Search

The article focuses on the U.S. Congressional Research Service's it reports on design and features of U.S. paper currency. It describes the history of paper money in the U.S., it mentions the introduction of greenbacks during the Civil War and the establishment of the Secret Service Division to combat counterfeiting. It discusses the current design of U.S. currency, including the portraits featured on bills, and the three levels of security features to guard against counterfeiting.

The article presents questions and answers related to archival records of the U.S. Congress, including a description of archival records in the Congressional context, the laws and customs governing the records of Congress, and guidance on managing these records.

The article focuses on the management of historical materials by congressional offices and committees, with archivists preserving these files to benefit future Congresses and researchers. Topics include variations in recordkeeping rules for different office types, status of materials in Members' offices as personal property, and the closure periods for public access to House and Senate records, along with guidance from the House and Senate archivists on accessing and managing archival records.

The article offers information on the transcripts of interviews with more than 400 U.S. and other policymakers that were carried out between 2014 and 2018 by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction. It mentions the U.S. policies in Afghanistan often were poorly planned, resourced; and also mentions that anti-corruption, counternarcotics, and other mission priorities rarely fit neatly under one agency or department's purview.

The article focuses on the U.S. Congress might use the process of amendment exchange and proposing alternatives in the form of amendments, until both chambers have agreed to the same text. It mentions decision to use the amendment exchange route has procedural implications and opportunity that is generally assured on initial consideration of a bill or joint resolution. it also mentions amendments between the houses are not subject to the same procedures as conference reports.

The article discusses the force structure transformation initiative of the 2024 Army. Topics include reasons that U.S. Army has reorganized or transformed its force structure on several occasions, the transformation of the force structure of the Army on four major occasions since 2000, and potential considerations for Congress.

The article discusses the publication of peer-reviewed scientific papers in the U.S. for nanotechnology which is considered by some to be an indicator of a nation's scientific leadership. It notes the percentage share of the U.S. in nanotechnology papers, according to the 2005 report from the National Bureau of Economic Research. The increase in the number of papers in the periodical "Science Citation Index" related to nanotechnology discoveries is also noted.

The article discusses general and specific assistance provided by the U.S. government to automobile financing company General Motors Acceptance Corporation (GMAC), later renamed as bank holding company Ally Financial, during the 2008-2009 financial crisis. Assistance provided include Commercial Paper Funding Facility (CPFF) of Federal Reserve, Temporary Liquidity Guanrantee Program (TLGP) of Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP).

Two Senate rules affect the authority of conferees to include in their report matter that was not passed by the House or Senate before the conference committee was appointed. Colloquially, such provisions are sometimes said to have been "airdropped" into the conference report. First, Rule XXVIII precludes conference agreements from including policy provisions that were not sufficiently related to either the House or the Senate version of the legislation sent to conference. Such provisions are considered to be "out of scope" under long-standing Senate rules and precedents. Second, Paragraph 8 of Rule XLIV establishes a point of order that can be raised against "new directed spending provisions," or provisions in a conference report that provide specific items of appropriations or direct spending that were not committed to the conference committee in either the House or Senate versions of the legislation. The process for disposing of either a Rule XXVIII or a Rule XLIV point of order allows the Senate to strike "out of scope matter" or "new directed spending provisions" from the conference report but agree to the rest of the terms of the compromise. It is not in order, however, for either chamber to alter the text of a conference report, and therefore the process converts the text of the conference compromise minus the "new matter" or "new directed spending provisions" into an amendment. If the Senate agrees to this amendment, it is then sent to the House for consideration in that chamber. The points of order under Rule XXVIII and Paragraph 8 of Rule XLIV can be waived with the support of three-fifths of all Senators duly chosen and sworn (60 Senators if there is no more than one vacancy). A figure at the end of the report outlines the procedural steps for disposing of these points of order when they are raised against conference reports. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the U.S. Congressional Research Service report which provides an overview of election administration in the country. It mentions that election officials can take steps to help ensure that vote counting systems perform as expected, and one available approach is to try to prevent any issues that could affect reported outcomes. It also mentions that one tool officials can use to help check the accuracy of election outcomes is t known as a risk-limiting audit.

The article provides information on the Maneuver Short-Range Air Defense (M-SHORAD) system that is being developed by the U.S. Army. Details are presented on M-SHORAD requirements, variants or increments, fiscal year 2024 M-SHORAD budget request, and oversight considerations for the U.S. Congress such as the Russo-Ukraine conflict and the 2024 "Army Force Structure Transformation" white paper which proposes additional M-SHORAD battalions.

In the second half of the 19th century, the federal government pursued a policy of confining Indian tribes to reservations. The federal statutes and treaties reserving such land for Indian reservations typically did not address the water needs of these reservations, a fact that has given rise to questions and disputes regarding Indian reserved water rights. Dating to a 1908 Supreme Court ruling, courts generally have held that many tribes have a reserved right to water sufficient to fulfill the purpose of their reservations and that this right took effect on the date the reservations were established. This means that, in the context of a state water law system of prior appropriations, which is common in many U.S. western states, many tribes have water rights senior to those of non-Indian users with water rights and access established subsequent to the Indian reservations' creation. Although many Indian tribes hold senior water rights through their reservations, the quantification of these rights is undetermined in many cases. Since 1990, the Department of the Interior's policy has been that Indian water rights should be resolved through negotiated settlements rather than litigation. These agreements allow tribes to quantify their water rights on paper, while also procuring access to water through infrastructure and other related expenses. In addition to tribes and federal government representatives, settlement negotiations may involve states, water districts, and private water users, among others. After congressional approval, federal projects associated with approved Indian water rights settlements generally have been implemented by the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) or the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), pursuant to congressional directions. Approval and implementation of Indian water rights settlements typically requires federal action-often in the form of congressional approval. As of October 2023, 39 Indian water rights settlements had been federally approved, with total estimated costs in excess of $8.5 billion (nominal dollars). Of these, 35 settlements were approved and enacted by Congress and 4 were administratively approved by the U.S. Departments of Justice and the Interior. One new settlement was approved in the 117th Congress, and another existing settlement was amended. Additional new and amended settlements have been proposed in the 118th Congress. Historically, federal funding for settlements generally has been provided through discretionary appropriations; Congress also has approved mandatory funding for some settlements. The Reclamation Water Settlements Fund was created in 2009 under P.L. 111-11 as a source of additional funding for existing and future settlements. It is scheduled to provide $120 million per year in mandatory funding for settlements through FY2029, with the availability of these funds set to expire in FY2034. In 2021, Congress approved and appropriated $2.5 billion for another Indian water rights fund, the Indian Water Rights Settlement Completion Fund, in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58). Primary issues for Congress may include the cost, contents, and sufficiency of federally authorized efforts to settle tribal water rights claims, as well as the circumstances under which these settlements are considered, approved, and funded. Many have noted that the resolution of Indian water rights settlements is a mutually beneficial means of resolving long-standing legal issues. Although there is little opposition to the generally stated principle that negotiated settlements are preferable to litigation, in some cases the executive branch and/or other water users oppose individual settlements (or elements thereof). Other questions include how to manage cost overruns associated with these settlements and what entity should have primary responsibility for settlement implementation and oversight. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Most voting systems used in U.S. elections rely on computers in some way. The most computerized is the direct recording electronic voting machine, or DRE. In this system, votes are recorded directly onto computer memory devices. While DREs have been in use since the early 1990s, questions about their security and reliability were previously a relatively minor issue, even following the November 2000 presidential election and the subsequent congressional deliberations leading to the enactment of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA, P.L. 107-252). However, at least two factors led to a sharp increase in public concerns about DREs beginning in 2003. First, the voting accessibility provisions in HAVA promote the use of DREs, which have been the only kind of voting system that can meet the HAVA requirements to permit persons with disabilities, including blindness, to vote privately and independently. Second, potential security vulnerabilities with DREs were publicized as a result of several studies. Several bills have been introduced in the 109th Congress that would address these issues in different ways. In the public debate about DREs, there has been some confusion about what the problems and issues are, arising to a significant degree from the complexity of DREs and of elections in general. This confusion can lead to misperceptions about facts as well as issues and options for resolving them. Points worth noting include the following: DREs do have unique security concerns and have not been thoroughly tested in the scientific community. However, most election problems in 2004 were not associated with DREs. Security flaws in them are not known to have compromised any elections, and it is not clear how much of a threat those vulnerabilities pose to election integrity in practice, especially in comparison to other kinds of threats. The different models of DREs in current use vary substantially in design, and problems that one model exhibits may not occur in others. Many of those problems are procedural, not weaknesses in the technology itself. It is not clear whether the unique security problems posed by DREs are best addressed by requiring that they produce paper ballots or by other means. While paper has useful security properties and is well-known, other methods exist that might be superior. Furthermore, paper ballots used with DREs (called voter-verified paper audit trails, or VVPAT) are largely unproven and it is not clear how well they can meet HAVA requirements for accessibility or other goals such as usability. As Congress considers proposals relating to DREs, salient issues might include the lack of information about DRE security, especially in relation to other systems and other components of election integrity; potential conflicts with HAVA requirements that might be associated with the proposals; how those proposals might impact voter confidence; and what impacts they might have on future innovation. This report will be updated in response to major developments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses that fiscal policy and recovery from the Covid-19 recession in the U.S. It mentions the concerns about the spread of the Covid-19 pandemic and government policies aimed at limiting person-to-person contact. It also discusses the health concerns of the public and the stay-at-home and shutdown orders designed to limit contact reduced cash flow to businesses and increased the number of unemployed workers.

In the second half of the 19th century, the federal government pursued a policy of confining Indian tribes to reservations. The federal statutes and treaties reserving such land for Indian reservations typically did not address the water needs of these reservations, a fact that has given rise to questions and disputes regarding Indian reserved water rights. Dating to a 1908 Supreme Court ruling, courts generally have held that many tribes have a reserved right to water sufficient to fulfill the purpose of their reservations and that this right took effect on the date the reservations were established. This means that, in the context of a state water law system of prior appropriations, which is common in many U.S. western states, many tribes have water rights senior to those of non-Indian users with water rights and access established subsequent to the Indian reservations' creation. Although many Indian tribes hold senior water rights through their reservations, the quantification of these rights is undetermined in many cases. Since 1990, the Department of the Interior's policy has been that Indian water rights should be resolved through negotiated settlements rather than litigation. These agreements allow tribes to quantify their water rights on paper, while also procuring access to water through infrastructure and other related expenses. In addition to tribes and federal government representatives, settlement negotiations may involve states, water districts, and private water users, among others. Approval and implementation of Indian water rights settlements typically requires federal action-often in the form of congressional approval. As of March 2023, 39 Indian water rights settlements had been federally approved, with total estimated costs in excess of $8.5 billion (nominal dollars). Of these, 35 settlements were approved and enacted by Congress and 4 were administratively approved by the U.S. Departments of Justice and the Interior. One new settlement was approved in the 117th Congress, and another existing settlement was amended. Additional new and amended settlements have been proposed in the 118th Congress. After congressional approval, federal projects associated with approved Indian water rights settlements generally have been implemented by the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) or the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), pursuant to congressional directions. Historically, federal funding for settlements generally has been provided through discretionary appropriations; Congress also has approved mandatory funding for some settlements. The Reclamation Water Settlements Fund was created in 2009 under P.L. 111-11 as a source of additional funding for existing and future settlements. It is scheduled to provide $120 million per year in mandatory funding for settlements through FY2029, with the availability of these funds set to expire in FY2034. More recently, in 2021, Congress approved and appropriated $2.5 billion for another Indian water rights fund, the Indian Water Rights Settlement Completion Fund, in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58). The FY2024 President's budget request for Reclamation proposed additional changes in funding for these settlements. At issue for Congress is under what circumstances new Indian water rights settlements should be considered, approved, and amended, and to what extent Congress should fund existing settlements. Many have noted that the resolution of Indian water rights settlements is a mutually beneficial means of resolving long-standing legal issues. Although there is little opposition to the generally stated principle that negotiated settlements are preferable to litigation, in some cases the executive branch and/or other water users oppose individual settlements (or elements thereof). Other questions include how to manage cost overruns associated with these settlements and who should be in charge of settlement implementation and oversight. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the past half-century, in government and beyond, information creation, distribution, retention, and preservation activities have transitioned from a tangible, paper-based process to digital processes managed through computerized information technologies. Information is created as a digital object which then may be rendered as a text, image, or video file. Those files are then distributed through a myriad of outlets ranging from particular software applications and websites to social media platforms. The material may be produced in tangible, printed form, but typically remains in digital formats. The Government Publishing Office (GPO) is a legislative branch agency that serves all three branches of the national government as a centralized resource for gathering, cataloging, producing, providing, authenticating, and preserving published information. The agency is overseen by the Joint Committee on Printing (JCP), which in 1895 was charged with overseeing and regulating U.S. government printing. GPO operates on the basis of a number of statutory authorities first granted in the 19th and 20th centuries that presume the existence of government information in an ink-on-paper format, because no other format existed when those authorities were enacted. GPO's activities include the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP), which provides permanent public access to published federal government information, and which last received legislative consideration in 1962. In light of the governance and technological changes of the past four decades, a relevant question for Congress might arise: To what extent can decades-old authorities and work patterns meet the challenges of digital government information? For example, the widespread availability of government information in digital form has led some to question whether paper versions of some publications might be eliminated in favor of digital versions, but others note that paper versions are still required for a variety of reasons. Another area of concern focuses on questions about the capacity of current information dissemination authorities to enable the provision of digital government information in an effective and efficient manner. With regard to information retention, the emergence of a predominantly digital FDLP may raise questions about the capacity of GPO to manage the program given its existing statutory authorities. These questions are further complicated by the lack of a stable, robust set of digital information resources and management practices like those that were in place when Congress last considered current government information policies. The 1895 printing act was arguably an expression of the state-of-the-art standard of printing technology and provided a foundation which supported government information distribution for more than a century. By contrast, in the fourth or fifth decade of transitioning from the tangible written word to ubiquitous digital creation and distribution, the way ahead is not as clear, due in part to a lack of widely understood and accepted standards for managing digital information. This report examines three areas related to the production, distribution, retention, and management of government information in a primarily digital environment. These areas include • the Joint Committee on Printing; • the Federal Depository Library Program; and • government information management in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The 2007-2009 financial crisis led the Federal Reserve (Fed) to revive an obscure provision found in Section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 344) to extend credit to nonbank financial firms for the first time since the 1930s. Section 13(3) provides the Fed with greater flexibility than its normal lending authority. Using this authority, the Fed created six broadly based facilities (of which only five were used) to provide liquidity to "primary dealers" (certain large investment firms) and to revive demand for commercial paper and asset-backed securities. More controversially, the Fed provided special, tailored assistance exclusively to four firms that the Fed considered "too big to fail"--AIG, Bear Stearns, Citigroup, and Bank of America. In response to the financial turmoil caused by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the Fed reopened four of these broadly-based programs and created two new ones in 2020. Treasury pledged $50 billion of assets from the Exchange Stabilization Fund (ESF) to protect the Fed against losses in most of these programs. H.R. 748, referred to by some as the "third coronavirus stimulus" bill, was passed by the Senate on March 25, 2020. The bill would provide between $454 billion and $500 billion to support Fed liquidity facilities. The bill states that applicable requirements of Section 13(3) shall apply to these facilities. Credit outstanding (extended in the form of cash or securities) authorized by Section 13(3) peaked at $710 billion in November 2008. All credit extended under Section 13(3) during the financial crisis was repaid with interest. Contrary to popular belief, the Fed earned profits of more than $30 billion and did not suffer any losses on transactions authorized by Section 13(3). These transactions exposed the taxpayer to greater risks than traditional discount window lending to banks, however, because in some cases the terms of the programs had fewer safeguards. The Fed's use of Section 13(3) in the 2007-2009 crisis raised fundamental policy issues: Should the Fed be lender of last resort to banks only, or to all parts of the financial system? Should the Fed lend to firms that it does not supervise? How much discretion does the Fed need to be able respond to unpredictable financial crises? How can Congress ensure that taxpayers are not exposed to losses? Do the benefits of emergency lending outweigh the costs, including moral hazard? How can Congress ensure that Section 13(3) is not used to "bail out" failing firms? Should the Fed tell Congress and the public to whom it has lent?. The restrictions in Section 13(3) placed few limits on the Fed's actions in 2008. However, in 2010, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (P.L. 111-203) added more restrictions to Section 13(3), attempting to ban future assistance to failing firms while maintaining the Fed's ability to create broadly based facilities. The Dodd-Frank Act also required records for actions taken under Section 13(3) to be publicly released with a lag and required the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to audit those programs. Although Section 13(3) must be used "for the purpose of providing liquidity to the financial system," some Members of Congress have expressed interest in--while others have expressed opposition to--the Fed using Section 13(3) to assist financially struggling entities, including states, municipalities, and territories of the United States. Jeb Hensarling, former Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, contends that "Dodd-Frank tried but failed to rein in the Fed's emergency lending authority." Legislation was passed by the House in the 114th Congress (H.R. 3189) and 115th Congress (H.R. 10) that would have further limited the Fed's authority under Section 13(3). Then-Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen contended that such restrictions would "essentially repeal the Federal Reserve's remaining ability to act in a crisis." Current Fed Chairman Jerome Powell opposed further reducing the Fed's discretion under Section 13(3) on the grounds that the Fed needs "to be able to respond flexibly and nimbly" to threats to financial stability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the wake of what many believe is the worst U.S. financial crisis since the Great Depression, the Obama Administration has proposed sweeping reforms of the financial services regulatory system, the broad outline of which has been encompassed in a nearly 90-page document called the Administration’s White Paper (the White Paper or the Proposal). The Proposal seeks to meet five objectives: (1) “Promote robust supervision and regulation of financial firms”; (2) “Establish comprehensive supervision and regulation of financial markets”; (3) “Protect consumers and investors from financial abuse”; (4) “Improve tools for managing financial crises”; and (5) “Raise international regulatory standards and improve international cooperation.” The Administration subsequently offered specific legislative proposals that would implement each of the five objectives of the White Paper, including the Consumer Financial Protection Agency Act of 2009 (the CFPA Act or the Act). The Act would establish a new executive agency, the Consumer Financial Protection Agency (the CFPA or the Agency), to protect consumers of financial products and services. On July 8, 2009, Representative Barney Frank, Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, introduced similar legislation, H.R. 3126, which also is entitled the CFPA Act of 2009. H.R. 3126 was marked up and ordered to be reported by both the House Financial Services Committee and the House Energy and Commerce Committee. This report provides a brief summary of the Administration’s CFPA Act and delineates some of the substantive differences between it and H.R. 3126, as ordered to be reported by the House Financial Services Committee, as well as the version that was ordered to be reported by the House Energy and Commerce Committee. It then analyzes some of the policy implications of the proposal, focusing on the separation of safety and soundness regulation from consumer protection, financial innovation, and the scope of regulation. The report then raises some questions regarding state law preemption, sources of funding, and rulemaking procedures that the Act does not fully answer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the wake of what many believe is the worst U.S. financial crisis since the Great Depression, the Obama Administration has proposed sweeping reforms of the financial services regulatory system, the broad outline of which has been encompassed in a nearly 90-page document called the President's White Paper (the White Paper or the Proposal). The Proposal seeks to meet five objectives: (1) "Promote robust supervision and regulation of financial firms"; (2) "Establish comprehensive supervision and regulation of financial markets"; (3) "Protect consumers and investors from financial abuse"; (4) "Improve tools for managing financial crises"; and (5) "Raise international regulatory standards and improve international cooperation." The Administration likely will offer specific legislative proposals that would implement each of the five objectives of the White Paper. On June 30, 2009, the Obama Administration made available the first such legislative proposal, called the Consumer Financial Protection Agency Act of 2009 (the CFPA Act or the Act). The Act would establish a new executive agency, the Consumer Financial Protection Agency (the CFPA or the Agency), to protect consumers of financial products and services. On July 8, 2009, Representative Barney Frank, Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, introduced similar legislation, H.R. 3126, which also is entitled the CFPA Act of 2009. This report provides a brief summary of the President's CFPA Act and delineates some of the substantive differences between it and H.R. 3126, as introduced. It then analyzes some of the policy implications of the proposal, focusing on the separation of safety and soundness regulation from consumer protection, financial innovation, and the scope of regulation. The report then raises some questions regarding state law preemption, sources of funding, and rulemaking procedures that the Act does not fully answer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]