http://opencrs.cdt.org Congressional Research Service reports and issue briefs recently added to the Open CRS database en http://opencrs.cdt.org/document/RL34475 Legislation that would repeal or otherwise provide for a summer-long moratorium of federal transportation fuel taxes has been introduced in the 110th Congress. Simultaneously, Senators McCain and Clinton are proposing a summer fuel tax collection moratorium as part of their Presidential campaigns. Fuel prices have risen rapidly in 2008 for a variety of reasons. Those seeking to alter federal fuel tax collection are doing so in the belief that a reduction in fuel taxes would give Americans a modest level of economic relief from high pump prices. Current market conditions and the marginal amount of tax relief incorporated in most proposals, however, raise uncertainty as to whether prices to individuals and businesses would fall and whether any price decline would be meaningful to consumers in economic terms. Also of concern is the possible impact of any repeal or moratorium on the overall federal budget deficit. A reduction in transportation fuel taxes would result in a decrease in spending for Highway Trust Fund-supported federal programs, unless Congress designated alternate sources of funding for these programs. As a result of the structure of the federal programs, the effects of a fuel tax repeal on federal transportation programs would not necessarily be immediate, but depending on the length and scope of the repeal or suspension, they could be substantial. Thu, 08 May 2008 22:08:59 GMT http://opencrs.cdt.org/document/RL34475 http://opencrs.cdt.org/document/RL34474 Prices for nearly all major U.S. agricultural program crops -- corn, barley, sorghum, oats, wheat, rice, and soybeans -- have exhibited extreme price volatility since mid-2007, while rising to record or near-record levels in early 2008. Several international organizations have announced that the sharply rising commodity prices are likely to have dire consequences for the world's vulnerable populations, particularly in import-dependent, less developed nations. In the United States, high commodity prices have pushed farm income to successive annual records and have sharply lowered government farm program costs, but they have also stoked the flames of food price inflation and have raised costs for livestock producers and food processors. In addition, high, unexpectedly volatile prices have increased the risk and costs associated with grain merchandising. In particular, they have dramatically increased the cost of routine hedging activities (i.e., pricing commodities for purchase, delivery, or use at some future date) at commodity futures exchanges and, as a result, have diminished "forward contracting" opportunities for grain and oilseed producers who are eager to take advantage of record high market prices. For some crops (particularly for wheat and rice), the price increases are likely to be relatively short-term in nature and are due to weather-related crop shortfalls in major producer and consumer countries, a weak U.S. dollar that has helped spark large increases in U.S. exports, a bidding war among major U.S. crops for land in the months leading up to spring planting in 2008, and the often perverse price effects resulting from international policy responses by several major exporting and importing nations to protect their domestic markets. Assuming a return to normal weather, these factors will likely self-correct within two growing seasons as global supplies are replenished and prices moderate. For coarse grains (corn, sorghum, barley, oats, and rye), oilseeds, and oilseed products (e.g., vegetable oil and meal), the price increases have also been due to strong, sustained demand deriving from two sources: robust income growth in developing countries (e.g., China and India), which has contributed to increased demand for meat products and the feed grains needed to produce that meat; and growing agricultural feedstock demand to meet large increases in government biofuel-usage mandates or goals in the United States, the European Union, and other countries. Market analysts, including the United Nations' Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), are predicting record global grain and oilseed production in 2008 in response to the high market prices. However, given the overall strength in demand growth, most market analysts predict that when commodity supplies eventually recover and prices moderate from current high levels, the new equilibrium prices will be significantly higher than has traditionally been observed during periods of market balance. This report examines the causes, consequences, and outlook for prices of the major U.S. program crops, and provides references for more detailed information. It will be updated as events warrant. Thu, 08 May 2008 22:08:53 GMT http://opencrs.cdt.org/document/RL34474 http://opencrs.cdt.org/document/RL34471 Numerous news stories in the popular print and electronic media have documented suicides among servicemembers and veterans returning from Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF). In the United States, there are more than 30,000 suicides annually. Suicides among veterans are included in this number, but it is not known in what proportion. There is no nationwide system for surveillance of suicide specifically among veterans. Recent data show that about 20% of suicide deaths nationwide could be among veterans. It is not known what proportion of these deaths are among OIF/OEF veterans. Veterans have a number of risk factors that increase their chance of attempting suicide. These risk factors include combat exposure, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and other mental health problems, traumatic brain injury (TBI), poor social support structures, and access to lethal means. Several bills addressing suicide in veterans have been introduced in the 110th Congress. On November 5, 2007, the Joshua Omvig Veterans Suicide Prevention Act (P.L. 110-110) was signed into law, requiring the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to establish a comprehensive program for suicide prevention among veterans. More recently, the Veterans Suicide Study Act (S. 2899) was introduced. This bill would require the VA to conduct a study, and report to Congress, regarding suicides among veterans since 1997. The VA has carried out a number of suicide prevention initiatives, including establishing a national suicide prevention hotline for veterans, conducting awareness events at VA medical centers, and screening and assessing veterans for suicide risk. This report discusses data sources and systems that can provide information about suicides in the general population and among veterans, and known risk and protective factors associated with suicide in each group. It also discusses suicide prevention efforts by the VA. It does not discuss Department of Defense (DOD) activities, or VA's treatment of risk factors for suicide, such as depression, PTSD, and substance abuse. This report will be updated when legislative activity warrants. Thu, 08 May 2008 22:08:44 GMT http://opencrs.cdt.org/document/RL34471 http://opencrs.cdt.org/document/RL34468 Over the last decade, there has been a growing U.S. trade deficit in fresh and processed fruits and vegetables. Although U.S. fruit and vegetable exports totaled nearly $9 billion in 2007, U.S. imports of fruits and vegetables were more than $16 billion, resulting in a gap between imports and exports of more than $7 billion. This trade deficit has widened over time -- despite the fact that U.S. fruit and vegetable exports have continued to rise each year -- because growth in imports has greatly outpaced export growth. As a result, the United States has gone from being a net exporter of fresh and processed fruits and vegetables in the early 1970s to being a net importer of fruits and vegetables today. A number of factors are shaping current competitive market conditions worldwide and global trade in fruits and vegetables in particular, which explain in part the rising fruit and vegetable trade deficit. These include: Thu, 08 May 2008 22:08:36 GMT http://opencrs.cdt.org/document/RL34468 http://opencrs.cdt.org/document/RL34467 Mergers, airline bankruptcies, aircraft safety and maintenance concerns, extensive flight delays and cancellations, $100-plus-per-barrel oil prices, and a litany of other issues define congressional interest in the airline industry at present. Congress does not play a day-to-day role in any of these issues. Most ongoing oversight of the industry, to the extent that it does occur, takes place within the executive branch. Congress periodically addresses airline issues through legislation, but for the most part the congressional role occurs primarily through oversight. The authority to approve or disapprove airline mergers rests entirely with the Department of Justice (DOJ). The Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST) makes recommendations to DOJ based on its evaluation of the effect of a proposed merger on airline industry competition. Congress has no specific statutory role in the airline merger review and approval process, having legislatively charged the executive branch with that task. Members of Congress can, and do, file statements with DOJ expressing their views on a proposed merger. Congressional interest going forward is likely to focus on the proposed merger between Delta Airlines and Northwest Airlines. Recent incidents, including passengers being held in aircraft for eight or more hours awaiting takeoff, passengers being stranded by the shutdown of bankrupt air carriers, as well as deteriorating airline on-time arrival performance, have led to increasing congressional interest in airline passenger consumer issues. Currently, most passenger rights are set forth in the airlines' "contract of carriage" language. Existing law does, however, provide procedures and compensation rules for "bumping" and lost or damaged baggage. The main power the Department of Transportation (DOT) has to protect consumers is the department's power to take action against air carriers for "deceptive trade practices." Despite impressive airline safety statistics in recent years, some aviation safety professionals and some Members of Congress have expressed concern that the industry and regulators have been lulled into complacency with regard to safety. This concern has been heightened recently in response to various findings that airlines have failed to fully comply with aircraft inspections and repairs mandated by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Congressional oversight has focused on the relationship between the FAA and the airlines and the manner in which the FAA carries out its safety mandates. This report provides an overview of selected airline related issues currently subject to congressional oversight and/or possible legislation. Many of the issues discussed here are also addressed in some fashion as part of the ongoing congressional debate about reauthorization of the FAA. Those seeking additional information on reauthorization should refer to CRS Report RL33920, Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization: An Overview of Selected Provisions in Proposed Legislation. This report will be updated as warranted by events. Thu, 08 May 2008 22:08:24 GMT http://opencrs.cdt.org/document/RL34467 http://opencrs.cdt.org/document/RS22865 The Small Business Innovation Development Act of 1982, P.L. 97-219, created Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) programs within the major federal research and development (R&D) agencies. This effort was intended to increase participation of small innovative companies in federally funded R&D. Government agencies with extramural R&D budgets of $100 million or more are required to set aside a portion of these funds to support research and development in small businesses through the SBIR program. The original act has been extended several times and is currently scheduled to terminate on September 30, 2008. A bill to reauthorize and amend the program, H.R. 5819, passed the House on April 23, 2008. Thu, 08 May 2008 22:08:22 GMT http://opencrs.cdt.org/document/RS22865 http://opencrs.cdt.org/document/RL33342 Policymakers have addressed the threat of biological weapons and biosecurity issues for many years. An issue garnering increased attention is the potential for life sciences research intended to enhance scientific understanding and public health to generate results that could be misused to advance biological weapon effectiveness. Such research has been called "dual-use" research because of its applicability to both biological countermeasures and biological weapons. The federal government is a major source of life sciences research funding. Tension over the need to maintain homeland security and support scientific endeavor has led to renewed consideration of federal policies of scientific oversight. Balancing effective support of the research enterprise with security risks generated by such research has proven to be a complex challenge. Policies considered to address science and security generate tensions between the federal funding agency and the recipient of federal funding. To minimize these tensions while maximizing effective oversight of research, insight and advice from the disparate stakeholders is generally considered essential. The National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB) was established as one tool to aid policymakers and researchers in assessing the risks of federally funded research in the life sciences. It aims to provide the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services and researchers a source for advice on dual-use research and other biosecurity issues. Advice rendered by the NSABB may shape research activities and standards practiced in life science research fields. The NSABB is composed of experts in biological sciences, law, security, and other areas and federal officials representing agencies that fund life sciences research. Its responsibilities include identifying and defining dual-use research, advising the Secretary of Health and Human Services on biosecurity issues, and providing recommendations on an ethical code for life scientists. The issues the NSABB addresses are also being explored by professional societies, non-profit organizations, and other groups. Guidance and activities undertaken by the NSABB are likely to be closely scrutinized and challenged by stakeholder groups. The success of the NSABB in addressing federal concerns related to biodefense and biosecurity may influence congressional action. Absent an existing, effectively utilized mechanism to deal with dual-use, federally funded research results, policymakers could act to develop an oversight mechanism or legislative solutions addressing this issue. Should the NSABB be successful in linking the scientific and security communities and developing guidelines for effective scientific selfoversight, the board could evolve into a forum that policymakers may use to consider the intersections of science and security. It is unclear whether the tools available to the federal government are adequate to assess and control security risks from federally funded research, or if additional authorities may ultimately need to be developed. This report will be updated as events warrant. Thu, 08 May 2008 22:08:05 GMT http://opencrs.cdt.org/document/RL33342 http://opencrs.cdt.org/document/RL33341 Congress authorized the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA, P.L. 94-163) to help prevent a repetition of the economic dislocation caused by the 1973-1974 Arab oil embargo. The program is managed by the Department of Energy (DOE). Physically, the SPR comprises five underground storage facilities, hollowed out from naturally occurring salt domes in Texas and Louisiana. The SPR could be drawn down initially at a rate of 4.3 million barrels per day (mbd) for up to 90 days; thereafter, the rate would begin to decline. The capacity of the SPR was reported to be 727 million barrels in 2005. In addition, a Northeast Heating Oil Reserve (NHOR) holds 2 million barrels of heating oil in above-ground storage. On August 8, 2005, the President signed the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58). The act permanently authorized the SPR and required, "as expeditiously as practicable," expansion of the SPR to its authorized maximum of 1 billion barrels. Within one year of enactment, the Secretary of Energy is to select sites -- from among those that have been previously studied -- for the expansion. Among other provisions, the Secretary is also required to develop procedures for achieving the fill objective without "incurring excessive cost" or placing upward pressure on prices. EPCA authorizes drawdown of the Reserve upon a finding by the President that there is a "severe energy supply interruption." This is deemed by the statute to exist if three conditions are joined: If "(a) an emergency situation exists and there is a significant reduction in supply which is of significant scope and duration; (b) a severe increase in the price of petroleum products has resulted from such emergency situation; and (c) such price increase is likely to cause a major adverse impact on the national economy." Congress enacted additional drawdown authority in 1990 (Energy Policy and Conservation Act Amendments of 1990, P.L. 101-383), permitting the President to use the SPR for a short period without having to declare the existence of a "severe energy supply interruption" or the need to meet obligations of the United States under the international energy program overseen by the International Energy Agency (IEA). In addition, P.L. 94-163 provided authority for exchanges of SPR oil where oil is loaned and then returned with additional oil as a premium. There are differences of opinion as to what should be termed a "severe energy supply interruption." A spike in crude and product prices often stirs calls for use of the SPR. However, the SPR is intended by statute to ameliorate discernible physical shortages of crude oil. The sharp rise in prices following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005 was not a response to any shortage of crude, but to shortages of products owing to the shutdown of major refining capacity in the United States and an interruption of product transportation systems. Demand growth that has strapped refinery capacity has, at other times, quite divorced product prices from crude supply, a departure from the past. It has complicated reconciling developments in markets with possible use of the SPR. This report will be updated as events warrant. Thu, 08 May 2008 22:08:00 GMT http://opencrs.cdt.org/document/RL33341 http://opencrs.cdt.org/document/RS22858 Energy research and development (R&D) intended to advance technology played an important role in the successful outcome of World War II. In the post-war era, the federal government conducted R&D on fossil fuel and nuclear energy sources to support peacetime economic growth. The energy crises of the 1970s spurred the government to broaden the focus to include renewable energy and energy efficiency. Over the 30-year period from the Department of Energy's inception at the beginning of fiscal Year (FY) 1978 through FY2007, federal spending for renewable energy R&D amounted to about 16% of the energy R&D total, compared with 15% for energy efficiency, 25% for fossil, and 41% for nuclear. For the 60-year period from 1948 through 2007, nearly 11% went to renewables, compared with 9% for efficiency, 25% for fossil, and 54% for nuclear. Thu, 08 May 2008 22:07:56 GMT http://opencrs.cdt.org/document/RS22858 http://opencrs.cdt.org/document/RS22864 This report provides data from the past two decades on the size of the U.S. Postal Service's (USPS's) workforce, the number of persons employed by USPS by employment categories, and the number of persons employed by USPS under timelimited contracts. It also analyzes the most salient aspects of these employment data. USPS employs nearly 786,000 persons. Although USPS's workforce size has changed relatively little from 20 years ago, it has dropped 12% in the past decade. The number of career employees declined 8.8% since 1987; however, the number of non-career employees increased 106.5%. Clerks, who staff retail counters at post offices and manually sort mail, dropped more than 31% since 1987. Rural mail delivery carriers, in contrast, grew 84.9%; and building and equipment maintenance personnel and vehicle maintenance personnel grew 28.7% and 14.9%, respectively. This report will be updated at the beginning of each new Congress. Thu, 08 May 2008 22:07:53 GMT http://opencrs.cdt.org/document/RS22864 http://opencrs.cdt.org/document/RS22861 As households become more reliant on 401(k) plans for retirement income, policymakers have become more concerned that participants are unaware of the fees charged in their 401(k) plans. Small differences in fees charged can have large impacts on 401(k) account balances upon retirement. This report provides information on the kinds of fees that are charged in 401(k) plans and details the provisions of H.R. 3185, the 401(k) Fair Disclosure for Retirement Security Act as introduced on July 14, 2007. was passed by the Committee on Education and Labor by a vote of 25-19 on April 16, 2008. It will updated to reflect other 401(k) fee disclosure legislation. Thu, 08 May 2008 22:07:51 GMT http://opencrs.cdt.org/document/RS22861 http://opencrs.cdt.org/document/RL34460 This report examines recent proposals that would create a new temporary extension of unemployment compensation. The recent proposals to temporarily extend the duration of Unemployment Compensation (UC) include the proposal in the Senate Committee on Finance Report of the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 dated January 30, 2008, H.R. 4934, S. 2544, H.R. 5688, and H.R. 5749. Only sections in the proposals that relate to the extension of unemployment benefits are detailed. Thus, only portions of H.R. 4934 (Title I-Emergency Unemployment Compensation and Title II-Increased Unemployment Benefits) and the Senate Committee on Finance proposal (Title I-Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation) that directly relate to extending the duration of unemployment benefits are included. Matters concerning fraud and overpayments are not discussed. Thu, 08 May 2008 22:07:49 GMT http://opencrs.cdt.org/document/RL34460 http://opencrs.cdt.org/document/RL33493 Oil and gas leasing in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) has been an important issue in the debate over energy security and domestic energy resources. The Department of the Interior (DOI) released a comprehensive inventory of OCS resources in February 2006 that estimated reserves of 8.5 billion barrels of oil and 29.3 trillion cubic feet (tcf) of natural gas. Another 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 tcf of natural gas are classified as undiscovered resources. Congress has imposed moratoria on much of the OCS since 1982 through the annual Interior appropriation bills. Proponents of the moratoria contend that offshore drilling would pose unacceptable environmental risks and threaten coastal tourism industries. Several bills related to oil and gas leasing in the OCS have been introduced in the 109th Congress. On June 29, 2006, the House approved H.R. 4761, the Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act of 2006, to allow states, using specified criteria, to petition the Secretary of the Interior to lease in the federal OCS offshore the state. The bill would also provide coastal states with a share of revenues generated from offshore oil and gas production. Currently, the affected states receive revenue indirectly from offshore oil and gas leases in federal waters. This is in contrast to states with onshore leases on federal lands, which receive a direct share of the oil and gas leasing revenues. On February 16, 2006, the Senate Energy Committee held a hearing on Senator Domenici's bill, S. 2253, which would require controversial Lease Sale 181 in the eastern Gulf of Mexico to be offered within one year of passage. The Senate Energy panel passed S. 2253 by a vote of 16-5 on March 8, 2006. Lease Sale 181 has galvanized interest in a number of related concerns. Some Members of Congress argued for greater coastal revenue sharing based on offshore production, others to promote natural gas-only leases in areas now off-limits. Some Members are calling for much more limited access to offshore federal areas. Because of the various interests, Senate leaders agreed to new language on July 12, 2006, that would increase the amount of acreage made available for lease (about 8.3 million acres), provide coastal states with a share of the revenues generated from offshore leases (37.5%), and extend the buffer zone within which leasing would not be allowed to 125 miles from Florida. The new bill S. 3711 is described below. President George H.W. Bush, in 1990, responding to pressure from the states of Florida and California and others concerned about protecting the ocean and coastal environments, issued a presidential directive ordering the DOI not to conduct offshore leasing or preleasing activity in places other than Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, and parts of Alaska -- areas not covered by the annual legislative moratoria -- until 2000. In 1998, President Clinton extended the prohibition until 2012. Leasing procedures are specified by the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) of 1953, as amended. This report replaces CRS Issue Brief IB10149, Outer Continental Shelf: Debate Over Oil and Gas Leasing and Revenue Sharing, by Marc Humphries. Thu, 08 May 2008 22:07:43 GMT http://opencrs.cdt.org/document/RL33493 http://opencrs.cdt.org/document/RS22362 Under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) of 2001, high schools that receive federal funds must provide certain student contact information to military recruiters upon request and must allow recruiters to have the same access to students as employers and colleges. However, at least one bill (H.R. 551) introduced in the 109th Congress would amend these requirements. This report describes these new requirements and discusses the legal issues that they may raise. Thu, 08 May 2008 22:07:32 GMT http://opencrs.cdt.org/document/RS22362 http://opencrs.cdt.org/document/RL33348 The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) is the primary federal statute dealing with wages, hours, and conditions of employment. One aspect of wage policy is the question of tip income. Closely related to the issue of tip income is the ability of employers, under the FLSA, to employ certain youth workers at sub-minimum wages. During the 1960s, the FLSA was expanded to include certain areas of work that had been omitted from the 1938 statute. Among them were workers engaged in the service and retail trades. Since many such workers received tips in the normal course of their work (some of them, a substantial amount of tips), the question arose as to how they were to be treated in the context of a federal minimum wage structure. There had been some discussion of the tip question prior to 1938 but, since the initial enactment really did not cover many workers in tipped occupations, it was not made a part of the act. In the 1960s, however, the issue became somewhat more controversial. Did tips flow, almost necessarily, from the ambience of the restaurant or club -- the nature of a hotel or inn? If so, were tips really the product of employer contributions -- and should they belong to the employer? If they should not actually become the property of the employer, should an offset be made against the minimum wage? Workers were adamant that employment should bring a wage -- and also that the wage was to be paid by the employer: a steady wage and a consistent wage, not just a gratuity voluntarily given by a third party. The rationale was that an employee could assist in development of a business by his or her graciousness; or, on the other hand, could contribute to a decline in business were he or she to render shoddy service or make a customer feel uncomfortable or unwelcome. From this perspective, the tip should be the property of the employee: a gift from the served to the server. But what about the other employees of the establishment (those who are unseen by the customer)? Indifference in the kitchen could diminish a tip. Meanwhile, expert assistance from support staff could enhance tip income and encourage a client to return. Should some consideration be given to the invisible (but vitally important) back-of-the-house staff? Perhaps a pooling of tips might be useful? Aside from the federal wage/hour law, there exist multiple state standards that govern tips and tip income. How are they to be meshed with the federal FLSA? This report discusses the tip system under the FLSA, its application under state standards, and the status of the related sub-minimum wage worker. Given the history of the act, it seems likely that some further discussion of these issues will take place. As that discussion develops, the report will be revised. Thu, 08 May 2008 22:07:26 GMT http://opencrs.cdt.org/document/RL33348 http://opencrs.cdt.org/document/RL31798 Data mining is emerging as one of the key features of many homeland security initiatives. Often used as a means for detecting fraud, assessing risk, and product retailing, data mining involves the use of data analysis tools to discover previously unknown, valid patterns and relationships in large data sets. In the context of homeland security, data mining is often viewed as a potential means to identify terrorist activities, such as money transfers and communications, and to identify and track individual terrorists themselves, such as through travel and immigration records. While data mining represents a significant advance in the type of analytical tools currently available, there are limitations to its capability. One limitation is that although data mining can help reveal patterns and relationships, it does not tell the user the value or significance of these patterns. These types of determinations must be made by the user. A second limitation is that while data mining can identify connections between behaviors and/or variables, it does not necessarily identify a causal relationship. To be successful, data mining still requires skilled technical and analytical specialists who can structure the analysis and interpret the output that is created. Data mining is becoming increasingly common in both the private and public sectors. Industries such as banking, insurance, medicine, and retailing commonly use data mining to reduce costs, enhance research, and increase sales. In the public sector, data mining applications initially were used as a means to detect fraud and waste, but have grown to also be used for purposes such as measuring and improving program performance. However, some of the homeland security data mining applications represent a significant expansion in the quantity and scope of data to be analyzed. Two efforts that have attracted a higher level of congressional interest include the Terrorism Information Awareness (TIA) project (now-discontinued) and the Computer-Assisted Passenger Prescreening System II (CAPPS II) project (nowcanceled and replaced by Secure Flight). As with other aspects of data mining, while technological capabilities are important, there are other implementation and oversight issues that can influence the success of a project's outcome. One issue is data quality, which refers to the accuracy and completeness of the data being analyzed. A second issue is the interoperability of the data mining software and databases being used by different agencies. A third issue is mission creep, or the use of data for purposes other than for which the data were originally collected. A fourth issue is privacy. Questions that may be considered include the degree to which government agencies should use and mix commercial data with government data, whether data sources are being used for purposes other than those for which they were originally designed, and possible application of the Privacy Act to these initiatives. It is anticipated that congressional oversight of data mining projects will grow as data mining efforts continue to evolve. This report will be updated as events warrant. Thu, 08 May 2008 22:07:14 GMT http://opencrs.cdt.org/document/RL31798 http://opencrs.cdt.org/document/RL34456 A presidential transition is a unique time in America and holds the promise of opportunity, as well as a possible risk to the nation's security interests. The 20082009 election marks the first presidential transition in the post-9/11 era, and is of concern to many national security observers. While changes in administration during U.S. involvement in national security related activities are not unique to the 20082009 election, many observers suggest that the current security climate and recent acts of terrorism by individuals wishing to influence national elections and change foreign policies portend a time of increased risk to the current presidential transition period. Whether the enemies of the United States choose to undertake action that may harm the nation's security interests during the 2008-2009 election, or the new President experiences a relatively peaceful period during the transition, many foreign and domestic policy and security challenges will await the new Administration. How the new President recognizes and responds to these challenges will depend heavily on the planning and learning that occurs prior to the inauguration. Actions can be taken by the outgoing President and President-elect that may ameliorate decisionmaking activities in the new administration. Whether an incident of national security significance occurs just before or soon after the presidential transition, the actions or inactions of the outgoing Administration may have a long-lasting effect on the new President's ability to effectively safeguard U.S. interests and may affect the legacy of the outgoing President. This report discusses historical national-security related presidential transition activities, provides a representative sampling of national security issues the next administration may encounter, and offers considerations and options relevant to each of the five phases of the presidential transition period. Each phase has distinct challenges and opportunities for the incoming administration, the outgoing administration, and Congress. This report will be updated as needed. Thu, 08 May 2008 22:07:03 GMT http://opencrs.cdt.org/document/RL34456 http://opencrs.cdt.org/document/RL34455 A growing community of interest, including Members of Congress, senior officials in the executive branch, and think-tank analysts, is calling for a reexamination of how well the U.S. government, including both the executive branch and Congress, is organized to apply all instruments of national power to national security activities. The organizations and procedures used today to formulate strategy, support presidential decision-making, plan and execute missions, and budget for those activities are based on a framework established just after World War II. That framework was designed to address a very different global strategic context: a bipolar world with a single peer competitor state, the Soviet Union, which was driven by an expansionist ideology and backed by a massive military force. Six decades later, in the wake of 9/11, many observers and practitioners note, the United States faces greater uncertainty and a broader array of security challenges than before, including non-state as well as traditional state-based threats, and transnational challenges such as organized crime, energy security concerns, cyber attacks, and epidemic disease. The "outdated bureaucratic superstructure" of the 20th century is an inadequate basis for protecting the nation from 21st century security challenges, critics contend, and the system itself, or alternatively, some of its key components, requires revision. Doubts about the adequacy of the system to meet 21st century security challenges have been catalyzed by recent operational experiences, including Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom, and responses to Hurricane Katrina. In the view of many defense and foreign affairs analysts, these operations revealed deep flaws in the ability of the U.S. government to make timely decisions, to develop prioritized strategies and integrated plans, to resource those efforts, and to effectively coordinate and execute complex missions. Such shortcomings, some argue, have had a deleterious impact on the success of those missions and on the reputation of the United States as a reliable partner. Should these "national security reform" debates continue to gain momentum, Congress could choose to weigh in by holding hearings to clarify identified problems and to consider the advantages and risks of proposed solutions; by developing legislation ranging from a new National Security Act to specific changes in executive branch organization, authorities, or resourcing; or by considering adjustments in Congress's own arrangements for providing holistic oversight of national security issues. The purpose of this report, which will be updated as events warrant, is to help frame the emerging debates by taking note of the leading advocates for change, highlighting identified shortcomings in key elements of the current system, and describing categories of emerging proposals for change. Thu, 08 May 2008 22:06:55 GMT http://opencrs.cdt.org/document/RL34455 http://opencrs.cdt.org/document/RS22863 The President is generally seen as exercising broad discretionary authority over developing and implementing U.S. direct investment policy, including the authority to suspend or block investments that "threaten to impair the national security." Congress is also directly involved in formulating the scope and direction of U.S. foreign investment policy and some Members are urging the President to be more aggressive in blocking certain types of foreign investments. Such confrontations reflect vastly different philosophical and political views between members of Congress and between Congress and the Administration over the role foreign investment plays in the economy and the role that economic activities should play in the context of U.S. national security policy. In July 2007, Congress asserted its own role in making and conducting foreign investment policy when it adopted and the President signed P.L. 110-49, the Foreign Investment and National Security Act of 2007. This law broadens Congress' oversight role and it explicitly includes the areas of homeland security and critical infrastructure as separately identifiable components of national security that the President must consider when evaluating the national security implications of a foreign investment transaction. The act may well draw Congress into a greater dialogue, and possibly greater conflict, with the Administration over efforts to define the limits of the broad rubric of national economic security. This report will be updated as warranted by events. Thu, 08 May 2008 22:06:52 GMT http://opencrs.cdt.org/document/RS22863 http://opencrs.cdt.org/document/RL34452 Federal student loans are made available under two major loan programs authorized under the Higher Education Act (HEA) of 1965, as amended: the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) program, authorized by Title IV, Part B, of the HEA; and the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan (DL) program, authorized by Title IV, Part D, of the HEA. Under the FFEL program, private lenders make loans and the federal government guarantees lenders against loss due to borrower default, death, permanent disability, or, in limited instances, bankruptcy. Under the DL program, the federal government lends directly to students and their families, using federal capital (i.e., funds from the U.S. Treasury). The FFEL program is the successor program to the guaranteed student loan (GSL) program, originally enacted under Title IV, Part B, of the HEA. It is the older and larger of the two major federal student loan programs. Approximately four-fifths of non-Consolidation loans are made under the FFEL program, while approximately one-fifth are made under the DL program. During the past several months, a large number of FFEL program lenders have curtailed or ceased their participation in the FFEL program, citing reasons that include difficulties in raising capital through the securitization of student loan debt and reductions in lender subsidies enacted under the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007 (CCRAA). Concerns have been raised that if lender participation in the FFEL program decreases substantially or if a substantial portion of lenders cease lending to students who attend certain institutions of higher education (IHEs), large numbers of students may face difficulty in obtaining FFEL program loans. In addition, concerns have been raised about access to borrowing opportunities for students who have come to rely on private (non-federal) student loans because they have exhausted their eligibility for federal student loans. Issues concerning federal student loans have been active during the 110th Congress. On October 27, 2007, the CCRAA was enacted, which made numerous changes to the federal student loan programs. Also in the 110th Congress, the House and the Senate have passed bills, H.R. 4137 and S. 1642, respectively, to amend and extend the HEA. On April 10, 2008, the House Committee on Education and Labor marked up H.R. 5715, the Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act of 2008. This closely followed the introduction of S. 2815, the Strengthening Student Aid for All Act, in the Senate on April 3, 2008. This report examines proposals in H.R. 5715 and S. 2815 to amend the federal student loan programs. It will be updated to reflect legislative developments. Thu, 08 May 2008 22:06:46 GMT http://opencrs.cdt.org/document/RL34452