CRS Reports

Federal Advisory Committees: An Overview

This report discusses Federal advisory committees, which are created as provisional advisory bodies that can circumvent bureaucratic constraints to collect a variety of viewpoints on specific policy issues. Advisory bodies have been created to address a host of issues, ranging from policies on organ donation to the design and implementation of the Department of Homeland Security. These committees are often created to help the government manage and solve complex or divisive issues.

Apr 16, 2009

Competition in Federal Contracting: An Overview of the Legal Requirements

This report describes the legal requirements pertaining to competition that presently apply to federal procurement contracts. Among other things, it discusses what contracts are subject to competition requirements; what constitutes full and open competition for government contracts; and what is meant by "full and open competition after exclusion of sources."

Apr 14, 2009

Legal Analysis of Religious Exemptions for Photo Identification Requirements

This report analyzes the legal issues associated with religious exemptions to photo identification laws. Although no lawsuits appear to have challenged federal laws with photo requirements, state photo identification laws have been challenged for several decades.

Apr 13, 2009

House Rules Changes in the 111th Congress Affecting Floor Proceedings

On the first day of the 111th Congress, the House agreed to H.Res. 5, which made several changes to House rules affecting floor proceedings. First, the House amended clause 6 of Rule XV to require that Calendar Wednesday only occur at the request of a committee. Calendar Wednesday is a rarely-utilized procedure that allows reported legislation, not otherwise privileged for floor consideration, to be called up by the committee of jurisdiction on Wednesdays. Prior to this rules change, unanimous consent was routinely granted to waive the Calendar Wednesday procedure. The House also added a paragraph to clause 1 of Rule XIX to grant the presiding officer the authority to postpone consideration of legislation. Under the new paragraph, if legislation is being considered under the typical terms of a special rule, the presiding officer can postpone further consideration to a time designated by the Speaker. During the 110th Congress, special rules usually included a provision granting the presiding officer this authority, and the addition of this paragraph to the standing rules makes such provisions unnecessary. The authority allows the presiding officer to postpone consideration even after the motion to recommit has been offered. In addition, the House amended House Rule XIX, clause 2(b), to allow 10 minutes of debate on any motion to recommit in order under this rule. Prior to this rules change, a straight motion to recommit, which proposes to send the measure back to committee without instructions, was not debatable. The rule was further amended to require that any instructions in a motion to recommit be to report back an amendment “forthwith.” It was previously in order to offer motions to recommit with instructions that did not propose that the committee report back “forthwith.” For example, Members could propose instructions that the committee hold hearings, or report back a measure “promptly” with an amendment. The primary procedural effect of a motion to recommit with any instructions other than to report back “forthwith” was the same as a straight motion to recommit: the measure would be returned to committee with no requirement for further action. Finally, the House removed from House Rule XX, clause 2(a), a provision that aimed to prohibit the presiding officer from holding a vote open “for the sole purpose of reversing the outcome of such vote.” The provision had been added at the start of the 110th Congress, but due in part to issues concerning its enforceability, its deletion was recommended by the Select Committee to Investigate the Voting Irregularities of August 2, 2007. At the start of the 111th Congress, the Speaker made customary announcements concerning House operations and the legislative process, with two modifications related to floor proceedings. First, the Speaker announced her endorsement of the existing process for closing a vote by electronic device. This announcement does not change long-standing practices for closing votes, but it states that the best practice is for presiding officers to rely on certification from the clerks that a vote tally is complete and accurate. Second, pursuant to authority granted to the Speaker over “general control of the Hall of the House” in House Rule I, clause 3, the Speaker announced that the chamber of the House should not be used for “mock proceedings on the floor” or “political rallies.”

Apr 13, 2009

Contingent Election of the President and Vice President by Congress: Perspectives and Contemporary Analysis

The 12th Amendment to the Constitution provides backup, or standby, procedures by which the House of Representatives would elect the President, and the Senate the Vice President, in the event no candidate for these offices wins a majority of electoral votes. Although this procedure, known as contingent election, has been implemented only once for each office since the amendment’s ratification, the failure to win an electoral college majority is a possible outcome in any presidential election that is closely contested by two major candidates, or which includes one or more additional major third-party or independent candidacies. Such a development would require Congress to consider and discharge functions of great constitutional significance, which could be complicated by the protracted and contentious political struggle that might stem from an electoral college deadlock. This report provides an examination of constitutional requirements and historical precedents associated with contingent election. It also identifies and evaluates contemporary issues that might emerge in the modern context. The 12th Amendment, ratified in 1804, provides that the House of Representatives will elect the President, and the Senate the Vice President, if no candidate receives a majority of electoral votes (currently, 270 or more of 538). Since then, each chamber has performed this function once: the House in 1825, and the Senate in 1837. The amendment requires that the President be elected from among the three candidates who received the most electoral votes; that each state casts a single vote for President; that a majority of state votes (currently 26 or more) is required to elect; and the House must vote “immediately” and “by ballot.” Additional precedents exist from 1825, but they would not be binding on the House in a contemporary contingent election. The Senate elects the Vice President in a contingent election, choosing one of the two candidates who received the most electoral votes cast. Each Senator casts a single vote, and a majority of the whole Senate (51 or more) is necessary to elect. The District of Columbia, which is not a state, would not participate in contingent election, despite the fact that it casts three electoral votes. Contingent election would be conducted by a newly elected Congress, immediately following the joint session that counts and certifies electoral votes. This session is set by law for January 6, but is occasionally rescheduled. If the House is unable to elect a President by January 20, inauguration day, the Vice President-elect acts as President until the impasse is resolved. If the Senate is similarly deadlocked, then the Presidential Succession Act applies, and some other official would act as President until a President or Vice President qualifies. Two relevant constitutional amendments were proposed in the 110th Congress: H.J.Res. 73 (Representative Brad Sherman), and H.J.Res. 75 (Representative Virgil H. Goode, Jr.). Both proposed to change the voting formula for President in a contingent election: instead of each state casting a single vote, each Representative would do so. Both bills were referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary, but no further action was taken. No similar legislation has been introduced to date in the 111th Congress. This report will be updated as events warrant.

Apr 10, 2009

Budget Reconciliation Measures Enacted Into Law: 1980-2008

This report identifies and briefly summarizes the 19 budget reconciliation measures enacted into law during the period covering 1980, when reconciliation procedures first were used by both chambers, through 2008, the last year of the 110th Congress.

Apr 1, 2009

Desalination: Status and Federal Issues

Mar 31, 2009

State, Foreign Operations Appropriations: A Guide to Component Accounts

This report briefly discusses the State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs appropriations legislation and then provides a short description of the various funding accounts as they appear in the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (P.L. 111-8).

Mar 30, 2009

House Committee Party Ratios: 98th-111th Congresses

Mar 30, 2009

The Budget Resolution and Spending Legislation

This report discusses the rules and practices that govern consideration of spending and other budgetary legislation under each congressional chamber's constitutional authority.

Mar 27, 2009

FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program: Overview and Issues

Since 1989, the federal government has spent over $96.1 billion for disaster assistance provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Over $4.4 billion of the disaster assistance was for hazard mitigation of natural disasters such as floods, wildfires, hurricanes, tornados, and earthquakes. The unpredictable nature of the location and scale of natural disasters poses a significant fiscal management challenge to Congress. To alleviate the federal costs of disasters, Congress amended the Disaster Relief Act of 1974 in 1988 (P.L. 100-707), which was renamed the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (commonly known as the “Stafford Act”), to provide federal assistance to mitigate the impacts from future disasters. Hazard mitigation activities are generally categorized as structural and nonstructural. Structural mitigation activities may include physical changes to a facility or development of standards such as building codes and material specifications. Examples of physical changes to a structure are retrofitting a building to be more resistant to wind-hazards or earthquakes, or elevating a structure to reduce flood damage. Nonstructural activities may include community planning initiatives such as developing land-use zoning plans, disaster mitigation plans, and flood plans. Other nonstructural community activities may include participating in property insurance programs and developing warning systems. Federal disaster mitigation assistance provides funding for both structural and nonstructural mitigation activities. A primary source of federal disaster mitigation assistance is the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP). Legislation introduced in the 110th Congress would have expanded allowances for the use of HMGP funds administered by FEMA in the Gulf Coast. Legislation introduced in the 111th Congress include provisions that would establish a homeowner mitigation loan program (H.R. 1239), provide a tax credit for mitigation expenditures (H.R. 308), and create a National Hurricane Research Initiative to improve hurricane preparedness (H.R. 327). Issues that Congress may wish to consider, in addition to eligible uses of HMGP funds, include the role of federalism in disasters, the lag between a major disaster declaration and expenditure of HMGP funds, the accuracy of risk assessment and disaster predictions, consolidation of hazard mitigation grant programs under a block grant, and disaster assistance to small businesses. This report will be updated as warranted by events.

Mar 25, 2009

U.S. Circuit and District Court Nominations: Senate Rejections and Committee Votes Other Than to Report Favorably, 1939-2009

This report lists the votes cast by the Judiciary Committee and the Senate on each of the 19 nominations and identifies senatorial courtesy, ideological disagreement, and concern over nominees' qualifications as among the circumstances that led to committee consideration of actions other than a favorable report.

Mar 24, 2009

The Donor-Donee State Issue: Funding Equity in Surface Transportation Reauthorization

Few issues in the history of the Federal-Aid Highway Program have raised such heated debate as the argument over how closely the program’s payments to the individual states should match the amount of federal highway taxes each state’s highway users pay to the highway account of the Highway Trust Fund (HTF). Referred to as the donor-donee state issue, it is expected to re-emerge during the debate over the reauthorization of federal surface transportation programs. The current authorization, under the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: a Legacy for Users (SAFETEA; P.L. 109-59), expires on September 30, 2009. “Donor states” are states whose highway users are estimated to pay more to the highway account of the HTF than they receive. “Donee states” receive more than they pay. The basic donor state argument is a relatively straightforward call for what they view as equity or fairness. Donor state advocates generally contend that for too many years they have been subsidizing the repair and improvement of donee state infrastructure, especially the older highway infrastructure in the Northeast. Donee state advocates argue that fairness is in the eye of the beholder and should not be separated from needs. They assert that the age of their highway infrastructure, especially in the Northeast, the high cost of working on heavily congested urban roads, and also the limited financial resources of large sparsely populated Western States justify their donee status. They further argue that there are needs that are inherently federal rather than state, and that a national highway network cannot be based solely on state or regional boundaries. A number of interest groups and State Departments of Transportation (state DOTs) are expected to propose that reauthorization increase the rate-of-return guarantee (currently 92%) and expand the scope of the statutory guarantee to cover more Federal-Aid Highway Program funding. This may be difficult to achieve in a tight budget environment. The Equity Bonus (EB) program, which is the principal means by which the rate-of-return adjustment is facilitated, is already the largest federal highway program. Others would restructure, modify or eliminate the EB altogether. The Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) donor-donee figures indicate that for FY2007 all 50 states were donee states. For FY2006 there were 41 donee states and no donor states fell below a 91% rate-of-return (based on a dollar in-dollar out calculation method). Some donor state advocates argue that this situation is anomalous and have argued for a method of calculation that relies on share percentages, rather than dollars, because this would eliminate the modifying effect of the recent drawing down of the unexpended balances of the HTF. Near the end of FY2008, the balance in the highway account of the HTF had fallen to the point that Congress provided for a transfer of roughly $8 billion from the Treasury’s general fund to the highway account of the HTF in the hope that the transfer would be sufficient to support the guaranteed funding authorized in SAFETEA for FY2009. This transfer of general fund monies has no connection to the transportation taxes paid by highway users to the HTF and raises questions about basing an equity guarantee primarily on the states’ shares of payments to the HTF.

Mar 19, 2009

The U.S.-EU Beef Hormone Dispute

Mar 19, 2009

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA, P.L. 111-5): Title V, Medicaid Provisions

The economy officially was considered in a recession in December 2008, but many forecasters had long recognized the downturn and some believed this economic contraction would be more severe than other post-World War II slowdowns. A combination of factors combined to present policymakers with difficult decisions on how best to stimulate the economy. Troubling instability in the housing and financial services sectors, weak auto manufacturing demand, and high energy costs earlier in 2008 had slowed growth dramatically and forced millions into unemployment. With declining tax revenue and increasing costs to provide unemployment and other benefits to unemployed workers, states were implementing measures to rein in spending, including restricting Medicaid eligibility and services. Congress considered legislation aimed at stimulating economic activity in selected industrial sectors to save existing and create new jobs, reduce taxes, invest in future technologies, and fund infrastructure improvements. In addition to reducing some taxes and funding infrastructure projects, ARRA provisions were designed to provide: temporary support to families and individuals by increasing unemployment compensation benefits; financial assistance for individuals to maintain their health coverage under provisions in the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA); temporary increases in Medicaid matching rates; and increases in disproportionate share hospital allotments. The House approved the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (H.R. 1) on January 28, 2009. The Senate passed an amendment (S.Amdt. 570) as a replacement for the House-approved version of ARRA on February 10, 2009. ARRA was referred to a joint House and Senate conference committee. The joint Senate and House Conference Committee reached agreement, and ARRA was passed by the House and Senate on February 13, 2009. President Obama signed ARRA (P.L. 111-5) into law on February 17, 2009. This report is a summary of ARRA’s Medicaid provisions. For more information on the Medicaid provisions included in House and Senate versions of ARRA, see CRS Report R40158, Medicaid Provisions in the House and Senate American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA, H.R. 1, S.Amdt. 570), coordinated by Cliff Binder. This report will not be updated. For further information on implementation of FMAP changes in ARRA, see CRS Report RL32950, Medicaid: The Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP).

Mar 17, 2009

Rothe Development Corporation v. Department of Defense: The Constitutionality of Federal Contracting Programs for Minority-Owned and Other Small Businesses

This report discusses Rothe Development Corporation v. Department of Defense, a case involving a constitutional challenge to a minority contracting program authorized under Section 1207 of the Department of Defense (DOD) Authorization Act of 1987. This program allowed DOD to take 10% off the price of bids or offers submitted by "small disadvantaged businesses" in determining which bid or offer had the lowest price or represented the best value for the government.

Mar 16, 2009

Electronic Employment Eligibility Verification

This report discusses E-Verify, a program in which participating employers submit information about their new hires (name, date of birth, Social Security number, immigration/citizenship status, and alien number, if applicable) from the I-9 form. This information is automatically compared with information in Social Security Administration and, if necessary, DHS databases to verify identity and employment eligibility.

Mar 13, 2009

Broadband Infrastructure Programs in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

Mar 12, 2009

Medicare Primer

This report provides an overview of Medicare, the nation's federal insurance program, which pays for covered health care services of qualified beneficiaries.

Mar 10, 2009

Filling U.S. Senate Vacancies: Perspectives and Contemporary Developments

This report provides information on current vacancies in the Senate, the constitutional origins of the Senate vacancy clause, the appointment process by which most vacancies are filled, and related contemporary issues.

Mar 10, 2009

The United Arab Emirates Nuclear Program and Proposed U.S. Nuclear Cooperation

This report provides background information on the UAE nuclear program, reviews developments to date, analyzes proposed nuclear cooperation with the United States, and discusses relevant legislative proposals and options.

Mar 10, 2009

Energy Provisions in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5)

This report discusses the energy appropriations in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA, P.L. 111-5). It includes background information, a summary of provisions, and detailed explanations of the relevant appropriations and tax provisions.

Mar 3, 2009

The Supreme Court Accepts Five Environmental Cases During Its 2008-2009 Term

In the Supreme Court’s 2008-2009 term, which likely will conclude in late June, 2009, the Court has accepted for argument five environmental cases—an unusually large number out of the roughly 85 cases accepted for argument. This report reviews the cases, decided and undecided, and then briefly comments. The one case of the five that is already decided is Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, holding that the national security interest in the Navy’s being able to conduct exercises using “mid-frequency active sonar” clearly outweighs the danger to whales from use of such sonar. In so deciding, the Court also invalidated the Ninth Circuit’s lax standard for the issuance of preliminary injunctions. The four cases remaining to be decided are, first, Summers v. Earth Island Institute, raising the question whether a court’s awarding nationwide relief from the application of a rule is proper in the context of a site-specific challenge to the rule. Second, the case of Entergy Corp. v. Environmental Protection Agency addresses the Clean Water Act’s demand that EPA require the “best technology available” to minimize fish mortality from cooling water intake structures; the issue is whether that demand allows EPA to do cost-benefit analysis in deciding what technology to approve. Third, the case of Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Alaska Conservation Group poses the issue whether a discharge prohibited by a Clean Water Act new source performance standard can still be allowed pursuant to a “fill” permit under the act. And fourth, the case of Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Co. v. United States takes on two questions at the heart of the Superfund Act’s liability scheme: when is there a reasonable basis for apportioning liability for hazardous-substance cleanup costs among responsible parties, in lieu of the joint and several liability that would otherwise apply, and when is a manufacturer liable for having arranged for the disposal of a hazardous substance even though disposal was not the primary purpose of the arrangement. Each of these cases has important implications for the particular program involved, and a few reach well beyond. Industry views these five cases with optimism; the environmental community with apprehension. A principal reason is that in all five cases, the environmental side won in the decision below. Assuming the conventional wisdom that the Supreme Court does not take cases merely to affirm the decision below, the environmental sweep in the lower appellate courts suggests decisions going the other way in the Supreme Court. The one decision so far, in Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, follows that prediction.

Feb 27, 2009

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the 11th Congress: Conflicting Values and Difficult Choices

This report discusses U.S. policy toward global climate change, which evolved from a "study only" to a more "study and action" orientation in 1992 with ratification of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

Feb 25, 2009

Intelligence Authorization Legislation: Status and Challenges

This report assesses the effects of the absence of intelligence authorization legislation since FY2005. Since FY2005, no annual intelligence authorization bill has been enacted. Although the National Security Act requires intelligence activities to be specifically authorized, this requirement has been satisfied in recent years by one-sentence catch-all provisions in defense appropriations acts authorizing intelligence activities.

Feb 24, 2009

The Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act

This report provides a summary and explanation of the provisions in the HITECH Act, which is intended to promote the widespread adoption of health information technology (HIT) for the electronic sharing of clinical data among hospitals, physicians, and other health care stakeholders. It gives an overview of prior actions taken by Congress and the Administrations to promote HIT, and briefly describes efforts by the 109th and 110th Congresses to enact comprehensive HIT legislation.

Feb 23, 2009

Carbon Tax and Greenhouse Gas Control: Options and Considerations for Congress

This report provides an overview of the fundamental choices involved between a cost (tax) and a quantity (cap) control instrument, including a discussion of policy tools that could be employed to bridge the gap between a carbon tax and a cap-and-trade program. It also analyzes the potential advantages and disadvantages of a carbon tax, discusses implementation issues for a carbon tax -- including where to apply the tax, at what level to set the tax, and options for distributing the tax revenues-- and provides conclusions.

Feb 23, 2009

Selected Health Funding in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

This report compares funding provided for selected Health and Human Services (HHS) programs in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) conference report (H.Rept. 111-16) with the recommendations in the House- and Senate-passed versions of H.R. 1. It also briefly discusses ARRA's provisions on HIT and comparative effectiveness research as they relate to the funding.

Feb 20, 2009

Presidential Records: Issues for the 111th Congress

This report analyzes President Barack Obama's first executive order (E.O. 13489), which rescinded E.O. 13233, and discusses its departure from the policies of the previous administration. Additionally, this report examines H.R. 35 and its possible legislative effects on the presidential records policies of the Obama Administration.

Feb 17, 2009

Water Infrastructure Funding in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

This report identifies funding for water infrastructure programs and projects contained in the legislation, including amounts in the House- and Senate-passed versions that preceded the conference agreement. Among the purposes identified in the legislation are preservation and creation of jobs and promotion of U.S. economic recovery, and investment in transportation, environmental protection, and other infrastructure that will provide long-term economic benefits.

Feb 17, 2009

U.S. Farm Income

This report discusses the aggregate national net farm income and the farm debt-to-asset status as reported by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). It includes an overview of income and expenses for calendar year 2009, income projections through 2018, the average farm household income, and information about farm asset values and debt.

Feb 13, 2009

Tax Cuts on Repatriation Earnings as Economic Stimulus: An Economic Analysis

This report discusses two prominent economic stimulus proposals -- H.R. 1 and S. 1, both titled the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 -- introduced in the 111th Congress. It focuses on the business tax incentives and related issues.

Feb 11, 2009

GAO Bid Protests: An Overview of Timeframes and Procedures

This report provides an overview of the timeframes and procedures in a Government Accountability Office (GAO) bid protest. A bid protest is a formal, written objection to an agency's solicitation for bids or offers, cancellation of a solicitation, or award or proposed award of a contract. Bid protests, especially those filed with the GAO, have recently received increased congressional scrutiny due to protests of high-profile awards and reports that the number of protests is increasing.

Feb 11, 2009

Foreign Aid: An Introduction to U.S. Programs and Policy

This report addresses a number of the more frequently asked queries regarding the U.S. foreign aid program, its objectives, costs, organization, the role of Congress, and how it compares to those of other aid donors. In particular, the discussion attempts not only to present a current snapshot of American foreign assistance, but also to illustrate the extent to which this instrument of U.S. foreign policy has changed from past practices, especially since the end of the Cold War and the launching of the war on terror.

Feb 10, 2009

Preserving Homeownership: Foreclosure Prevention Initiatives

This report describes the consequences of foreclosure on homeowners, outlines recent foreclosure prevention plans implemented by the government and private organizations, and discusses the challenges associated with foreclosure prevention.

Feb 9, 2009

Federal Land Management Agencies: Background on Land and Resources Management

The federal government owns about 650 million acres (29%) of the 2.27 billion acres of land in the United States. Four agencies administer 617.5 million acres of the federal land: the Forest Service in the Department of Agriculture, and the Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service, all in the Department of the Interior. Most of these lands are in the West, including Alaska. They generate revenues for the U.S. Treasury, some of which are shared with states and localities. The agencies receive funding through the annual Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations laws, as well as in various trust funds and special accounts. The lands administered by the four agencies are managed for a variety of purposes, primarily related to preservation, recreation, and development of natural resources. Yet each of these agencies has distinct responsibilities for the lands and resources it administers. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages 255.8 million acres and is responsible for 700 million acres of subsurface mineral resources. The BLM has a multiple-use, sustained-yield mandate that supports a variety of uses and programs, including energy development, recreation, grazing and wild horses and burros, and conservation. The Forest Service (FS) manages 192.8 million acres also for multiple uses and sustained yields of various products and services, including timber harvesting, recreation, grazing, watershed protection, and fish and wildlife habitats. Most of the lands are designated national forests, but there are national grasslands and other designations. Wildfire protection is an increasingly important activity for both agencies. The BLM and FS have several authorities to acquire and dispose of lands. The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) manages 90.8 million acres of federal land, primarily to conserve and protect animals and plants. The National Wildlife Refuge System includes wildlife refuges, waterfowl production areas, and wildlife coordination units. Units can be created by an act of Congress or executive order, and the FWS also may acquire lands for migratory birds. The National Park Service (NPS) manages 78.1 million acres of federal land to conserve lands and resources and make them available for public use. Activities that harvest or remove resources generally are prohibited. The National Park System has diverse units ranging from historical structures to cultural and natural areas. Units are created by an act of Congress, but the President may proclaim national monuments. There also are three special management systems that include lands from more than one agency. The National Wilderness Preservation System consists of 107.6 million acres of protected wilderness areas designated by Congress. The National Wild and Scenic Rivers System contains 11,944 miles of wild, scenic, and recreational rivers, primarily designated by Congress and managed to preserve their free-flowing condition. The National Trails System contains four classes of trails managed to provide recreation and access to outdoor areas and historic resources.

Feb 9, 2009

Nuclear Waste Disposal: Alternatives to Yucca Mountain

Congress designated Yucca Mountain, NV, as the nation’s sole candidate site for a permanent high-level nuclear waste repository in 1987, following years of controversy over the site-selection process. Over the strenuous objections of the State of Nevada, the Department of Energy (DOE) submitted a license application for the proposed Yucca Mountain repository in June 2008 to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). During the 2008 election campaign, now-President Obama lent support to Nevada’s fight against the repository, contending in an issue statement that he and now-Vice President Biden “do not believe that Yucca Mountain is a suitable site.” Under the current nuclear waste program, DOE hopes to begin transporting spent nuclear fuel and other highly radioactive waste to Yucca Mountain by 2020. That schedule is 22 years beyond the 1998 deadline established by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA). Because U.S. nuclear power plants will continue to generate nuclear waste after a repository opens, DOE estimates that all waste could not be removed from existing reactors until about 2066 even under the current Yucca Mountain schedule. Not all the projected waste could be disposed of at Yucca Mountain, however, unless NWPA’s current limit on the repository’s capacity is increased. If the Obama Administration decides to halt the Yucca Mountain project, it has a variety of tools available to implement that policy. Although the President cannot directly affect NRC proceedings, the Secretary of Energy could withdraw the Yucca Mountain license application under NRC rules. The President could also urge Congress to cut or eliminate funding for the Yucca Mountain project, and propose legislation to restructure the nuclear waste program. Abandonment of Yucca Mountain would probably further delay the federal government’s removal of nuclear waste from reactor sites and therefore increase the government’s liabilities for missing the NWPA deadline. DOE estimates that such liabilities will reach $11 billion even if Yucca Mountain opens as currently planned. DOE’s agreements with states to remove defense-related high-level waste could also be affected. If the Yucca Mountain project were halted without a clear alternative path for waste management, the licensing of proposed new nuclear power plants could be affected as well. NRC has determined that waste can be safely stored at reactor sites for at least 30 years after a reactor shuts down and is proposing to extend that period to 60 years. While that proposal would allow at least 100 years for waste to remain at reactor sites (including a 40-year reactor operating period), NRC’s policy is that new reactors should not be licensed without “reasonable confidence that the wastes can and will in due course be disposed of safely.” Current law provides no alternative repository site to Yucca Mountain, and it does not authorize DOE to open temporary storage facilities without a permanent repository in operation. Without congressional action, therefore, the default alternative to Yucca Mountain would be indefinite on-site storage of nuclear waste at reactor sites and other nuclear facilities. Private central storage facilities can also be licensed under current law; such a facility has been licensed in Utah but its operation has been blocked by the Department of the Interior. Congress has considered legislation repeatedly since the mid-1990s to authorize a federal interim storage facility for nuclear waste but none has been enacted. Reprocessing of spent fuel could reduce waste volumes and long-term toxicity, but such facilities are costly and raise concerns about the separation of plutonium that could be used in nuclear weapons. Storage and reprocessing would still eventually require a permanent repository, and a search for a new repository site would need to avoid the obstacles that have hampered previous U.S. efforts.

Feb 6, 2009

The Law of Church and State: Public Aid to Sectarian Schools

This report gives a brief overview of the evolution of the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment in regards to sectarian schools at all levels. It analyzes the categories of aid that have been addressed by the Court and also explains which categories have been held to be constitutionally permissible or impermissible, both at the elementary and secondary school level and at the college level. The report also briefly discusses H.R. 1 of the 111th Congress, economic stimulus legislation that includes provisions that would provide assistance to institutions of higher education for modernization, renovation, and repair of facilities.

Feb 5, 2009

U.S.-Vietnam Relations in 2009: Current Issues and Implications for U.S. Policy

This report provides an overview of U.S. relations with Vietnam, including policy issues, the economic and political situation in Vietnam, and a list of pertinent legislation.

Feb 5, 2009

U.S. - EU Poultry Dispute

This report discusses the European Union (EU) refusal to accept U.S. imports of poultry treated with antimicrobial rinses. Prior to 1997, when the prohibition took effect, U.S. exports of broiler and turkey meat to the 15 countries that then constituted the EU were reported to total nearly 32,000 MT with a value of $44.4 million.

Feb 4, 2009

Cuba: Issues for the 111th Congress

This report discusses the current political conditions of Cuba, as well as its relationship with the United States. In particular, the report focuses on U.S. policy regarding Cuba, including various economic sanctions, human rights issues, and foreign aid appropriations.

Feb 3, 2009

GAO Bid Protests: Trends, Analysis, and Options for Congress

This report is one of two providing Congress with background on the Government Accountability Office (GAO) bid-protest process. It analyzes (1) trends in bid protests filed with GAO, (2) the impact bid protests have in delaying contracts, (3) the most common grounds for GAO to sustain a protest, and (4) trends in bid protests filed against the Department of Defense (DOD).

Feb 2, 2009

Causes of the Financial Crisis

This report sets out in tabular form a number of the factors that have been identified as causes of the financial crisis that began in 2007. The left column of Table 1 summarizes the causal role of each such factor. The next column presents a brief rejoinder to that argument. The right-hand column contains a reference for further reading. Where text is given in quotation marks, the reference in the right column is the source, unless otherwise specified.

Jan 29, 2009

Bail: An Abbreviated Overview of Federal Criminal Law

In a criminal law context, bail is most often thought of as the posting of security to ensure the presence of an accused at subsequent judicial proceedings. The term itself is less frequently used now, however, due in part to the practice of release on personal recognizance, which is permitting an individual to pledge his word, rather than his property, for his future appearance. Moreover, today an individual’s release pending subsequent criminal proceedings is often predicated on conditions other than, or in addition to, the posting of an appearance bond, secured or unsecured. As a consequence, rather than speaking of bail, existing federal law refers to release or detention pending trial, to release or detention pending sentencing or appeal, and to release or detention of a material witness. This is an abridged version of CRS Report R40221, Bail: An Overview of Federal Criminal Law, by Charles Doyle, without the citations to authority, footnotes, appendices, and some of the discussion found in the longer report.

Jan 28, 2009

Bail: An Overview of Federal Criminal Law

In a criminal law context, bail is most often thought of as the posting of security to ensure the presence of an accused at subsequent judicial proceedings. Existing federal law affords the judge or magistrate four options which it places in descending order of preference. First, he may release the accused on personal recognizance or under an unsecured appearance bond. Second, if the judge or magistrate concludes that personal recognizance or unsecured appearance bond are insufficient to overcome the risk of flight or to community or individual safety, he may condition the individuals’ release on the least restrictive combination of fourteen conditions. Third, he may order him detained for up to ten days to allow for a transfer of custody for purposes of revocation of bail, probation or parole or deportation proceedings. Finally, under some circumstances, the judge or magistrate may order the accused detained prior to trial. When a defendant appeals following conviction, the judge or magistrate may release him on condition or recognizance, if the judicial official is convinced that the defendant poses neither a flight risk nor a safety concern and that his appeal offers the prospect of success. Federal law authorizes the arrest and detention or bail of individuals with evidence material to the prosecution of a federal offense. With limited variations, federal bail laws apply to arrested material witnesses. Federal bail laws make no mention of bail in extradition cases. The federal courts instead adhere to the principle announced by the Supreme Court over a century ago that “bail should not ordinarily be granted in cases of foreign extradition” except under “special circumstances.” This report is available in an abridged version—without footnotes, appendices, most of the citations to authority, and some of the discussion—as CRS Report R40222, Bail: An Abbreviated Overview of Federal Criminal Law, by Charles Doyle.

Jan 28, 2009

Alternative Fuels and Advanced Technology Vehicles: Issues in Congress

This report provides an overview of current issues surrounding alternative fuels and advanced technology vehicles.

Jan 27, 2009

Endangered Species Act (ESA) Issues Regarding Columbia Basin Salmon and Steelhead

The construction and operation of the Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) have reduced salmon and steelhead populations in the Columbia Basin. This report discusses the federal regulation of this system under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

Jan 26, 2009

Selected Issues Related to an Expansion of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS)

This report outlines some of the current supply issues facing biofuels industries, including implications for agricultural feedstocks, infrastructure concerns, energy supply for biofuels production, and fuel price uncertainties.

Jan 23, 2009

Proposed Funding for Education in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

This report provides a brief overview of the key provisions related to education programs that are or would be administered by the U.S. Department of Education (ED) that were included in the act under Title IX (Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education) and Title XII (State Fiscal Stabilization Fund). It also provides estimates of state grants for programs for which these estimates are relevant and for which data needed to produce the estimates are available.

Jan 22, 2009

The Unemployment Trust Fund (UTF): State Insolvency and Federal Loans to States

Jan 21, 2009