This report assesses domestic political support for internationalist foreign policy by analyzing the motivations of members of Congress on key foreign policy issues. It includes case studies on major foreign policy debates in recent years, including the use of force, foreign aid, trade policy and U.S.-Russia relations. It also develops a new series of archetypes for describing the foreign policy worldviews of members of the 115th Congress to replace the current stale and unsophisticated labels of internationalist, isolationist, hawk and dove. Report findings emphasize areas of bipartisan cooperation on foreign policy issues given member ideologies.

Congress has continued to debate the efficacy and constitutionality of federal regulation of firearms and ammunition, with strong advocates arguing for and against greater gun control. While several dozen gun control-related proposals have been introduced in recent Congresses, only a handful of those bills received significant legislative action. The 109th Congress, for example, passed two bills with firearmsrelated provisions that were enacted into law. P.L. 109-72 prohibits certain types of lawsuits against firearm manufacturers and dealers to recover damages related to the criminal or unlawful use of their products by other persons, and P.L. 109-295 includes a provision that prohibits federal officials from seizing any firearm from private persons during a major disaster or emergency, if possession of that firearm was not already prohibited under federal or state law. Nevertheless, the 110th Congress could possibly reconsider several gun control proposals that were considered as part of appropriations and crime legislation in the previous Congress. During the 109th Congress, the House amended the Children's Safety Act of 2005 (H.R. 3132) to prohibit the transfer or possession of a firearm to or by any person convicted of a sex offense against a minor. The House also amended Secure Access to Justice and Court Protection Act of 2005 (H.R. 1751) to authorize certain federal court judges and officials to carry firearms for personal protection. The Senate passed a different version of H.R. 1751 that included similar provisions, as well as provisions designed to clarify and expand the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (P.L. 108-277) -- a law that gives concealed carry privileges to qualified on-duty and retired law enforcement officers. None of those provisions were enacted into law, however. In addition, the House Judiciary considered four gun-related bills: the ATFE Modernization and Reform Act of 2006 (H.R. 5092), the Firearms Corrections and Improvement Act (H.R. 5005), the Firearm Commerce Modernization Act (H.R. 1384), and the NICS Improvement Act of 2005 (H.R. 1415). H.R. 5092 was passed by the House. The 109th Congress, moreover, maintained a fee prohibition for Brady background checks and other funding limitations and conditions related to gun enforcement in the FY2006 DOJ appropriations (P.L. 109-108). Those limitations and conditions have been continued into FY2007 under continuing resolutions. They are often referred to as the "Tiahrt amendment," for their sponsor in the FY2004 appropriations cycle, Representative Todd Tiahrt. Issues addressed in those bills, as well as the Tiahrt funding limitations and conditions, could be reconsidered in the 110th Congress. Senator Charles Schumer, for example, has introduced a bill (S. 77) that would repeal portions of the Tiahrt amendment that limit the sharing of firearm trace data. Other gun control-related issues that may reemerge in the 110th Congress include (1) retaining Brady background check records for approved transactions to enhance terrorist screening, (2) more strictly regulating certain long-range fifty caliber rifles, (3) further regulating certain firearms previously defined in statute as "assault weapons," and (4) requiring background checks for firearm transfers at gun shows. This report will updated to reflect legislative action.

Contents: (1) Background and Analysis; (2) Discharge Statistics; (3) Issues: Legal Challenges; Actions Following the Murder of Private Barry Winchell; Recruiting, JROTC, ROTC and Campus Policies; High Schools; Colleges and Universities; Supreme Court Review of the Solomon Amendment; Homosexuals and Marriages; Foreign Military Experiences. Charts and tables.

This report discusses and assesses the War Powers Resolution and its application since enactment in 1973, providing detailed background on various cases in which it was used, as well as cases in which issues of its applicability were raised. It will be revised biannually. In the post-Cold War world, Presidents have continued to commit U.S. Armed Forces into potential hostilities, sometimes without a specific authorization from Congress. Thus the War Powers Resolution and its purposes continue to be a potential subject of controversy. On June 7, 1995, the House defeated, by a vote of 217-201, an amendment to repeal the central features of the War Powers Resolution that have been deemed unconstitutional by every President since the law's enactment in 1973. In 1999, after the President committed U.S. military forces to action in Yugoslavia without congressional authorization, Representative Tom Campbell used expedited procedures under the Resolution to force a debate and votes on U.S. military action in Yugoslavia, and later sought, unsuccessfully, through a federal court suit to enforce presidential compliance with the terms of the War Powers Resolution. The War Powers Resolution P.L. 93-148 was passed over the veto of President Nixon on November 7, 1973, to provide procedures for Congress and the President to participate in decisions to send U.S. Armed Forces into hostilities. Section 4(a)(1) requires the President to report to Congress any introduction of U.S. forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities. When such a report is submitted, or is required to be submitted, Section 5(b) requires that the use of forces must be terminated within 60 to 90 days unless Congress authorizes such use or extends the time period. Section 3 requires that the "President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing" U.S. Armed Forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities. From 1975 through March 2017, Presidents have submitted 168 reports as the result of the War Powers Resolution, but only one, the 1975 Mayaguez seizure, cited Section 4(a)(1), which triggers the 60-day withdrawal requirement, and in this case the military action was completed and U.S. armed forces had disengaged from the area of conflict when the report was made. The reports submitted by the President since enactment of the War Powers Resolution cover a range of military activities, from embassy evacuations to full-scale combat military operations, such as the Persian Gulf conflict, and the 2003 war with Iraq, the intervention in Kosovo, and the anti-terrorism actions in Afghanistan. In some instances, U.S. Armed Forces have been used in hostile situations without formal reports to Congress under the War Powers Resolution. On one occasion, Congress exercised its authority to determine that the requirements of Section 4(a)(1) became operative on August 29, 1983, through passage of the Multinational Force in Lebanon Resolution (P.L. 98-119). In 1991 and 2002, Congress authorized, by law, the use of military force against Iraq. In several instances none of the President, Congress, or the courts has been willing to initiate the procedures of or enforce the directives in the War Powers Resolution.

Describes the availability of personnel with cyber skills in the private sector and the number of Army reserve component soldiers available to support the Army's cyber mission needs.