in recent debates about immigration reform. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provides broad authority to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) to remove certain foreign nationals from the United States, including unauthorized aliens (i.e., foreign nationals who enter without inspection, aliens who enter with fraudulent documents, and aliens who enter legally but overstay the terms of their temporary visas) and lawfully present foreign nationals who commit certain acts that make them removable. Any foreign national found to be inadmissible or deportable under the grounds specified in the INA may be ordered removed. The INA describes procedures for making and reviewing such a determination, and specifies conditions under which certain grounds of removal may be waived. DHS officials may exercise certain forms of discretion in pursuing removal orders, and certain removable aliens may be eligible for permanent or temporary relief from removal. Certain grounds for removal (e.g., criminal grounds, terrorist grounds) render foreign nationals ineligible for most forms of relief and may make them eligible for more streamlined (expedited) removal processes. The “standard” removal process is a civil judicial proceeding in which an immigration judge from DOJ’s Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) determines whether an alien is removable. Immigration judges may grant certain forms of relief during the removal process (e.g., asylum, cancellation of removal), and the judge’s removal decisions are subject to administrative and judicial review. The INA also describes different types of streamlined removal procedures, which generally include more-limited opportunities for relief and grounds for review. In addition, two alternative forms of removal exempt aliens from certain penalties associated with formal removal: voluntary departure (return) and withdrawal of petition for admission. These are often called “returns.” Following an order of removal, an alien is inadmissible for a minimum of five years after the date of the removal, and therefore is generally ineligible to return to the United States during this time period. The period of inadmissibility is determined by the reason for and type of removal. For example, a foreign national ordered removed based on removal proceedings initiated upon the foreign national’s arrival is inadmissible for five years, while a foreign national ordered removed after being apprehended within the United States is inadmissible for 10 years. The length of inadmissibility increases to 20 years for an alien’s second or subsequent removal order, and is indefinite for a foreign national convicted of an aggravated felony. Absent additional factors, unlawful presence in the United States is a civil violation, not a criminal offense, and removal and its associated administrative processes are civil proceedings. As such, aliens in removal proceedings generally have no right to counsel (though they may be represented by counsel at their own expense). In addition, because removal is not considered punishment by the courts, Congress may impose immigration consequences retroactively. There were a record number of removals between FY2009 and FY2013, including 438,421 removals in FY2013. Approximately 71% of the foreign nationals removed were from Mexico. However, during the same time period the number of returns (most of which occur at the Southwest border) decreased to a low of 178,371 in FY2013—the fewest returns since 1968.

Feb 3, 2015

The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR): Answers to Frequently Asked Questions

This report provides answers to 25 frequently asked questions regarding the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). These questions and their answers are organized into six broad categories, including (1) what the FAR is and what it covers; (2) promulgation of the FAR; (3) the relationship between the FAR and other authorities governing federal procurement (e.g., statutes, agency FAR supplements, other regulations, policies); (4) the FAR in relation to Congress and judicial and other tribunals; (5) the relationship between the FAR and federal procurement contracts; and (6) other topics.

Feb 3, 2015

Introduction to Financial Services: Derivatives

Feb 3, 2015

Funding for EPA Water Infrastructure: A Fact Sheet

Feb 3, 2015

Terminating Contracts for the Government's Convenience: Answers to Frequently Asked Questions

This report provides answers to 12 questions regarding termination for convenience -- the exercise of the government's right to bring to an end the performance of all or part of the work provided for under a contract prior to the expiration of the contract "when it is in the Government's interest" to do so -- frequently asked by congressional committees and staff. These questions and their answers address everything from the contractual and other bases for the government's right to terminate to posttermination settlements between the government and the contractor. They also address differences between termination for convenience and termination for default, cancellation, and certain other actions that the government may take (e.g., "de-scoping" pursuant to a Changes clause).

Feb 3, 2015

Asset Forfeiture: Selected Legal Issues and Reforms

From its beginning in the First Congress, Congress has viewed asset forfeiture as an integral part of federal crime fighting: It takes contraband off the streets, ensures that “crime doesn’t pay,” and deprives criminals of their “tools of the trade.” In short, asset forfeiture is the process of confiscating money or property from a person because it is illegal to possess, it constitutes proceeds of a crime, or it was used to facilitate a crime. Asset forfeiture became a major tool in combating organized crime, drug trafficking, and other serious federal offenses throughout the mid-to-late 20th century and continues to play a major role in federal prosecutions. In recent years, however, there has been growing opposition to the expanding scope of asset forfeiture, both civil and criminal, with objections primarily coming in two forms: procedural and structural. The procedural objections are based on the idea that the current rules pertaining to asset forfeiture heavily favor the government. With civil asset forfeiture, the property owner need not be convicted nor even prosecuted for a crime before the government can confiscate his or her property. Unlike criminal prosecutions, the property owner is not constitutionally entitled to an attorney or many other safeguards found in the Bill of Rights. The burden of proof is set at the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard, lower than the traditional criminal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. If the property owner is claiming innocence, he has the burden of proving either that he had no knowledge of the criminal activity or that he tried to stop the activity if he did know about it. Structural objections pertain to how property and money are allocated once forfeited. The Department of Justice (DOJ) is permitted by law to keep most of the forfeited assets, creating what some view as a profit motive. Recently, DOJ stopped its practice of “adoptive forfeitures,” which allowed it to adopt property seized by state and local law enforcement as part of its “equitable sharing” program. Some saw this as a way of bypassing more stringent state forfeiture laws. Asset forfeiture faced comparable criticism several decades ago, leading Congress to enact the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 (CAFRA), the first major overhaul in federal forfeiture law in 200 years. While this law brought about significant reform to federal forfeiture policy and procedures, some have questioned whether CAFRA went far enough to rein in what they characterize as overzealous police forfeiture tactics. Recent concerns about the current legal framework are evidenced in new reports of possible police misuse of federal forfeiture laws. Contemporaneously, reform legislation has been introduced in the 113th and 114th Congresses. With these proposals in mind, this report will provide an overview of selected legal issues and reforms surrounding asset forfeiture, including the burden-of-proof standard and innocent-owner defense in civil asset forfeiture cases, access to counsel in both civil and criminal forfeiture cases (including a discussion of the 2014 Supreme Court asset forfeiture decision Kaley v. United States), allocation of profits from confiscated assets, and DOJ’s equitable sharing program.

Feb 2, 2015

Common Questions About Federal Records and Related Agency Requirements

Federal departments and agencies create federal records in the course of their daily operations. Congress first enacted the Federal Records Act (FRA; 44 U.S.C. Chapters 21, 29, 31, and 33) in 1950. Congress deemed federal records worthy of preservation for their “informational value,” and also because they document “the transaction of public business” and the “organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, operations, or other activities of the Government.” The FRA requires executive branch departments and agencies to collect, retain, and preserve—or dispose of—these records. This report provides an introduction to federal records. It describes the scope and requirements of the FRA and its associated regulations. Among the questions this report addresses are the following: What is a federal record? What is not a federal record? Which agencies are required to comply with the Federal Records Act? How do agencies transfer or dispose of federal records? This report includes amendments to the Federal Records Act made by the Presidential and Federal Records Act Amendments of 2014 (P.L. 113-187). The law, enacted on November 26, 2014, amends the FRA by, among other things, modifying the definition of federal record and clarifying the Archivist’s role as the final determinant of whether certain materials qualify as a federal record. This report focuses on federal recordkeeping laws, regulations, and policies. This report does not address the recordkeeping requirements of Congress, the Supreme Court, the President, or the Architect of the Capitol. Additional information on presidential records is available in CRS Report R40238, The Presidential Records Act: Background and Recent Issues for Congress, by Wendy Ginsberg. This report will be updated at the beginning of each new Congress or in the event of significant legislative activity.

Feb 2, 2015

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD): FY2016 Budget Request Overview and Resources

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) FY2016 Budget Request.

Feb 2, 2015

China's Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ)

In November 2013, the People’s Republic of China (PRC, or China) announced that it would establish an “East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ),” covering a large swath of airspace over the East China Sea, including over small islands that are the subject of a territorial dispute among Japan, the PRC, and Taiwan. Beijing did not formally consult with other countries prior to the announcement, and its initial statement seemed to warn that China might use force against aircraft that did not follow its ADIZ guidelines. Senior officials from the United States and East Asian countries criticized China’s action and raised concerns that the new ADIZ could escalate tensions surrounding the territorial dispute and even lead to conflict. Some key considerations for Congress are the potential for military conflict in the East China Sea, escalation of tensions over the territorial dispute, challenges to the U.S.-Japan alliance, and the impact on U.S.-China relations, including military-to-military exchanges. An ADIZ is an area of airspace beyond a country’s sovereign territory within which the country requires the identification, location, and air traffic control of aircraft in the interest of its national security. There is no international law that specifically governs ADIZs, although various norms pertain, especially freedom of navigation. The Convention on Civil Aviation advises that all nations refrain from the use of weapons against civilian aircraft. The United States was the first country to establish an ADIZ, which it did in 1950 during the Cold War with the Soviet Union. There are several possible reasons why the PRC designated its “East China Sea ADIZ” (ECS ADIZ). The ADIZ appears to be part of an effort by China to challenge Japan’s administration of the disputed islands, known as Senkaku in Japan, Diaoyu in China, and Diaoyutai in Taiwan. The ECS ADIZ may also be intended as a means to bolster both China’s own claims to the islands and its justification for opposing U.S. military surveillance activities near its airspace. In the initial period after the PRC announcement, the PLA did not take “defensive emergency measures” against aircraft that ignored the Chinese ADIZ directives. In addition to criticisms by the U.S. Secretaries of State and Defense that the ECS ADIZ was “destabilizing” and increased the risks of conflict in the region, the United States announced that it “neither recognizes nor accepts China’s declared East China Sea ADIZ.” As of early 2015, the U.S. military continues to fly aircraft through the zone without notifying China or responding to requests for identification. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), however, distributed China’s requirements for operating in the ECS ADIZ to commercial airlines as part of its routine dissemination of Notices to Airmen (NOTAMs). Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan each voiced opposition to China’s designation of the ECS ADIZ, which overlapped with their pre-existing ADIZs, and have continued normal military practices in the zone. South Korea requested that China redraw the boundary to remove this overlap, but Beijing refused the request, prompting Seoul to extend the boundaries of its ADIZ in December 2013. Japan called the PRC’s action an attempt to change the status quo on the Senkaku Islands by coercion. The U.S.-Japan Mutual Defense Treaty applies to the Senkaku Islands because they are administered by Japan. This report analyzes the legal, diplomatic, and security implications of the ECS ADIZ for U.S. interests. The concluding section briefly discusses some policy options for Congress and for U.S. policy in general.

Jan 30, 2015

Introduction to Financial Services: The International Foreign Exchange Market

Jan 30, 2015

Same-Sex Marriage: A Legal Overview

This report provides background on, and analysis of, significant legal issues surrounding the same-sex marriage debate. It begins by providing background on the constitutional principles that are often invoked in attempting to invalidate same-sex marriage bans--namely, equal protection and due process guarantees. Then, it discusses key cases that led to the existing circuit split on the constitutionality of state same-sex marriage bans. Finally, this report explains the central issues in the circuit split and analyzes how the Supreme Court might resolve them on appeal.

Jan 30, 2015

National Forest System Management: Overview, Appropriations, and Issues for Congress

Jan 29, 2015

Inland Waterways Trust Fund

Jan 29, 2015

Issues in the Reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

The funding authorization for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), included in the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-95), expires on September 30, 2015. In addition to setting spending levels, FAA authorization acts typically set policy on a wide range of issues related to civil aviation. This report considers topics that are likely to arise as the 114th Congress debates reauthorization. Most FAA programs are financed through the Airport and Airway Trust Fund (AATF), sometimes referred to as the Aviation Trust Fund. The financial health of the AATF, which is funded by a variety of taxes and fees on air transportation, has been a growing concern. Although the trust fund balance is projected to grow in the near term—as AATF revenue continues to rise and airport capital needs are projected to decline—reductions in general fund appropriations to FAA have increased the proportion of FAA funding that is derived from the trust fund. In addition, changes in airline business practices pose a risk to the AATF revenue structure: trust fund revenue is largely dependent on airlines’ ticket sales, and airlines’ increasing use of fees charged for options that may once have been included in the base ticket price, such as checked bags and onboard meals, has reduced the amount of money flowing into the fund. Other major issues likely to arise during the reauthorization debate include the following: Unmanned aerial vehicles. FAA has failed to issue rules for commercial and government use of drone aircraft within the time directed by the 2012 law, frustrating potential commercial operators. Meanwhile, large numbers of drones have come into use, and there have been numerous reports of near-collisions between drones and manned aircraft. Air traffic control privatization. Many commissions over the years have recommended moving responsibility for air traffic control from FAA, a government agency, to either an independent government-owned corporation or a private entity controlled by aviation stakeholders. Delays in implementing the satellite-based NextGen air traffic control system have renewed interest in this possibility. Essential Airline Service (EAS). In 2012, Congress attempted to limit the number of localities eligible to participate in this program to subsidize flights to communities that would otherwise lose all commercial airline service, as well as to limit the amount of subsidies per passenger. These efforts were largely unsuccessful. Airfare disclosure. The House of Representatives approved a bill in 2014 that would reverse an FAA regulation requiring airlines and website operators to give greater prominence to the final price, including fees and taxes, than to the “base airfare” charged by the carrier. The Senate did not approve this legislation, but the issue is likely to reappear in the context of FAA reauthorization. This report does not attempt to be comprehensive. Many issues debated prior to passage of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 are not discussed unless further congressional consideration appears probable. Additional issues, not discussed in this report, may arise as Congress moves forward with reauthorization.

Jan 29, 2015

Points of Order Limiting the Contents of Reconciliation Legislation: In Brief

This report discusses the Budget Act that provides an optional expedited procedure for considering legislation in the Senate, called reconciliation, which was first used in 1980.

Jan 29, 2015

China as the World’s “Largest Economy”

Jan 29, 2015

FEMA DRF Major Disaster Assistance: Mississippi

Jan 28, 2015

FEMA DRF Major Disaster Assistance: Missouri

Jan 28, 2015

FEMA DRF Major Disaster Assistance: Montana

Jan 28, 2015

FEMA DRF Major Disaster Assistance: Nebraska

Jan 28, 2015

FEMA DRF Major Disaster Assistance: Nevada

Jan 28, 2015

FEMA DRF Major Disaster Assistance: New Hampshire

Jan 28, 2015

FEMA DRF Major Disaster Assistance: Ohio

Jan 28, 2015

U.S.-China Trade Issues

Jan 28, 2015

FEMA DRF Major Disaster Assistance: Oklahoma

Jan 28, 2015

FEMA DRF Major Disaster Assistance: Oregon

Jan 28, 2015

FEMA DRF Major Disaster Assistance: Pennsylvania

Jan 28, 2015

FEMA DRF Major Disaster Assistance: Rhode Island

Jan 28, 2015

FEMA DRF Major Disaster Assistance: South Carolina

Jan 28, 2015

FEMA DRF Major Disaster Assistance: New Jersey

This report discusses the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) that is managed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and is the primary source of funding used to provide assistance following a major disaster declaration.

Jan 28, 2015

FEMA DRF Major Disaster Assistance: New Mexico

Jan 28, 2015

FEMA DRF Major Disaster Assistance: New York

Jan 28, 2015

FEMA DRF Major Disaster Assistance: North Carolina

Jan 28, 2015

FEMA DRF Major Disaster Assistance: North Dakota

Jan 28, 2015

FEMA DRF Major Disaster Assistance: Delaware

Jan 28, 2015

FEMA DRF Major Disaster Assistance: District of Columbia

Jan 28, 2015

FEMA DRF Major Disaster Assistance: Florida

Jan 28, 2015

FEMA DRF Major Disaster Assistance: Georgia

Jan 28, 2015

FEMA DRF Major Disaster Assistance: Hawaii

Jan 28, 2015

FEMA DRF Major Disaster Assistance: Idaho

Jan 28, 2015

FEMA DRF Major Disaster Assistance: Illinois

Jan 28, 2015

FEMA DRF Major Disaster Assistance: Indiana

Jan 28, 2015

FEMA DRF Major Disaster Assistance: Iowa

Jan 28, 2015