CRS Reports

What You Don’t Know Can’t Hurt You: Supreme Court to Address Knowledge Requirement for Firearm Offenses

Apr 19, 2019

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS): FY2020 Appropriations Process and Background

Apr 18, 2019

Advanced Nuclear Reactors: Technology Overview and Current Issues

All nuclear power in the United States is generated by light water reactors (LWRs), which were commercialized in the 1950s and early 1960s and are now used throughout most of the world. LWRs are cooled by ordinary (“light”) water, which also slows (“moderates”) the neutrons that maintain the nuclear fission chain reaction. High construction costs of large conventional LWRs, concerns about safety raised by the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan, and other issues have led to increased interest in unconventional, or “advanced,” nuclear technologies that could be less expensive and safer than existing LWRs. An “advanced nuclear reactor” is defined in legislation enacted in 2018 as “a nuclear fission reactor with significant improvements over the most recent generation of nuclear fission reactors” or a reactor using nuclear fusion (P.L. 115-248). Such reactors include LWR designs that are far smaller than existing reactors, as well as concepts that would use different moderators, coolants, and types of fuel. Many of these advanced designs are considered to be small modular reactors (SMRs), which the Department of Energy (DOE) defines as reactors with electric generating capacity of 300 megawatts and below, in contrast to an average of about 1,000 megawatts for existing commercial reactors. Advanced reactors are often referred to as “Generation IV” nuclear technologies, with existing commercial reactors constituting “Generation III” or, for the most recently constructed reactors, “Generation III+.” Major categories of advanced reactors include advanced water-cooled reactors, which would make safety, efficiency, and other improvements over existing commercial reactors; gas-cooled reactors, which could use graphite as a neutron moderator or have no moderator; liquid-metal-cooled reactors, which would be cooled by liquid sodium or other metals and have no moderator; molten salt reactors, which would use liquid fuel; and fusion reactors, which would release energy through the combination of light atomic nuclei rather than the splitting (fission) of heavy nuclei such as uranium. Most of these concepts have been studied since the dawn of the nuclear age, but relatively few, such as sodium-cooled reactors, have advanced to commercial scale demonstration, and such demonstrations in the United States took place decades ago. The 115th Congress enacted two bills to promote the development of advanced nuclear reactors. The first, the Nuclear Energy Innovation Capabilities Act of 2017 (NEICA), was signed into law in September 2018 (P.L. 115-248). It requires DOE to develop a versatile fast neutron test reactor that could help develop fuels and materials for advanced reactors and authorizes DOE national laboratories and other sites to host reactor testing and demonstration projects “to be proposed and funded, in whole or in part, by the private sector.” The second, the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act (NEIMA, P.L. 115-439), signed in January 2019, would require the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to develop an optional regulatory framework suitable for advanced nuclear technologies. The 115th Congress also appropriated $65 million for R&D to support development of the versatile test reactor in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, FY2019, along with funding for ongoing advanced nuclear research and development programs (Division A of P.L. 115-244). Continued debate over advanced reactor issues is anticipated in the 116th Congress. A fundamental question may be the role of the federal government in advanced nuclear power development. DOE’s budget request for FY2020 focuses the federal role on “early stage research” rather than the more expensive stages of demonstration and commercialization. Controversy is also likely to continue over the need for advanced nuclear power. Supporters contend that such technology will be crucial in reducing emissions of greenhouse gases and bringing carbon-free power to the majority of the world that currently has little access to electricity. However, some observers and interest groups have cast doubt on the potential safety, affordability, and sustainability of advanced reactors. Because many of these technologies are in the conceptual or design phases, the potential advantages of these systems have not yet been established on a commercial scale. Concern has also been raised about the weapons-proliferation risks posed by the potential use of plutonium-based fuel by some advanced reactor technologies. Other current issues related to advanced reactors include criteria for hosting private-sector demonstration reactors at DOE sites, the licensing framework for non-LWR reactors, longer time periods for federal agreements to purchase power from advanced reactors, and the supply of the high-assay low enriched uranium fuel that would be needed for some advanced reactor designs. There also may be congressional interest about potential federal assistance for demonstration reactors, which are expected to cost billions of dollars apiece. Major options for such assistance include federal cost sharing, loan guarantees, power purchase agreements, purchase of reactor capacity for research uses, and tax credits.

Apr 18, 2019

Agricultural Conservation in the 2018 Farm Bill

The Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (2018 farm bill, P.L. 115-334, Title II) included a number of changes to agricultural conservation programs, including reauthorizing and amending existing programs, directing existing program activities to specific resource concerns, shifting funds within the title, and authorizing a budget-neutral level of funding. Debate over the conservation title in the 2018 farm bill focused on a number of issues in the different versions in the House- and Senate-passed bills (H.R. 2). These differences were resolved in a House-Senate conference to create the enacted bill, which is a mix of both versions that were passed by both chambers. The enacted bill reauthorizes and amends portions of most all conservation programs; however, the general focus is on the larger programs, namely the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), and Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP). Most farm bill conservation programs are authorized to receive mandatory funding and are not subject to appropriation. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the conservation title of the 2018 farm bill makes up 7% of the bill’s total projected mandatory spending over 10 years, which is $60 billion of the total $867 billion. The conservation title is budget neutral over the 10-year baseline; however, the 2018 farm bill is projected to increase funding in the first five years (+$555 million over FY2019-FY2023) and decrease funding in the last five years (-$561 million over FY2024-FY2028). Generally, the 2018 farm bill reallocates mandatory funding within the conservation title among the larger programs. The two largest working lands programs—EQIP and CSP—were reauthorized and amended under the enacted bill, but in different ways. The House-passed bill would have repealed CSP and created a stewardship contract within EQIP, whereas the Senate-passed bill would have reauthorized CSP and reduced program enrollment. The enacted bill creates a mix of both the House- and Senate-passed bills by reauthorizing CSP and reducing program enrollment, as well as creating a new incentive contract within EQIP. Funding for CSP is shifted away from an acreage limitation under prior law to limits based on funding. EQIP is expanded and reauthorized with increased funding levels. The largest land retirement program—CRP—is reauthorized and expanded by increasing the CRP enrollment limit in annual increments from 24 million acres in FY2019 to 27 million by FY2023. To offset this increased enrollment level, the enacted bill reduces payments to participants, including cost-share payments, annual rental payments, and incentive payments. The 2018 farm bill also reauthorized and amended the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP). Most of the changes to ACEP focus on the agricultural land easements by providing additional flexibilities to ACEP-eligible entities and authorize an increase in overall funding. The Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) is reauthorized and amended by shifting the program away from enrolling land through existing conservation programs to a standalone program with separate contracts and agreements. Under the revised program, USDA is to continue to enter into agreements with eligible partners, and these partners are to continue to define the scope and location of a project, provide a portion of the project cost, and work with eligible landowners to enroll in RCPP contracts. While the 2018 farm bill does not create new conservation programs, it does require that a number of existing programs direct a dollar amount or percentage of a program’s funding to a resource-specific issue, initiative, or subprogram. Through these directed policies Congress has established a level of support, or required investment, to be carried out through implementation to target specific issues such as nutrient runoff or groundwater protection. The directed policy may also reduce the implementing agency’s flexibility to allocate funding based on need, as well as reducing the amount available for activities under the larger program that may not meet a resource-specific provision. High commodity prices in years past, changing land rental rates, and new conservation technologies have led over time to a shift in farm bill conservation policy away from programs that retire land from production (CRP) toward programs that provide assistance to lands still in production (EQIP and CSP). Much of this shift occurred following the 2008 farm bill (FY2009-FY2013) and continued under the 2014 farm bill (FY2014-FY2018) as the level of total mandatory program funding for CRP was reduced relative to EQIP and CSP. Funding for easement programs (ACEP) also declined somewhat under the 2014 farm bill, but is projected to level off under the 2018 farm bill. Partnership program (RCPP) funding has also increased in recent farm bills, but remains relatively small compared to the other categories of programs.

Apr 18, 2019

Forest Management Provisions Enacted in the 115th Congress

The 115th Congress enacted several provisions affecting management of the National Forest System (NFS), administered by the Forest Service (in the Department of Agriculture), and the lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM, in the Department of the Interior). The provisions were enacted through two laws: the Stephen Sepp Wildfire Suppression Funding and Forest Management Activities Act, enacted as Division O of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (P.L. 115-141, commonly referred to as the FY2018 omnibus), and the Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-334, Title VIII, commonly referred to as the 2018 farm bill). Many of the provisions enacted by the 115th Congress affect Forest Service and BLM implementation of two laws: the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA). These laws, among others, authorize specific forest management activities and establish decisionmaking procedures for those activities. The enacted provisions are summarized and analyzed in the following categories: project planning and implementation, wildland fire management, forest management and restoration programs, and miscellaneous. Ongoing issues for Congress include oversight of (i) the agencies’ implementation of the new laws, and (ii) the extent these provisions achieve their specified purposes, such as improving agency efficiencies, increasing the scale, scope, and implementation of forest restoration projects, and reducing hazardous fuel levels to mitigate against the risk of catastrophic wildfire. Both the FY2018 omnibus and 2018 farm bill included provisions that affect Forest Service and BLM decisionmaking processes by changing certain aspects of the NEPA process and the interagency consultation requirements established in Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). For example, each law specified that certain forest management projects would be considered actions categorically excluded from the requirements of NEPA. Also, both laws expanded various authorities originally authorized in HFRA intended to expedite decisionmaking for specific projects. This included reauthorizing the use of procedures intended to expedite priority projects in designated NFS insect and disease treatment areas and amending the definition of an authorized fuel reduction project to include additional activities. The FY2018 omnibus and 2018 farm bill also contained provisions that affect federal wildland fire management. The FY2018 omnibus directed the Secretary of Agriculture to adapt the national-scale wildfire hazard potential map for use at the community level to inform risk management decisions. Both laws directed Forest Service and DOI to provide annual reports on a variety of wildfire-related metrics. The FY2018 omnibus also changed how Congress appropriates funding specifically for wildfire suppression purposes. The so-called wildfire funding fix authorized an adjustment to the discretionary spending limits for wildfire suppression operations for each year from FY2020 through FY2027. However, statutory spending limits are set to expire after FY2021, meaning that the adjustment is effectively in place for two years. Congress has established specific forest restoration programs for Forest Service and BLM, or has authorized forest restoration to be one of many activities or land management objectives for some programs. Forest restoration activities address concerns related to forest health, such as improving forest resistance and resilience to disturbance events (e.g., insect and disease infestation or uncharacteristically catastrophic wildfires). The 115th Congress established two new programs for Forest Service (water source protection and watershed condition framework) and amended three others: the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program (CFLRP, available only for Forest Service), stewardship contracting authority, and the good neighbor authority. Aspects of several of these programs allow Forest Service and BLM to partner with various stakeholders in different ways to perform specified forest management and restoration activities. Both the FY2018 omnibus and the 2018 farm bill enacted various other provisions related to land acquisition, exchange and disposal; the issuance of special use authorizations for the use or occupancy of federal lands; the payments, activities, and Resource Advisory Committees authorized by the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act; and forest management on tribal lands.

Apr 17, 2019

Tax Equity Financing: An Introduction and Policy Considerations

This report provides an introduction to the general tax equity financing mechanism. The term tax equity investment describes transactions that pair the tax credits or other tax benefits generated by a qualifying physical investment with the capital financing associated with that investment. These transactions involve one party agreeing to assign the rights to claim the tax credits to another party in exchange for an equity investment (i.e., cash financing). The exchange is sometimes referred to as “monetizing,” “selling,” or “trading” the tax credits. Importantly, however, the “sale” of federal tax credits usually occurs within a partnership or contractual agreement that legally binds the two parties. Three categories of tax credits that either currently use or have recently used this mechanism are presented in this report to help explain the structure and function of tax equity arrangements. These include the low-income housing tax credit (LIHTC); the new markets tax credit (NMTC); and two energy-related tax credits—the renewable electricity production tax credit (PTC) and energy investment tax credit (ITC). While these credits all use the tax equity financing mechanism, no two credits do so in the same manner. The economic rationale for subsidizing the activities targeted by these tax credits is not evaluated. Instead, this report focuses on explaining the structure and functioning of tax equity arrangements, analyzing the delivery of federal financial support using this mechanism, and discussing various policy options related to tax credits that rely on tax equity. Four policy options are presented to help Congress should it consider modifications to an existing tax equity program, or create a new one. The options are with respect to the general tax equity approach and include making the credits refundable, converting the credits to grants, allowing for the direct transfer of credits, and accelerating the credit claim periods. This list of options is not exhaustive. Due to important differences in the underlying structure of various current or future credits, some options may be better suited for particular credits than others. Careful consideration on a case-by-case basis is part of evaluating the appropriateness of each option. Consideration of various options might ask whether the use of tax equity markets is an efficient and effective means of delivering federal financial support. At first glance, it may appear that the government would get more “bang for its buck” by delivering subsidies more directly, without a role for tax equity markets. However, such a conclusion overlooks one role that tax equity investors play in some industries in addition to providing financing: they evaluate the quality of projects before investing, as well as provide continuing oversight and compliance monitoring. Effectively, the tax equity mechanism outsources a portion of the oversight and compliance monitoring to investors in exchange for a financial return. On the one hand, there may be value to the federal government in being able to rely on outside investors to provide oversight and monitoring. On the other hand, for some tax equity programs that have a government entity overseeing participant compliance, the monitor role of investors may be redundant. There also may be ways to improve the current delivery approach.

Apr 17, 2019

U.S. Farm Income Outlook for 2019

This report uses the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) farm income projections (as of March 6, 2019) and agricultural trade outlook update (as of February 21, 2019) to describe the U.S. farm economic outlook. According to USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS), national net farm income—a key indicator of U.S. farm well-being—is forecast at $69.4 billion in 2019, up $6.3 billion (+10%) from last year. The forecast rise in 2019 net farm income is the result of an increase in gross returns (up $8.5 billion or +2%)—including continued payments under the trade aid package announced by USDA in July 2018—partially offset by slightly higher production expenses (up $2.2 billion or +0.6%). Net farm income is calculated on an accrual basis. Net cash income (calculated on a cash-flow basis) is also projected higher in 2019 (+4.7%) to $95.7 billion. The 2019 net farm income forecast is substantially below (-18%) the 10-year average of $84.8 billion (in nominal dollars)—primarily the result of the outlook for continued weak prices for most major crops. Commodity prices are under pressure from a record soybean and near-record corn harvest in 2018, diminished export prospects due to an ongoing trade dispute with China, and burdensome stocks. Government payments are projected down nearly 17% from 2018 at $11.5 billion—due largely to lower market facilitation payments by USDA. Market facilitation payments to qualifying agricultural producers—in response to the U.S.-China trade dispute—were an estimated $5.2 billion in 2018 and are projected at $3.5 billion in 2019. Price Loss Coverage (PLC) and Agricultural Risk Coverage (ARC) payments are also projected lower in 2019 ($1.7 billion) versus 2018 ($3.0 billion). Payments to dairy producers under the new Dairy Margin Coverage (DMC) program are projected up over 200% at $600 million, while payments under conservation and disaster assistance are projected up in 2019 at $4.3 billion (+8.6%) and $1.4 billion (+20%). Since 2008, U.S. agricultural exports have accounted for a 20% share of U.S. farm and manufactured or processed agricultural sales. In 2018 total agricultural exports were estimated up 2% at $143.4 billion. However, abundant supplies in international markets, strong competition from major foreign competitors, and the ongoing U.S.-China trade dispute are expected to shift trade patterns and lower U.S. export prospects slightly (-1%) in 2019. In addition to the outlook for slightly higher farm income, farm asset value is also projected up 1.5% from 2018 to $3.1 trillion. However, aggregate farm debt is projected record large at $426.7 billion—up 3.9% from 2018. Farm asset values reflect farm investors’ and lenders’ expectations about long-term profitability of farm sector investments. USDA farmland values are projected to rise 1.8% in 2019, similar to the increases of 1.9% in 2018 and 2.3% in 2017. Because they comprise such a significant portion of the U.S. farm sector’s asset base (83%), change in farmland values is a critical barometer of the farm sector’s financial performance. At the farm household level, average farm household incomes have been well above average U.S. household incomes since the late 1990s. However, that advantage has narrowed in recent years. In 2014, the average farm household income (including off-farm income sources) was about 77% higher than the average U.S. household income. In 2017 (the last year with comparable data), that advantage is expected to decline to 32%. The outlook for below average net farm income and relatively weak prices for most major program crops signals the likelihood of continued relatively lean times ahead. The U.S. agricultural sector’s well-being remains dependent on continued growth in domestic and foreign demand to sustain prices at current modest levels. In addition to commodity prices, the financial picture for the agricultural sector as a whole heading into 2019 will hinge on both domestic and international macroeconomic factors, including interest rates, economic growth, and consumer demand.

Apr 16, 2019

Overview of Public and Private School Choice Options

Apr 16, 2019

Stewardship End Result Contracting: Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management

Apr 15, 2019

Title IX and Sexual Harassment: Private Rights of Action, Administrative Enforcement, and Proposed Regulations

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX) provides an avenue of legal relief for victims of sexual abuse and harassment at educational institutions. It bars discrimination “on the basis of sex” in an educational program or activity receiving federal funding. Although Title IX makes no explicit reference to sexual harassment or abuse, the Supreme Court and federal agencies have determined that such conduct can sometimes constitute discrimination in violation of the statute; educational institutions in some circumstances can be held responsible when a teacher sexually harasses a student or when one student harasses another. Title IX is mainly enforced (1) through private rights of action brought directly against schools by or on behalf of students subjected to sexual misconduct; and (2) by federal agencies that provide funding to educational programs. To establish liability in a private right of action, a party seeking damages for a Title IX violation must satisfy the standards set forth by the Supreme Court in Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School District, decided in 1998, and Davis Next Friend LaShonda D. v. Monroe County Board of Education, decided the next year. Gebser provides that when a teacher commits harassment against a student, a school district is liable only when it has actual knowledge of allegations by an “appropriate person,” and so deficiently responds to those allegations that its response amounts to deliberate indifference to the discrimination. Davis instructs that, besides showing actual knowledge by an appropriate person and deliberate indifference, a plaintiff suing for damages for sexual harassment committed by a student must show that the conduct was “so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive” that it denied the victim equal access to educational opportunities or benefits. Taken together, the Supreme Court’s decisions set forth a high threshold for a private party seeking damages against an educational institution based on its response to sexual harassment. In turn, federal appellate courts have differed in how to apply the standards set in Gebser and Davis, diverging on the nature and amount of evidence sufficient to support a claim. In each of the last several presidential administrations, the Department of Education (ED) issued a number of guidance documents that instruct schools on their responsibilities under Title IX when addressing allegations of sexual harassment. These documents—while sometimes subject to change—generally reflected a different standard than the Supreme Court case law addressing private rights of action for damages for sexual abuse or harassment (the Court in Davis acknowledged that the threshold for liability in a private right of action could be higher than the standard imposed in the administrative enforcement context). Those guidance documents had, among other things, established that sometimes a school could be held responsible for instances of sexual harassment by a teacher, irrespective of actual notice; and schools could be held responsible for student-on-student harassment if a “responsible employee” knew or should have known of the harassment (constructive notice). ED’s previous guidance also instructed educational institutions that they sometimes could be responsible for responding to incidents of sexual harassment occurring off campus. ED also cautioned schools on the use of mediation to resolve allegations of sexual harassment. With regard to the procedures used by schools to resolve sexual harassment allegations, ED informed schools that they must use the preponderance of the evidence standard to establish culpability, and the agency strongly discouraged schools from allowing parties in a hearing to personally cross-examine one another. In response to guidance from ED, as well as increased oversight from the department’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) between 2011 and 2016, schools developed several procedures to ensure that their responses to allegations of sexual harassment and assault complied with Title IX. A number of students faced with disciplinary action by public universities raised constitutional challenges to the Title IX procedures used to find them responsible for sexual misconduct, arguing that universities violated the Due Process Clause in handling their case. ED issued a notice of proposed rulemaking in late 2018, after revoking some of its previous guidance to schools in 2017. The proposed regulations would, in several ways, tether the administrative requirements for schools to the standard set by the Supreme Court in Gebser and Davis. In doing so, the proposed regulations would depart from the standards set by ED in previous guidance documents (some of which have since been rescinded). The new regulations would require “actual notice,” rather than constructive notice, of harassment by an education institution to trigger a school’s Title IX responsibilities, and provide that a school’s response to allegations of sexual harassment will violate Title IX only if it amounts to deliberate indifference. In addition, the new regulations would more narrowly define what conduct qualifies as sexual harassment under Title IX, and also impose new procedural requirements, which appear to reflect due process concerns, when schools investigate sexual harassment or assault allegations and make determinations of culpability.

Apr 12, 2019

Timber Harvesting on Federal Lands

Congress has granted some federal land management agencies the authority to sell timber from federal lands. Two agencies, the Forest Service (FS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), conduct timber sales as an authorized use. Together, the FS and the BLM manage 76% of federal forest area. FS manages 144.9 million acres, while BLM manages 37.6 million acres. The other major federal land management agencies, the National Park Service (NPS) and the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), rarely conduct timber sales. Lands managed by the FS, the National Forest System (NFS), are managed under a multiple use-sustained yield model pursuant to the Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (MUSYA). This statute directs FS to balance multiple uses of their lands and ensure a sustained yield of those uses in perpetuity. Congress, through the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), has directed FS to engage in long-term land use and resource management planning. Plans set the framework for land management, uses, and protection; they are developed through an interdisciplinary process with opportunities for public participation. In the case of timber, they describe where timber harvesting may occur and include measures of sustainable timber harvest levels. FS uses these plans to guide implementation of individual sales, which generate revenue. Congress has specified various uses for this revenue. Timber harvest on FS lands has varied over time. FS harvest volumes in the 1940s were around 1-3 billion board feet per year. Annual harvest volumes rose from the 1950s through the 1980s, sometimes exceeding 10 billion board feet. Annual harvested volumes decreased in the early 1990s and have remained between 1.8 and 2.8 billion board feet since FY2003. The total dollar value of FS timber harvests generally rose from the early 1940s to over $3 billion in FY1979. Total value has been between $100 million and $300 million since FY2001. From FY2014 to FY2018, the greatest average annual harvest volume on FS lands was from Oregon and Washington. BLM lands are managed under a multiple use-sustained yield model pursuant to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA). This statute directs BLM to balance multiple uses of their lands and ensure a sustained yield of those uses in perpetuity. Congress has directed BLM to engage in long-term land use and resource management planning through FLPMA. Plans set the framework for land management, uses, and protection; they are developed made through an interdisciplinary process with opportunities for public participation. In the case of timber, they describe where timber harvesting may occur and contain measures of sustainable timber harvest levels. The FS and the BLM use these plans to guide implementation of individual sales, which generate revenue. Congress has specified various uses for this revenue. Although trends in timber activities on BLM lands are challenging to infer from the available data, volumes sold in the past appear to be larger than recent volumes offered for sale. Harvested volumes for the BLM have been between 100 and 260 million board feet annually from FY1995 onward, except in FY1994 and between FY2001-FY2003. Total harvest values have declined since the mid-1990s, and have generally been between $20 million and $50 million annually since FY2011. From FY2014 to FY2018, the greatest average annual harvest volume from BLM lands was from Oregon and Washington. Congress has debated the appropriate balance of timber harvesting and other uses on federal lands. Determining the proportions of these uses, in whole and on individual lands, is challenging for land management agencies. Preferences for certain balances of these uses often stem from values about federal forests’ purposes, such as consideration of economic, environmental, or recreational values. Debate has also centered on the relationship of timber harvesting levels to forest health, including whether changing harvest levels is a desirable forest management tool.

Apr 12, 2019

FY2019 Defense Appropriations Act (P.L. 115-245)

The FY2019 Department of Defense Appropriations Act, enacted as Division A of P.L. 115-245, provides $667.3 billion in new budget authority to fund all activities of the Department of Defense (DOD) except for the construction of military facilities and the operation of military family housing complexes. While the total amount appropriated for DOD for FY2019 was nearly equal to the Administration’s request, the act provides more funding than requested for dozens of weapons acquisition programs, with the gross increase exceeding $10 billion. Those additions are offset by hundreds of reductions made elsewhere within the budget request. In effect, these reductions allowed Congress to add billions of dollars to the Administration's DOD budget request without exceeding the cap on defense spending that arose from the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-123). That cap applies to discretionary appropriations for DOD's base budget—that is, appropriations designated by Congress and the President as funding for emergencies or for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO). OCO activities include current operations in Afghanistan and Syria, and any other operations which are so designated by Congress and the President. A House-Senate conference committee reported a version of the bill on September 13, 2018. The Senate approved the conference report on September 18 by a vote of 93-7 and the House did likewise on September 26 by a vote of 361-61. President Donald J. Trump signed the bill into law (P.L. 115-245) on September 28, 2018. FY2019 Defense Appropriations Act (P.L. 115-245) Subcommittee MarkupHouse Report (H.R. 6157)House Passage (H.R. 6157)Senate Report (S. 3159)Senate Passage (H.R. 6157)Conference Report on H.R. 6157 H. Rept. 115-952Public Law HouseSenate HouseSenate 6/7/20186/26/2018H. Rept. 115-7696/28/2018 359-49S. Rept. 115-2908/23/2018 85-79/26/2018 361-619/18/2018 93-7P.L. 115-245 Signed 9/28/2018 Notes: The Senate Appropriations Committee reported its version of the FY2019 defense appropriations bill as S. 3159. Subsequently, the Senate substituted the language of that bill for the language of the House-passed version of H.R. 6157, which it further amended and then passed. The bill does not include two pieces of DOD’s discretionary budget authority for FY2019: (1) military construction funds provided by the previously enacted P.L. 115-244, which incorporates the FY2019 appropriations bill for military construction and for the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies; and (2) $7.53 billion in accrual payments to fund the TRICARE for Life program of medical insurance for military retirees, funding for which is appropriated automatically, as a matter of permanent law (10 U.S.C. 1111-1117). As enacted, H.R. 6157 funds the Administration’s major defense initiatives, including an increase of 16,500 active-duty military personnel. Among the weapons procurement programs for which the bill provides substantial additions add to the amounts requested are the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter used by the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps (77 aircraft requested and 93 funded) and the Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship (one requested and three funded).

Apr 12, 2019

TurkStream: Russia’s Southern Pipeline to Europe

Apr 11, 2019

Selected Homeland Security Issues in the 116th Congress: CRS Experts

In 2001, in the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, “homeland security” went from being a concept discussed among a relatively small cadre of policymakers and strategic thinkers to one broadly discussed among policymakers, including a broad swath of those in Congress. Debates over how to implement coordinated homeland security policy led to the passage of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296), the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and extensive legislative activity in the ensuing years. Initially, homeland security was largely seen as counterterrorism activities. Today, homeland security is a broad and complex network of interrelated issues, in policymaking terms. For example, in its executive summary, the Quadrennial Homeland Security Review issued in 2014 delineated the missions of the homeland security enterprise as follows: prevent terrorism and enhance security; secure and manage the borders; enforce and administer immigration laws; safeguard and secure cyberspace; and strengthen national preparedness and resilience. This report lists CRS experts across an array of homeland security issues that may come before the 116th Congress. It provides contact information for the subject matter experts and, in many cases, includes links to background Insights on the topics they cover. The Insights may be accessed individually by clicking the specific topic in the experts list, or as a single document better formatted for printing by clicking the “Compiled Insights” link at the bottom of the experts list. After an introductory section with three crosscutting topics, the experts list groups more specific issues into five broad categories: Counterterrorism and Security Management; Border Security and Trade; Disaster Preparedness, Response, and Recovery; Cybersecurity; and DHS Management Issues. Each category contains a survey of topics briefly analyzed by CRS experts. The information contained in the Insights only scratches the surface of these selected issues. Congressional clients may obtain more detailed information on these topic and others by contacting the relevant CRS expert.

Apr 10, 2019

National Park Service: FY2020 Appropriations

Apr 10, 2019

Cyclones Idai and Kenneth in Southeastern Africa: Humanitarian and Recovery Response in Brief

Apr 9, 2019

The Special Counsel’s Report: Can Congress Get It?

Apr 9, 2019

The Evolving Use of Disaster Housing Assistance and the Roles of the Disaster Housing Assistance Program (DHAP) and the Individuals and Households Program (IHP)

For nearly one year following Hurricane Maria in 2017, some disaster survivors from Puerto Rico were housed in hotels/motels through the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA’s) Transitional Sheltering Assistance (TSA) program. This was due to multiple program extensions (including by court order), although TSA was intended to provide short-term (i.e., 5-14 days, extendable for up to 6 months) accommodations. As TSA was ending, some disaster survivors still lacked longer-term housing, causing housing advocacy organizations and Members of Congress (also here and here) to call upon FEMA to work with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to implement the Disaster Housing Assistance Program (DHAP), as was done following past catastrophic incidents. Although identified in the National Disaster Housing Strategy (Strategy) as a promising interim housing strategy and potential solution to the challenge of meeting long-term housing needs, FEMA stated that DHAP would not be implemented, in response to the Governor of Puerto Rico’s request. The justification was that FEMA and HUD “offered multiple housing solutions...better able to meet the current housing needs....” Despite recent legislative changes that may also resolve some gaps addressed by previous DHAP implementations, the push for DHAP has persisted. This Insight provides a brief overview of DHAP and other FEMA temporary housing assistance programs in the context of FEMA’s authority to provide such assistance, as well as potential considerations for Congress. Program Comparison After the President issues an emergency or major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act; P.L. 93-288, as amended; 42 U.S.C. §§5121 et seq.), various housing assistance programs may be available to disaster survivors, including programs provided by FEMA. FEMA-provided housing assistance may include short-term, emergency sheltering accommodations under Section 403—Essential Assistance—of the Stafford Act (42 U.S.C. §5170b) (e.g., the TSA program). Interim housing needs may be met through FEMA’s Individuals and Households Program (IHP) under Section 408—Federal Assistance to Individuals and Households—of the Stafford Act (42 U.S.C. §5174), which provides financial (e.g., assistance to rent alternate housing accommodations) and/or direct assistance (e.g., Multi-Family Lease and Repair, Transportable Temporary Housing Units, or Direct Lease) to eligible individuals and households. Although IHP provides various assistance options, limitations exist on their receipt and use. For example, there is a cap on the maximum amount of financial assistance an individual or household is eligible to receive, and IHP assistance is generally limited to a period of 18 months following the date of the declaration. In 2007, to address such limitations and the need for prolonged assistance to support the transition of disaster survivors from temporary to long-term housing after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita (2005), FEMA executed an Interagency Agreement (IAA) with HUD to administer rental assistance and case management services, as authorized under Section 408 of the Stafford Act. This was known as DHAP-Katrina. DHAP was also implemented through IAAs in 2008 following Hurricanes Ike and Gustav (2008)—DHAP-Ike—and 2013 following Hurricane Sandy (2012)—DHAP-Sandy. Although DHAP was authorized under Section 408 of the Stafford Act and funded through the Disaster Relief Fund, it was not subject to some of IHP’s standard limitations. This may have allowed families to receive more assistance for longer time periods than they may have received under IHP. For instance, DHAP assistance was not subject to the IHP funding cap, which totaled $26,200 per individual/household at the time of Hurricane Katrina, $28,800 at the time of Hurricane Ike, and $31,900 at the time of Hurricane Sandy. Also, the timing of DHAP implementation varied and the provision of assistance extended beyond the standard IHP assistance period of 18 months following the declaration. DHAP-Katrina was implemented nearly two years after the disaster and terminated more than two years later; DHAP-Ike was implemented within two months of the disaster and continued for more than three years; and DHAP-Sandy was implemented within approximately five months of, and terminated just over two years following, the disaster. Additional distinguishing features included that: DHAP was modeled after HUD’s Housing Choice Voucher program, and HUD administered DHAP through its network of local Public Housing Agencies, which was intended to bolster FEMA’s traditional temporary housing assistance programs and “help FEMA facilitate the transition of disaster survivors to non-disaster housing”; families were expected to incrementally increase contributions to their monthly rent, which, coupled with the mandatory case management program, was intended to help participants attain greater self-sufficiency; and each DHAP iteration differed somewhat in its administration, the operating requirements for which were issued through HUD Notices. Recent Changes Since DHAP was last implemented, the Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 (DRRA; Division D of P.L. 115-254) amended the Stafford Act to separate the cap on the maximum amount of financial assistance eligible individuals and households may receive for housing assistance and other needs assistance. Also, financial assistance to rent alternate housing accommodations is no longer subject to the cap. Additionally, following Hurricane Sandy, the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of 2013 (Division B of P.L. 113-2) formalized FEMA’s Multi-family Lease and Repair program, and FEMA developed its Direct Lease program, which FEMA claims “provides the same housing option...as DHAP in a more efficient and cost-effective manner.” Still, not all of DHAP’s unique characteristics are duplicated by the IHP housing assistance programs. Potential Considerations Congress may wish to evaluate DHAP to: determine if DHAP is still needed given the IHP legislative changes and program additions; assess whether IAA implementation is sufficient or if DHAP should be permanently authorized in legislation (e.g., the 115th Congress introduced DHAP-authorizing bills—also here, here, and here); determine if DHAP is cost-effective and accomplishes its goal of participant self-sufficiency; address inconsistencies between the Strategy and FEMA’s Individual Assistance Program and Policy Guidance (IAPPG), including related to changes post-DRRA (e.g., the IAPPG states rental assistance counts towards the cap), and FEMA’s policy decisions regarding program administration (e.g., extending TSA beyond six months, and not implementing DHAP/other interim solution); and consider whether FEMA should update the Strategy/IAPPG, given the outcome of any DHAP evaluation/potential legislative developments.

Apr 9, 2019

The SECURE Act and the Retirement Enhancement and Savings Act Tax Proposals (H.R. 1994 and S. 972)

Apr 5, 2019

Crisis in the Central African Republic

Apr 5, 2019

Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act: Understanding Apportionments for States and Territories

The Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. §§669 et seq.), enacted in 1937 and now known as the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act, provides funding for states and territories to support wildlife restoration, conservation, and hunter education and safety programs. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), within the Department of the Interior, administers Pittman-Robertson. All 50 states (but not the District of Columbia) as well as the 5 inhabited U.S. territories receive Pittman-Robertson funds. / Funding for FWS to carry out Pittman-Robertson programs comes from excise taxes on firearms, ammunition, and archery equipment. Receipts from these excise taxes are deposited into the Federal Aid to Wildlife Restoration Fund in the Treasury, and monies from the fund are made available for FWS in the fiscal year following their collection without any further action by Congress. Between FY1939 and FY2019, FWS disbursed $18.8 billion (in 2018 dollars) for wildlife restoration and hunter education and safety activities for Pittman-Robertson programs. FWS apportions and disburses funds to states and territories through three formula-based programs: Wildlife Restoration (known as Section 4(b)), Basic Hunter Education and Safety (Section 4(c)), and Enhanced Hunter Education and Safety Grants (Section 10). FWS also allocates nonformula funding for multistate conservation grants and program administration. State apportionments for wildlife restoration projects are based on the land and inland water area and the number of hunting licenses sold in each state. State population is used to determine apportionments for both the Basic and Enhanced Hunter Education and Safety programs. FWS also apportions funding for territories. For Wildlife Restoration, Puerto Rico receives not more than 0.5% of the apportionments made under the act and American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands each receive not more than 0.17%. Each territory receives 0.17% of the total apportionments for both the Basic and Enhanced Hunter Education and Safety programs. Amending Pittman-Robertson is of perennial interest to some in Congress. Members routinely consider legislation to amend how states and territories may use their Pittman-Robertson apportionments, sources of funding to support Pittman-Robertson, and the Pittman-Robertson apportionment formulas. Issues of interest have included whether Pittman-Robertson funds should be available for hunter recruitment and retention activities and the amount available for the expansion or construction of public shooting ranges. Because Pittman-Robertson derives its funding through an excise tax on shooting and archery equipment, the number of people participating in these and related activities influences the amount of available funding for these programs. This, in turn, can lead some to consider issues related to funding sources and whether the existing revenue sources derived from excise taxes on shooting and archery equipment should be modified. Other issues that Congress has addressed include whether to modify the existing apportionment structure, including whether to amend how funding is apportioned for states and territories.

Apr 5, 2019

Forest Service: FY2019 Appropriations and FY2020 Request

Apr 4, 2019

Drug Pricing and Intellectual Property Law: A Legal Overview for the 116th Congress

Intellectual property (IP) rights play an important role in the development and pricing of pharmaceutical products such as prescription drugs and biologics. In order to encourage innovation, IP law grants the rights holder a temporary monopoly on a particular invention or product, potentially enabling him to charge higher-than-competitive prices. IP rights, if sufficiently limited, are typically justified as necessary to allow pharmaceutical manufacturers the ability to recoup substantial costs in research and development, including clinical trials and other tests necessary to obtain regulatory approval from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). However, because they may operate to deter or delay competition from generic drug and biosimilar manufacturers, IP rights have been criticized as contributing to high prices for pharmaceutical products in the United States. Two main types of IP may protect pharmaceutical products: patents and regulatory exclusivities. Patents, which are available to a wide range of technologies besides pharmaceuticals, are granted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) to new and useful inventions. Pharmaceutical patents may claim chemical compounds in the pharmaceutical product, a method of using the product, a method of making the product, or a variety of other patentable inventions relating to a drug or biologic. The holder of a valid patent generally has the exclusive right to make, use, sell, and import the invention for a term lasting approximately 20 years. If a court concludes that a competitor’s generic or biosimilar version infringes a valid patent, the court may issue an injunction precluding the competitor from making, using, selling, and importing that competing product until the patent expires. In some circumstances, FDA grants regulatory exclusivities to a pharmaceutical manufacturer upon the completion of the process required to market pharmaceutical products. Before a new drug or biologic can be sold in the United States, companies must apply for regulatory approval or licensure from FDA, which determines if the pharmaceutical is safe and effective. For certain pharmaceuticals, such as innovative products or those that serve particular needs, FDA provides a term of marketing exclusivity upon the successful completion of the regulatory process. If a product is covered by an unexpired regulatory exclusivity, FDA generally may not accept and/or approve an application seeking FDA approval of a follow-on product (i.e., a generic drug or biosimilar). Regulatory exclusivities vary in length from as little as six months to as much as 12 years depending on the specific type of drug or biologic at issue and other factors. Like regulatory exclusivities, patent rights can affect when generic and biosimilar manufacturers can market their follow-on products. Pharmaceutical patent disputes are subject to certain specialized procedures under the Hatch-Waxman Act and the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA). Under Hatch-Waxman, applicants seeking approval of a generic version of an existing FDA-approved drug must make a certification with respect to each patent that the brand-name drug manufacturer lists as covering the product. If the generic manufacturer challenges those patents, FDA generally cannot approve the generic drug application for 30 months while the patent dispute is litigated. For biologics, applicants seeking approval of a biosimilar version of an existing biological product may choose to engage in the BPCIA’s “patent dance,” a complex scheme of private information exchanges made in preparation for formal patent disputes between brand-name biologic and biosimilar manufacturers. The patent dance does not affect FDA’s ability to approve a biosimilar application. Some pharmaceutical companies have been criticized for charging high prices and engaging in practices that are perceived by some to exploit the existing legal system governing IP rights on pharmaceutical products. For example, some generic manufacturers have claimed that brand-name drug manufacturers have unreasonably refused to sell them samples of brand-name drugs in order to impede their ability to obtain FDA approval and delay market entry of generic competition. Other commentators have criticized the practice of “pay-for-delay” settlements, through which brand-name drug companies settle patent litigation with generic or biosimilar manufacturers by paying them to delay their entry into the market. Still others criticize so-called patent “evergreening,” in which pharmaceutical companies are alleged to serially patent minor improvements or ancillary features of their products in order to extend the effective term of patent protection. In recent years, a number of congressional proposals have been introduced that seek to address these and other issues in IP law that are perceived by some to contribute to high prices for pharmaceutical products. These proposed reforms range from relatively modest changes, such as increasing patent transparency, to more sweeping reforms such as pricing controls and government compulsory licensing provisions.

Apr 4, 2019

Civil Rights at School: Agency Enforcement of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits federally funded programs, activities, and institutions from discriminating based on race, color, or national origin. In its current form, largely unchanged since its adoption, Title VI incorporates a number of unique features. Besides barring federally funded programs from discriminating based on race, Title VI also authorizes and directs all federal funding agencies to promulgate rules effectuating that nondiscrimination mandate. Those rules were also made subject to presidential approval, an authority since delegated to the Attorney General by executive order. To enforce Title VI, agencies also have at their disposal a uniquely powerful tool: the termination or refusal to provide federal financial support to an institution or program seeking it. Although this power to withdraw federal funds was envisioned as the primary mechanism for enforcing Title VI, that authority was also hedged with a range of procedural requirements designed to spur agencies to resolve complaints against recipients through voluntary agreements. In the 50 years since Title VI became law much of the debate over the statute has centered on how the courts have read its two central provisions—Sections 601 and 602—and how federal agencies have gone about enforcing them. In the courts those debates have especially focused on what counts as unlawful “discrimination” under Section 601. The courts have long agreed that Title VI bars federally funded programs from intentionally singling out individuals by race for adverse treatment. In its first case involving Title VI the Supreme Court suggested that Section 601 might also reach beyond intentional discrimination to bar the use of policies with a disparate impact—policies that, irrespective of the intent, impose a discriminatory effect on different racial groups. With its 2001 ruling in Alexander v Sandoval, the Court appeared to put that interpretive question to rest: Title VI directly prohibits only intentional discrimination. For the agencies charged with enforcing Title VI, the primary concerns have tended to be more operational and programmatic—how to go about the business of reviewing and assessing particular practices under Section 602 of the statute. Section 602 authorizes and directs agencies to issue regulations “effectuat[ing]” Section 601. The breadth of that authority has produced a further point of uncertainty about the statute: what limits are there to funding agencies’ rulemaking authority under Title VI? So far, two divergent views have emerged from the Court’s decisions: (1) a largely deferential view that would give agencies leeway to issue prophylactic rules reaching conduct beyond intentional discrimination, and (2) a more exacting view under which agencies may redress only provable cases of intentional discrimination. Although Title VI’s nondiscrimination prohibition accompanies nearly all awards of federal financial support, much of the statute’s doctrine has been shaped by its use in the public schools. That doctrinal history has centered on one agency in particular: the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) in the U.S. Department of Education (ED). Title VI continues to play a central part in OCR’s mission of protecting civil rights on campuses at all educational levels, and in institutions both public and private. OCR handles a large volume and variety of claims alleging race and national origin discrimination, which it administratively resolves through a series of investigative procedures laid out in its Case Processing Manual. Although the types of allegations OCR investigates vary, three major categories of complaint occupy much of its docket: disparate treatment, retaliation, and racial harassment. Congress has the ultimate say over how Title VI works—rooted not only in its legislative power but in its authority to oversee the statute’s enforcement. In recent years two questions surrounding Title VI have drawn particular congressional interest: the viability of disparate impact regulations under Section 602 and the possible inclusion of new protected classes in Section 601. No matter how Congress may choose to address those subjects, however, they are likely only to raise further questions about the future of this landmark civil rights law.

Apr 4, 2019

Proposed Relocation/Realignment of USDA’s ERS and NIFA

Apr 3, 2019

2018 Farm Bill Primer: Marketing Assistance Loan Program

Apr 3, 2019

Virtual Currencies and Money Laundering: Legal Background, Enforcement Actions, and Legislative Proposals

Law enforcement officials have described money laundering—the process of making illegally obtained proceeds appear legitimate—as the “lifeblood” of organized crime. Recently, money launderers have increasingly turned to a new technology to conceal the origins of illegally obtained proceeds: virtual currency. Virtual currencies like Bitcoin, Ether, and Ripple are digital representations of value that, like ordinary currency, function as media of exchange, units of account, and stores of value. However, unlike ordinary currencies, virtual currencies are not legal tender, meaning they cannot be used to pay taxes and creditors need not accept them as payments for debt. While virtual currency enthusiasts tout their technological promise, a number of commentators have contended that the anonymity offered by these new financial instruments makes them an attractive vehicle for money laundering. Law enforcement officials, regulators, and courts have accordingly grappled with how virtual currencies fit into a federal anti-money laundering (AML) regime designed principally for traditional financial institutions. The federal AML regime consists of two general categories of laws and regulations. First, federal law requires a range of “financial institutions” to abide by a variety of AML program, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements. Second, federal law criminalizes money laundering and various forms of related conduct. Over the past decade, federal prosecutors and regulators have pursued a number of cases involving the application of these laws to virtual currencies. Specifically, federal prosecutors have brought money laundering charges against the creators of online marketplaces that allowed their users to exchange virtual currency for illicit goods and services. In one of these prosecutions, a federal district court held that transactions involving Bitcoin can serve as the predicate for money laundering charges. Federal prosecutors have also pursued charges against the developers of certain virtual currency payment systems allegedly designed to facilitate illicit transactions and launder the proceeds of criminal activity. Specifically, prosecutors charged these developers with conspiring to commit money laundering and operating unlicensed money transmitting businesses. In adjudicating the second category of charges, courts have concluded that the relevant virtual currency payment systems were “unlicensed money transmitting businesses,” rejecting the argument that the relevant criminal prohibition applies only to money transmitters that facilitate cash transactions. Finally, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN)—the bureau within the Treasury Department responsible for administering the principal federal AML statute—has pursued a number of administrative enforcement actions against virtual currency exchangers, assessing civil penalties for failure to implement sufficient AML programs and report suspicious transactions. As these prosecutions and enforcement actions demonstrate, virtual currencies have a number of features that make them attractive to criminals. Specifically, commentators have noted that money launderers are attracted to the anonymity, ease of cross-border transfer, lack of clear regulations, and settlement finality that accompanies virtual currency transactions. Several bills introduced in the 116th Congress are aimed at addressing these challenges. These bills would, among other things, commission agency analyses of the use of virtual currencies for illicit activities and clarify FinCEN’s statutory powers and duties. Commentators have also identified legal uncertainty as an additional challenge facing prosecutors, regulators, and participants in virtual currency transactions. Moreover, a number of observers have argued that existing AML regulations are likely to stifle innovation by virtual currency developers. In response to these concerns about legal clarity and burdensome regulation, at least one legislative proposal contemplates exempting certain blockchain developers from various AML requirements.

Apr 3, 2019

Agricultural Provisions of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement

Apr 3, 2019

2018 Farm Bill Primer: Title I Commodity Programs

Apr 3, 2019

2018 Farm Bill Primer: The Farm Safety Net

Apr 3, 2019

2018 Farm Bill Primer: Program Eligibility and Payment Limits

Apr 3, 2019

The Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund Tax: Background and Reauthorization Issues in the 116th Congress

Apr 3, 2019

Increasing the BCA Spending Limits: Characteristics of Previously Enacted Legislation

The Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA; P.L. 112-25), enacted on August 2, 2011, generated annual statutory discretionary spending limits for defense and nondefense spending that are in effect through FY2021. If appropriations are enacted that exceed a limit for a fiscal year, across-the-board reductions (i.e., sequestration) are triggered to eliminate the excess spending within that category. The BCA further stipulates that certain discretionary spending—such as appropriations designated as emergency requirements or for overseas contingency operations—are effectively exempt from the limits. For more information on the BCA, see CRS Report R44874, The Budget Control Act: Frequently Asked Questions, by Grant A. Driessen and Megan S. Lynch. Legislation has been enacted increasing the BCA spending limits (or caps) for each year from FY2014 through FY2019. In each case, (1) the legislation increased both defense and nondefense caps (although not always by equal amounts); (2) the legislation increased the caps for two fiscal years; (3) the legislation was enacted after the start of the first fiscal year that it affected; and (4) the legislation included other components, such as provisions affecting mandatory spending. Legislation has not been enacted modifying the discretionary budget authority limits for FY2020 or FY2021. As shown in Figure 1, under current law, the caps for FY2020 would drop by $126 billion (or 10%) relative to the budget authority caps for FY2019. That decrease would consist of a $71 billion drop in the defense cap (from $647 billion to $576 billion) and a $55 billion decrease in the nondefense cap (from $597 billion to $542 billion). Figure 1. BCA Discretionary Limits, FY2014-FY2021 Budget authority in billions of nominal dollars / Notes: BBA 2013, BBA 2015, and BBA 2018 denote the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 (P.L. 113-67), Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (P.L. 114-74), and Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-123), respectively. A Brief Description of Previously Enacted Legislation Increasing the Spending Limits The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 (BBA 2013; P.L. 113-67, referred to as the Murray-Ryan agreement) increased FY2014 discretionary spending limits for both defense and nondefense budget authority by about $22 billion each. In addition, it increased FY2015 discretionary spending limits for both defense and nondefense budget authority by about $9 billion each. The legislation was enacted in late December 2013, nearly three months into FY2014. The legislation included numerous other components with budgetary ramifications, such as the extension of the BCA’s annual sequester on non-exempt mandatory spending through FY2023 and an increase in security-related aviation fees. The Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) December 2013 cost estimate projected that the changes to the BCA caps would increase projected outlays by $62 billion over the FY2014-FY2023 period and that other changes included in BBA 2013 would reduce deficits by about $85 billion over the same period. The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (BBA 2015; P.L. 114-74) increased discretionary spending limits for both defense and nondefense for FY2016 by $25 billion each. In addition, it increased discretionary spending limits for both defense and nondefense for FY2017 by $15 billion each. The legislation was enacted in early November 2015, approximately one month into FY2016. Other components with budgetary effects in BBA 2015 included the extension of mandatory sequestration through FY2025 and the drawdown and sale of resources from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. CBO’s October 2015 cost estimate projected that the changes to the BCA caps would increase projected outlays by $79 billion over the FY2016-FY2025 period and that other changes included in BBA 2015 would reduce deficits by about $80 billion over the same period. The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 (BBA 2018; P.L. 115-123) increased nondefense and defense discretionary limits in FY2018 and FY2019. In FY2018, BBA 2018 increased the defense limit by $80 billion and increased the nondefense limit by $63 billion, and in FY2019 it increased the defense limit by $85 billion and increased the nondefense limit by $68 billion. The legislation was enacted in late March 2018, nearly halfway through FY2018. The legislation included other components, such as the creation of a temporary congressional committee tasked with significantly reforming the budget and appropriations process and the extension of mandatory sequestration through FY2027. CBO’s February 2018 cost estimate projected that the changes to the BCA caps would increase projected outlays by $290 billion over the FY2018-FY2027 period and that other changes included in BBA 2018 would reduce deficits by about $38 billion over the same period. Figure 2 shows the projected budgetary effects of BBA 2013, BBA 2015, and BBA 2018 as provided in the most recent CBO cost estimate for each piece of legislation. Figure 2. Budgetary Effects of BBA 2013, BBA 2015, and BBA 2018 (Ten-year effects, in billions of dollars) / Source: CRS tabulation of latest legislative cost estimates produced by the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation. Notes: Positive numbers indicate projected increases in deficits. Negative numbers indicate the opposite.

Apr 3, 2019

2018 Farm Bill Primer: ARC and PLC Support Programs

Apr 3, 2019

Bureau of Reclamation: FY2020 Appropriations

Apr 2, 2019

U.S. Farm Program Eligibility and Payment Limits Under the 2018 Farm Bill (P.L. 115-334)

Under the Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-334; 2018 farm bill), U.S. farm program participants—whether individuals or multiperson legal entities—must meet specific eligibility requirements to receive benefits under certain farm programs. Some requirements are common across most programs, while others are specific to individual programs. In addition, program participants are subject to annual payment limits that vary across different combinations of farm programs. Federal farm support programs and risk management programs, along with their current eligibility requirements and payment limits, are listed in Table 1. Terms for most of these programs are applicable for the 2019-2023 crop years. Since 1970, Congress has used various policies to address the issue of who should be eligible for farm payments and how much an individual recipient should be permitted to receive in a single year. In recent years, congressional policy has focused on tracking payments through multiperson entities to individual recipients (referred to as direct attribution), ensuring that payments go to persons or entities actively engaged in farming, capping the amount of payments that a qualifying recipient may receive in any one year, and excluding farmers or farming entities with large average incomes from payment eligibility. Current eligibility requirements that affect multiple programs include identification of every participating person or legal entity—both U.S. and non-U.S. citizens—the nature and extent of an individual’s participation (i.e., actively engaged in farming criteria), including ownership interests in multiperson entities and personal time commitments (whether as labor or management) and means testing (persons with combined farm and nonfarm adjusted gross income in excess of $900,000 are ineligible for most program benefits); and conservation compliance requirements. In general, if foreign persons or legal entities meet a program’s eligibility requirements, then they are eligible to participate. One exception is the four permanent disaster assistance programs created under the 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79) and the noninsured crop disaster assistance program (NAP) in which nonresident aliens are excluded. Current law requires direct attribution through four levels of ownership in multiperson legal entities. Current payment limits include a cumulative limit of $125,000 for all covered commodities under the Price Loss Coverage (PLC) and Agricultural Revenue Coverage (ARC) support programs, with the exception of peanuts, which has its own $125,000 limit. Only one permanent disaster assistance program—the Livestock Forage Disaster Program (LFP)—is subject to a payment limit ($125,000 per crop year). NAP is also subject to a $125,000 per crop year limit per person for catastrophic coverage. Supporters of payment limits contend that large payments facilitate consolidation of farms into larger units, raise the price of land, and put smaller family-sized farming operations and beginning farmers at a disadvantage. In addition, they argue that large payments undermine public support for farm subsidies and are costly. Critics of payment limits counter that all farms need support, especially when market prices decline, and that larger farms should not be penalized for the economies of size and efficiencies they have achieved. Further, critics argue that farm payments help U.S. agriculture compete in global markets and that income testing is at odds with federal farm policies directed toward improving U.S. agriculture and its competitiveness. Congress may continue to address these issues, as well as related questions, such as: How does the current policy design of payment limits relate to their distributional impact on crops, regions, and farm size? Is there an optimal aggregation of payment limits across commodities or programs? Do unlimited benefits under the marketing assistance loan program reduce the effectiveness of overall payment limits?

Apr 2, 2019

FY2018 State Grants Under Title I-A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), most recently comprehensively amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA; P.L. 114-95), is the primary source of federal aid to K-12 education. The Title I-A program is the largest grant program authorized under the ESEA and was funded at $15.8 billion for FY2018. It is designed to provide supplementary educational and related services to low-achieving and other students attending elementary and secondary schools with relatively high concentrations of students from low-income families. Under current law, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) determines Title I-A grants to local educational agencies (LEAs) based on four separate funding formulas: Basic Grants, Concentration Grants, Targeted Grants, and Education Finance Incentive Grants (EFIG). The four Title I-A formulas have somewhat distinct allocation patterns, providing varying shares of allocated funds to different types of states. Thus, for some states, certain formulas are more favorable than others. This report provides FY2018 state grant amounts under each of the four formulas used to determine Title I-A grants. Overall, California received the largest FY2018 Title I-A grant amount ($2.0 billion, or 12.76% of total Title I-A grants). Wyoming received the smallest FY2018 Title I-A grant amount ($35.9 million, or 0.23% of total Title I-A grants).

Apr 1, 2019

Digital Trade

Mar 29, 2019

Cuba: U.S. Policy in the 116th Congress

Political and economic developments in Cuba, a one-party authoritarian state with a poor human rights record, frequently have been the subject of intense congressional concern since the Cuban revolution in 1959. Current Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel succeeded Raúl Castro in April 2018, but Castro continues to head Cuba’s Communist Party. Over the past decade, Cuba has implemented gradual market-oriented economic policy changes, although it has not taken enough action to foster sustainable economic growth. Most observers do not anticipate major policy changes under Díaz-Canel, at least in the short term; the president faces the enormous challenges of reforming the economy and responding to citizens’ desires for greater freedom. U.S. Policy Since the early 1960s, the centerpiece of U.S. policy toward Cuba has consisted of economic sanctions aimed at isolating the Cuban government. Congress has played an active role in shaping policy toward Cuba, including the enactment of legislation strengthening, and at times easing, U.S. economic sanctions. In 2014, however, the Obama Administration initiated a policy shift moving away from sanctions toward a policy of engagement. This included the restoration of diplomatic relations (July 2015), the rescission of Cuba’s designation as a state sponsor of international terrorism (May 2015), and an increase in travel, commerce, and the flow of information to Cuba implemented through regulatory changes. President Trump unveiled a new policy toward Cuba in 2017 that increased sanctions and partially rolled back some of the Obama Administration’s efforts to normalize relations. In 2017, the State Department reduced the staff of the U.S. Embassy by about two-thirds in response to unexplained injuries of members of the U.S. diplomatic community in Havana; 26 individuals have been affected. The reduction has affected embassy operations, especially visa processing, and has made bilateral engagement more difficult. The most significant Trump Administration policy changes include restrictions on transactions with over 200 entities controlled by the Cuban military, intelligence, and security services (on a “restricted list” maintained by the State Department) and the elimination of people-to-people educational travel for individuals (such travel with a group specializing in educational tours is still permitted). In March 2019, the Administration ratcheted up economic pressure on Cuba by allowing certain lawsuits to go forward against those entities on the “restricted list” for trafficking in confiscated property in Cuba. In light of increased U.S. sanctions against the regime of Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela, the Administration has increased its criticism of Cuba’s military and intelligence support for the regime in Caracas. Legislative Activity in the 116th Congress In the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 (P.L. 116-6, H.J.Res. 31) enacted in February 2019, Congress provided $20 million in Cuba democracy assistance ($10 million more than requested) and $29.1 million for Cuba broadcasting ($15.4 million more than requested). Several legislative initiatives on Cuba have been introduced in the 116th Congress: H.R. 213 would waive certain prohibitions to allows nationals of Cuba to come to the United States to play organized professional baseball; S. 428 would repeal or amend many provisions of law restricting trade and other relations with Cuba; and H.R. 1898 would authorize private financing for U.S. agricultural sales to Cuba. S.Res. 14 and H.Res. 136 would express the sense of the Senate and House, respectively, that Cuba’s foreign medical missions constitute human trafficking; and H.Res. 92 would call for the extradition or rendering to the United States all fugitives from U.S. justice receiving safe harbor in Cuba. For more on legislative initiatives in the 116th Congress, see Appendix A.

Mar 29, 2019

Firearms Eligibility: Stalking- and Domestic Violence-Related Provisions in H.R. 1585

Mar 29, 2019

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Appropriations: FY2020 President’s Budget Request

Mar 28, 2019

America’s Water Infrastructure Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-270): Drinking Water Provisions

Congress has long deliberated on the condition of drinking water infrastructure and drinking water quality as well as the financial and technical challenges some public water systems face in ensuring the delivery of safe and adequate water supplies. Several events and circumstances—including source water contamination incidents; water infrastructure damage from natural disasters, such as hurricanes; detection of elevated lead levels in tap water in various cities and schools; and the nationwide need to repair or replace aging drinking water infrastructure—have increased national attention to these issues. America’s Water Infrastructure Act of 2018 (AWIA; P.L. 115-270), enacted on October 23, 2018, contains provisions that seek to address these and other water infrastructure concerns. Overall, AWIA authorizes various water infrastructure projects and activities for several federal agencies. Title I of AWIA, “Water Resources Development Act of 2018,” authorizes water resource development activities for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Title II of AWIA constitutes the most comprehensive amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) since 1996. Title III primarily includes provisions that address hydropower-related activities of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Among its provisions, Title IV amends U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-administered water infrastructure programs and several Clean Water Act authorities. This report focuses on the drinking water provisions of Title II and Title IV of AWIA, which authorize appropriations for several drinking water and wastewater infrastructure programs for projects that promote compliance, address aging drinking water infrastructure and lead in school drinking water, and increase drinking water infrastructure resilience to natural hazards. Title II amends SDWA to help communities achieve SDWA compliance, revise the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) program, reauthorize appropriations for the DWSRF program, and increase emphasis on assisting disadvantaged communities. Provisions in Title II also revise emergency notification and planning requirements; authorize the use of DWSRF funds for the assessment and protection of drinking water sources; identify options intended to develop public water systems’ technical, managerial, and financial capacity; and improve consumer confidence in public drinking water supplies. Title II authorizes a supplemental DWSRF appropriation for disaster assistance for public water systems in certain areas under certain conditions. Other provisions authorize new grant programs to reduce lead contamination in school drinking water, improve drinking water infrastructure for specified Indian tribes, respond to contamination of small and disadvantaged communities’ drinking water sources, and improve the sustainability and resilience of small and disadvantaged communities’ drinking water systems. Title IV addresses several other water quality and infrastructure issues by authorizing and revising activities and programs for the EPA and other federal agencies. Title IV extends, authorizes, and amends drinking-water-related activities and programs administered by EPA. Specifically, these provisions authorize WaterSense, an EPA-initiated voluntary water efficiency labeling program, and revise the Water Instructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) financial assistance program. The WIFIA program provides credit assistance for water infrastructure projects. Other provisions authorize grant programs for innovative water technology and for water sector workforce development. Title IV also amends the Clean Water Act to expand a municipal sewer overflow grant program to include stormwater management projects, reauthorize appropriations for that program, and direct EPA to establish a task force for stormwater management. With AWIA, the 115th Congress passed an omnibus water infrastructure and project authorization bill that affects several federal agencies. The act includes several provisions related to drinking water, with overarching themes involving drinking water infrastructure affordability and water system compliance capacity and sustainability.

Mar 28, 2019

Defense Primer: Military Use of the Electromagnetic Spectrum

Mar 27, 2019

Defense Primer: U.S. Policy on Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems

Mar 27, 2019

Central American Migration: Root Causes and U.S. Policy

Mar 27, 2019

Assessing NATO’s Value

Mar 27, 2019

Free Speech and the Regulation of Social Media Content

As the Supreme Court has recognized, social media sites like Facebook and Twitter have become important venues for users to exercise free speech rights protected under the First Amendment. Commentators and legislators, however, have questioned whether these social media platforms are living up to their reputation as digital public forums. Some have expressed concern that these sites are not doing enough to counter violent or false speech. At the same time, many argue that the platforms are unfairly banning and restricting access to potentially valuable speech. Currently, federal law does not offer much recourse for social media users who seek to challenge a social media provider’s decision about whether and how to present a user’s content. Lawsuits predicated on these sites’ decisions to host or remove content have been largely unsuccessful, facing at least two significant barriers under existing federal law. First, while individuals have sometimes alleged that these companies violated their free speech rights by discriminating against users’ content, courts have held that the First Amendment, which provides protection against state action, is not implicated by the actions of these private companies. Second, courts have concluded that many non-constitutional claims are barred by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230, which provides immunity to providers of interactive computer services, including social media providers, both for certain decisions to host content created by others and for actions taken “voluntarily” and “in good faith” to restrict access to “objectionable” material. Some have argued that Congress should step in to regulate social media sites. Government action regulating internet content would constitute state action that may implicate the First Amendment. In particular, social media providers may argue that government regulations impermissibly infringe on the providers’ own constitutional free speech rights. Legal commentators have argued that when social media platforms decide whether and how to post users’ content, these publication decisions are themselves protected under the First Amendment. There are few court decisions evaluating whether a social media site, by virtue of publishing, organizing, or even editing protected speech, is itself exercising free speech rights. Consequently, commentators have largely analyzed the question of whether the First Amendment protects a social media site’s publication decisions by analogy to other types of First Amendment cases. There are at least three possible frameworks for analyzing governmental restrictions on social media sites’ ability to moderate user content. First, using the analogue of the company town, social media sites could be treated as state actors who are themselves bound to follow the First Amendment when they regulate protected speech. If social media sites were treated as state actors under the First Amendment, then the Constitution itself would constrain their conduct, even absent legislative regulation. The second possible framework would view social media sites as analogous to special industries like common carriers or broadcast media. The Court has historically allowed greater regulation of these industries’ speech, given the need to protect public access for users of their services. Under the second framework, if special aspects of social media sites threaten the use of the medium for communicative or expressive purposes, courts might approve of content-neutral regulations intended to solve those problems. The third analogy would treat social media sites like news editors, who generally receive the full protections of the First Amendment when making editorial decisions. If social media sites were considered to be equivalent to newspaper editors when they make decisions about whether and how to present users’ content, then those editorial decisions would receive the broadest protections under the First Amendment. Any government regulations that alter the editorial choices of social media sites by forcing them to host content that they would not otherwise transmit, or requiring them to take down content they would like to host, could be subject to strict scrutiny. A number of federal trial courts have held that search engines exercise editorial judgment protected by the First Amendment when they make decisions about whether and how to present specific websites or advertisements in search results, seemingly adopting this last framework. Which of these three frameworks applies will depend largely on the particular action being regulated. Under existing law, social media platforms may be more likely to receive First Amendment protection when they exercise more editorial discretion in presenting user-generated content, rather than if they neutrally transmit all such content. In addition, certain types of speech receive less protection under the First Amendment. Courts may be more likely to uphold regulations targeting certain disfavored categories of speech such as obscenity or speech inciting violence. Finally, if a law targets a social media site’s conduct rather than speech, it may not trigger the protections of the First Amendment at all.

Mar 27, 2019

Congressional Subpoenas: Enforcing Executive Branch Compliance

Congress gathers much of the information necessary to oversee the implementation of existing laws or to evaluate whether new laws are necessary from the executive branch. While executive branch officials comply with most congressional requests for information, there are times when the executive branch chooses to resist disclosure. When Congress finds an inquiry blocked by the withholding of information by the executive branch, or where the traditional process of negotiation and accommodation is inappropriate or unavailing, a subpoena—either for testimony or documents—may be used to compel compliance with congressional demands. The recipient of a duly issued and valid congressional subpoena has a legal obligation to comply, absent a valid and overriding privilege or other legal justification. But the subpoena is only as effective as the means by which it may be enforced. Without a process by which Congress can coerce compliance or deter non-compliance, the subpoena would be reduced to a formalized request rather than a constitutionally based demand for information. Congress currently employs an ad hoc combination of methods to combat non-compliance with subpoenas. The two predominant methods rely on the authority and participation of another branch of government. First, the criminal contempt statute permits a single house of Congress to certify a contempt citation to the executive branch for the criminal prosecution of an individual who has willfully refused to comply with a committee subpoena. Once the contempt citation is received, any prosecution lies within the control of the executive branch. Second, Congress may try to enforce a subpoena by seeking a civil judgment declaring that the recipient is legally obligated to comply. This process of civil enforcement relies on the help of the courts to enforce congressional demands. But these mechanisms do not always ensure congressional access to requested information. Recent controversies could be interpreted to suggest that the existing mechanisms are at times inadequate—particularly in the instance that enforcement is necessary to respond to a current or former executive branch official who has refused to comply with a subpoena. There would appear to be several ways in which Congress could alter its approach to enforcing committee subpoenas issued to executive branch officials. These alternatives include the enactment of laws that would expedite judicial consideration of subpoena-enforcement lawsuits filed by either house of Congress; the establishment of an independent office charged with enforcing the criminal contempt of Congress statute; or the creation of an automatic consequence, such as a withholding of appropriated funds, triggered by the approval of a contempt citation. In addition, either the House or Senate could consider acting on internal rules of procedure to revive the long-dormant inherent contempt power as a way to enforce subpoenas issued to executive branch officials. Yet, because of the institutional prerogatives that are often implicated in inter-branch oversight disputes, some of these proposals may raise constitutional concerns.

Mar 27, 2019

Defining Domestic Violence

In 2018, the Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) changed the expansive domestic violence (DV) definition that appeared on its website to the more narrow statutory definition used for grant programs. There is some confusion as to the meaning and implication of OVW’s change. In the 116th Congress, legislation has been introduced that would amend the definition used in the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) grant programs—the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2019 (H.R. 1585), if enacted, would amend and expand the definition of DV. Federal Definitions of DV The federal government defines DV in different ways and for different purposes. Under criminal statute, 18 U.S.C. §2261 defines a DV offender that falls under federal jurisdiction as: [a] person who travels in interstate or foreign commerce or enters or leaves Indian country or is present within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States with the intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate a spouse, intimate partner, or dating partner, and who, in the course of or as a result of such travel or presence, commits or attempts to commit a crime of violence against that spouse, intimate partner, or dating partner. For VAWA grant purposes, VAWA states: The term “domestic violence” includes felony or misdemeanor crimes of violence committed by a current or former spouse or intimate partner of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabitating with or has cohabitated with the victim as a spouse or intimate partner, by a person similarly situated to a spouse of the victim under the domestic or family violence laws of the jurisdiction receiving grant monies, or by any other person against an adult or youth victim who is protected from that person’s acts under the domestic or family violence laws of the jurisdiction. OVW administers VAWA grants, and the DV definition on OVW’s website matches the definition Congress established for grants. OVW previously (April 2018 and earlier) posted a more expansive definition that described DV as a “pattern of behavior” and included both economic and emotional abuse. Of note, changes to the OVW website definition have no impact on VAWA grantees. In the 116th Congress, H.R. 1585, if enacted, would amend the statutory definition used for grant programs to resemble the more expansive definition previously published by OVW. This change would impact future VAWA grantees. Expanded Definition for VAWA Grant Programs under H.R. 1585 H.R. 1585 would define DV as: a pattern of behavior involving the use or attempted use of physical, sexual, verbal, emotional, economic, or technological abuse or any other coercive behavior committed, enabled, or solicited to gain or maintain power and control over a victim, by a person who— (A) is a current or former spouse or dating partner of the victim, or other person similarly situated to a spouse of the victim under the family or domestic violence laws of the jurisdiction; (B) is cohabitating with or has cohabitated with the victim as a spouse or dating partner, or other person similarly situated to a spouse of the victim under the family or domestic violence laws of the jurisdiction; (C) shares a child in common with the victim; (D) is an adult family member of, or paid or nonpaid caregiver for, a victim aged 50 or older or an adult victim with disabilities; or (E) commits acts against a youth or adult victim who is protected from those acts under the family or domestic violence laws of the jurisdiction. The bill would describe DV as a pattern of abusive behavior, and extend the current definition beyond crimes of violence to include verbal, emotional, economic, and technological abuse (the bill also defines the latter two forms of abuse). Potential Implications of an Expanded Definition A more expansive definition of DV would generally expand the number of individuals who are eligible for support from VAWA grantees. A broader definition captures harmful behavior (such as financial abuse) that is not physical in nature but is another form of abuse common in relationships involving domestic violence. Victim advocates support this more inclusive definition. On the other hand, some argue that a violent act is qualitatively different from other forms of abuse such as economic abuse, and legal definitions should reflect that distinction. In United States v. Castleman, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a misdemeanor offense of having “intentionally or knowingly cause[d] bodily injury to” the mother of the respondent’s child qualified as “a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.” The opinion of the Court (delivered by Justice Sotomayor) included extensive discussion of defining and distinguishing between acts of physical force. The Court ruled that it must attribute “the common-law meaning of force’ to [18 U.S.C.] §921(a)(33)(A)’s definition of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence’ as an offense that has, as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force.’” In a concurring opinion, Justice Scalia argued that “[w]hen everything is domestic violence, nothing is.” He further argued that if a DV definition were to include all harmful domestic acts, Congress would “have to come up with a new word ... to denote actual domestic violence.” Further, defining DV as “a pattern of behavior” seemingly excludes isolated DV incidents that do not involve a pattern of behavior. So while the goal may be to be more inclusive, the proposed definition could exclude isolated incidents of domestic violence that do not meet the “pattern of behavior” standard. Congress may choose to expand the definition of DV for VAWA grants or maintain the current definition. Alternatively, it could separately define terms such as “economic abuse” and “technological abuse” and add them to the eligibility criteria for grant programs. The addition of these terms to grant programs’ purpose areas would achieve some advocates’ desired goal of expanding VAWA support for more victims, not solely those of violent physical acts.

Mar 27, 2019

Bureau of Reclamation: FY2019 Appropriations

Mar 27, 2019