CRS Reports

Status of the Ebola Outbreak in West Africa: Overview and Issues for Congress

The 2014-2015 outbreak and spread of Ebola Virus Disease (EVD, or Ebola) in West Africa became an international public health emergency that, in no small part due to international intervention, abated significantly by the end of 2015 and early 2016. The issue remains of interest toward the end of the 114th Congress for a number of reasons, including ongoing concerns about the status of disease and risks of future outbreaks, and interest in the disposition of funds appropriated by Congress in response to Ebola, especially in view of the more recent health challenge posed by the Zika virus. This report discusses ongoing efforts to control Ebola in West Africa, analyzes persistent challenges in fighting the spread of the disease, and tracks Ebola emergency funds. Key milestones in the Ebola outbreak include the following: In March 2014, the World Health Organization (WHO) announced that a “rapidly evolving outbreak of Ebola virus disease (Ebola)” had begun in Guinea, West Africa. Retroactive studies indicated that the virus had likely begun to spread in late December 2013, but that weak disease detection and surveillance systems had failed to identify the outbreak. From Guinea, the disease spread to Liberia and Sierra Leone and continued to infect thousands in the three countries until mid-2015, when a coordinated, high-level response by the international community began to slow the rate of new infections. In August 2014, WHO declared Ebola a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) and one month later, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon established the United Nations Mission for Ebola Emergency Response (UNMEER) to coordinate the U.N. response to the outbreak. WHO came under some broad criticism for what was viewed as a late designation for the emergency. Following the PHEIC declaration, the United States and other actors exerted a concerted effort to contain the disease, and cases began to decline rapidly. By the end of December 2015, the fight against the West Africa Ebola outbreak reached a pivotal point. On December 29, WHO declared that human-to-human Ebola transmission had ended in Guinea, marking the first time all three countries had stopped the original chains of transmission at the same time. By this time, WHO had reported over 28,000 confirmed, probable, and suspected Ebola cases worldwide, including more than 11,000 deaths. On March 29, 2016, WHO declared that the West Africa Ebola outbreak was no longer a PHEIC, although the disease was still in a phase that could experience infrequent flare-ups. In addition, Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone continue to face considerable infrastructural constraints. Congress appropriated $5.4 billion in FY2015 emergency supplemental appropriations for domestic and international responses to the Ebola outbreak (in Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, P.L. 113-235, December 2014). Of the funds appropriated for international responses (in Title IX, Division J), roughly half were for the Department of State and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). These funds, which totaled more than $2.5 billion, were limited for Ebola responses, although the law permitted funds from some accounts to be used for preparedness efforts in countries “at risk of being affected by” the outbreak. With some Ebola supplemental funds still unobligated, some in the 114th Congress have looked to these funds as a potential source for responses to the emergent Zika virus. The Obama Administration has requested new funds to support a Zika response and has also reprogrammed some Ebola funds for Zika. The House and Senate have considered legislation in response to the request (S. 2843 and H.R. 5044, respectively. For more information, see CRS Report R44460, Zika Response Funding: Request and Congressional Action). Some Members of the House Appropriations Committee have called on the Administration to expend unobligated Ebola funds before considering the Zika request. Other Members oppose this idea and maintain that remaining Ebola funds should be preserved and used to strengthen the still weak health systems in West Africa that initially failed to detect and contain the outbreak.

May 25, 2016

Federal Student Aid: Need Analysis Formulas and Expected Family Contribution

This report describes the need analysis formulas used to calculate the Expected Family Contribution (EFC) for federal student aid applicants. The formulas are codified in Title IV of the Higher Education Act (HEA), as amended. The Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) is the data collection instrument through which students submit the information that is used to calculate the EFC. The HEA has three EFC formulas: one for dependent students and one each for independent students with and without dependents. A student’s dependency status is determined by the student’s age and other characteristics. The dependent student formula considers the financial resources of the student and the student’s parents. The independent student formulas consider the financial resources of the student and, if applicable, the student’s spouse. The financial resources considered by the EFC formulas are divided into income and assets. The EFC formulas’ definition of a family’s income is fairly inclusive and includes many forms of taxable and nontaxable income. The EFC formulas’ definition of assets includes balances of qualified bank accounts, investments, business equity, and real estate. There are substantial exemptions in the calculation of assets, including a family’s primary residence, retirement accounts, and a family-owned small business. The EFC formulas provide a number of allowances against income and assets (also known as “protections”). Only income and assets in excess of these allowances (“available” income and assets) are considered when calculating the EFC. If the family’s income is below the allowance level, the family will have no available income and therefore no contribution from income. Similarly, if the family is required to report assets and the amount of assets is below the asset protection allowance, the family will have no available assets and therefore no contribution from assets. Assessment of available income and/or assets is the calculation of the actual EFC or components thereof. The assessment rate is the portion of available income or available assets that contribute to the EFC. For example, the assessment rate for available income of an independent student without dependents is 50%, meaning that each dollar of income in excess of the income allowances increases the family’s expected contribution by 50 cents. Assessment rates vary by dependency status and type of financial resource (i.e., income or assets). Generally speaking, additional available income is assessed at a higher rate than additional available assets. In cases where an applicant’s income is below statutorily specified levels, the family may be eligible for a simplified needs test (SNT) in which the family is not required to report information on assets. Thus, the EFC of applicants who are eligible for the SNT is based entirely on the family’s income. In cases where an applicant qualifies for the SNT and meets certain additional income criteria, the applicant may be eligible for an “automatic zero” EFC. The HEA contains provisions that allow for adjustments for families in specified circumstances. For example, a family with multiple students enrolled in postsecondary education has its EFC divided among the enrolled students. The HEA also contains provisions that allow an individual school’s financial aid administrator to exercise professional judgment and adjust certain data used to calculate the EFC to reflect unusual circumstances like job loss, atypically high medical expenses, or other exceptional situations.

May 18, 2016

Currency Exchange Rate Policies and the World Trade Organization Subsidies Agreement

May 16, 2016

FY2016 State Grants Under Title I-A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was comprehensively reauthorized by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA; P.L. 114-95) on December 10, 2015. The Title I-A program is the largest grant program authorized under the ESEA and is funded at $14.9 billion for FY2016. It is designed to provide supplementary educational and related services to low-achieving and other students attending pre-kindergarten through grade 12 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 estimated FY2016 state grant amounts under each of the four formulas used to determine Title I-A grants. Overall, California is estimated to receive the largest FY2016 Title I-A grant amount ($1.8 billion or 11.98% of total Title I-A grants). Wyoming is estimated to receive the smallest FY2016 Title I-A grant amount ($34.7 million or 0.23% of total Title I-A grants). As final data needed to determine actual Title I-A grants for FY2016 are not yet available, all of the estimates included in this report are subject to change before ED makes final Title I-A grant allocations on October 1, 2016.

May 3, 2016

Federal Lifeline Program: Frequently Asked Questions

The Federal Lifeline Program, established by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in 1985, is one of four programs supported under the Universal Service Fund. The Program was originally designed to assist eligible low-income households to subsidize the monthly service charges incurred for voice telephone usage and was limited to one fixed line per household. In 2005 the Program was modified to cover the choice between either a fixed line or a mobile/wireless option. Concern over the division between those who use and have access to broadband versus those who do not, known as the digital divide, prompted the FCC to once again modify the Lifeline program to cover access to broadband. On March 31, 2016, the FCC adopted an Order to expand the Lifeline Program to support mobile and fixed broadband Internet access services on a stand-alone basis, or with a bundled voice service. Households must meet a needs-based criteria for eligibility. The program provides assistance to only one line per household in the form of a monthly subsidy of, in most cases, $9.25. This subsidy solely covers costs associated with network access (minutes of use), not the costs associated with devices, and is given not to the subscriber, but to the household-selected service provider. This subsidy is then in turn passed on to the subscriber. The Lifeline program is available to eligible low-income consumers in every state, territory, commonwealth, and on tribal lands.

May 2, 2016

Zika Response Funding: In Brief

This report presents the Administration's request for supplemental appropriations for the Zika response. It includes sections outlining Congressional actions, the emergency supplemental appropriations request for Zika response efforts -- by both U.S. health and human services agencies and international assistance programs -- and information about unobligated Ebola response funds.

Apr 28, 2016

Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR)

Apr 21, 2016

What’s on Television? The Intersection of Communications and Copyright Policies

In the 1940s and 1950s, watching television meant tuning into one of a few broadcast television stations, with the help of an antenna, to watch a program at a prescheduled time. Over subsequent decades, cable and satellite operators emerged to enable households unable to receive over-the-air signals to watch the retransmitted signals of broadcast television stations. More recently, some viewers have taken to watching TV programming on their computers, tablets, mobile phones, and other Internet-connected devices at times of their own choosing, dispensing with television stations and cable and satellite operators altogether. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Congress, and the courts have overseen this evolution by applying a combination of communications and copyright laws to regulate the distribution of television programming. These laws are intended to achieve three policy goals: protecting the property rights of content owners to encourage the production of television programs; promoting competition among distributors of video programming; and enabling broadcast television stations to serve the local communities to which they are licensed by the FCC. The regulatory structure intended to accomplish these goals was established in copyright and communications laws and regulations adopted by Congress and the FCC in the 1970s. These laws and regulations grant broadcast stations exclusive rights to carry programming under certain conditions; allow content owners to control the use of copyrighted content except in certain circumstances; and assign cable and satellite operators both obligations and rights with respect to the stations whose signals they retransmit. This structure has come under increasing stress as firms offer alternative ways to watch television programming, upsetting established relationships and raising questions about whether the key public policy goals defined by Congress can still be achieved. In particular, firms offering television programming to consumers over the Internet, known as online video distributors (OVDs), are not covered by some of the laws and regulations governing video distribution by providers that rely on their own facilities, such as cable and satellite operators. Station owners, meanwhile, are concerned that relationships between OVDs and broadcast networks could adversely affect stations’ revenues. Both the House Judiciary Committee and the House Energy and Commerce Committee have announced plans to review and update copyright and communications laws, respectively, while the FCC is considering how and whether to apply its regulations governing the distribution of television signals to a new era. At the same time, federal courts have reached conflicting conclusions as to how copyright laws apply to video programming in the new world of online video distribution. Because of the intertwined relationship between copyright and communications laws, major reform of the regulatory structure governing the distribution of television signals is likely to require Congress or the courts to consider how these two bodies of law intersect.

Apr 20, 2016

Funding for Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) at DOE: In Brief

to be suppressed Carbon capture and sequestration (or storage)—known as CCS The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (P.L. 111-5; enacted February 17, 2009, hereinafter referred to as the Recovery Act). research and development Administration’s FY2017 budget proposal, in Tables 1 and 2. Table 1 shows funding from FY2010 through FY2016, including Recovery Act funding. Fossil Energy Research and Development (1) FutureGen; (2) the Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI); (3) Industrial Carbon Capture and Storage (ICCS); and (4) Site Characterization, Training, and Program Direction. FY2017 DOE budget proposal for Fossil Energy R&D, and compares it to the FY2016 enacted amount. On the left side of Table 2, enacted funding for FY2016 is shown in the current organizational structure. On the right side of Table 2, FY2016 enacted funding and FY2017 proposed funding are compared in the proposed restructuring scheme

Apr 19, 2016

The Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act (FITARA): Frequently Asked Questions

Federal agencies rely on information technology (IT) to conduct their work, requiring extensive investments in both updating existing IT and developing new IT. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has reported that the federal government budgets more than $80 billion each year for IT investment, but that these investments often incur “multi-million dollar cost overruns and years-long schedule delays,” may contribute little to mission-related outcomes, and in some cases fail altogether. The Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act (FITARA) (P.L. 113-291) was enacted on December 19, 2014, to address this problem. FITARA outlines seven areas of reform to how federal agencies purchase and manage their information technology (IT) assets, including— enhancing the authority of agency chief information officers (CIOs); improving transparency and risk management of IT investments; setting forth a process for agency IT portfolio review; refocusing the Federal Data Center Consolidation Initiative (FDCCI) from only consolidation to optimization; expanding the training and use of “IT Cadres,” as initially outlined in the “25 Point Implementation Plan to Reform Federal Information Management Technology” issued by the CIO of the United States; maximizing the benefits of the Federal Strategic Sourcing Initiative (FSSI); and creating a govemment-wide software purchasing program, in conjunction with the General Services Administration. Not all federal agencies are covered by FITARA. Generally, agencies identified in the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990, as well as their subordinate divisions and offices, are subject to the requirements of FITARA. The Department of Defense, the Intelligence Community, and portions of other agencies that operate systems related to national security are subject to only certain portions of FITARA. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) published guidance to implement the requirements of FITARA in June 2015 (OMB Memorandum M-15-14). In addition to implementing FITARA, this guidance also harmonizes the requirements of FITARA with existing laws, primarily the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-106) and the E-Government Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-347). The OMB also monitors agency implementation of FITARA. Congress also monitors the progress of FITARA implementation through audits conducted by GAO and hearings by relevant House and Senate committees. Since FITARA was signed into law, the Senate and House have each held two hearings on overall agency FITARA implementation. OMB has imposed an April 30, 2016, deadline for agencies to submit updated FITARA common baseline self-assessments.

Apr 14, 2016

Air Force B-21 Long Range Strike Bomber

The Department of Defense is developing a new long-range bomber aircraft, the B-21 (previously known as LRS-B), and proposes to acquire 100 of them. B-21s would initially replace aging B-1 and B-52 bombers, and would possibly replace B-2s in the future. B-21 development was highly classified until the summer of 2015, when the Air Force revealed initial details of the aircraft and the program. Although technical specifications and other data remain out of public view, many details of the budget, acquisition strategy, procurement quantities, and other aspects of the B-21 program are now in the public arena. The Administration’s FY2017 budget request includes $1.4 billion for further development of the B-21. As a new and large defense program that involves issues of defense and nuclear policy, as well as significant expenditures, the B-21 is likely to be subject to significant congressional interest. Some material in this report previously appeared in CRS Insight IN10351, Long Range Strike Bomber Begins to Emerge, and in CRS Insight IN10384, Air Force Bomber Contract Awarded.

Apr 14, 2016

Highway Bridge Conditions: Issues for Congress

Of the 612,000 public road bridges in the United States, about 59,000 (10%) were classified as structurally deficient in 2015, and another 84,000 (14%) were classified as functionally obsolete. These figures—along with events such as the July 20, 2015, washout of the Interstate-10 Bridge near Desert Center, CA, and the partial closure of the Arlington Memorial Bridge, which connects Washington, DC, to Northern Virginia—have led to claims that the United States is experiencing a crisis with respect to deficient bridges. Federal data do not substantiate this assertion. The numbers of bridges classified as structurally deficient or functionally obsolete have fallen consistently since at least 2000, and the proportion of all highway bridges falling into one or the other category is the lowest in decades. The vast majority of structurally deficient bridges, roughly four out of five, are in rural areas. These bridges tend to be small and relatively lightly traveled. Structurally deficient bridges in urban areas, while far fewer, are generally much larger and, therefore, more expensive to fix: 55% of the deck area of structurally deficient bridges is on urban bridges. Bridges on roads carrying heavy traffic loads, particularly Interstate Highway bridges, are generally in better condition than those on more lightly traveled routes. Federal funding for bridge building, reconstruction, and repair is authorized in surface transportation acts. The most recent authorization is the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act; P.L. 114-94), which was enacted on December 4, 2015. The FAST Act funds federal highway programs from FY2016 through FY2020 at a level about 2.4% above FY2015 levels, adjusted for expected inflation. The law did not authorize a program dedicated to highway bridges, but it made bridge projects broadly eligible for federal funding under the largest of the highway formula programs and eligible on a case-by-case basis under other programs. Bridges that are damaged by natural disasters or catastrophic events also may be eligible for Emergency Relief Program funds. The condition of roads, in particular urban roads, has not experienced the same degree of improvement as the condition of bridges. This disparity raises the policy question of what priority should go to bridge repairs as opposed to roadway repairs. Congress has implicitly addressed this issue by giving states greater flexibility to use federal funding for roads or for bridges, at their discretion. Laws enacted in 2012 and again in 2015 have given states near-total authority to determine which projects to fund with federal highway funds, within broad guidelines established by Congress. As it oversees implementation of the FAST Act over the next few years, Congress may want to evaluate whether states are making sufficient progress in reducing the number of structurally deficient and functionally obsolete bridges and whether future laws should reestablish specific requirements for bridge spending.

Apr 13, 2016

Oil Prices and the Value of the Dollar

Apr 12, 2016

Allocation of Funds Under Title I-A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was comprehensively reauthorized by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA; P.L. 114-95) on December 10, 2015. The Title I-A program is the largest grant program authorized under the ESEA and is funded at $14.9 billion for FY2016. It is designed to provide supplementary educational and related services to low-achieving and other students attending pre-kindergarten through grade 12 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). Annual appropriations bills specify portions of each year’s Title I-A appropriation to be allocated to LEAs and states under each of the four formulas. In FY2016, an estimated 43% of Title I-A appropriations were allocated through the Basic Grant formula, 9% through the Concentration Grant formula, and 24% through each of the Targeted Grant and EFIG formulas. Once funds reach LEAs, the amounts allocated under the four formulas are combined and used jointly. For each formula, a maximum grant is calculated by multiplying a “formula child count,” consisting primarily of estimated numbers of school-age children in poor families, by an “expenditure factor” based on state average per pupil expenditures for public K-12 education. In some formulas, additional factors are multiplied by the formula child count and expenditure factor. These maximum grants are then reduced to equal the level of available appropriations for each formula, taking into account a variety of state and LEA minimum grant and “hold harmless” provisions. In general, LEAs must have a minimum number of formula children and/or a minimum formula child rate to be eligible to receive a grant under a specific Title I-A formula. Some LEAs may qualify for a grant under only one formula, while other LEAs may be eligible to receive grants under multiple formulas. This report provides a detailed discussion of each of the four Title I-A formulas used to determine grants. Table A-1 in Appendix A offers an overview of the key elements included in the four formulas. Appendix B provides an overview of Title I-A appropriations levels in recent years.

Apr 12, 2016

High Frequency Trading: Overview of Recent Developments

This report provides background on various High-frequency trading (HFT) strategies and some associated policy issues, recent regulatory developments and selected enforcement actions by the SEC and Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), on HFT, and congressional action such as proposed legislation and hearings related to HFT.

Apr 1, 2016

Energy and Water Development: FY2017 Appropriations for Nuclear Weapons Activities

The annual Energy and Water Development appropriations bill funds civil works projects of the Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation, the Department of Energy (DOE), and several independent agencies. The DOE budget includes funding for the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), a separately organized agency within DOE. NNSA operates three programs: Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, which secures nuclear materials worldwide, conducts research and development (R&D) into nonproliferation and verification, and operates the Nuclear Counterterrorism and Incident Response Program; Naval Reactors, which “is responsible for all U.S. Navy nuclear propulsion work”; and Weapons Activities. The last is the subject of this report. The Weapons Activities account supports programs that maintain U.S. nuclear missile warheads and gravity bombs and the infrastructure programs that support that mission. Specifically, according to DOE’s budget documentation, these programs “support the maintenance and refurbishment of nuclear weapons to continue sustained confidence in their safety, reliability, and performance; continued investment in scientific, engineering, and manufacturing capabilities to enable certification of the enduring nuclear weapons stockpile; and manufacture of nuclear weapons components.” The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (P.L. 114-113) provides $12,526.5 million for NNSA, of which $8,846.9 million is allocated to the Weapons Activities account. The budget request for the FY2017 seeks $9,243.1 million for Weapons Activities within a total budget of $12,884 million for NNSA. This represents an increase of approximately 4.4% in the Weapons Activities Account over FY2016. Weapons Activities has three main programs, each with a request of over $1 billion for FY2017, as follows: Directed Stockpile Work supports programs that work directly on nuclear weapons. It includes life extension programs, maintenance, and other activities. The FY2016-enacted amount was $3,387.9 million; the FY2017 request is $3,330.5 million, a 2% reduction. Research, Development, Test and Evaluation Programs, which advance the science, engineering, computation, and manufacturing, support Directed Stockpile Work. The FY2016-enacted amount was $1,818.5 million; the FY2017 request is $1,854.7 million, a 2% increase. Infrastructure and Operations maintains, operates, and modernizes the National Nuclear Security Administration infrastructure. It supports construction of new facilities and funds deferred maintenance in older facilities. In the FY2016 budget, this program replaced the program known as Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities. The FY2016-enacted amount was $2,279.1 million; the FY2017 request is $2,721.9 million, a 19% increase. Weapons Activities also includes several smaller programs, all of which are described in this report: Secure Transportation Asset, Defense Nuclear Security, Information Technology and Cybersecurity, and Legacy Contractor Pensions. This report will be updated as necessary.

Apr 1, 2016

The Individual Mandate for Health Insurance Coverage: In Brief

Since 2014, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA; P.L. 111-148, as amended) has required most individuals to maintain health insurance coverage. Some individuals are exempt from this requirement. Those who are not exempt and who do not maintain coverage are subject to a penalty for noncompliance. There are a number of different exemptions for which individuals may qualify. For example, individuals with certain religious beliefs and those whose household income is below the filing threshold for federal income taxes are not subject to the mandate and its associated penalty. Individuals can either apply for exemptions through the health insurance exchanges or claim exemptions when they file their federal tax returns. Individuals who do not maintain minimum essential coverage and are not exempt from the mandate must pay a penalty for each month of noncompliance with the mandate. The penalty is the greater of a flat dollar amount or a percentage of applicable income. For 2016, the flat dollar amount is $695 and the percentage of income is 2.5%. This report provides a brief overview of the individual mandate, its associated penalty, and the exemptions from the mandate.

Mar 30, 2016

Financial Services and Cybersecurity: The Federal Role

Multiple federal and state regulators oversee companies in the financial services industry. Regulatory authority is often directed at particular functions or financial services activities rather than at particular entities or companies. It is, therefore, likely that a financial services company with multiple product lines—deposits, securities, insurance—will find that it must answer to different regulators with respect to particular aspects of its operations. Five federal agencies oversee depository institutions, two regulate securities, several agencies have discrete authority over various segments of the financial sector, and several self-regulatory organizations monitor entities in the securities business. Federal banking regulators (the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Reserve, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) are required to promulgate safety and soundness standards for all federally insured depository institutions to protect the stability of the nation’s banking system. Some of these standards pertain to cybersecurity issues, including information security, data breaches, and destruction or theft of business records. The federal securities regulators (the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission) have asserted authority over various aspects of cybersecurity in securities markets and those who trade in them. This includes requiring publicly traded financial and nonfinancial corporations to file annual and quarterly reports that provide investors with material information, a category which could include information about cybersecurity risks or breaches. In addition, overseeing the securities industry are certain self-regulatory organizations—private organizations empowered by law or regulation to create and enforce industry rules, including those covering cybersecurity. These include the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, which protects investors and oversees stock exchanges and those who trade on them. The National Futures Association has a similar role for U.S. futures exchanges and in the retail foreign exchange market. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau issues and enforces federal consumer financial protection regulations, and it has certain consumer financial protection supervisory authority over depositories and consumer finance companies not otherwise federally regulated. The Federal Trade Commission has asserted authority over certain consumer finance operations of nonfinancial companies such as retailers and hotels. The basic authority that the federal regulators use to establish cybersecurity standards emanates from the organic legislation that established them and delineated the scope of their authority and functions. In addition, certain other laws such as the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999, and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 include provisions affecting cybersecurity of financial services. Moreover, two executive orders address the critical role of financial services in the national economy. Complementing the laws and regulations, the regulators issue guidance under a variety of names, such as policy statements, supervision and regulatory letters, financial institution letters, bulletins, and other forms of communications. Not all regulation (or cybersecurity regulation) is done at the federal level. State governments charter and regulate state banks and all insurance companies. State securities regulators oversee securities sold within their state, and many states have laws requiring consumer notification of financial data breaches. In addition, New York State has taken advantage of the fact that the nation’s financial center, Wall Street, is located in the state to be very active in certain aspects of cybersecurity regulation. This report focuses on federal laws, regulations, and executive orders.

Mar 23, 2016

Eligibility and Determination of Health Insurance Premium Tax Credits and Cost-Sharing Subsidies: In Brief

Certain individuals without access to subsidized health insurance coverage may be eligible for premium tax credits, as established under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA; P.L. 111-148, as amended). The dollar amount of the premium credit varies from individual to individual, based on a formula specified in statute. Individuals who are eligible for the premium credit, however, generally are still required to contribute some amount toward the purchase of health insurance. The premium credit may be applied only toward the cost of purchasing private health plans through health insurance exchanges. Exchanges are not insurance companies; rather, exchanges serve as marketplaces for the purchase of health insurance. They operate in every state and the District of Columbia (DC). The premium credit is refundable, so individuals may claim the full credit amount when filing their taxes, even if they have little or no federal income tax liability. The credit also is advanceable, so individuals may choose to receive the credit on a monthly basis to coincide with the payment of insurance premiums. Individuals who receive premium credits also may be eligible for subsidies that reduce cost-sharing expenses. The ACA established two types of cost-sharing subsidies. One type of subsidy reduces annual cost-sharing limits; the other directly reduces cost-sharing requirements (e.g., lowers a deductible). Individuals who are eligible for cost-sharing subsidies may receive both types.

Mar 23, 2016

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD): Funding Trends Since FY2002

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) administers a number of programs and activities that are primarily designed to address housing problems faced by households with very low incomes or other special housing needs. Most of the funding for HUD’s programs and activities comes from discretionary appropriations provided each year in the annual appropriations acts enacted by Congress. HUD’s appropriations are generally made up of several components, including regular annual appropriations, which fund HUD’s regular programs and activities; emergency appropriations, which are sometimes provided in response to national emergencies such as disasters; rescissions of unspent prior-year funding; and offsetting collections and receipts. Combined, these components make up HUD’s net budget authority, which is the amount that counts for the purposes of federal budget enforcement, including discretionary spending limits. Since FY2002, in terms of nominal dollars, HUD’s regular (non-emergency) annual net budget authority has increased by 21%. When adjusting for inflation, HUD’s regular annual net budget authority in FY2015 is 6% less than it was in FY2002. However, these figures mask several important recent trends. New appropriations for HUD’s programs and activities have increased since FY2002 by 32% in nominal dollars, 2% in inflation-adjusted dollars. The difference between the increase in appropriations versus net budget authority is due to an increase in the savings available from offsetting receipts attributable to the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) mortgage insurance program. FHA receipts are used to offset the cost (in terms of budget enforcement) of providing appropriations for HUD’s programs and activities. The offsetting receipts available from FHA increased from a low of about $140 million in FY2010 to a peak of almost $12 billion in FY2014. The increase in funding for HUD has not been linear. After a period of steady increase, regular appropriations for HUD’s programs and activities peaked in FY2010 and then declined so that in FY2015 they were 3% below the FY2010 level. Over that same period HUD’s regular annual net budget authority was reduced much more dramatically, by 23%, attributable to growth in savings from FHA offsetting receipts. FY2013, the year of the discretionary spending sequestration, provided HUD’s lowest level of appropriations since 2009, and the lowest level of net budget authority since FY2003. Growth in appropriations for HUD’s programs and activities has largely been driven by increases in appropriations for the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program and the Section 8 project-based rental assistance program. Combined, their funding has increased by 86% from FY2002 to FY2015. Conversely, funding for all other HUD programs combined has declined by about 13%. The formula grants under HUD’s two largest block grant programs—the HOME Investment Partnerships Program and the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program—have experienced some of the largest reductions in funding during this time (48% and 31%, respectively). Looking toward the future, it can be assumed that if policymakers maintain interest in cutting the deficit, there will continue to be efforts to reduce overall discretionary spending, including HUD’s budget. Deficit reduction measures led to the FY2013 sequestration, which resulted in a roughly 5% cut for most domestic discretionary spending from the FY2012 level. These overall budgeting considerations will likely interact with the specific cost-drivers in HUD’s budget. Cost growth in the Section 8 project-based program is unlikely to continue at the same rate, given that most long-term contracts are now on an annual funding cycle. Future cost growth in the Section 8 voucher program is less certain, as it is driven by market factors, although if major reforms are enacted, that could change. Assuming policymakers continue to prioritize maintaining current service levels in the Section 8 voucher program, pressure to reduce funding for other HUD programs and activities, including block grant programs, may continue. Thus far, it appears that increases in offsetting receipts available from FHA have minimized the effect of efforts to limit discretionary spending on the amount of appropriations available for HUD programs and activities. As receipts from FHA eventually decline—anticipated because of market changes and policy changes—pressure to further reduce appropriations for HUD programs may increase.

Mar 17, 2016

Nutrition Labeling of Restaurant Menu and Vending Machine Items

High rates of obesity and chronic diseases have prompted various federal, state, and local nutrition labeling initiatives. The 1990 Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (P.L. 101-535) required nutrition labeling of most foods and dietary supplements, but it did not require labeling of food sold in restaurants. However, consumption data indicate that Americans consume more than one-third of their calories outside the home, and frequent eating out is associated with increased caloric intake. In 2010, President Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA, P.L. 111-148) into law, with Section 4205 mandating nutrition labeling in certain restaurants and similar retail food establishments (SRFEs). This provision also required calorie labeling of certain vending machine items. In 2011, as required by the ACA, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published two proposed rules establishing calorie labeling requirements for food items sold in certain restaurants and vending machines; both rules were finalized and published in the Federal Register on December 1, 2014. The labeling rules were to take effect one year later (December 1, 2015) for restaurants and two years later (December 1, 2016) for vending machines; however, in the wake of concerns expressed by industry groups, trade associations, and some Members of Congress, FDA extended the compliance date for restaurant menu labeling to December 1, 2016. The compliance date was yet again extended following language included in the FY2016 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 114-113), which prohibits the use of any funds for implementation, administration, or enforcement of the menu labeling requirements until the later of December 1, 2016, or until one year from the date that the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issues final, Level 1 guidance on compliance with specified requirements for menu labeling contained in the final menu labeling rule. FDA issued draft Level 1 guidance to help companies comply with the menu labeling final rule on September 11, 2015, but a final guidance has not been issued. In addition to requiring calorie labeling for food sold in certain restaurants and vending machines, labeling will also be required for prepared foods sold at supermarkets, grocery and convenience stores, and entertainment venues (e.g., movie theaters and amusement parks). Calorie counts will have to be listed on menus and menu boards for all standard items, including alcoholic drinks and salad bar items. Prior to the federal rule, state and local menu labeling regulations had resulted in a patchwork of labeling requirements, making compliance challenging for chain food establishments. Several restaurant chains (e.g., McDonald’s, Panera Bread, and Starbucks) had moved forward with nationwide nutrition labeling prior to FDA’s final rule, expressing support for a federal menu labeling standard. Opponents of the final menu labeling regulation have questioned FDA’s interpretation of the ACA provision, arguing that the final rule is more stringent than the regulation initially proposed by FDA or intended by Congress. For example, as mentioned above, the final rule requires grocery stores and delivery establishments (e.g., pizza places) to meet the labeling requirements. Some Members of Congress have asked FDA for a one-year delay in rule implementation, as well as guidance on what types of foods will be covered and technical issues. As a result, implementation and enforcement of the menu labeling final rule has been delayed. This report discusses the role of menu labeling in addressing obesity, provides a brief overview of the FDA’s authority to regulate nutrition labeling, and summarizes selected aspects of the final FDA regulations. Related concerns raised by industry groups, Congress, and the public are also discussed.

Mar 14, 2016

SBA Disaster Loan Program: Frequently Asked Questions

This report responds to frequently asked questions about the Small Business Administration (SBA) Disaster Loan Program. The SBA Disaster Loan Program provides direct loans to help businesses, nonprofit organizations, homeowners, and renters repair or replace property damaged or destroyed in a federally declared disaster. The program is also designed to help small agricultural cooperatives recover from economic injury resulting from a disaster. SBA disaster loans include (1) Home and Personal Property Disaster Loans, (2) Business Physical Disaster Loans, and (3) Economic Injury Disaster Loans (EIDL). Most direct disaster loans (approximately 80%) are awarded to individuals and households rather than small businesses. The program generally offers low-interest disaster loans at a fixed rate with loan maturities of up to 30 years. Key issues of interest to Congress include: how the program is put into effect, how much Congress appropriates to the program, what types of loans are available to businesses and homeowners, the use of SBA disaster loans in conjunction with insurance, loan interest rates and terms for SBA disaster loans, eligible activities, loan processing times, and collateral requirements. For additional information on Small Business Administration Disaster Loan Program, see CRS Report R41309, The SBA Disaster Loan Program: Overview and Possible Issues for Congress, by Bruce R. Lindsay.

Mar 9, 2016

Encryption: Selected Legal Issues

In 2014, three of the biggest technology companies in the United States—Apple, Google, and Facebook—began encrypting their devices and communication platforms by default. These security practices renewed fears among government officials that technology is thwarting law enforcement access to vital data, a phenomenon the government refers to as “going dark.” The government, speaking largely through Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) Director James Comey, has suggested that it does not want to ban encryption technology, but instead wants Silicon Valley companies to provide a technological way to obtain the content stored on a device for which it has legal authority to access. However, many in the technology community, including technology giants Apple, Google, and Facebook, and leading cryptologists have argued that it is not technologically feasible to permit the government access while continuing to secure user data from cyber threats. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that some suspects may refuse to unlock their device for law enforcement. The current debate over encryption raises a wide range of important political, economic, and legal questions. This report, however, explores two discrete and narrow legal questions that arise from the various ways the government has attempted to access data stored on a smartphone. One method has been to attempt to compel a user to either provide his password or decrypt the data contained in a device pursuant to valid legal process. This prompts the first question: whether the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination would bar such a request. Generally, documents created independent of a government request (e.g., a photo stored on a camera) are not entitled to Fifth Amendment protection because their creation was not “compelled” by the government as required under the text of the Amendment. However, the act of unlocking the device may have testimonial content of its own (e.g., it may demonstrate that a suspect had access to the device), which may trigger Fifth Amendment protection. While there are a handful of lower court rulings and a growing body of academic literature on this issue, there is only one appellate case applying the Fifth Amendment to compelled decryption and, as of the date of this report, no Supreme Court case law. The other method is going to the company and requesting its assistance in unlocking a device, which prompts the second question: whether the All Writs Act—a federal statute that provides federal courts with residual authority to enforce its orders—can be interpreted broadly enough to cover compelled assistance on the part of the device and software manufacturer. This question is the subject of ongoing litigation—including government requests to access the iPhone used by the San Bernardino shooter—in various federal district courts and is likely to engender similar litigation in the future. This inquiry will largely hinge on whether the request would impose an unreasonable burden on the company and whether it would be consistent with the intent of Congress. This report first provides background to the ongoing encryption debate, including a primer on encryption basics and an overview of Apple, Google, and Facebook’s new encryption policies. Next, it will provide an overview of the Fifth Amendment right to be free from self-incrimination; survey the limited case law concerning the compelled disclosure of encrypted data; and apply this case law to help determine if and when the government may require such disclosures. The next section of the report will provide background on the All Writs Act; explore both Supreme Court and lower court case law, including a discussion of United States v. New York Tel. Co.; and apply this case law to the San Bernardino case and potential future requests by the government to access a locked device.

Mar 3, 2016

Senators’ Official Personnel and Office Expense Account (SOPOEA): History and Usage

The Senators’ Official Personnel and Office Expense Account (SOPOEA) is available to assist Senators in their official duties. The allowance is provided on a fiscal year basis (i.e., October 1-September 30). Funding is provided in the annual legislative branch appropriations bills. Senators have a high degree of flexibility to use the SOPOEA to operate their offices in a way that supports their congressional duties and responsibilities, and individual office spending may be as varied as the states from which the Senators are elected. This appropriations account has decreased in recent years, from a high of $422.0 million in FY2010 to $390.0 million in FY2014, a decrease of 7.6%. The appropriation remained at the FY2014 level in the FY2015 and FY2016 appropriations acts. The SOPOEA for each Senator is calculated based on three variables—the administrative and clerical assistance allowance, the legislative assistance allowance, and the official office expense allowance. The formula results in a single, consolidated allowance for each Senator that can be used to pay for any type of approved official expense, subject to any regulations or limitations established by statute, Senate rules, the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, and the Senate Ethics Committee. A preliminary list of SOPOEA levels shows a range in FY2016 of $3,008,288 to $4,760,211, depending on the state. The average allowance is $3,263,940. Pursuant to 2 U.S.C. §4108, Senate expenses are reported online biennially on a fiscal year basis in the Report of the Secretary of the Senate. This report provides a history of the SOPOEA and overview of recent developments, including funding levels. It also analyzes actual SOPOEA spending patterns in selected years (fiscal years 2007, 2008, 2011, and 2012). For a similar analysis of Member office budgets in the House of Representatives, see CRS Report R40962, Members’ Representational Allowance: History and Usage, by Ida A. Brudnick.

Feb 25, 2016

Crude Oil Exports and Related Provisions in P.L. 114-113: In Brief

On December 18, 2015, Congress passed the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (H.R. 2029), which was signed by the President and became P.L. 114-113. Included in P.L. 114-113 is a provision that repeals Section 103 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA; P.L. 94-163), which directs the President to promulgate a rule prohibiting crude oil exports. For nearly four decades, repeal of EPCA was generally not a policy issue since oil production was declining and imports were rising. However, increasing U.S. light oil production starting in the 2010/2011 timeframe, projected production increases, and domestic-to-international oil price differentials that were as large as $30 per barrel, motivated many companies and trade organizations to advocate removing the EPCA crude oil export prohibition. P.L. 114-113 also includes a “savings clause” and a list of exceptions that maintain and provide the President with authority to restrict exports under certain circumstances. Enactment of P.L. 114-113 allows U.S. crude oil to be marketed and sold to international buyers and concludes a nearly two-year debate about the varied and multi-dimensional considerations associated with allowing the export of crude oil produced in the United States. Some oil producers may benefit from this policy change, when market conditions warrant, by potentially selling crude oil for a higher price to global buyers. Perhaps more important for all U.S. oil producers is that allowing crude oil exports may limit the domestic/international price differential in the future. Studies published during the debate estimated that crude oil exports might range between 0 and 2 million barrels per day, reflecting the uncertainty of future market conditions that might motivate exports. Exactly how much crude oil will be exported will depend on oil price differentials, which had narrowed to less than $1 per barrel in January 2016. In addition to repealing EPCA Section 103, P.L. 114-113 also includes provisions that address two considerations discussed during the crude oil export debate. First, owners of U.S. flag ships advocated that crude oil exporters be required to use such ships for overseas transport. While this requirement was not included in P.L. 114-113, the law does include a provision that authorizes increasing the annual subsidy paid to U.S. flag cargo ships participating in the Maritime Security Program (MSP), which provides an operating subsidy in exchange for participating ships being subject to Department of Defense acquisition during times of war. The operating subsidy for each participating ship was increased from $3.1 million to around $5 million per year thru 2021. Second, independent U.S. refiners were generally opposed to allowing unrestricted crude oil exports as many of them were benefiting from price discounts that might either be eliminated or limited as a result of removing export restrictions. Some refiners expressed concern that the cost of waterborne crude shipments from the Gulf coast may result in a competitive disadvantage and that the value of investments made in crude-by-rail infrastructure may be adversely affected should crude oil export restrictions be removed. P.L. 114-113 modified the Section 199 tax deduction for independent refiners by changing how independent refiners account for transportation costs when calculating the deduction, potentially allowing higher oil transportation costs to be associated with greater tax relief. Overall, the enhanced deduction for independent refiners may have fairly modest effects. For most independent refiners that are able to claim the enhanced deduction, the change has the potential to reduce tax liability by up to 1.575% of oil-related transportation costs.

Feb 22, 2016

Federal Highway Traffic Safety Policies: Impacts and Opportunities

In 2013, 32,000 Americans were killed in crashes involving motor vehicles. Motor vehicle crashes are a leading cause of death for Americans overall, and the number one cause of death for teenagers. Millions of people are injured in crashes annually, and motor vehicle crashes are estimated to have cost some $242 billion in 2010 in lost productivity, medical costs, legal costs, property damage, and time lost in congestion caused by crashes. The number of people killed in crashes has declined significantly over the past decade. The reasons for this sharp decline are not entirely clear. While traffic safety agencies have attributed it, at least in part, to their safety efforts, it is in line with a general trend: as measured by the number of miles people are driving, the rate at which people are killed in traffic crashes has been declining steadily since records began to be kept in 1929. Congress has played a role in improving highway safety. Making road travel safer was one of the responsibilities Congress gave to the federal Department of Transportation (DOT) when it created the department in 1966. Congress has directed DOT to improve the safety of automobile design and of road design, as well as to support programs to improve driver behavior. An oft-cited statistic in traffic safety is that as many as 90% of road deaths are due at least in part to driver error or misbehavior (such as driving too fast for conditions or driving while drunk or distracted). Driver behavior is a state, not federal, matter; in an effort to address it, Congress has enacted programs that encourage states to pass laws to promote safer driving. The role of driver behavior versus road design and traffic management is a subject of debate. Some analysts note that road designs and traffic management arrangements often allow, or even encourage, driver error and misbehavior, and so play a larger role in crashes than is often recognized. One of the core highway capital improvement programs Congress has authorized is intended to fund safety improvements to highway infrastructure. A federal study estimated that half of the improvement in highway fatality rates since 1960 was attributable to improvements in vehicle safety technologies, with social and demographic changes, driver behavior interventions, and improvements in road design playing smaller roles. Most of the vehicle safety technologies analyzed in the study increased the likelihood that vehicle occupants would survive a crash. More recently, technological development has focused on preventing crashes. While some crash-prevention technologies, such as automatic braking and lane departure warnings, are available now, others, such as vehicle-to-vehicle communication and vehicles that can operate without human intervention, are not yet on the market. Given that most vehicles remain in use for many years, it may be a decade or more before the majority of cars on the road incorporate those new technologies. There is opportunity for further improvement: crash and injury rates are no longer declining, and preliminary estimates indicate the fatality rate increased significantly in the first nine months of 2015. Several other nations have significantly improved their highway safety rates in the past few decades, surpassing the U.S. rates. Policy options that might further reduce traffic crashes, injuries, and fatalities include encouraging states to adopt stronger laws regarding use of seat belts and motorcycle helmets, encouraging the use of automated traffic enforcement to reduce speeding and failure to stop at red lights and stop signs, and accelerating the deployment of new vehicle safety technologies. Motorcycle helmet laws and automated traffic enforcement have encountered public opposition.

Feb 19, 2016

Surface Transportation Funding and Programs Under the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act; P.L. 114-94)

On December 4, 2015, President Barack Obama signed the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act; P.L. 114-94). The act authorized spending on federal highway and public transportation programs, surface transportation safety and research activities, and rail programs for five years, through September 30, 2020. The act’s authorization totaled roughly $305 billion for FY2016 through FY2020. This included $233 billion for highways and highway safety, $61 billion for public transportation, and more than $10 billion for Amtrak. Most of the funding for surface transportation bills has been drawn from the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) since its creation in 1956, but the principal revenue source for the HTF, federal motor fuel taxes, has not generated sufficient revenue to cover HTF outlays since 2008. To fill this shortfall, Congress has relied on Treasury general fund transfers to make up the difference. Although Congress was unable to agree on a long-term solution to the HTF revenue issue, the FAST Act identified roughly $70 billion in budgetary offsets to support general fund transfers sufficient to pay for the five-year bill. The FAST Act builds upon the many programmatic changes made in the previous multiyear reauthorization bill, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21; P.L. 112-141). The act also continues initiatives intended to increase program efficiency through performance-based planning and the streamlining of project development. Among FAST Act’s major attributes are $225 billion authorized from the HTF over five years, an average of $45 billion annually, for Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) programs; $61 billion authorized from the HTF and the general fund, an average of $12.2 billion per year, for Federal Transit Administration (FTA) programs; a major redirection of funding toward highway freight projects via a new formula program and a competitive grant program; direct funding for the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) program of $275 million, down from $1 billion in FY2015; competitive grant component added to the Bus and Bus Facilities Program; provisions on intercity passenger rail transportation included in a surface transportation act for the first time; and no project earmarks. The FAST Act does not increase motor fuels taxes or provide another sustainable source of revenues to be paid into the HTF. Unless new revenue sources are found, Congress will face projections of a large gap between HTF tax receipts and spending plans when it begins debating the reauthorization of the FAST Act in 2020.

Feb 18, 2016

The Health Coverage Tax Credit (HCTC): In Brief

The Health Coverage Tax Credit (HCTC) subsidizes most of the cost of qualified health insurance for eligible taxpayers and their family members. Potential eligibility for the HCTC is limited to two groups of taxpayers. One group is comprised of individuals eligible for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) allowances because they experienced qualifying job losses. The other group consists of individuals whose defined-benefit pension plans were taken over by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) because of financial difficulties. HCTC-eligible individuals are allowed to receive the tax credit only if they either could not enroll in certain other health coverage (e.g., Medicaid) or are not eligible for other specified coverage (e.g., Medicare Part A). To claim the HCTC, eligible taxpayers must have qualified health insurance (specific categories of coverage, as specified in statute). Several of those categories, known as state-qualified health plans, are available only after being established by state action. The HCTC is refundable, so eligible taxpayers may receive the full credit amount even if they had little or no federal income tax liability. The credit is also advanceable, so taxpayers may receive the credit on a monthly basis to coincide with the payment of premiums. The HCTC has a sunset date of January 1, 2020.

Feb 18, 2016

Federal Support for Graduate Medical Education: An Overview

Access to health care is, in part, determined by the availability of physicians, a function of the physician supply. Policymakers have demonstrated a long-standing interest in access to care, both in general and for specific populations. Moreover, federal support for medical residency training (a.k.a., graduate medical education [GME]) is the largest source of federal support for the health care workforce. Although the health workforce includes a number of professions, the size of the federal investment in GME—estimated at $15 billion in FY2012—makes it a policy lever often considered to alter the health care workforce and impact health care access. This report describes federal programs that provide GME support. Although these programs may also support training for other health professions, this report focuses on training for physicians. The report examines GME support in Medicare, Medicaid, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Defense, and programs administered by the Health Resources and Services Administration, such as the Children’s Hospital and Teaching Health Center GME payment programs. The report details the mechanisms that various federal programs use to support GME and provides data, when available, on funding and the number of trainees. Although some federal advisory groups have raised concerns about the transparency of federal GME investments, this report does not address such concerns; instead, it discusses some of the data gaps relevant to each of the federal GME programs.

Feb 12, 2016

Disposal of Unneeded Federal Buildings: Legislative Proposals in the 114th Congress

Real property disposal is the process by which federal agencies identify and then transfer, donate, or sell real property they no longer need. Disposition is an important asset management function because the costs of maintaining unneeded properties can be substantial, consuming financial resources that might be applied to long-standing real property needs, such as repairing existing facilities, or other pressing policy issues, such as reducing the national debt. Despite the expense, federal agencies hold thousands of unneeded and underutilized properties. Agencies have argued that they are unable to dispose of these properties for several reasons. First, there are statutorily prescribed steps in the disposal process that can take months to complete. Second, properties may not be appealing to potential buyers or lessees if they require major repairs or environmental remediation—steps for which agencies lack funding to complete before bringing a property to market. Third, key stakeholders in the disposal process—including local governments, non-profit organizations, and businesses—are often at odds over how to dispose of properties. In addition, Congress may be limited in its capacity to conduct oversight of the disposal process because it currently lacks access to reliable, comprehensive real property data. The General Services Administration (GSA) maintains a database with information on most federal buildings, but those data are provided to Congress on a limited basis. Moreover, the quality of the information in the database has been questioned, in part because of inconsistent reporting of key data elements, such as how much space within a given building is unneeded. Three bills have been introduced in the 114th Congress that would enact broad reforms in the real property disposal process—the Civilian Property Realignment Act (CPRA, S. 1750); the Federal Asset Sale and Transfer Act (FAST Act, S. 2375); and the Federal Assets Sale and Transfer Act (H.R. 4465). Under CPRA, agencies would develop a list of disposal recommendations, which could include the sale, transfer, conveyance, consolidation, or outlease of any unneeded space, among other options. These recommendations would be vetted by a newly established Civilian Property Realignment Commission, and then submitted to the President. If the President approved the recommendations, then they would be sent to Congress for review. If Congress passed a joint resolution of disapproval, then the recommendations would not be implemented; if a joint resolution of disapproval was not passed, then implementation would proceed. In many cases, disposal would be expedited by exempting properties on the recommendation list from certain statutory requirements, such as screening for public benefit. Under the FAST Act, agency recommendations would be sent to a newly established real property board for vetting, and then submitted to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget for approval or disapproval. The FAST Act does not provide Congress with an opportunity to vote for or against the list of recommendations.

Feb 12, 2016

Need-Tested Benefit Receipt by Families and Individuals

Feb 9, 2016

The Trans-Pacific Partnership: Strategic Implications

This report discusses selected strategic arguments related to the proposed 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) free trade agreement (FTA) negotiations. The potential impacts of the agreement may be an active area of debate during the second session of the 114th Congress.

Feb 3, 2016

Highways and Highway Safety on Indian Lands

Cars and trucks are the primary means of transportation on Indian lands, mostly rural areas that cover about 56 million acres. There are about 145,000 miles of roads, owned variously by tribal, federal, state, and local governments, which provide access to and within these areas. Although comprehensive data are not available, roads on Indian lands are typically rudimentary and in poor condition. A large share of federal funding for highways on Indian lands is provided through the Tribal Transportation Program (TTP), which is jointly administered by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in the Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) in the Department of the Interior (DOI). The TTP was authorized at an average of $465 million per year from FY2016 through FY2020 as part of the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act (P.L. 114-94). Other programs that provide funding for highways and highway safety on Indian reservations include BIA’s Road Maintenance Program and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA’s) State Highway Safety Program (§402 safety grants). Indian tribes may also receive federal aid for projects from funding apportioned to a state department of transportation. Moreover, tribes have had some success competing for discretionary funding. For example, Indian tribes have received discretionary Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grants from DOT. Tribal advocates, citing the poor and unsafe condition of tribal roads, argue for a much larger tribal transportation program and more funds for highway safety programs. The FAST Act provided modest increases in funding in nominal dollars. The FAST Act also requires two safety-related reports, one on the quality of transportation safety data collected on tribal lands and the other to provide options for improving highway safety on Indian reservations. DOT and BIA have different requirements for projects that involve similar right-of-way circumstances, and a tribe needs to have approval from BIA on BIA-owned or trust land even if the tribe has an agreement with FHWA. In certain situations, BIA will require a more resource-intensive environmental assessment when DOT will process the request as a less resource-intensive categorical exclusion. A legislative option would be to require BIA to apply DOT regulations when implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Others have suggested improving the documentation of rights-of-way on Indian reservations.

Feb 2, 2016

Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA) Negotiations: Overview and Issues for Congress

Congress has broad interest in trade in services, which are a large and growing component of the U.S. economy. It also has a direct interest in establishing trade negotiating objectives and potential consideration of a future Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA). Services account for 78% of U.S. private sector gross domestic product (GDP), 82% of private sector employees in 2013, and an increasing portion of U.S. international trade. “Services” refer to a growing range of economic activities, such as audiovisual, construction, and computer and related services; energy; express delivery; e-commerce; financial, legal, and accounting services; retail and wholesaling; transportation; telecommunications; and travel. Services include end-use products, such as legal services and financial products. Many services, such as distribution or transportation services, also act as the “lifeblood” of the rest of the economy, helping goods move through global supply chains. To open foreign markets to U.S. businesses and address trade barriers to services, which may be in the form of government regulations, the United States has engaged in multiple trade agreement negotiations. The World Trade Organization (WTO) General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) provides the foundation or floor on which rules in other agreements on services are based, including in U.S. free trade agreements (FTAs). Trade in services is addressed in U.S. bilateral and regional FTAs, including the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), concluded in October 2015. However, ongoing negotiation efforts to update GATS are stalled, even as technology and services trade have evolved significantly since GATS went into effect in 1995. To address these issues, 23 parties are engaged in discussions on a potential sector-specific, plurilateral agreement to further liberalize trade in services. Negotiations on a proposed Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA) were launched in April 2013, with the United States and Australia initially at the lead. TiSA participants account for about 70% of world trade in services and include the European Union, in addition to the United States and Australia. Some key major emerging markets, including Brazil, China, and India, are not currently parties to the TiSA negotiations, though China has indicated an interest in joining. While TiSA negotiations are occurring outside of the WTO, the agreement is reportedly being structured so that it can be potentially “multi-lateralized” in the future and incorporated into the GATS, making it applicable to all WTO members. The final structure and sectors to be covered in TiSA remain under negotiation, but some key issues have emerged. For the United States, significant interests include expanding market access beyond the current GATS commitments, building disciplines on transparency, setting common rules for cross-border data flows and digital trade, and ensuring fair competition with state-owned enterprises. TiSA participants have conducted 15 negotiating rounds through 2015, and aim to complete negotiations in 2016. The outlook and timeline for the ongoing TiSA negotiations remains uncertain, as participants are tackling difficult and complex issues such as regulatory processes and digital trade frameworks. TiSA is one of several trade agreements that may be considered by Congress in the near future. Congress passed, and the President signed into law, Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) legislation in June 2015 which expires on July 1, 2018, with a possible extension to July 1, 2021. As part of TPA, Congress established principal trade negotiating objectives for services. If agreement on TiSA is reached while TPA is in effect, and if certain statutory requirements are met, TPA would provide for expedited legislative consideration of legislation to implement a final TiSA. Congress may opt to exercise oversight on the progress of the TiSA negotiations and consider a number of related factors such as comparisons with other agreements.

Jan 28, 2016

Federal-Aid Highway Program (FAHP): In Brief

Federal-aid highways Highway construction Highway finance Alternative finance Highway Trust Fund Highway use tax Gasoline tax User charges Surface transportation reauthorization FAST Act Highway planning Infrastructure Transportation Federal Lands Transportation Program Federal Lands Access Program Tribal Transportation Program Transportation Alternatives Appalachian Development Highway System TIFIA Ferry Freight

Jan 14, 2016

Federal Land Management Agencies and Programs: CRS Experts

The following table provides access to names and contact information for CRS experts on policy concerns relating to federal land management agencies. These agencies include the Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service in the Department of the Interior, and the U.S. Forest Service in the Department of Agriculture. Experts on specific agencies, and on general policy issues related to federal land management, are listed. Federal Land Management, Forest Service, BLM, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS, Forest Service, National Park Service, National Parks, Energy and Mineral Resources, federal lands, Forest Management, range livestock grazing, wild horses and burros, national wildlife refuge system, recreation, secure rural schools, SRS, wildfire, endangered species, land and water conservation fund, LWCF, national monuments, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, trails, payment in lieu of taxes, PILT, federal lands, drought monitor, forestry, Federal Land Management, Forest Service, BLM, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS, federal lands, Forest Service, National Park Service, National Parks, Energy and Mineral Resources, Forest Management, range livestock grazing, wild horses and burros, national wildlife refuge system, recreation, secure rural schools, SRS, wildfire, endangered species, federal lands, land and water conservation fund, LWCF, national monuments, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, trails, payment in lieu of taxes, PILT, drought monitor, forestry, Federal Land Management, Forest Service, BLM, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS, Forest Service, National Park Service, National Parks, Energy and Mineral Resources, Forest Management, federal lands, range livestock grazing, wild horses and burros, national wildlife refuge system, recreation, secure rural schools, SRS, wildfire, endangered species, land and water conservation fund, LWCF, national monuments, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, trails, payment in lieu of taxes, PILT, drought monitor, forestry, Federal Land Management, Forest Service, BLM, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS, Forest Service, National Park Service, National Parks, Energy and Mineral Resources, Forest Management, range livestock grazing, federal lands, wild horses and burros, national wildlife refuge system, recreation, secure rural schools, SRS, wildfire, endangered species, land and water conservation fund, LWCF, national monuments, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, trails, payment in lieu of taxes, PILT, drought monitor, forestry, Federal Land Management, Forest Service, BLM, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS, Forest Service, National Park Service, National Parks, Energy and Mineral Resources, federal lands, Forest Management, range livestock grazing, wild horses and burros, national wildlife refuge system, recreation, secure rural schools, SRS, wildfire, endangered species, land and water conservation fund, LWCF, national monuments, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, trails, payment in lieu of taxes, PILT, drought monitor, forestry, Federal Land Management, Forest Service, BLM, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, federal lands, FWS, Forest Service, National Park Service, National Parks, Energy and Mineral Resources, Forest Management, range livestock grazing, wild horses and burros, national wildlife refuge system, recreation, secure rural schools, SRS, wildfire, endangered species, land and water conservation fund, LWCF, national monuments, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, trails, payment in lieu of taxes, PILT, federal lands, drought monitor

Jan 12, 2016

Cambodia

Jan 8, 2016

Alcohol Excise Taxes: Current Law and Economic Analysis

The federal excise tax on alcoholic beverages is imposed at the manufacturer and importer level, based on the per unit production or importation of alcoholic beverages (e.g., distilled spirits, wine, and beer) for sale in the U.S. market. When converted to standard drink measures liquor drinks are generally subjected to a federal excise tax of approximately 13 cents per 1.5 ounce shot, wine is taxed at 4 cents per 5 ounce glass, and beer is taxed at 5 cents per 12 ounce can or bottle. Alcohol excise tax collections totaled $10.4 billion in FY2015, with collections from distilled spirits comprising 55.1% of that amount. Congressional interest in alcohol excise taxes is broad, given a variety of policy motivations and the industry’s wide geographic distribution. Since their inception in 1791, federal excise taxes on alcohol have been imposed or increased throughout history primarily to fund emergency spending during wartime or in response to concerns over the growth of budget deficits. Today, three main approaches drive interest in alcohol taxes: (1) tax rates could be decreased to benefit firms in the industry, (2) excise tax rates could be increased for deficit reduction, or (3) excise tax rates could be increased to discourage the negative spillover effects of alcohol consumption (e.g., drunk driving fatalities, property damage, domestic violence). This report provides a brief historical overview of alcohol excise tax policy and a description of current law. Next, the report analyzes alcohol excise tax rates based on some of the standard criteria for tax evaluation: revenue, economic efficiency, and equity. Lastly, this report discusses bills introduced in the 114th Congress that would reduce current excise tax rates as well as possible approaches to raising alcohol excise tax rates. Despite three tax rate increases since 1951 (with the last increase in 1991), alcohol excise taxes have declined in inflation-adjusted value over time. Excise tax reductions would reduce excise tax collections, reduce some of the regressivity in the federal tax code, and provide owners of the affected alcohol producers with a temporary increase in their profits (due to lower tax rates). Economists typically justify imposing excise taxes on alcohol consumption to better reflect the costs of an individual’s consumption of alcohol to society. While there is much debate surrounding the technical measurement of these linkages, most researchers argue that alcohol excise tax rates are set below the economically efficient level to compensate for social costs. One estimate finds the combined federal, state, and local taxes between 25 cents and 29 cents (in 2013 dollars) per ounce of pure alcohol compared with the external cost of $1.02 per ounce. Analysis suggests that excise tax increases are usually passed forward to consumers through higher prices and are not borne by the owners of alcoholic beverage manufacturers or importers. Excise taxes are generally regressive, alcohol included. Lower income households tend to spend a higher share of their pre-tax income on alcoholic beverages, but this distribution is not as uneven as spending on non-alcoholic beverages or food. Consumers also pay different amounts of federal excise tax on the same amount of alcohol content, based on the type of alcoholic beverages they purchase. At current rates, the federal tax per ounce of pure alcoholic content for spirits, wine, and beer is 21 cents, 10 cents, and 8 cents, respectively.

Dec 23, 2015

The Federal Election Commission: Overview and Selected Issues for Congress

More than 40 years ago, Congress created the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to administer the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) and related amendments. Today, the FEC is responsible for administering disclosure of millions of campaign finance transactions; interpretation and civil enforcement of FECA and agency regulations; and administering the presidential public financing program. Six presidentially appointed commissioners, who are subject to Senate advice and consent, head the FEC. No more than three members may be affiliated with the same political party. Congress arrived at this bipartisan, even-numbered structure amid debate over how to properly insulate the campaign finance agency from political pressures. Although this structure ensures that commissioners must reach bipartisan agreement to make most decisions, it has not saved the agency from bipartisan criticism. Throughout its history, critics have alleged that the FEC fails to adequately regulate campaign finance activity or does so too stringently. Discussion of what the commission does, why it does so, and how is less common. This report provides selected information about the FEC’s history and ongoing issues that are likely to be of interest to Congress for appropriations, legislative, or oversight activities. The discussion is organized around those factors that most actively shape the FEC: its structure and commission appointments; organizational issues; and debate over campaign finance policy. These selected topics represent both ongoing and recent areas of congressional activity. CRS Report R44319, The Federal Election Commission: Enforcement Process and Selected Issues for Congress, by R. Sam Garrett provides additional information about the FEC’s enforcement process—a topic that is related to some of the issues discussed in this report but also distinct from the organizational and administrative themes considered here. As the FEC heads toward a half-century of regulating campaigns, perhaps the most fundamental question facing Congress and the commission is what the agency’s mission should be today and in the future. As Congress monitors the FEC, it perhaps faces a choice similar to that facing the agency itself: whether to focus on major change—if any—or to emphasize managing routine business. Recent Congresses have engaged in oversight activities surrounding the FEC’s enforcement practices and agency transparency. For more than 20 years, Congress occasionally has considered legislation to restructure the agency, particularly to change the number of commissioners, thereby reducing possibilities for deadlocked votes. H.R. 2931 in the 114th Congress is the latest such proposal. This report will be updated occasionally as events warrant.

Dec 22, 2015

The Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program: Overview and Impact of the Affordable Care Act

This report discusses the impact of the Affordable Care Act on the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program, which makes federal funds available to metropolitan areas and states to that provide a number of health care services for HIV/AIDS patients.

Dec 21, 2015

Employer Wellness Programs and Genetic Information: Frequently Asked Questions

Since the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA, P.L. 111-148, as amended), which encouraged use of wellness programs, employers have increasingly established employer wellness programs in an effort to support better health among their employees and reduce their own health care costs. Employer wellness programs often focus on improving wellness overall, but they may target a specific disease (e.g., diabetes) or behavior (e.g., smoking), and they may include the provision of health or other services. These programs often include incentives for participation, ranging from additional paid time off to reduced insurance premium contributions.

Dec 17, 2015

Provisions of the Senate Amendment to H.R. 3762

Dec 9, 2015

Global Research and Development Expenditures: Fact Sheet

Global, research, development, expenditures, global research and development expenditures, R&D, science, technology, innovation, competitiveness, United States, China, Japan, Germany, United Kingdom, France, Italy, South Korea, Russia, Taiwan, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD. Global, research, development, expenditures, global research and development expenditures, R&D, science, technology, innovation, competitiveness. Global, research, development, expenditures, global research and development expenditures, R&D, science, technology, innovation, competitiveness. Global, research, development, expenditures, global research and development expenditures, R&D, science, technology, innovation, competitiveness. Global, research, development, expenditures, global research and development expenditures, R&D, science, technology, innovation, competitiveness. Global, research, development, expenditures, global research and development expenditures, R&D, science, technology, innovation, competitiveness. Global, research, development, expenditures, global research and development expenditures, R&D, science, technology, innovation, competitiveness. Global, research, development, expenditures, global research and development expenditures, R&D, science, technology, innovation, competitiveness. Global, research, development, expenditures, global research and development expenditures, R&D, science, technology, innovation, competitiveness. Global, research, development, expenditures, global research and development expenditures, R&D, science, technology, innovation, competitiveness. Global, research, development, expenditures, global research and development expenditures, R&D, science, technology, innovation, competitiveness. Global, research, development, expenditures, global research and development expenditures, R&D, science, technology, innovation, competitiveness. Global, research, development, expenditures, global research and development expenditures, R&D, science, technology, innovation, competitiveness. Global, research, development, expenditures, global research and development expenditures, R&D, science, technology, innovation, competitiveness. Global, research, development, expenditures, global research and development expenditures, R&D, science, technology, innovation, competitiveness. Global, research, development, expenditures, global research and development expenditures, R&D, science, technology, innovation, competitiveness. Global, research, development, expenditures, global research and development expenditures, R&D, science, technology, innovation, competitiveness. Global, research, development, expenditures, global research and development expenditures, R&D, science, technology, innovation, competitiveness. Global, research, development, expenditures, global research and development expenditures, R&D, science, technology, innovation, competitiveness. Global, research, development, expenditures, global research and development expenditures, R&D, science, technology, innovation, competitiveness. Global, research, development, expenditures, global research and development expenditures, R&D, science, technology, innovation, competitiveness. Global, research, development, expenditures, global research and development expenditures, R&D, science, technology, innovation, competitiveness. Global, research, development, expenditures, global research and development expenditures, R&D, science, technology, innovation, competitiveness. Global, research, development, expenditures, global research and development expenditures, R&D, science, technology, innovation, competitiveness. Global, research, development, expenditures, global research and development expenditures, R&D, science, technology, innovation, competitiveness. Global, research, development, expenditures, global research and development expenditures, R&D, science, technology, innovation, competitiveness. Global, research, development, expenditures, global research and development expenditures, R&D, science, technology, innovation, competitiveness. Global, research, development, expenditures, global research and development expenditures, R&D, science, technology, innovation, competitiveness.

Nov 18, 2015

The Family and Medical Leave Act: An Overview of Title I

The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA; P.L. 103-3, as amended) entitles eligible employees to unpaid, job-protected leave for certain family and medical reasons, with continued group health plan coverage. FMLA requires that covered employers grant up to 12 workweeks in a 12-month period to eligible employees for one or more of the following reasons: the birth and care of the employee’s newborn child, provided that leave is taken within 12 months of the child’s birth; the placement of an adopted or fostered child with the employee, provided that leave is taken within 12 months of the child’s placement; to care for a spouse, child, or parent with a serious health condition; the employee’s own serious health condition that renders the employee unable to perform the essential functions of his or her job; and qualified military exigencies arising from the covered activity duty status of a covered military member who is the employee’s spouse, child, or parent. In addition, the act provides up to 26 workweeks of leave in a single 12-month period to eligible employees to care for a covered military servicemember (including certain veterans) with a serious injury or illness that was sustained or aggravated in the line of duty while on active duty, if the eligible employee is the covered servicemember’s spouse, child, parent, or next of kin. FMLA leave has four fundamental characteristics: It is an entitlement, which means that, unlike other forms of leave (like vacation days), it must be granted to an eligible employee with an FMLA-qualifying need for leave who meet the act’s notification and documentation requirements. FMLA guarantees unpaid leave, but provides that employees may elect to substitute or employers may require the substitution of certain types of accrued paid leave for unpaid FMLA leave, within the constraints of employer policy. FMLA leave is job-protected, which means that—with few exceptions—an employer must return the employee to the same job or to one that is equivalent in terms of pay, benefits, working conditions, and responsibilities to the one held prior to taking leave. Pre-existing group health benefits must be maintained during the employee’s absence under the same conditions that were in place prior to taking leave. FMLA applies to covered employers and eligible employees in both the private and public sectors. Some provisions for federal civil service employees differ from those that apply to private-sector and state and local government employees. Employer coverage and employee eligibility for FMLA leave are not universal. In general, employers engaged in commerce with 50 or more employees are covered. Employee eligibility is defined in terms of an employee’s work history with a specific employer, and the size of the employer’s workforce in or around the employee’s worksite. This report describes the major provisions of Title I of the act—which apply to the private sector, state and local governments, and certain federal agencies—as administered by the Secretary of Labor.

Nov 16, 2015

State Management of Federal Lands: Frequently Asked Questions

The federal government owns roughly 640 million acres of land, about 28% of the 2.27 billion acres in the United States. This land is managed by numerous agencies, but four agencies administer about 95% of federal land, with somewhat differing management emphases. These agencies are the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and National Park Service (NPS) in the Department of the Interior (DOI), and the Forest Service (FS) in the Department of Agriculture. Most federal land is in the West, including Alaska. The total amount of money the federal government spends managing land is not readily available. Federal land ownership began when the original 13 states ceded title to more than 40% of their “western” lands to the central government. Subsequently, the federal government acquired lands from foreign countries through purchases and treaties. The Property Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2, gives Congress authority over the lands, territories, or other property of the United States. This provision provides Congress broad authority over lands owned by the federal government. The U.S. Supreme Court has described this power as “without limitations.” When Congress exercises its authority over federal land, federal law overrides conflicting state laws under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2. States can obtain authority to own and manage federal lands within their borders only by federal, not state, law. Congress’s broad authority over federal lands includes the authority to dispose of lands, and Congress can choose to transfer land to states. When Congress does so, the transferred lands are no longer federally owned. For lands for which the federal government retains ownership, Congress can also give federal agencies authority to delegate or assign responsibility for aspects of federal land management. States have legal authority to manage federal lands within their borders to the extent Congress has given them such authority. For example, Congress has to a large extent left management of wildlife to the states as a traditional area of state concern. Currently, some states are seeking more state and local control over lands and resources. Accordingly, some are considering measures to provide for or express support for the transfer of federal lands to states, to establish task forces or commissions to examine federal land transfer issues, and to assert management authority over federal lands. A collection of efforts from the late 1970s and early 1980s, known as the Sagebrush Rebellion, sought to foster divestiture of federal lands. However, this effort did not succeed. State efforts to claim control of federal lands, without express approval of Congress, are likely to run afoul of the Constitution. Opinions differ about the extent to which the federal government should own and manage land. The extent to which Congress should transfer ownership and management of land to states is a policy choice for Congress. The 114th Congress and recent Congresses have considered, and in some cases enacted, measures related to disposal, acquisition, and management of federal lands. A variety of bills sought to provide for ownership and management of particular parcels by states, individuals, and other entities. At the same time, diverse proposals sought to provide for acquisition of lands for federal ownership and management. Still other proposals focused on establishing or amending agency authorities to dispose of or acquire land.

Nov 12, 2015

The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act and the One-Stop Delivery System

The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA; P.L. 113-128), which succeeded the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-220) as the primary federal workforce development legislation, was enacted in July 2014 to bring about increased coordination among federal workforce development and related programs. Most of WIOA’s provisions went into effect July 1, 2015. WIOA authorizes appropriations for each of FY2015 through FY2020 to carry out the programs and activities authorized in the legislation. Workforce development programs provide a combination of education and training services to prepare individuals for work and to help them improve their prospects in the labor market. They may include activities such as job search assistance, career counseling, occupational skill training, classroom training, or on-the-job training. The federal government provides workforce development activities through WIOA’s programs and other programs designed to increase the employment and earnings of workers. WIOA includes five titles: Workforce Development Activities (Title I), Adult Education and Literacy (Title II), Amendments to the Wagner-Peyser Act (Title III), Amendments to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Title IV), and General Provisions (Title V). Title I, whose programs are primarily administered through the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) of the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), includes three state formula grant programs, multiple national programs, and Job Corps. Title II, whose programs are administered by the U.S. Department of Education (ED), includes a state formula grant program and National Leadership activities. Title III amends the Wagner-Peyser Act of 1933, which authorizes the Employment Service (ES). Title IV amends the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which authorizes vocational rehabilitation services to individuals with disabilities. Title V includes provisions for the administration of WIOA. The WIOA system provides central points of service via its system of around 3,000 One-Stop centers nationwide, through which state and local WIOA employment and training activities are provided and certain partner programs must be coordinated. This system is supposed to provide employment and training services that are responsive to the demands of local area employers. Administration of the One-Stop system occurs through Workforce Development Boards (WDBs), a majority of whose members must be representatives of business and which are authorized to determine the mix of service provision, eligible providers, and types of training programs, among other decisions. WIOA provides universal access (i.e., an adult age 18 or older does not need to meet any qualifying characteristics) to its career services, including a priority of service for low-income adults. WIOA also requires Unified State Plans (USPs) that outline the workforce strategies for the six core WIOA programs—adult, dislocated worker, and youth programs (Title I of WIOA), the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA; Title II of WIOA), the Employment Service program (amended by Title III of WIOA), and the Vocational Rehabilitation State Grant Program (amended by Title IV of WIOA). Finally, WIOA adopts the same six “primary indicators of performance” across most of the programs authorized in the law. This report provides details of WIOA Title I state formula program structure, services, allotment formulas, and performance accountability. In addition, it provides a program overview for national grant programs. It also offers a brief overview of the Employment Service (ES), which is authorized by separate legislation but is an integral part of the One-Stop system created by WIOA.

Oct 27, 2015

The European Union (EU): Current Challenges and Future Prospects in Brief

This report provides a brief history of the EU and the major simultaneous challenges currently facing the EU as an institution. It also discusses the potential implications both for the EU itself and for U.S.-EU relations.

Oct 27, 2015

Israel: Background and U.S. Relations In Brief

This report focuses on the following: Recent dynamics in U.S.-Israel relations, U.S.-Israel next steps following the July 2015 Iranian nuclear deal, regional threats Israel perceives from Hezbollah, Syria, and elsewhere, recently intensified Israeli-Palestinian tensions and violence in connection with Jerusalem's holy sites, and domestic political developments in Israel.

Oct 23, 2015

Potential Policy Implications of the House Reconciliation Bill (H.R. 3762)

This report provides background on the reconciliation process and summarizes the provisions in the Restoring Americans' Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act of 2015 (H.R. 3762), including their projected budgetary impact. It then briefly examines some of the bill's policy implications.

Oct 21, 2015

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations

This report discusses the Agriculture appropriations bill for FY 2016, which funds the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) -- except for the Forest Service -- as well as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and, in even-numbered fiscal years, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).

Oct 21, 2015