CRS Reports

Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy: CRS Experts

The table in this report provides names and contact information for CRS experts on federal science, technology, and innovation policies, including authorizing programs and funding, making appropriations, and conducting oversight activities.

Aug 28, 2012

Stealing Trade Secrets and Economic Espionage: An Overview of 18 U.S.C. 1831 and 1832

Report that gives an overview of 18 U.S.C. 1832 (theft of trade secrets) and 18 U.S.C. 1831 (economic espionage). It also describes what constitutes as a stolen trade secret, and how such crimes are prosecuted.

Aug 28, 2012

Weather-Related Power Outages and Electric System Resiliency

High winds, especially when combined with precipitation from seasonal storms, can cause damage to electricity utility systems, resulting in service interruptions to large numbers of electricity customers. While most such power outages are caused by damage from trees and tree limbs falling on local electricity distribution lines and poles, major power outages tend to be caused by damage to electricity transmission lines, which carry bulk power long distances. Depending on the severity of the storm and resulting impairment, power outages can last a few hours or extend to periods of several days, and have real economic effects. Power outages can impact businesses (primarily through lost orders and damage to perishable goods and inventories), and manufacturers (mainly through downtime and lost production, or equipment damage). Data from various studies lead to cost estimates from storm-related outages to the U.S. economy at between $20 billion and $55 billion annually. Data also suggest the trend of outages from weather-related events is increasing. Suggested solutions for reducing impacts from weather-related outages include improved tree-trimming schedules to keep rights-of-way clear, placing distribution and some transmission lines underground, implementing Smart Grid improvements to enhance power system operations and control, inclusion of more distributed generation, and changing utility maintenance practices and metrics to focus on power system reliability. However, most of these potential solutions come with high costs which must be balanced against the perceived benefits. A number of options exist for Congress to consider which could help reduce storm-related outages. These range from improving the quality of data on storm-related outages, to a greater strategic investment in the U.S. electricity grid. Congress could empower a federal agency to develop standards for the consistent reporting of power outage data. While responsibility for the reliability of the bulk electric system is under the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (as per the Energy Policy Act of 2005), no central responsibility exists for the reliability of distribution systems. One possible option could be to bring distribution systems under the Electric Reliability Organization for reliability purposes. Recovery after storm-related outages might be enhanced by a federal role in formalizing the review or coordination of electric utility mutual assistance agreements (MAAs). This would not necessarily mean federal approval of MAAs, but may help in the cooperative coordination of additional federal and state resources, especially in a wide, multi-state weather event. While there has been much discussion of transmission system inadequacies and inefficiencies, many distribution systems are in dire need of upgrades or repairs. The cost of upgrading the U.S. grid to meet future uses is expected to be high, with the American Society of Civil Engineers estimating a need of $673 billion by 2020. While the federal government recently made funding available of almost $16 billion for specific Smart Grid projects and new transmission lines under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, there has not been a comprehensive effort to study the needs, set goals, and provide targeted funding for modernization of the U.S. grid as part of a long-term national energy strategy. Such an effort would also require decisions about the appropriate roles of government and the private sector. Power delivery systems are most vulnerable to storms and extreme weather events. Improving the overall condition and efficiency of the power delivery system can only serve to improve the resiliency of the system, and help hasten recovery from weather-related outages. Ultimately, however, electric utilities are responsible for this infrastructure. They are in the business of selling electricity, and they cannot sell electricity if their power delivery systems are out of service.

Aug 28, 2012

The Crime Victims Fund: Federal Support for Victims of Crime

Report that provides background and funding information for Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) programs and the Crime Victims Fund (CVF). It describes the process through which CVF funds are allocated and explains how the CVF impacts the annual budget for Department of Justice (DOJ).

Aug 22, 2012

Presidential Claims of Executive Privilege: History, Law, Practice, and Recent Developments

This report discusses the background of claims of executive privilege, ending with a look into how President Obama has used them.

Aug 21, 2012

The Posse Comitatus Act and Related Matters: A Sketch

The Posse Comitatus Act states that “Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.” 18 U.S.C. §1385. It reflects an American tradition that bridles at military involvement in civilian affairs. Congress, however, has approved a number of instances where extraordinary circumstances warrant a departure from the general rule, particularly in cases where the armed forces provide civilian assistance without becoming directly involved in civilian law enforcement. This is an abridged version of CRS Report R42659, The Posse Comitatus Act and Related Matters: The Use of the Military to Execute Civilian Law, in which the authorities for the statements made here may be found.

Aug 21, 2012

The Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (P.L. 112-144)

This report provides a brief policy background narrative and an overview of provisions for each title of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA), P.L. 112-144. The legislation amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) to expand the authority of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in performing its human drug, biological product, and medical device responsibilities.

Aug 21, 2012

An Overview of the "Patent Trolls" Debate

This report reviews the current debate and controversy surrounding "patent assertion entities" (PAEs) and their effect on innovation, examines the reasons for the rise in PAE litigation, and explores the legislative options available to Congress if it decides that these are issues that should be addressed.

Aug 20, 2012

Crisis In Mali

This report discusses the West African country of Mali that faces multiple overlapping crises. The country’s political leadership has been uncertain and disputed since a military coup on March 22, 2012, overthrew a democratically elected government in the capital, Bamako.

Aug 16, 2012

The Posse Comitatus Act and Related Matters: The Use of the Military to Execute Civilian Law

The Constitution permits Congress to authorize the use of the militia “to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.” And it guarantees the states protection against invasion or usurpation of their “republican form of government,” and, upon the request of the state legislature, against “domestic violence.” These constitutional provisions are reflected in the Insurrection Acts, which have been invoked numerous times both before and after passage of the Posse Comitatus Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 1385, in 1878. Congress has also enacted a number of statutes that authorize the use of the land and naval forces to execute their objective. The Posse Comitatus Act outlaws the willful use of any part of the Army or Air Force to execute the law unless expressly authorized by the Constitution or an act of Congress. History supplies the grist for an argument that the Constitution prohibits military involvement in civilian affairs subject to only limited alterations by Congress or the President, but the courts do not appear to have ever accepted the argument unless violation of more explicit constitutional command could also be shown. The express statutory exceptions include the legislation that allows the President to use military force to suppress insurrection or to enforce federal authority, 10 U.S.C. Sections 331-335, and laws that permit the Department of Defense to provide federal, state and local police with information, equipment, and personnel, 10 U.S.C. Sections 371-382. Case law indicates that “execution of the law” in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act occurs (a) when the Armed Forces perform tasks assigned to an organ of civil government, or (b) when the Armed Forces perform tasks assigned to them solely for purposes of civilian government. Questions concerning the act’s application arise most often in the context of assistance to civilian police. At least in this context, the courts have held that, absent a recognized exception, the Posse Comitatus Act is violated when (1) civilian law enforcement officials make “direct active use” of military investigators; or (2) the use of the military “pervades the activities” of the civilian officials; or (3) the military is used so as to subject “citizens to the exercise of military power which was regulatory, prescriptive, or compulsory in nature.” The act is not violated when the Armed Forces conduct activities for a military purpose. The language of the act mentions only the Army and the Air Force, but it is applicable to the Navy and Marines by virtue of administrative action and commands of other laws. The law enforcement functions of the Coast Guard have been expressly authorized by act of Congress and consequently cannot be said to be contrary to the act. The act has been applied to the National Guard when it is in federal service, to civilian employees of the Armed Forces, and to off-duty military personnel. The act probably only applies within the geographical confines of the United States, but supplemental provisions of 10 U.S.C. Sections 371-382 appear to apply worldwide. Finally, the act is a criminal statute under which there has been but a handful of known prosecutions. Although violations will on rare occasions result in the exclusion of evidence, the dismissal of criminal charges, or a civil cause of action, as a practical matter compliance is ordinarily the result of military self-restraint. This report provides an historical analysis of the use of the Armed Forces to execute domestic law and of the Posse Comitatus Act, including their apparent theoretical and constitutional underpinnings. The report then outlines the current application of the act as well as its statutory exceptions, and reviews the consequences of its violation. This report appears in abridged form as CRS Report R42669, The Posse Comitatus Act and Related Matters: A Sketch.

Aug 16, 2012

Sex Trafficking of Children in the United States: Overview and Issues for Congress

Report concerning Congressional attention on the domestic sex trafficking of children.

Aug 15, 2012

Health Insurance Exchanges Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA)

Aug 15, 2012

Medicare’s Skilled Nursing Facility Primer: Benefit Basics and Issues

Aug 8, 2012

The Speech or Debate Clause: Constitutional Background and Recent Developments

Members of Congress have immunity for their legislative acts under Article I, Section 6, clause 1, of the Constitution, which provides in part that “for any speech or debate in either House, [Senators and Representatives] shall not be questioned in any other place.” Even if their actions are within the scope of the Speech or Debate Clause or some other legal immunity, Members of Congress remain accountable to the house of Congress in which they serve and to the electorate. In cases in which the Clause applies, the immunity is absolute and cannot be defeated by an allegation of an improper purpose or motivation. When applicable, the Clause provides both immunity from liability (in civil and criminal proceedings) and a complimentary evidentiary privilege. Recently, two separate and previously unresolved issues arose with respect to the scope and application of the Speech or Debate Clause. The first case concerned claims of employment discrimination brought against Members’ offices pursuant to the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995. Both the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals and the D.C. Circuit ruled that the Speech or Debate Clause does not automatically prevent such suits from proceeding. Additionally, an appeal to the Supreme Court was rejected because the Court ruled that it lacked a jurisdictional basis to decide the case. These decisions, however, appear to leave unanswered significant questions about the use and introduction of evidence related to “legislative acts,” which are protected by the Speech or Debate Clause. Such questions could ultimately frustrate the ability of potential plaintiffs to pursue their claims successfully. In August 2007, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) issued its opinion in a case arising from the execution of a search warrant on the Rayburn House Office of Representative William J. Jefferson. The search was conducted as part of the FBI’s investigation of Representative Jefferson to determine whether he was involved in criminal activity, including bribery and other felonies. Such an action by the executive branch appears to be unprecedented. It raised significant constitutional questions about potential intimidation of the legislative branch and threats to its independence, which the Clause is designed to protect. Although Representative Jefferson lost his initial legal challenge, the appeals court subsequently held that the search violated the Speech or Debate Clause. The court ordered the district court to provide Representative Jefferson with copies of the seized materials and a chance to assert his privilege claims ex parte and in camera. Moreover, the appeals court ordered that the Department of Justice (DOJ) continue to refrain from reviewing any of the seized materials until the privilege claims were evaluated by the lower court. In 2011, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals also weighed in on how to apply the Clause to executive branch criminal investigations of Members. In that case, Representative Richard Renzi was accused of agreeing to support legislation in exchange for a private land purchase agreement benefitting one of his creditors. He was indicted on numerous criminal counts, including extortion and fraud, which he challenged on Speech or Debate Clause grounds. The appeals court determined that his challenged actions were not covered by the Clause. Additionally, the Ninth Circuit appeared to split with the D.C. Circuit analysis in Representative Jefferson’s case on whether the Clause prevents the executive branch from ever viewing protected evidence. This report examines the constitutional background of the Speech or Debate Clause and these recent developments in jurisprudence. It will be updated as events warrant.

Aug 8, 2012

Selected Federal Water Activities: Agencies, Authorities, and Congressional Committees

Congress has enacted hundreds of federal laws affecting the nation’s water resources and continues to address numerous water-related issues annually. From responding to natural disasters such as droughts and floods, to improving water resources and water quality infrastructure and protecting fish and wildlife, many congressional committees are involved in legislating, funding, and overseeing the water-related activities of numerous federal agencies. Nearly two centuries of such activity have resulted in a complex web of federal involvement in water resource management and use. Although the responsibility for development, management, protection, and allocation of the nation’s water resources is spread among federal, state, local, tribal, and private interests, this report focuses on the complexity of federal activities related to water. The report covers multiple topic areas and individual water-related subtopics ranging from water supply and water quality infrastructure to fisheries management and water rights. The report is not exhaustive; instead, the authors have attempted to cover the major federal activities authorized by Congress that affect water resource development, management, and use in the United States. Similarly, the analysis does not cover every aspect of House and Senate committee jurisdiction affecting water issues. Accordingly, it may be helpful to seek the views of the House and Senate Parliamentarian Offices for a more definitive evaluation of committee jurisdictions related to water. The report covers four general areas: (1) “Water Resources Development, Management, and Use”; (2) “Water Quality, Protection, and Restoration”; (3) “Water Rights and Allocation”; and (4) “Research and Planning.” These are further divided into tables that list topic areas and individual water-related subtopics. For each subtopic, CRS has identified selected federal agencies and activities related to the topic, authorities for such activities, and relevant House and Senate committee jurisdictions. The “Water Resources Development, Management, and Use” theme includes subtopics that relate to supply and reservoir development, drought and flood management, and hydropower and navigation. The “Water Quality, Protection, and Restoration” theme includes issues relating to water quality (e.g., water pollution and treatment, drinking water quality) and aquatic resources protection and management. The “Water Rights and Allocation” theme addresses water allocation and interstate compacts, river basin commissions, federal reserved water rights, and tribal water rights. The “Research and Planning” theme includes subtopics related to research and data collection, including water cycle and climate change research, and watershed planning. Appendixes address considerations in determining House and Senate committee jurisdictions and present the official language from House Rule X and Senate Rule XXV, respectively, as indicators of congressional jurisdiction over water resources. A glossary of House and Senate Committee abbreviations and federal agency acronyms is also included. In sum, the nine tables that make up the body of the document underscore the complexity of federal activities affecting water resource development, management, protection, and use in the United States. As apparent throughout these tables, numerous standing committees in the House and Senate have jurisdiction over various components of federal water policy. The wide range of federal executive responsibilities for water resources reflects comparably complex congressional legislative responsibilities, which in turn reflect the multiple ways in which water laws affect social and economic activities and vice versa.

Aug 7, 2012

Continuing Resolutions: Overview of Components and Recent Practices

Aug 6, 2012

Traditional Versus Benchmark Benefits Under Medicaid

Aug 3, 2012

The U.S. Military Presence in Okinawa and the Futenma Base Controversy

Aug 3, 2012

Global Security Contingency Fund (GSCF): Summary and Issue Overview

Aug 1, 2012

Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education: A Primer

The term "STEM education" refers to teaching and learning in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, including educational activities across all grade levels—from pre-school to post-doctorate—in both formal and informal settings. This report is intended to serve as a primer for outlining existing STEM education policy issues and programs. It includes assessments of the federal STEM education effort and the condition of STEM education in the United States, as well as an analysis of several of the policy issues central to the contemporary federal conversation about STEM education.

Aug 1, 2012

Organization of American States: Background and Issues for Congress

This report covers the background of the Organization of American States (OAS). It discusses the importance of U.S. participation in this organization in order to exert authority and shape outcomes in the Western Hemisphere.

Jul 31, 2012

Appropriations: CRS Experts

Jul 31, 2012

Comparing Compensation for Federal and Private-Sector Workers: An Overview

Recently there has been significant congressional interest in compensation of the federal civilian workforce. The increased interest has been driven at least in part by budgetary pressure and in part by the state of the economy since the recession began in 2007. Issues related to the compensation of federal employees often center on the pay differential between federal workers and their private sector counterparts. For several years, the annual President’s Pay Agent (PPA) study has shown a large wage penalty for federal workers compared to private sector workers in similar occupations. A few recent studies, however, which use a different analytical approach and data sources, have partially contradicted the findings of the PPA study by concluding that at least some federal workers enjoy a wage premium over comparable private sector workers. These disparate findings make it difficult to determine how compensation of federal employees compares to workers in the private sector. In evaluating claims about federal pay, there appear to be two basic approaches to comparing compensation in the federal and private-sector workforces—the human capital approach and the jobs analysis approach. The human capital approach attempts to account for as many observable characteristics of individual workers as possible (e.g., education, experience) that are known to affect individual compensation. The jobs analysis approach, on the other hand, focuses on matching comparable jobs in different sectors rather than workers with similar demographic characteristics in those sectors. These two approaches are not mutually exclusive but may be difficult to combine given data limitations. Each approach is outlined in this report, followed by an examination of a few recent studies comparing federal and private sector compensation. The studies reviewed were chosen because they are official government studies (President’s Pay Agent, Congressional Budget Office) or have received significant attention in policy debates. Results from these studies, which at times arrive at vastly different conclusions, provide some useful information about evaluating competing claims related to the compensation of the federal workforce. In general, the more methodologically rigorous “human capital” studies show a pay premium for federal workers with lower levels of educational attainment and a pay penalty for federal workers with higher levels of educational attainment. The range of worker and job characteristics is sufficiently broad across sectors that claims about “average” workers conceal much of the variation driving differences in compensation. For purposes of policy, the most informative studies show variation in compensation differentials by some control variables. Of the five studies under review, one reports an overall average wage penalty for federal workers (PPA), one reports neither an overall average wage premium nor a penalty for federal workers, and three find overall average wage premia for federal workers compared to private sector workers. Only two of the studies—CBO and the American Enterprise Institute (AEI)—report earnings differentials by level of educational attainment, however. While the AEI report shows a clear wage premium across levels of educational attainment, the more methodologically rigorous CBO study finds a more nuanced outcome. That is, federal workers with less than a bachelor’s degree have on average a wage premium compared to private sector counterparts, while federal workers with post-graduate educational attainment on average experience a wage penalty relative to private sector counterparts.

Jul 30, 2012

Medicaid Financing and Expenditures

This report provides an overview of Medicaid’s financing structure, including both federal and state financing issues. The Medicaid expenditures section of the report discusses economic factors affecting Medicaid, state variability in spending, and projected program spending. Other issues that are examined include congressional proposals to turn Medicaid into a block grant program, federal deficit reduction proposals affecting Medicaid, and state fiscal conditions affecting Medicaid financing and services.

Jul 30, 2012

Positive Train Control (PTC): Overview and Policy Issues

This report gives and overview of the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 and discusses policy issues related to it. Congress passed the Act following several high-profile train accidents; it mandates positive train control (PTC) on many passenger and freight railroads by December 31, 2015.

Jul 30, 2012

Budgetary Treatment of Federal Credit (Direct Loans and Loan Guarantees): Concepts, History, and Issues for the 112th Congress

Jul 27, 2012

The Executive Budget Process: An Overview

The U.S. Constitution vests Congress with the power to raise revenue and borrow money. Those funds may only be drawn from the Treasury in consequence of appropriations made by law. The Constitution, however, is largely silent with respect to the President’s role in the budget process. Instead, the current executive budget process is largely the result of statutes enacted by Congress. The executive budget process consists of three main phases: development of the President’s budget proposal, submission and justification of the President’s budget proposal, and execution of enacted appropriations and other budgetary legislation. The purpose of this report is to provide an introduction to many elements of the executive budget process, highlighting the roles of the President, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and executive agencies. The Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 established the modern executive budget process. It created a legal framework for a federal budget proposal to be developed by the President and submitted to Congress prior to the start of each fiscal year. In practice, development of the President’s budget proposal begins approximately 18 months prior to the start of the fiscal year to which it applies. Executive agencies submit their requests and justification materials to OMB for examination and review. After final decisions have been made by the President, the budget proposal is compiled by OMB. Under current law, the President must submit the budget proposal to Congress no later than the first Monday in February. Once the President has submitted the budget, OMB and agency officials explain and justify the request to Congress. Early in the congressional budget process, often in the week following the submission of the President’s budget, the OMB director and other Cabinet officials typically provide testimony regarding the President’s broad budgetary objectives before congressional committees. In addition, agencies typically submit written justifications of their budget requests to Congress, and agency officials often will testify before the committees of jurisdiction. The President’s budget, though not legally binding, provides Congress with recommended spending levels for programs, projects, and activities that are funded through appropriations and other budgetary legislation. Funds provided in appropriations and other budgetary legislation are not immediately available for obligation or expenditure. With certain exceptions, the Antideficiency Act requires that funds be apportioned (or divided), often by fiscal quarter, prior to obligation or expenditure. Agencies then allocate those funds to programs, projects, and activities. Congress has recognized the need to permit agencies some flexibility during budget execution, and it has provided agencies with limited authority to make spending adjustments. For example, Congress may provide agencies with limited authority to reallocate funds from one appropriations account to another (i.e., transfers), or from one purpose to another within an appropriations account (i.e., reprogramming). Under the Impoundment Control Act (ICA) of 1974, the President may withhold appropriated funds temporarily (referred to as deferrals) or propose to Congress permanent cancellations of budget authority (referred to as rescissions). Finally, certain executive budgetary procedures are triggered under limited, less common circumstances. For example, OMB and agencies have established procedures for implementing a shutdown of certain government operations in the event that their full-year or interim appropriations are not enacted by the start of the fiscal year. OMB and agencies may also be subject to additional procedures in the event of a statutorily prescribed sequestration.

Jul 27, 2012

“Amazon” Laws and Taxation of Internet Sales: Constitutional Analysis

This report covers ways in which states are attempting to capture taxes on Internet sales. Two basic approaches include imposing tax collection responsibilities on the retailer, and requiring remote sellers to provide tax information to the state and/or it's customers. This report covers the legality of both options.

Jul 26, 2012

Ability of Unauthorized Aliens to Claim Refundable Tax Credits

In 2011, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) reported that individuals who were not authorized to work in the United States received $4.2 billion by claiming the refundable portion of the child tax credit—the additional child tax credit (ACTC). The ACTC is available to working families with children under age 17. The report sparked considerable concern that unauthorized aliens were obtaining refundable tax credits. The TIGTA audit was based upon an analysis of tax returns filed by persons with Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers (ITINs). The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issues ITINs to individuals who are required to have a taxpayer identification number for tax purposes but are not eligible to obtain a Social Security number (SSN) because they are not authorized to work in the United States. All aliens, including those who are in the country illegally, are generally subject to federal taxes under the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), and even income illegally obtained is subject to taxation. A refundable tax credit is one where the taxpayer may receive a payment from the IRS that exceeds his or her tax liability. Examples include the earned income tax credit (EITC), the additional child tax credit, the American opportunity tax credit, and the health coverage tax credit. While the EITC requires SSNs of all recipients, the other existing credits, including the ACTC, do not. Similarly, several now-expired credits included an SSN requirement, while others did not. Apart from any SSN requirement, the IRC also expressly prohibits nonresident aliens from claiming some refundable credits. In addition to the specific provisions of the IRC, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996 (P.L. 104-193) bars unauthorized aliens from any federal public benefit except certain emergency services and programs. So defined, this bar covers many programs whose enabling statutes do not individually make citizenship or immigration status a criterion for participation. The legal question arises as to whether any refundable tax credits are federal public benefits, which under PRWORA unauthorized aliens should be barred from receiving. There is no indication that the IRS considers any refundable tax credits to be subject to PRWORA Section 401. Looking to the statutory text, it is arguably unclear whether refundable credits should be treated as federal public benefits, although there is a strong argument that at least some should not (e.g., the credit for taxes withheld). It does not appear that any court has examined this issue or that the IRS has issued guidance on it. The EITC and ACTC are the largest refundable tax credits—in 2009 taxpayers claimed $53.0 billion and $27.5 billion of each credit, respectively—and primarily benefit working families with children. Estimates derived from the March Supplement of the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey (CPS) indicate that the unauthorized resident alien population was 11.2 million in 2010. The Pew Hispanic Center reported that two-thirds of the unauthorized resident alien population have resided in the United States for 10 or more years. The report also found that the proportion of unauthorized aliens who have been in the country at least 15 years has more than doubled since 2000. Pew researchers have also found that unauthorized aliens tend to be younger than the U.S. population overall and more likely to be in the child-bearing and child-rearing years. As a consequence, an estimated 46% of unauthorized adults are parents of minor children.

Jul 26, 2012

The Obama Administration’s Proposal to Establish a National Network for Manufacturing Innovation

This report discusses the proposed creation of the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation (NNMI), which would help accelerate innovation and support manufacturing technology commercialization. It includes an overview of the topic as well as discussion on the Administration's proposal, preliminary activities, legislative status, and issues for consideration.

Jul 25, 2012

Moving to a Territorial Income Tax: Options and Challenges

Among potential tax reforms under discussion by Congress is revising the tax treatment of foreign source income of U.S. multinational corporations. Some business leaders have been urging a movement toward a territorial tax, which would eliminate some U.S. income taxes on active foreign source income. Under a territorial tax, only the country where the income is earned imposes a tax. Territorial proposals include the Grubert-Mutti proposal (included in President Bush’s Advisory Panel on Tax Reform proposal in 2005) and, more recently, a draft Ways and Means Committee proposal and a Senate bill, S. 2091. The Fiscal Commission also proposed a territorial tax. Proposals have, however, also been made to increase the taxation of foreign source income, including S. 727, and proposals by President Obama. Although the United States has a worldwide system that includes foreign earnings in U.S. taxable income, two provisions cause the current system to resemble a territorial tax in that very little tax is collected. Deferral delays paying taxes until income is repatriated (paid as a dividend by the foreign subsidiary to its U.S. parent). When income is repatriated, credits for foreign taxes paid offset the U.S. tax due. Under cross-crediting, unused foreign tax credits from high tax countries or on highly taxed income can be used to offset U.S. tax on income in low tax countries. Some proponents of a territorial tax urge such a system on the grounds that the current system discourages repatriations. Economic evidence suggests that effect is small, in part because in normal circumstances a large share of income is retained for permanent reinvestment. Amounts held abroad may have increased, however, as firms lobbied for another repatriation holiday (similar to that adopted in 2004) that allowed firms to exempt most dividends from income on a one-time basis. Opponents are concerned about encouraging investment abroad. A territorial tax is generally not viewed as efficient because it favors foreign investment, but that increased outflow of investment is likely to have a small effect relative to the U.S. economy. Artificial shifting of profits into tax havens or low tax countries is a current problem that could be worsened under some territorial tax designs, and proposals have included measures to address this problem. Proposals also address the transitional issue of the treatment of the existing stock of unrepatriated earnings. The Ways and Means proposal would tax this stock of earnings, but at a lower rate, and use the revenues to offset losses from other parts of the plan, which would lead to a long-run revenue loss. S. 2091 has a similar approach. The Grubert-Mutti proposal does not have a specific transitional tax, but would raise revenue largely due to its disallowance of parent overhead expenses aimed at reducing profit shifting. The other two proposals also contain provisions to address profit shifting. In addition there are complicated issues in the design of a territorial tax, such as how to treat branches and dividends of firms in which the corporation is only partially owned. A number of issues arise from the ending of foreign tax credits, with perhaps the most significant one being the increased tax on royalties, which are currently subject to tax, have low or no foreign taxes, and would lose the shield of excess credits. The final section of the report briefly discusses some alternative options, including those in S. 727 and in the Administration proposals. It also discusses hybrid approaches that combine territorial and worldwide systems in a more efficient way, including eliminating the disincentive to repatriate. One such approach is a minimum tax on foreign source income, which is proposed by the President in the context of current rules, but could be combined with a territorial system.

Jul 25, 2012

The Lacey Act: Compliance Issues Related to Importing Plants and Plant Products

Jul 24, 2012

Cybersecurity: CRS Experts

Jul 23, 2012

Midnight Rulemaking

During the final months of recent presidential administrations, federal agencies have increased the number of issued regulations. This phenomenon is often referred to as “midnight rulemaking.” Various scholars and public officials have documented evidence of midnight rulemaking by several recent outgoing administrations, especially for those outgoing administrations that will be replaced by an administration of a different party. One possible explanation for the issuance of “midnight rules” is the desire of the outgoing administration to complete its work and achieve certain policy goals before the end of its term of office—what has been termed the “Cinderella effect.” Because it may be difficult to change or eliminate rules after they have taken effect, issuing midnight rules can also help ensure a legacy for a President. This may especially be true when a party change will occur in the White House. At times, certain rules issued during the last few months of an administration have been considered by some as controversial. For example, before President William J. Clinton left office, his administration issued energy efficiency standards for washing machines and a rule setting ergonomics standards in the workplace. Shortly before the end of President George W. Bush’s second term concluded, his administration finalized rules allowing states to determine whether concealed firearms may be carried in national parks and giving agencies greater responsibility to determine when and how their actions may affect species under the Endangered Species Act. On the other hand, a recent study for the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS) concluded that many midnight regulations were “relatively routine matters not implicating new policy initiatives by incumbent administrations,” and that the “majority of the rules appear to be the result of finishing tasks that were initiated before the Presidential transition period or the result of deadlines outside the agency’s control (such as year-end statutory or court-ordered deadlines).” The study cited some evidence of the strategic use of midnight rules to implement certain desired policies before leaving office, but in general, the study said that “the perception of midnight rulemaking as an unseemly practice is worse than the reality.” In the 112th Congress, companion bills entitled the Midnight Rule Relief Act of 2012 (H.R. 4607 and S. 2368) were introduced by Representative Reid Ribble and Senator Ron Johnson. The Midnight Rule Relief Act would establish a moratorium on the proposal or issuance of certain types of rules during the period between a presidential election day and inauguration day of a President’s final term in office. The law would only apply in cases “in which a President is not serving a consecutive term.” The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform reported H.R. 4607 on June 1, 2012. S. 2368 was referred to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs upon introduction. This report provides an overview of midnight rulemaking and discusses actions that recent outgoing and incoming administrations have taken pertaining to midnight rules. It explains how an incoming President could change or eliminate midnight rules, and provides options for congressional oversight of midnight rules. This report will be updated as events warrant.

Jul 18, 2012

Oil Sands and the Keystone XL Pipeline: Background and Selected Environmental Issues

This report looks at concerns about the Keystone XL pipeline. These include the need for a Presidential Permit, as the pipeline crosses and international border. Additionally, the report discusses specific environmental issues that the Keystone XL proposal raises.

Jul 16, 2012

Firearms at Army Corps Water Resources Projects: Proposed Legislation and Issues for Congress

This rport discusses issues for Congress regarding public safety and infrastructure security at water resource projects managed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Proposed legislation would bar the Secretary of the Army from promulgating or enforcing regulations that prohibit individuals from possessing firearms (including assembled or functional firearms) at Corps projects and instead require that firearms possession comply with state law.

Jul 12, 2012

Confirmation of U.S. Circuit and District Court Nominations in Presidential Election Years

In 2012, a presidential election year, an ongoing subject of debate in the Senate has been how many U.S. circuit and district court nominations should be confirmed by year’s end, and how late in the year the Senate should continue to confirm them. Senators have disagreed as to what guidance, if any, previous presidential election years provide to the Senate regarding these questions. They have differed specifically on whether slowing down, or stopping, the processing of judicial nominations at a certain point during this session of Congress, or after a certain number of nominees have been confirmed, would be in keeping with the Senate’s experience in past presidential election years. This report seeks to help inform the debate, by analyzing the number and timing of circuit court and district court nominations confirmed by the Senate in presidential election years from 1980 to 2008. The report compares the processing of judicial nominations during these years, using various quantitative measures, while relating its findings to the Senate’s processing of judicial nominations in 2012, as of June 30. Findings in the report include the following: The greatest and smallest numbers of circuit court nominees confirmed during a presidential election year in the 1980 to 2008 period were 11 and 2, compared with 5 confirmed thus far in 2012. Annual percentages of nominees confirmed ranged from 71.4% to 18.2%, compared with 41.7% confirmed in 2012, as of June 30. The greatest and smallest numbers of district court nominees confirmed in the 1980 to 2008 election years were 55 and 18, compared with 24 confirmed in 2012, as of June 30. Annual percentages of nominees confirmed ranged from 77.9% to 46.2%—the latter identical to 46.2% confirmed in 2012, as of June 30. Of 57 circuit court nominees confirmed during presidential election years from 1980 to 2008, most were confirmed in February (14.0% ), May (15.8%), June (21.1%), and October (14.0%). Of 280 district court nominees confirmed during presidential election years from 1980 to 2008, most were confirmed in February (11.8%), May (15.7%), June (20.0%), and September (11.4%). In the four most recent presidential election years, 1996 to 2008, Senate confirmation of circuit court nominees almost completely stopped after June 30, with 18 of 19 (94.7%) confirmed in the first six months of the year. In contrast, during presidential election years from 1980 to 1992, approximately 42% of circuit court nominees were confirmed post-June. In contrast, in the four most recent presidential election years,1996 to 2008, a greater percentage of district court nominees were confirmed in the second half of the year (45.7%) than were confirmed after June 30 in the four previous election years of 1980 to 1992 (35.4%). During the presidential election years from 1980 to 1992, the Senate confirmed circuit court nominees as late as October (in three of the years) and December (in the fourth year). By contrast, in the four more recent election years, 1996 to 2008, the Senate did not confirm a circuit nominee after July. In seven of the eight election years, the last district court nominee was confirmed in September or later. During the 1980 to 2008 presidential election years, the Senate annually confirmed an average of five circuit court nominees by the end of June, the same number as confirmed by the Senate in 2012, as of June 30. The Senate confirmed an average of 21 district court nominees by the end of June during the 1980 to 2008 presidential election years, compared with 24 confirmed by the Senate in 2012, as of June 30. Circuit court judgeship vacancy rates declined between January 1 and December 31 in six of eight presidential election years from 1980 to 2008. District judgeship vacancy rates declined in four of the election years. During certain election years, Senate confirmation rates appeared related to the rise or fall in judicial vacancy rates.

Jul 12, 2012

Department of Defense Implementation of the Federal Data Center Consolidation Initiative: Implications for Federal Information Technology Reform Management

This report discusses how the Department of Defense (DOD) is consolidating data centers in order to conserve energy.

Jul 12, 2012

Fish and Wildlife Service: FY2013 Appropriations and Policy

The annual Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriation funds agencies and programs in three federal departments, as well as numerous related agencies and bureaus. Among the agencies represented is the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), in the Department of the Interior. Many of its programs are among the more controversial of those funded in the bill. For FY2013, the House Committee on Appropriations approved H.R. 6091, a bill containing $1.16 billion for FWS, down 21.5% from the FY2012 level of $1.48 billion contained the Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 112-74, Division E, H.Rept. 112-331). The President requested $1.55 billion, an increase of 4.9% over the FY2012 level. Relative to the FY2012 level, reductions in the various accounts and most subaccounts ranged from 6.0% down to elimination, although four subaccounts were held at the FY2012 levels. No increases were approved. Other highlights of the bill include the following: $1.04 billion for Resource Management, by far the largest account in the FWS budget, and a reduction of 15.1% from the FY2012 level. Rejection of an Administration proposal to reduce funding for national fish hatcheries from $46.1 million to $43.2 million, despite a controversy over appropriate funding for hatcheries intended to mitigate other agencies’ water projects. $3.0 million for Cooperative Landscape Conservation and Adaptive Science, a reduction of 90.7% from the FY2012 level of $32.2 million. Elimination of funding for general land acquisition for national wildlife refuges. A focus on reductions in programs whose authorizations have expired or are expiring in FY2012. Funding restrictions or directives regarding wolves in Wyoming; hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting on federal lands; and management of certain captive-bred endangered game species. This report analyzes the FWS funding levels for the FY2013 appropriations bill. Emphasis is on FWS funding for programs that have generated congressional debate or particular constituent interest, now or in recent years. General efforts to reduce federal spending will encourage scrutiny of all spending, in FWS as in other agencies.

Jul 12, 2012

2012 Farm Bill: Changing the Treatment of LIHEAP Receipt in the Calculation of SNAP Benefits

Jul 10, 2012

The Article V Convention for Proposing Constitutional Amendments: Historical Perspectives for Congress

This report identifies and examines historical issues related to the Article V Convention, which allows amendments to be added to the Constitution via Congressional vote or votes by the people.

Jul 10, 2012

Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs

This report looks at ways that prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs), which maintain statewide electronic databases of prescriptions dispensed for controlled substances, can help to deter prescription drug misuse.

Jul 10, 2012

The Article V Convention to Propose Constitutional Amendments: Contemporary Issues for Congress

This report looks at how Article V of the Constitution allows Congress to propose amendments, specifically the process of organizing an Article V Convention, a method which has never been used and which is only breifly outlined in the Constitution.

Jul 9, 2012

Wildfires: CRS Experts

The following table provides access to names and contact information for CRS experts on policy concerns relating to wildfires. Policy areas identified include federal wildfire policy; long-term land use management; federal firefighting assistance; federal emergency management policy; federal preparedness system and response plan; hazard mitigation; armed forces and national guard assistance; supplemental disaster funding; and disaster insurance.

Jul 5, 2012

Flooding Events: CRS Experts

This table provides access to names and contact information for Congressional Research Service (CRS) experts on policy concerns relating to flooding events in the United States. Policy areas identified include impacts, response and recovery, mitigation, and federal financing.

Jun 27, 2012

Hydropower: Federal and Nonfederal Investment

This report discusses the changing energy and economic landscape, as well as the roughly 25 bills introduced by the 112th Congress regarding hydropower (the use of flowing water to produce electricity). Congress is examining numerous energy sources to determine their contribution to the nation's energy portfolio and the federal role in supporting these sources, including hydropower.

Jun 26, 2012

Guatemala: Political, Security, and Socio- Economic Conditions and U.S. Relations

This report provides an overview of Guatemala's current political and economic conditions, relations with the United States, and several issues likely to figure in future decisions by Congress and the Administration regarding Guatemala. With respect to continued cooperation and foreign assistance, these issues include security and governance; protection of human rights and human rights conditions on some U.S. military aid to Guatemala; support for the International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala; combating narcotics trafficking and organized crime; trade relations; and intercountry adoption.

Jun 26, 2012

FDA User Fees and the Regulation of Drugs, Biologics, and Devices: Comparative Analysis of S. 3187 and H.R. 5651

UPDATE: On June 18, 2012, the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions and the House Committee on Energy and Commerce distributed the text of an agreement that combined provisions of S. 3187 [ES], as passed by the Senate on May 24, 2012, and H.R. 5651 [EH], as passed by the House on May 30, 2012. The full House passed the new version by voice vote under suspension of the rules on June 20, 2012. On June 25, 2012, the Senate voted for cloture to limit debate on that bill, S. 3187 [EAH], the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act of 2012 [hereinafter referred to as “the agreement”]. The Senate is expected to vote on the agreement sometime the week of June 25, 2012. For information on selected features of the agreement, see the Introduction of this report. The Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions and the House Committee on Energy and Commerce have worked for more than a year developing Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-related legislation, versions of which both chambers passed in the last week of May 2012. S. 3187 (the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act) and H.R. 5651 (the Food and Drug Administration Reform Act of 2012) each include provisions that would affect the regulation of human drugs, biological products, and medical devices, along with several agency-wide administrative or miscellaneous items. Majority and minority committee leaders have expressed the desire to get a completed bill to the President before July 4, 2012. The impetus to the timing of these bills is that current authority for FDA to collect fees under the Prescription Drug User Fee Amendments (PDUFA) of 2007 and the Medical Device User Fee Amendments (MDUFA) of 2007 will expire on October 1, 2012, unless reauthorizing legislation is enacted before then. Member statements at committee hearings indicated no opposition to reauthorization and very little comment about changes to the current user fee programs. Because Members of Congress generally consider the user fee reauthorizations to be must-pass legislation—for example, the user fee revenue accounts for more than half of the agency’s human drug program budget—they have used these bills as vehicles for numerous additional measures. The introduction to this report highlights selected features of S. 3187 [EAH], the agreement, relative to S. 3187 [ES] and H.R. 5651 [EH]. The remainder of this report provides, in a series of 14 tables, comparisons of the provisions in S. 3187 [ES] and H.R. 5651 [EH], presented generally in the order in which they appear in the Senate bill, the first to be reported by committee. Each table addresses a broad topic (e.g., human device regulation) and is preceded by narrative discussing the policy and legislative context of the table’s provisions.

Jun 26, 2012

FDA Regulation of Medical Devices

Jun 25, 2012

Credit Union Commercial Business Lending: Key Issues for Legislation in the 112th Congress

Credit unions currently can make loans only to their members, to other credit unions, and to credit union organizations. In addition, there are restrictions in law on their business lending activities from which the credit union industry has long advocated for relief. Specific restrictions on business lending include an aggregate limit on an individual credit union’s member business loan balances and on the amount that can be loaned to one member. Industry spokesmen have argued that easing the restrictions on member business lending could increase the available pool of credit for small businesses. Community bankers argue that raising the business lending cap would allow credit unions to expand beyond their congressionally mandated mission and possibly pose a threat to financial stability. Legislation has been introduced in the House and Senate to raise the business lending cap for credit unions: H.R. 1418 and S. 2231, which are both titled the Small Business Lending Enhancement Act of 2011. Currently, the business lending cap for a credit union is 1.75 times of its actual net worth or 12.25% of the total assets of the credit union, whichever is less. The legislation would increase the cap to 27.5% of the total assets. A subcommittee of the House Financial Services Committee has held one day of hearings on H.R. 1418. Although “small business lending” appears in the bill title, the legislation does not contain firm size or loan size restrictions. The Small Business Administration (SBA) often uses the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s (FDIC) definition of a small-business loan as either a commercial real estate or commercial and industrial (C&I) loan of $1 million or less. If the bills were enacted as currently written, credit unions would be able to make all C&I loans—those fitting the FDIC’s definition and, in addition, those greater than $1 million. Hence, the legislation would allow credit unions to become larger competitors in the commercial lending market. It would not limit credit unions to making only small-business loans or to targeting their lending to small firms. Although the legislation would allow credit unions to possibly become important competitors with community banks, the differences in capital regulatory requirements may not necessarily threaten financial market stability or expose the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund, which is the federal deposit insurance fund for credit unions, to greater default risk. A comparison of capital requirements presented in this report shows that credit unions may hold less capital relative to banks for loans with maturities of five years or less, but they must hold more capital for loans of longer maturities. Recent evidence pertaining to the demand for small business credit appears to be mixed. Regardless of the current demand for credit, credit unions are likely to be just as cautious as banks when granting commercial loans given the slow pace of the U.S. economic recovery. Tight lending standards are expected to persist until the macroeconomic outlook grows more favorable.

Jun 20, 2012