SEARCH THE HSDL
Set an Alert to get future results
Results 121591 - 121620 (of 135,632) sorted by relevance sort by date
Only 2/3! You are seeing results from the Public Collection, not the complete Full Collection. Sign in to search everything (see eligibility).
-
Tax Cuts on Repatriation Earnings as Economic Stimulus: An Economic Analysis [December 20, 2011]"From the start of the 112th Congress, reform of the current U.S. corporate tax system has been widely debated as an option to stimulate the economy. Most of the debate has focused on lowering the corporate tax rate and moving toward a territorial system. An exception to this approach is a plan to reduce the tax rate on repatriated dividends that has received some consideration. Under such a plan, the U.S. tax that U.S. firms pay when their overseas operations remit ('repatriate') their foreign earnings as dividends to their U.S. parent corporations would be reduced. Variations of this type of proposal have been introduced in several bills, including H.R. 937, H.R. 1036, H.R. 1834, H.R. 2862, S. 727, and S. 1671 in the 112th Congress. […] In the context of the current debate on stimulus, the use of the repatriations and not the magnitude of repatriations stimulated are likely to be the key to the proposal's effect on U.S. economic growth. This follows from two points. First, even if sizeable repatriations occur, the rate of return on U.S. investment will be unaffected by the repatriations. Assuming firms are not liquidityconstrained, it is possible that the bulk of the repatriations will be used as dividends to stockholders or used to pay down corporate debt. This scenario is especially likely for large firms.3 Second, when the repatriations occur, those that are denominated in foreign currencies will be converted to dollars. The corresponding increase in the demand for dollars would be expected to drive up the price of the dollar in world currency markets. As a result, U.S. net exports would be expected to decline from levels that would otherwise occur, and the repatriation holiday could contract rather than stimulate the U.S. economy."Library of Congress. Congressional Research ServiceMarples, Donald; Gravelle, Jane2011-12-20
-
Federal Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Program: Background, Funding, and Activities [January 13, 2012]"In the early 1990s, Congress recognized that several federal agencies had ongoing high-performance computing programs, but no central coordinating body existed to ensure long-term coordination and planning. To provide such a framework, Congress passed the High-Performance Computing and Communications Program Act of 1991 (P.L. 102-194) to enhance the effectiveness of the various programs. In conjunction with the passage of the act, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) released Grand Challenges: High- Performance Computing and Communications. That document outlined a research and development (R&D) strategy for high-performance computing and a framework for a multiagency program, the High-Performance Computing and Communications (HPCC) Program. The HPCC Program has evolved over time and is now called the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) Program, to better reflect its expanded mission. Current concerns are the role of the federal government in supporting IT R&D and the level of funding to allot to it."Library of Congress. Congressional Research ServiceFigliola, Patricia Moloney2012-01-13
-
Sourcing Policy: Selected Developments and Issues [February 7, 2012]"Dating back to the 1950s, federal sourcing policy generally has focused on the premise that the government should rely on the private sector for the provision of certain goods and services. Additionally, it has centered around guidance for conducting public-private competitions to determine whether federal employees, or contractor employees, should be selected to perform certain agency functions. The Administration of President George W. Bush, in particular, emphasized subjecting eligible agency functions to public-private competitions. Branding this policy, and related guidance, as competitive sourcing, the Bush Administration included it as one component of the President's Management Agenda. During the Administration of President Barack Obama, another strain, or facet, of sourcing policy surfaced. Labeled multi-sector workforce management by the Administration, it posits that federal agencies might be susceptible to overreliance on contractors, which could affect the ability of agencies to maintain control over their missions and operations. OMB's [Office of Management and Budget] July 2009 memorandum provides guidance to agencies on how to manage their multi-sector workforces. The Office of Federal Procurement Policy's Policy Letter 11-01--by providing a single, consistent definition of inherently governmental and guidance for identifying and managing inherently governmental functions, functions closely associated with inherently governmental functions, and critical functions--complements the Administration's multi-sector workforce management policy. This letter was issued in September 2011.[…]This report provides an overview of the evolution of federal sourcing policy to date and identifies the major policy issues before Congress. It is not a legislation tracking report. This report will be updated as events warrant."Library of Congress. Congressional Research ServiceHalchin, L. Elaine2012-02-07
-
Smart Meter Data: Privacy and Cybersecurity [February 3, 2012]"Fueled by stimulus funding in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), electric utilities have accelerated their deployment of smart meters to millions of homes across the United States with help from the Department of Energy's Smart Grid Investment Grant program. As the meters multiply, so do issues concerning the privacy and security of the data collected by the new technology. This Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) promises to increase energy efficiency, bolster electric power grid reliability, and facilitate demand response, among other benefits. However, to fulfill these ends, smart meters must record near-real time data on consumer electricity usage and transmit the data to utilities over great distances via communications networks that serve the smart grid. Detailed electricity usage data offers a window into the lives of people inside of a home by revealing what individual appliances they are using, and the transmission of the data potentially subjects this information to interception or theft by unauthorized third parties or hackers. Unforeseen consequences under federal law may result from the installation of smart meters and the communications technologies that accompany them. This report examines federal privacy and cybersecurity laws that may apply to consumer data collected by residential smart meters. It begins with an examination of the constitutional provisions in the Fourth Amendment that may apply to the data. As we progress into the 21st century, access to personal data, including information generated from smart meters, is a new frontier for police investigations. The Fourth Amendment generally requires police to have probable cause to search an area in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. However, courts have used the third-party doctrine to deny protection to information a customer gives to a business as part of their commercial relationship. This rule is used by police to access bank records, telephone records, and traditional utility records. Nevertheless, there are several core differences between smart meters and the general third-party cases that may cause concerns about its application. These include concerns expressed by the courts and Congress about the ability of technology to potentially erode individuals' privacy."Library of Congress. Congressional Research ServiceMurrill, Brandon J.; Liu, Edward C.; Thompson, Richard M., II2012-02-03
-
Lebanon and the Uprising in Syria: Issue for Congress [February 2, 2012]From the Document: "As Congress exercises oversight and prepares to consider programs for Lebanon in the coming year, some observers have expressed fear that Syrian instability may negatively affect Lebanon. Syria exerts a strong political influence on Lebanon and Syrian business interests remain prominent in the Lebanese economy. Both Lebanon and Syria have diverse societies where ethnic and sectarian groups compete and cooperate as they seek power within the confines of a rigid political system. […] Continued unrest could exacerbate all of these problems, while complicating sectarian relations in Lebanon, reshaping Hezbollah's strategic position, and contributing to regional instability. Although Syrian troops withdrew from Lebanon in 2005, Syria continues to exercise influence through its patronage relationships with members of the pro-Syrian and Hezbollah-affiliated March 8 governing coalition This coalition includes Hezbollah, the Shiite party Amal, the Maronite Christian Free Patriotic Movement, and the Druze-led Progressive Socialist Party (PSP). Its members have mostly supported the Asad regime since unrest in Syria began in early 2011, complicating Lebanese politics and Lebanese-Syrian relations. Despite these complications, many analysts agree that the major political players in Lebanon share a desire to insulate Lebanon from the unrest in Syria and avoid risking domestic conflict by dramatically upsetting the current Lebanese balance of power. However, the fractious nature of Lebanese politics makes discord likely; a small provocation could easily disrupt the tenuous peace. Increased unrest in Syria or dramatic regime change there may incite instability in Lebanon."Library of Congress. Congressional Research ServiceHopkins, Rebecca A.2012-02-02
-
China's Vice President Xi Jinping Visits the United States: What is at Stake? [February 6, 2012]"Chinese Vice President Xi Jinping (pronounced Shee Jin-ping) is scheduled to visit the United States in mid-February, 2012, returning Vice President Joseph R. Biden, Jr.'s August 2011 visit to China, which Xi hosted. The fact that Xi is the heir apparent to China's current top leader, Hu Jintao, who is scheduled to retire in the coming year, makes this more than an ordinary vice presidential visit. Xi's trip is designed to help him build relationships with American policymakers and legislators and introduce himself to the American business community and the American people on the eve of his becoming China's top leader. As important to the Chinese side, the trip could also play an important role in helping boost Xi's stature back home, where he is so far known as much for having a famous father, early Communist Party revolutionary Xi Zhongxun, and a famous wife, military folk singer Peng Liyuan, as for his own achievements. Xi is scheduled to meet with President Barack Obama at the White House on February 14, 2012. He will also spend time with his official host, Vice President Biden, and meet with Congressional leaders and members of the cabinet. Xi is scheduled to give a policy speech in Washington on February 15, 2012, and then travel to Iowa, a state that has seen its agricultural exports to China soar in recent years. In Muscatine, Iowa, Xi will reunite with people he first met in 1985, when he visited with a provincial animal-feed delegation. In Des Moines, he will meet with Iowa's governor, Terry E. Branstad, whom he also met on the 1985 trip, when Branstad was serving his first term as governor. The last leg of Xi's visit to the United States will take him to Los Angeles on February 16 and 17, 2012. There he will meet with Los Angeles Mayor Antonio R. Villaraigosa and California Governor Jerry Brown, attend a trade and economic forum, and take in a Los Angeles Lakers basketball game at the Staples Center. Vice President Biden will accompany Xi throughout his time in Los Angeles."Library of Congress. Congressional Research ServiceLawrence, Susan V.2012-02-06
-
Arms Sales: Congressional Review Process [February 1, 2012]"This report reviews the process and procedures that currently apply to congressional consideration of foreign arms sales proposed by the President. This includes consideration of proposals to sell major defense equipment, defense articles and services, or the re-transfer to third party nations of such military items. Under Section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA), Congress must be formally notified 30 calendar days before the Administration can take the final steps to conclude a government-to-government foreign military sale of major defense equipment valued at $14 million or more, defense articles or services valued at $50 million or more, or design and construction services valued at $200 million or more. In the case of such sales to NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization] member states, NATO, Japan, Australia, or New Zealand, Congress must be formally notified 15 calendar days before the Administration can proceed with the sale. However, the prior notice threshold values are higher for sales to NATO members, Australia, Japan, or New Zealand. Commercially licensed arms sales also must be formally notified to Congress 30 calendar days before the export license is issued if they involve the sale of major defense equipment valued at $14 million or more, or defense articles or services valued at $50 million or more (Section 36(c) AECA). In the case of such sales to NATO member states, NATO, Japan, Australia, or New Zealand, Congress must be formally notified 15 calendar days before the Administration is authorized to proceed with a given sale."Library of Congress. Congressional Research ServiceGrimmett, Richard F.2012-02-01
-
Africa Command: U.S. Strategic Interests and the Role of the U.S. Military in Africa [July 22, 2011]"In recent years, analysts and U.S. policymakers have noted Africa's growing strategic importance to U.S. interests. Among those interests are the increasing importance of Africa's natural resources, particularly energy resources, and mounting concern over violent extremist activities and other potential threats posed by under-governed spaces, such as maritime piracy and illicit trafficking. [...] On February 6, 2007, the Bush Administration announced the creation of a new unified combatant command, U.S. Africa Command or AFRICOM, to promote U.S. national security objectives in Africa and its surrounding waters. [...] As envisioned by the Department of Defense (DOD), AFRICOM aims to promote U.S. strategic objectives and protect U.S. interests in the region by working with African states and regional organizations to help strengthen their defense capabilities so that they are better able to contribute to regional stability and security. AFRICOM also has a mandate to conduct military operations, if so directed by national command authorities. [...] The 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in East Africa and more recent attacks have highlighted the threat of terrorism to U.S. interests on the continent. Political instability and civil wars have created vast under-governed spaces, areas in which some experts allege that terrorist groups may train and operate. The upsurge in piracy in the waters off the Horn of Africa has been directly attributed to ongoing instability in Somalia. Instability also heightens human suffering and retards economic development, which may in turn threaten U.S. economic interests. Africa's exports of crude oil to the United States are now roughly equal to those of the Middle East, further emphasizing the continent's strategic importance. This report provides a broad overview of U.S. strategic interests in Africa and the role of U.S. military efforts on the continent as they pertain to the creation of AFRICOM. A discussion of AFRICOM's mission, its coordination with other government agencies, and its basing and manpower requirements is included."Library of Congress. Congressional Research ServiceBlanchard, Lauren Ploch2011-07-22
-
Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment: Background and Congressional Options [August 3, 2011]From the Summary: "One of the most persistent political issues facing Congress in recent decades is whether to require that the budget of the United States be in balance. Although a balanced federal budget has long been held as a political ideal, the accumulation of large deficits in recent years has heightened concern that some action to require a balance between revenues and expenditures may be necessary. The debate over a balanced budget measure actually consists of several interrelated debates. Most prominently, the arguments of proponents have focused on the economy and the possible harm resulting from consistently large deficits and a growing federal debt. Another issue involves whether such a requirement should be statutory or made part of the Constitution. Some proponents of balanced budgets oppose a constitutional amendment, fearing that it would prove to be too inflexible for dealing with future circumstances. [...] This report provides an overview of the issues and options that have been raised during prior consideration of proposals for a balanced budget constitutional amendment. It will be updated as events warrant."Library of Congress. Congressional Research ServiceSaturno, James; Lynch, Megan Suzanne2011-08-03
-
Budget Control Act of 2011 [August 19, 2011]"The Budget Control Act (BCA) is the result of negotiations between the President and Congress held in response to the federal government having nearly reached its borrowing capacity. The BCA authorized increases in the debt limit of at least $2.1 trillion dollars (and up to $2.4 trillion under certain conditions), subject to a disapproval process that would likely require securing the support of two-thirds of each chamber to prevent a debt limit increase. It established caps on the amount of money that could be spent through the annual appropriations process for the next 10 years, which the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates will reduce federal spending by $917 billion. The BCA also created a Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction that is instructed to develop a bill to reduce the federal deficit by at least another $1.5 trillion over the 10 year period ending in FY2021. The legislation resulting from the joint committee recommendations can be considered under special procedures that prevent amendment and limit debate in both chambers. These procedures could have a significant impact in the Senate because they allow the bill to advance with simple majority support; under regular Senate procedures it can be necessary to obtain agreement among at least three-fifths of the Senate (normally 60 Senators) to advance consideration of legislation."Library of Congress. Congressional Research ServiceHeniff, Bill; Rybicki, Elizabeth; Mahan, Shannon M.2011-08-19
-
Human Rights in China and U.S. Policy [July 18, 2011]"This report examines human rights conditions in China, including the 2011 crackdown on rights activists and dissent; ongoing human rights abuses; recent PRC [People's Republic of China] efforts to protect human rights; and the development of civil society. Ongoing human rights problems in China include the excessive use of violence by public security forces, unlawful detention, torture of detainees, arbitrary use of state security laws against political dissidents, coercive family planning policies, state control of information, and religious and ethnic persecution. Tibetans, Uighur Muslims, and Falun Gong adherents have been singled out for especially harsh treatment. For additional, comprehensive information about human rights conditions in China, see the Congressional- Executive Commission on China, 'Annual Report 2010', and the U.S. Department of State, '2010 Human Rights Report: China'. [...] The United States government has developed a comprehensive array of policy tools aimed toward promoting democracy, human rights, and the rule of law in China, but their effects have been felt primarily along the margins of the PRC political system. U.S. government efforts to promote human rights in China have included sanctions; openly criticizing PRC human rights policies and calling for the release of political prisoners; bilateral dialogue; 'quiet diplomacy;' and hearings and investigations. The U.S. Congress has appropriated funding for democracy, human rights, rule of law, environmental, and other programs in China, including Tibet, and supported Internet freedom and public diplomacy efforts aimed at the PRC. Some policy makers contend that U.S. engagement with China has failed to produce meaningful political reform and improvements in human rights conditions. Other experts argue that engagement has helped to advance economic and social change in China, to develop social and legal foundations for democracy and human rights, and to open channels through which to directly communicate U.S. concerns."Library of Congress. Congressional Research ServiceLum, Thomas G. (Thomas Gong), 1961-2011-07-18
-
Economic Implications of the Long-Term Federal Budget Outlook [August 16, 2011]"Following the financial crisis, the budget deficit reached 10% of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2009 and 9% of GDP in 2010, a level that cannot be sustained in the long run. Concerns about long-term fiscal sustainability depend on the projected future path of the budget, absent future policy changes. While entitlement spending made little contribution to current budget deficits, the retirement of the baby boomers, rising life expectancy, and the rising cost of medical care result in projections of large and growing budget deficits over the next several decades. Social Security outlays are projected to rise from 4.8% of GDP today to 6.1% of GDP in 2035, and federal health outlays (mainly on Medicare and Medicaid) are projected to rise from 5.6% today to as much as 10.3% of GDP in 2035. These increases in spending are not expected to subside after the baby boomers have passed away. Without any corresponding rise in revenues, this spending path would maintain unsustainably large and persistent budget deficits, which would push up interest rates and the trade deficit, crowd out private investment spending, and ultimately cause fiscal crisis. To avoid this outcome, taxes would need to be raised or expenditures would need to be reduced. Altering taxes and benefits ahead of time would reduce the size of adjustments required in the future, if the proceeds were used to increase national saving. (Making changes ahead of time would also allow individuals time to adjust their private saving behavior.) National saving can be increased by reducing the budget deficit. But if the budget savings is subsequently offset by new spending or tax cuts, the government's ability to finance future benefits will not have improved. Individual accounts financed by increasing the budget deficit would not increase national saving or reduce the government's fiscal imbalance, and could exacerbate that imbalance over the 75- year projection."Library of Congress. Congressional Research ServiceLabonte, Marc2011-08-16
-
Earthquakes: Risk, Detection, Warning, and Research [August, 24, 2011]"The United States faces the possibility of large economic losses from earthquake-damaged buildings and infrastructure. The Federal Emergency Management Agency has estimated that earthquakes cost the United States, on average, over $5 billion per year. California, Oregon, and Washington account for nearly $4.1 billion (77%) of the U.S. total estimated average annualized loss. California alone accounts for most of the estimated annualized earthquake losses for the nation. A single large earthquake, however, can cause far more damage than the average annual estimate. The 1994 Northridge (CA) earthquake caused as much as $26 billion (in 2005 dollars) in damage and was one of the costliest natural disasters to strike the United States. One study of the damage caused by a hypothetical magnitude 7.8 earthquake along the San Andreas Fault in southern California projected as many as 1,800 fatalities and more than $200 billion in economic losses. An issue for the 112th Congress is whether existing federally supported programs aimed at reducing U.S. vulnerability to earthquakes are an adequate response to the earthquake hazard. Under the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP), four federal agencies have responsibility for long-term earthquake risk reduction: the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). They variously assess U.S. earthquake hazards, deliver notifications of seismic events, develop measures to reduce earthquake hazards, and conduct research to help reduce overall U.S. vulnerability to earthquakes. Congressional oversight of the NEHRP program might revisit how well the four agencies coordinate their activities to address the earthquake hazard. Better coordination was a concern that led to changes to the program in legislation enacted in 2004 (P.L. 108-360)."Library of Congress. Congressional Research ServiceFolger, Peter (Peter Franklin)2011-08-24
-
Funding Emergency Communications: Technology and Policy Considerations [October 4, 2011]"The United States has yet to find a solution that assures seamless communications among first responders and emergency personnel at the scene of a major disaster. Since September 11, 2001, when communications failures contributed to the tragedies of the day, Congress has passed several laws intended to create a nationwide emergency communications capability. [...] The 112th Congress is under renewed pressure to come to a decision about the assignment of a block of radio frequency spectrum licenses referred to as the D Block, and to provide a plan for federal support of broadband networks for emergency communications. The cost of constructing new networks (wireless and wireline) is estimated by experts to be in the tens of billions of dollars over the long term, with similarly large sums needed for maintenance and operation. Identifying money for federal support in the current climate of budget constraints provides a challenge to policy makers. The greater challenge, however, may be to assure that funds are spent effectively toward the national goals that Congress sets. [...] Legislation that has been introduced in the 112th Congress to address some of these issues includes the Public Safety Spectrum and Wireless Innovation Act (S. 28, Rockefeller), the Broadband for Public Safety Act of 2011 (S. 1040, Lieberman), the Broadband for First Responders Act (H.R. 607, King), and the Strengthening Public-safety and Enhancing Communications Through Reform, Utilization, and Modernization (SPECTRUM) Act (S. 911, Rockefeller, as amended), the Public Safety and Wireless Innovation Act (H.R. 2482, Dingell), and parts of Title II of the Budget Control Act of 2011 (S.Amdt. 581 of S. 1323, Reid)."Library of Congress. Congressional Research ServiceMoore, L. K. S. (Linda K. S.)2011-10-04
-
National Security Professionals and Interagency Reform: Proposals, Recent Experience, and Issues for Congress [September 26, 2011]"There is a growing consensus among many practitioners and scholars, across the political spectrum, broadly in favor of reforming the U.S. government interagency system to encourage a more effective application of all elements of national power. The reform debates have included proposals and initiatives to establish and foster an interagency community of national security professionals (NSPs) from all relevant departments and agencies. According to proponents, NSPs, through participating in activities that might include shared educational and training opportunities, and rotational tours in other agencies, would gain a better understanding of the mandates, capabilities, and cultures of other agencies. They would become better prepared to plan national security missions with counterparts from other agencies and to execute those missions at home and abroad, and eventually become better able to oversee their own agencies' efforts from leadership positions. [...] This report focuses primarily on analyzing key issues that Members of Congress may wish to consider in evaluating existing or proposed NSP initiatives, including the fundamental purpose; the concept of integration; the scope of participation; practical modalities for making the program work; the role of centralized oversight; incentive structures for individuals and agencies; recruiting; and congressional oversight. For context, the report also describes early NSP proposals; U.S. government strategic guidance; the experiences of the NSPD program to date; and significant congressional initiatives. It makes illustrative use of the military's Joint Qualification System, perhaps the closest U.S. government analogue."Library of Congress. Congressional Research ServiceDale, Catherine2011-09-26
-
Bahrain: Reform, Security, and U.S. Policy [October 18, 2011]"Protests that erupted in Bahrain following the uprising that overthrew Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak on February 11, 2011, demonstrate that Shiite grievances over the distribution of power and economic opportunities were not satisfied by relatively limited efforts to include the Shiite majority in governance. Most Sunnis in Bahrain believe the Shiite majority will be satisfied with nothing less than outright rule. [...] Possibly because of concern that a rise to power of the Shiite opposition could jeopardize the extensive U.S. military cooperation with Bahrain, the Obama Administration has not called for a change of the Al Khalifa regime and continues to meet regime leaders at high levels, although it has criticized governmental use of force against, and widescale arrests of, peaceful protesters and activists. There is a perception in the United States and in the Bahraini government that Iran, seeks to take advantage of Shiite unrest in Bahrain to bring a friendly regime to power and reduce U.S. influence in the Persian Gulf. In exchange for a tacit U.S. security guarantee against Iran and other regional powers, Bahrain has provided key support for U.S. interests by hosting U.S. naval headquarters for the Gulf for over 60 years and by providing facilities and small numbers of personnel for U.S. war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. [...] On regional issues such as the Arab- Israeli dispute, Bahrain has tended to defer to Saudi Arabia or other powers to take the lead in formulating proposals or representing the position of the Persian Gulf states, collectively. Fueling Shiite unrest is the fact that Bahrain, having largely run out of crude oil reserves, is poorer than most of the other Persian Gulf monarchies. [...] The unrest in 2011 has further strained Bahrain's economy."Library of Congress. Congressional Research ServiceKatzman, Kenneth2011-10-18
-
Intelligence Issues for Congress [October 20, 2011]"To address the challenges facing the U.S. intelligence community in the 21st century, congressional and executive branch initiatives have sought to improve coordination among the different agencies and to encourage better analysis. In December 2004, the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (P.L. 108-458) was signed, providing for a Director of National Intelligence (DNI) with substantial authorities to manage the national intelligence effort. The legislation also established a separate Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Making cooperation effective presents substantial leadership and managerial challenges. The needs of intelligence 'consumers'-ranging from the White House to Cabinet agencies to military commanders-must all be met, using the same systems and personnel. Intelligence collection systems are expensive and some critics suggest there have been elements of waste and unneeded duplication of effort while some intelligence 'targets' have been neglected. The DNI has substantial statutory authorities to address these issues, but the organizational relationships remain complex, especially for intelligence agencies that are part of the Defense Department. Members of Congress will be seeking to observe the extent to which effective coordination is accomplished. International terrorism, a major threat facing the United States in the 21st century, presents a difficult analytical challenge, vividly demonstrated by the attempted bombing of a commercial aircraft approaching Detroit on December 25, 2009. Counterterrorism requires the close coordination of intelligence and law enforcement agencies, but there remain many institutional and procedural issues that complicate cooperation between the two sets of agencies."Library of Congress. Congressional Research ServiceBest, Richard A.2011-10-20
-
Chemical Facility Security: Issues and Options for the 112th Congress [October 7, 2011]"The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has statutory authority to regulate chemical facilities for security purposes. The 112th Congress extended this authority through November 18, 2011. [...] The DHS is in the process of implementing the authorized regulations, called chemical facility anti-terrorism standards (CFATS). The DHS finalized CFATS regulations in 2007. No chemical facilities have completed the CFATS process, which starts with information submission by chemical facilities and finishes with inspection and approval of facility security measures by DHS. Several factors, including the level of detail provided to DHS and the availability of inspectors, likely complicate the inspection process and lead to delays in inspection. Policymakers have questioned whether the compliance rate with the CFATS is sufficient to address this homeland security issue. Key policy issues debated in previous Congresses contribute to the reauthorization debate. These issues include the adequacy of DHS resources and effort; the appropriateness and scope of federal preemption of state chemical facility security activities; the availability of information for public comment, potential litigation, and congressional oversight; the universe of facilities that are considered as chemical facilities; and the role of inherently safer technologies in achieving security goals. The 112th Congress might take various approaches to this issue."Library of Congress. Congressional Research ServiceShea, Dana A.2011-10-07
-
Intelligence Issues for Congress [October 5, 2011]"To address the challenges facing the U.S. intelligence community in the 21st century, congressional and executive branch initiatives have sought to improve coordination among the different agencies and to encourage better analysis. In December 2004, the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (P.L. 108-458) was signed, providing for a Director of National Intelligence (DNI) with substantial authorities to manage the national intelligence effort. The legislation also established a separate Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). [...] International terrorism, a major threat facing the United States in the 21st century, presents a difficult analytical challenge, vividly demonstrated by the attempted bombing of a commercial aircraft approaching Detroit on December 25, 2009. Counterterrorism requires the close coordination of intelligence and law enforcement agencies, but there remain many institutional and procedural issues that complicate cooperation between the two sets of agencies. Particular challenges relate to the protection of civil liberties that surround collecting information about U.S. persons. Techniques for acquiring and analyzing information on small groups of plotters differ significantly from those used to evaluate the military capabilities of other countries, with a much higher need for situational awareness of third world societies. U.S. intelligence efforts are complicated by unfilled requirements for foreign language expertise. Intelligence on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction was inaccurate and Members have criticized the performance of the intelligence community in regard to current conditions in Afghanistan, Iran, and other areas. Improved analysis, while difficult to mandate, remains a key goal. Better human intelligence, it is widely agreed, is also essential, but very challenging to acquire. Intelligence support to military operations continues to be a major responsibility of intelligence agencies. The use of precision guided munitions depends on accurate, real-time targeting data; integrating intelligence data into military operations challenges traditional organizational relationships and requires innovative technological approaches."Library of Congress. Congressional Research ServiceBest, Richard A.2011-10-05
-
Agriculture in Pending U.S. Free Trade Agreements with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama [October 6, 2011]"On October 3, 2011, President Obama submitted the free trade agreements (FTAs) with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama to the 112th Congress for consideration. The bills to implement these agreements will now be debated under trade promotion authority, or fast-track rules, designed to expedite congressional consideration. Liberalizing trade in agricultural products, particularly the pace of expanding market access for the more sensitive agricultural commodities, was one of the more challenging areas that trade negotiators faced in concluding each of these FTAs. In each instance, issues dealing with food safety and animal/plant health matters (technically not part of the FTA negotiating agenda) were not resolved until later. Of these three pending agreements, the U.S.-South Korea (KORUS) FTA would be the most commercially significant for U.S. agriculture since the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) took effect with Mexico in 1994. Because Colombia, one of the largest markets in South America, imposes a high level of border protection on agricultural imports, the Colombia FTA has the potential to noticeably increase U.S. agricultural exports. Though Panama is a relatively small market, U.S. exporters would have opportunities to make additional sales under that agreement. [...] Analyses suggest that the market openings could result in U.S. agricultural exports from $2.3 billion to $3.1 billion higher than they would be without these trade agreements. These changes would be concentrated in a few commodity/product sectors. In value terms, U.S. exports of beef, processed food products, poultry, pork, and wheat would be noticeably higher. Agricultural imports under these FTAs would be slightly higher compared to maintaining the status quo."Library of Congress. Congressional Research ServiceJurenas, Remy2011-10-06
-
Detainee Provisions in the National Defense Authorization Bills [December 8, 2011]From the Document: "The House and Senate bills competing to become the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2012 contain a subtitle addressing issues related to detainees at the U.S. Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and more broadly, hostilities against Al Qaeda and other entities. At the heart of both bills' detainee provisions appears to be an effort to confirm or, as some observers view it, expand the detention authority that Congress implicitly granted the President via the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF, P.L. 107-40) in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. H.R. 1540, as passed by the House of Representatives on May 26, 2011, contains provisions that would reaffirm the conflict and define its scope; impose specific restrictions on the transfer of any non-citizen wartime detainee into the United States; place stringent conditions on the transfer or release of any Guantanamo detainee to a foreign country; and require that any foreign national who has engaged in an offense related to a terrorist attack be tried by military commission if jurisdiction exists."Library of Congress. Congressional Research ServiceElsea, Jennifer; Garcia, Michael John2011-12-08
-
Economic Downturns and Crime [December 19, 2011]"The United States is currently recovering from a broad recession that is considered the longest-lasting economic downturn since World War II. The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) determined that the recession officially began in December 2007 and ended in June 2009, followed by a period of recovery. While NBER declared an end to the recession, it has not reported favorable economic conditions or a return to economic strength. The United States remains in a period of recovery--what some have characterized as slow and uneven. Various indicators of economic strength, such as the unemployment rate and foreclosures, reached their worst showings in decades during the recession and the following months. While some newspapers across the country have published stories linking the depressed economy with localized increases in crime, others have reported decreases in crime. The current state of the economy has continued to spark debate concerning whether economic factors can affect crime. Any increase in crime rates during a period of economic uncertainty could exacerbate an already difficult situation for communities across the United States. Congress has voiced concern over this issue and deliberated funding for federal programs that provide support for state and local law enforcement agencies. The 111th Congress passed legislation that authorized over $3 billion in funding for law enforcement assistance. Advocates of increasing funding for state and local law enforcement assistance believe that additional funding is needed for a number of reasons, including that crime rates tend to increase during periods of economic uncertainty and that state law enforcement agencies are facing budget cuts and may be forced to stop hiring new officers or filling vacated positions. Opponents of this funding argue that there is no documented link"Library of Congress. Congressional Research ServiceFinklea, Kristin M.2011-12-19
-
National Intelligence Council (NIC): Issues and Options for Congress [December 27, 2011]"The National Intelligence Council (NIC), composed of some 18 senior analysts and national security policy experts, provides the U.S. intelligence community's best judgments on crucial international issues. NIC members are appointed by the Director of National Intelligence and routinely support his office and the National Security Council. Congress occasionally requests that the NIC prepare specific estimates and other analytical products that may be used during consideration of legislation. It is the purpose of this report to describe the statutory provisions that authorize the NIC, provide a brief history of its work, and review its role within the federal government. The report will focus on congressional interaction with the NIC and describe various options for modifying congressional oversight."Library of Congress. Congressional Research ServiceBest, Richard A.2011-12-27
-
Landsat and the Data Continuity Mission [December 28, 2011]"The U.S. Landsat Mission has collected remotely sensed imagery of the Earth's surface at moderate resolution for almost 40 years. At present two satellites--Landsat 5, launched in 1984, and Landsat 7, launched in 1999--are in orbit and continuing to supply images and data for the many users of the information. A study organized by the Office of Science and Technology Policy (henceforth called the FLI-IWG study) noted in August 2007 that the two satellites 'are operating beyond their design lifetimes in degraded status and are subject to failure at any time. Because of fuel limitations, neither satellite is expected to operate beyond 2010.' However, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) FY2010 budget request, released in May 2009, said recent analyses 'have estimated the Landsat-7 mission should continue to operate through at least the end of 2012.' In November 2011, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) announced that it had stopped acquiring data from Landsat 5 because of deteriorating electronic components. […] Landsat has been used in a wide variety of applications, including climate research, natural resources management, commercial and municipal land development, public safety, homeland security and natural disaster management, among others. Landsat stakeholders include (1) investigators in geophysical and atmospheric sciences; (2) decision makers and program managers at NASA, USGS, and other federal agencies, including land management agencies; (3) international government and military decision makers; (4) for-profit enhanced Landsat products distributors; and (5) consumers of commercial land surface imagery and environmental data."Library of Congress. Congressional Research ServiceBehrens, Carl E.2011-12-28
-
El Salvador: Political, Economic, and Social Conditions and U.S. Relations [January 11, 2012]"Throughout the last few decades, the United States has maintained a strong interest in El Salvador, a small Central American country with a population of 6 million. During the 1980s, El Salvador was the largest recipient of U.S. aid in Latin America as its government struggled against the leftist Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front (FMLN) insurgency during a 12- year civil war. A peace accord negotiated in 1992 brought the war to an end and formally assimilated the FMLN into the political process as a political party. After the peace accords were signed, U.S. involvement shifted toward helping successive Nationalist Republican Alliance (ARENA) governments rebuild democracy and implement market-friendly economic reforms. [...] Maintaining close ties with the United States has been a primary foreign policy goal of successive Salvadoran governments, including the Funes Administration. During a March 2011 visit to El Salvador, President Barack Obama praised President Funes' 'courageous work to overcome old divisions in Salvadoran society and to show that progress comes through pragmatism.' Both leaders pledged to work together to boost economic growth in El Salvador through the new Partnerships for Growth initiative and to more effectively ensure citizen security. U.S. bilateral assistance, which totaled $29.8 million in FY2011, as well as aid provided through the Central American Regional Security Initiative (CARSI) and the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), is supporting those goals. The U.S. government has also provided more than $605,000 in emergency assistance in response to the recent floods. The Administration requested $35.5 million in aid for El Salvador for FY2012. The amount of funding included for El Salvador in the FY2012 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 112-74) is not yet available. However, in H.Rept. 112-331, the conferees stated their expectation that additional bilateral assistance and International Disaster Assistance be provided to El Salvador for flood relief and reconstruction."Library of Congress. Congressional Research ServiceSeelke, Clare Ribando2012-01-11
-
Defense: FY2012 Budget Request, Authorization and Appropriations [February 13, 2012]"President Obama's FY2012 [Fiscal Year 2012] budget request, sent to Congress on February 14, 2011, included $670.9 billion in discretionary budget authority for the Department of Defense (DOD), of which $553.1 billion was for the so-called 'base budget' of the department (that is, the cost of routine, peacetime operations excluding the cost of ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan). The remaining $117.8 billion in the DOD budget request was to cover the cost of so-called 'overseas contingency operations (OCO),' including operations in those two countries. However, the Budget Control Act (BCA) enacted in early August 2011 set ceilings on FY2012 discretionary budget authority that required a reduction of $35.7 billion from the total requested for so-called 'security agencies'--a category that includes the DOD base budget, the Departments of Veterans Affairs, Homeland Security, and State as well as the Energy Department's Nuclear National Security Agency and the international activities of other agencies. Before the BCA was enacted, the House had passed its version of the FY2012 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 1540), which would have authorized $1.8 billion more than was requested for DOD in February. The bill was passed on May 26, 2011 by a vote of 322-96. Also prior to the enactment of the BCA, the Senate Armed Services Committee reported on June 22, 2011 an initial version of the authorization act (S. 1253) which would have authorized $6.4 billion less that the Administration requested for FY2012. To take account of the BCA-mandated reduction, the Senate Armed Services Committee approved on November 15, 2011 a second version of the FY2012 authorization bill (S. 1867) that would have reduced the FY2012 national defense authorization by a total of $27.3 billion. After debating that bill, the Senate passed the text of it on December 1, 2011 as an amended version of the House-passed H.R. 1540. The conference report on the FY2012 authorization bill, which cut the President's request by $26.6 billion, was adopted by the House on December 14 and the by Senate on December 15. The President signed H.R. 1540 on December 31, 2011 (P.L. 112-81)."Library of Congress. Congressional Research ServiceTowell, Pat2012-02-13
-
Organized Crime: An Evolving Challenge for U.S. Law Enforcement [January 6, 2012]"In the last two decades, organized crime has grown more complex, posing evolving challenges for U.S. federal law enforcement. These criminals have transformed their operations in ways that broaden their reach and make it harder for law enforcement to combat them. They have adopted more-networked structural models, internationalized their operations, and grown more tech savvy. They are a significant challenge to U.S. law enforcement. Modern organized criminals often prefer cellular or networked structural models for their flexibility and avoid the hierarchies that previously governed more traditional organized crime groups such as the Cosa Nostra. Fluid network structures make it harder for law enforcement to infiltrate, disrupt, and dismantle conspiracies. Many 21st century organized crime groups opportunistically form around specific, short-term schemes and may outsource portions of their operations rather than keeping it all 'in-house.' [...] Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, there has been a shift in law enforcement attention and resources toward counterterrorism-related activities and away from traditional crime fighting activities including the investigation of organized crime. Although the effects of organized crime may not be seen in a consolidated attack resulting in the physical loss of life, they are far-reaching--impacting economic stability, public health and safety, as well as national security. In July 2011, the Obama Administration issued its Strategy to Combat Transnational Organized Crime. It addresses the fact that federal investigation of organized crime matters has not historically been a centralized effort. Regardless, there still is no single agency charged with investigating organized crime in the way the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has been designated the lead investigative agency for terrorism. Further, resources to tackle this issue are divided among many federal agencies. As such, Congress may exert its oversight authority regarding the federal coordination of organized crime investigations via the 2011 strategy. Policymakers may also debate the efficacy of current resources appropriated to combat organized crime."Library of Congress. Congressional Research ServiceFinklea, Kristin M.; Bjelopera, Jerome P.2012-01-06
-
Conventional Prompt Global Strike and Long-Range Ballistic Missiles: Background and Issues [February 13, 2012]"Prompt global strike (PGS) would allow the United States to strike targets anywhere on Earth with conventional weapons in as little as an hour. This capability may bolster U.S. efforts to deter and defeat adversaries by allowing the United States to attack high-value targets or 'fleeting targets' at the start of or during a conflict. Congress has generally supported the PGS mission, but it has restricted funding and suggested some changes in funding for specific programs. Many analysts believe that the United States should use long-range ballistic missiles armed with conventional warheads for the PGS mission. These weapons would not substitute for nuclear weapons in the U.S. war plan but would, instead, provide a 'niche' capability, with a small number of weapons directed against select, critical targets, which might expand the range of U.S. conventional options. Some analysts, however, have raised concerns about the possibility that U.S. adversaries might misinterpret the launch of a missile with conventional warheads and conclude that the missiles carry nuclear weapons. DOD [Department of Defense] is considering a number of systems that might provide the United States with long-range strike capabilities. [...] When Congress reviews the budget requests for CPGS [conventional prompt global strike] weapons, it may question DOD's rationale for the mission, reviewing whether the United States might have to attack targets promptly at the start of or during a conflict, when it could not rely on forward-based land or naval forces. It might also review whether this capability would reduce U.S. reliance on nuclear weapons or whether, as some critics have asserted, it might upset stability and possibly increase the risk of a nuclear response to a U.S. attack. This risk derives, in part, from the possibility that nations detecting the launch of a U.S. PGS weapon would not be able to determine whether the weapon carried a nuclear or conventional warhead. Congress has raised concerns about this possibility in the past."Library of Congress. Congressional Research ServiceWoolf, Amy F.2012-02-13
-
Keeping America's Pipelines Safe and Secure: Key Issues for Congress [February 13, 2012]"Nearly half a million miles of pipeline transporting natural gas, oil, and other hazardous liquids crisscross the United States. While an efficient and fundamentally safe means of transport, many pipelines carry materials with the potential to cause public injury and environmental damage. The nation's pipeline networks are also widespread and vulnerable to accidents and terrorist attack. Recent pipeline accidents in Marshall, MI, San Bruno, CA, Allentown, PA, and Laurel, MT, have heightened congressional concern about pipeline risks and drawn criticism from the National Transportation Safety Board. Both government and industry have taken numerous steps to improve pipeline safety and security over the last 10 years. Nonetheless, while many stakeholders agree that federal pipeline safety programs have been on the right track, the spate of recent pipeline incidents suggest there continues to be significant room for improvement. Likewise, the threat of terrorist attack remains a concern. The federal pipeline safety program is authorized through the fiscal year ending September 30, 2015, under the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-90) which was signed by President Obama on January 3, 2012. The act contains a broad range of provisions addressing pipeline safety and security. Among the most significant are provisions that could increase the number of federal pipeline safety inspectors, require automatic shutoff valves for transmission pipelines, mandate verification of maximum allowable operating pressure for gas transmission pipelines, increase civil penalties for pipeline safety violations, and mandate reviews of diluted bitumen pipeline regulation. The Transportation Security Administration Authorization Act of 2011 (H.R. 3011) would mandate a study regarding the relative roles and responsibilities of the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Transportation with respect to pipeline security. As it oversees the federal pipeline safety program and the federal role in pipeline security, Congress may wish to assess how the various elements of U.S. pipeline safety and security fit together in the nation's overall strategy to protect transportation infrastructure. Pipeline safety and security necessarily involve many groups: federal agencies, oil and gas pipeline associations, large and small pipeline operators, and local communities. Reviewing how these groups work together to achieve common goals could be an oversight challenge for Congress."Library of Congress. Congressional Research ServiceParfomak, Paul W.2012-02-13
-
Discretionary Budget Authority by Subfunction: An Overview [February 14, 2012]"President Obama's FY2013 [Fiscal Year 2013] budget submission was released on February 13, 2012. This report provides a graphical overview of historical trends in discretionary budget authority (BA) from FY1976 through FY2011, enacted levels for FY2012 spending, and the levels consistent with the President's proposals for FY2013 through FY2017. Spending caps and budget enforcement mechanisms established in the Budget Control Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-25; BCA) will probably strongly affect the FY2013 budget cycle. The BCA was signed into law on August 2, 2011, after months of intense negotiations over alternative plans to reduce the deficit and raise the debt limit. As the 112th Congress considers funding levels for FY2013 and beyond, past spending trends may prove useful in framing policy discussions. For example, rapid growth in national defense and other security spending in the past decade has played an important role in fiscal discussions. The sharp increases in federal spending on education, energy, and other areas funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA; P.L. 111-5) have been noted in recent budget debates. Since FY2010, however, base defense discretionary spending has been held flat and nondefense discretionary spending has been reduced significantly. The base defense budget excludes war funding (Overseas Contingency Operations). This report may provide a starting point for discussions about spending trends and federal priorities, but it does not attempt to explain spending patterns in each policy area. Other CRS [Congressional Research Services] products, however, can provide insights into those spending trends in specific functional areas."Library of Congress. Congressional Research ServiceAustin, D. Andrew2012-02-14