CRS Reports

FY2018 and FY2019 Agriculture Appropriations: Federal Food Safety Activities

The Agriculture appropriations bill—formally known as the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act—funds the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), excluding the U.S. Forest Service. Congress enacted the FY2018 agriculture appropriation in March 2018 as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (P.L. 115-141, Division A). Both the House and the Senate Appropriations Committees have reported Agriculture appropriations bills for FY2019 (H.R. 5961, S. 2976). The Senate amended and passed its version as Division C of a four-bill minibus (H.R. 6147). Numerous federal, state, and local agencies share responsibilities for regulating the safety of the U.S. food supply. Federal responsibility for food safety rests primarily with FDA, an agency of the Department of Health and Human Services, and also the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), an agency of USDA. FDA is responsible for ensuring the safety of the majority of all domestic and imported food products—except for meat and poultry products, which are within USDA’s jurisdiction to oversee meat, poultry, and processed egg products. Appropriations for Federal Food Safety Activities, FY2009-FY2018 / Combined appropriations covering food safety activities at both FDA and USDA totaled nearly $2.1 billion in FY2018. Congressional appropriations at both FDA and USDA are augmented by existing (currently authorized) user fees. FDA user fees authorized by the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA, P.L. 111-353) have generated between $10 million and $18 million annually in recent years. At FSIS, user fees have generated between $180 million and $250 million per year. At FDA, ongoing efforts to improve food safety include implementation of FSMA. FSMA was enacted by the 111th Congress and was the largest expansion of FDA's food safety authorities since the 1930s. Since FSMA became law in 2011, congressional appropriators have increased annual funding for the FDA Foods Program by $204.3 million—an increase of about 24% between FY2011 and FY2018—largely in an effort to support FDA’s implementation of FSMA. The enacted FY2018 appropriation for FDA’s Foods Program provided $1,041.6 million. Currently, FDA funding for its food safety oversight activities is roughly similar to those of FSIS (Figure 1). FDA's total budget for food safety programs and activities extends beyond the agency's Foods Program, encompassing other food and veterinary medicine programs at FDA. Food-safety-related activities at FSIS include continuous inspections at federal meat and poultry plants. The enacted FY2018 appropriation provided $1,056.8 million to carry out this function. Compared to FY2011—the year FSMA was enacted—annual congressional appropriations for FSIS have increased by $48.3 million (+5%). For FY2019, congressional appropriators would increase funding for federal food safety activities, whereas the Administration’s budget proposal would reduce food safety funding below FY2018 levels at both FDA and FSIS.

Nov 27, 2018

Immigration Laws Regulating the Admission and Exclusion of Aliens at the Border

Nov 27, 2018

Revisiting the Doubling Effort: Trends in Federal Funding for Basic Research in the Physical Sciences and Engineering

The adequacy of federal investment in physical sciences and engineering (PS&E) basic research is a long-standing concern of many in industry and academia. This topic received much attention in the early 2000s due to perceived underinvestment in these disciplines. Many Members of Congress, industry leaders, and science and technology policy analysts asserted that the long-term competitive position and national security of the United States depended in large measure on the rapid increases in federal funding for PS&E. PS&E research provides the foundation for materials, products, and manufacturing technologies spanning a wide range of industries, including automotive, chemicals, semiconductors, electronics, telecommunications, aerospace, defense, and pharmaceuticals. Stakeholder interest in increasing federal PSE funding was further fueled by the doubling of funding for life sciences research at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) from FY1998 to FY2003. Although the NIH doubling had broad support, some subsequently expressed concerns that it had created an imbalance in the federal research portfolio that undervalued PS&E research and might reduce the number of students choosing to pursue PS&E graduate degrees. Momentum toward a doubling effort for PS&E research was catalyzed by a 2005 National Academies report, Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future (RAGS). The report, requested by several Members of Congress, recommended doubling federal basic research funding over seven years, emphasizing fields such as the physical sciences and engineering. In 2006, President George W. Bush launched the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI), which sought to increase federal funding for PS&E research by doubling funding over 10 years for targeted accounts at the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energy (DOE), and Department of Commerce (DOC). The targeted accounts included all NSF accounts, the DOE Office of Science, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s Scientific and Technical Research and Services (STRS) and Construction of Research Facilities (CRF) accounts with DOC. Since Congress provides appropriations for agencies and programs, not for particular fields of science and engineering, these PS&E-focused accounts served as surrogates for the effort. In 2007, Congress passed the America COMPETES Act (COMPETES 2007, P.L. 110-69), which authorized funding for the accounts identified in the ACI for FY2008-FY2010. In aggregate, the FY2010 authorized amounts represented a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 10.3% over the FY2006 level (a growth rate that would result in doubling in seven years if this growth rate were sustained). Actual appropriations were lower than the authorized levels, with actual FY2010 appropriations corresponding to a 6.4% CAGR over FY2006 (a doubling pace of 11 years). Concerns that gave rise to the America COMPETES Act had not subsided when the act’s authorizations of appropriations expired. Congress sought to address these ongoing concerns with enactment of the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 (COMPETES 2010, P.L. 111-358). Congressional support for COMPETES 2010 lacked the wider bicameral consensus enjoyed by COMPETES 2007. While COMPETES 2010 passed the Senate by unanimous consent, the House vote on the final bill was 228-130, in large measure because of the bill’s proposed increases in authorized spending for FY2010-FY2013. Like COMPETES 2007, a pillar of COMPETES 2010 was increased funding for the targeted accounts. Authorizations for FY2013 represented a 6.5% CAGR over FY2006, a doubling pace of approximately 11 years. Actual FY2013 appropriations, however, were lower than the authorized level and even below the FY2010 appropriations level. Actual FY2013 appropriations represented a 3.1% CAGR from FY2006, a doubling pace of 22 years—more than triple the length of time originally envisioned in COMPETES 2007 and twice as long as the COMPETES 2010 doubling pace. Figure 1. Funding for Accounts Targeted for Doubling: Appropriations, Authorizations, and Requests (FY2006-FY2019) versus Selected Doubling Rates budget authority, current dollars / Source: Prepared by CRS based on data from agency budget justifications, annual appropriations acts, ARRA, COMPETES 2007, and COMPETES 2010. Note: ARRA = American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 20019 (P.L. 111-5) Figure 1 shows authorizations, budget requests, and appropriations since FY2006 as a percentage of their FY2006 funding level and how they compare to different doubling rates. The thick black line at the top of the chart is at 200%, the doubling level. The data used in Figure 1 are in current dollars, and do not reflect the effect of inflation on the purchasing power of these funds. Figure 2 illustrates the progress made toward the underlying goal of increasing federal PS&E basic research funding. Total federal PS&E basic research grew at a 3.6% CAGR from FY2006 to FY2016, with engineering research growing at a 4.4% CAGR and physical sciences research growing at a 3.0% CAGR. Figure 2. Federal Funding for PS&E Basic Research, FY2006-FY2016 obligations, in millions of current dollars / Source: NSF, Survey of Federal Funds for Research and Development: Fiscal Years 2016–17. Notes: CAGR = compound annual growth rate Despite repeated efforts in Congress, the targeted accounts have not been reauthorized since the expiration of the COMPETES 2010 authorizations. From FY2013 to FY2018, funding grew at 4.3% CAGR. The compound annual growth rate between FY2006 and FY2018 is 3.6%, a nearly 20-year doubling pace—slower than envisioned in RAGS, the ACI, COMPETES 2007, and COMPETES 2010. While some policymakers have continued to advocate for a doubling approach or even faster increases for specific agencies (for example, see H.R. 1569 and S. 641), other advocates for increased funding for basic research have moved away from using the “doubling” framework as the appropriate goal for such increases, asserting instead that “sustained and predictable” federal funding is a better framework (for example, see H.R. 1806). Given current concerns about U.S. competitiveness, driven in part by China’s rapid increases in research and development funding, Congress may consider the effects of the doubling effort on total federal PS&E research funding trends, impediments to achieving the doubling target, the role of increased funding for basic research in advancing national competitiveness, the current competitive position of U.S. industries that depend on physical sciences and engineering research, and how commercial competitiveness concerns can best be addressed by the federal government.

Nov 27, 2018

Medicaid Alternative Benefit Plan Coverage: Frequently Asked Questions

Medicaid is a federal-state program that finances the delivery of primary and acute medical services, as well as long-term services and supports, to a diverse low-income population, including children, pregnant women, adults, individuals with disabilities, and people aged 65 and older. Medicaid is financed jointly by the federal government and the states. Federal Medicaid spending is an entitlement, with total expenditures dependent on state policy decisions and use of services by enrollees. State participation in Medicaid is voluntary, although all states, the District of Columbia, and the territories choose to participate. States are responsible for administering their Medicaid programs. States must follow broad federal rules to receive federal matching funds, but they have flexibility to design their own versions of Medicaid within the federal statute’s basic framework. This flexibility results in variability across state Medicaid programs. Most Medicaid beneficiaries receive services in the form of what is sometimes called traditional Medicaid. However, states also may furnish Medicaid in the form of alternative benefit plans (ABPs). ABPs were first introduced in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA 2005; P.L. 109-171 P.L. 109-171) and are referred to in the Social Security Act (SSA) as benchmark or benchmark-equivalent coverage. In general, under traditional Medicaid benefit coverage, state Medicaid programs must cover specific required services listed in statute (e.g., inpatient and outpatient hospital services, physician’s services, or laboratory and x-ray services) and may elect to cover certain optional services (e.g., prescription drugs, case management, or physical therapy services). Under ABPs, by contrast, states may furnish a benefit that is defined by reference to an overall coverage benchmark that is based on one of three commercial insurance products (e.g., the commercial health maintenance organization (HMO) with the largest insured commercial, non-Medicaid enrollment in the state) or a fourth, “Secretary-approved” coverage option rather than a list of discrete items and services. The 33 states and District of Columbia that have implemented the state option to expand Medicaid to low-income adults under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA; P.L. 111-148, as amended) are required to cover the ACA Medicaid expansion population using ABPs, and states also may elect to require other Medicaid populations to receive care through ABPs. States cannot require certain vulnerable populations to obtain benefits through ABPs. ABPs must qualify as either benchmark, where the benefits are at least equal to one the statutorily specified benchmark plans, or benchmark-equivalent benefits, which means the benefits include certain specified services and the overall benefits are at least actuarially equivalent to one of the statutorily specified benchmark coverage packages. In addition, ABPs must include a variety of specific services, including services under Medicaid’s early and periodic screening, diagnostic, and testing (EPSDT) benefit and family planning services and supplies. Unlike traditional Medicaid benefit coverage, coverage under an ABP must include at least the essential health benefits (EHB) that most plans in the private health insurance market are required to furnish. States choose whether to furnish ABPs through managed care or a fee-for-service delivery system. The Medicaid limitations on beneficiary premiums and cost sharing apply to services furnished through ABPs. To date, states have chiefly used ABPs as the benefit package for the ACA Medicaid expansion population. However, several states have elected to use ABPs to serve other Medicaid populations (e.g., working individuals with disabilities or children and adults who do not have special health care needs). States can have more than one ABP coverage option to serve different target populations operating concurrently with traditional Medicaid benefit coverage. States have largely used the ABP design flexibility to align their benefit coverage with the traditional Medicaid benefit coverage.

Nov 26, 2018

Hong Kong: Recent Developments and U.S. Relations

Nov 26, 2018

Energy Savings Performance Contracts (ESPCs) and Utility Energy Service Contracts (UESCs)

Many in Congress have expressed a continuing interest in improving energy efficiency and increasing the use of renewable energy. To facilitate investment in energy efficiency and renewable energy at federal facilities, Congress established alternative financing methods that utilize private sector resources and capabilities. Two such alternative financing methods are energy savings performance contracts (ESPCs) and utility energy service contracts (UESCs). ESPCs and UESCs are contracts between a federal agency and another party—an energy service company or a utility, depending upon the contract type. In general, a federal agency agrees to pay an amount not to exceed the current annual utility costs for a fixed period of time to the company or utility, which finances and installs the energy-efficiency and renewable energy projects. The costs are repaid by the agency over the length of the contract. After the end of the contract, the agency benefits from any reduced energy costs as a result of the improvements. The Department of Energy’s Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) is the lead organization responsible for providing implementing rules and policies for ESPCs. FEMP also provides training, guidance, and technical assistance to aid federal agencies in achieving energy and water goals. Federal agencies are required to document progress toward energy-saving goals through annual reporting to the President and Congress. FEMP compiles agency data annually. Between FY2005 and FY2017, investment in federal facility energy efficiency improvements totaled nearly $21.7 billion (in constant 2017 dollars): direct obligations funded $14.5 billion, ESPCs funded $5.7 billion, and UESCs funded $1.5 billion. A lack of consistency in reporting across agencies for projects makes it challenging to document the cost savings achieved solely from ESPCs or UESCs. The available data may provide insight into broad trends in federal energy and water consumption. Over available reporting time periods, total site-delivered energy use has declined, renewable electricity use has increased as a percentage of total electricity consumption, and water use has declined. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has examined alternative financing for federal energy projects, including ESPCs and UESCs. In a 2016 study, GAO reported that the Department of Defense had identified challenges in using ESPCs and UESCs for renewable energy projects, as such financing mechanisms may not realize the federal tax benefits under requirements set by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Prior to 2012, the Army had structured ESPCs to allow private developers to capture federal incentives by owning renewable energy projects. The Army stopped doing so after a 2012 OMB memorandum required government ownership of such renewable energy projects to avoid obligating the full cost of the project when the contract is signed. A 2017 study by GAO examined energy projects for DOD more broadly and found that the majority of these were financed using ESPCs or UESCs. Congressional Budget Office (CBO) scoring policies for ESPCs and UESCs have changed over time. The 2018 House Budget Resolution (H.Con.Res. 71) directed CBO to score ESPCs and UESCs on a net present value basis with payments covering the period of the contract. The estimated net present value of the budget authority and any outlays would be classified as direct spending; it would not change the fact that federal agencies would continue to cover contractual payments through annual, discretionary appropriations. H.Con.Res. 71 also prohibited any savings estimated by CBO to be considered as an offset for purposes of budget enforcement. This prohibition applies to budget enforcement in the House of Representatives; CBO considers estimated savings to offset budget enforcement differently for the House of Representatives and the Senate. Congress has revised the policies enabling ESPCs and UESCs over time, and Congress may address additional changes going forward. Issues for possible consideration include reporting requirements, definitions of terminology including federal building and energy savings, and whether to expand the applicability of ESPCs and UESCs.

Nov 23, 2018

Global Human Rights: Multilateral Bodies & U.S. Participation

Nov 23, 2018

Medicaid Primer

Nov 21, 2018

Election Policy on the November 2018 Ballot

On November 6, voters in some states did not just vote on the policymakers who will represent them. They also made policy themselves, by approving or rejecting ballot measures. Some of the measures on state ballots included provisions that would affect the conduct of federal elections. Most of those measures succeeded. Thirteen state measures with implications for federal elections were on the ballot in 10 states, and 12 were approved. What Are Ballot Measures? Ballot measures are policy questions that are decided by popular vote. Local measures are voted on by residents of a locality, such as a city or county, and can make changes only for that locality. State measures, like the ones discussed in this Insight, get a statewide vote and can change policy for the whole state. The types of measures available vary by state and in two main ways: how they reach the ballot; and their effects if approved. State measures may be referred to the ballot by the state legislature or, less commonly, a state commission or constitutional convention. In some states, they can also be initiated by citizens. Direct citizen initiatives and popular referendums go directly to the ballot if they get enough signatures. Indirect initiatives are submitted to the state legislature for possible adoption first. They typically go to the ballot if the legislature does not adopt them, although additional signature-gathering may be required. Some state measures create new policies if approved, by adding or amending state statutes or amending the state constitution. Others affect existing laws. They can be used to repeal or, in some cases, affirm previously enacted legislation. What Was on the Ballot? This chart provides an overview of the state measures related to federal elections that were on the ballot on November 6. Table 1. Election Policy on State Ballots in November 2018 State Title Summary of Relevant Provisions Type Results (%) Arkansas Issue 2 Requires voters to present photo ID Legislatively referred constitutional amendment 79-21 Colorado Amendment Y Establishes an independent redistricting commission Legislatively referred constitutional amendment 71-29a Florida Amendment 4 Requires restoration of voting rights to voters convicted of most felonies on completion of sentence Direct citizen-initiated constitutional amendment 65-35a Florida Amendment 10 Requires county election supervisors to be elected Commission-referred constitutional amendmentb 63-37a Maryland Question 2 Authorizes the state legislature to enact Election Day registration Legislatively referred constitutional amendment 68-32 Michigan Proposal 2 Establishes an independent redistricting commission Direct citizen-initiated constitutional amendment 61-39 Michigan Proposal 3 Authorizes automatic and same-day registration and straight-ticket and no-excuse absentee voting and enshrines certain existing election policies in the state constitution Direct citizen-initiated constitutional amendment 67-33 Montana LR-129 Prohibits most third-party ballot collection Legislatively referred statutec 63-37 Nevada Question 5 Establishes automatic registration at motor vehicle agencies Indirect citizen-initiated statute 60-40 North Carolina Elections Board Amendment Would have eliminated the nonpartisan seat on the state election board and authorized state legislative leadership to nominate board members Legislatively referred constitutional amendment 38-62 North Carolina Voter ID Amendment Requires voters to present photo ID to vote in person Legislatively referred constitutional amendment 55-45 North Dakota Measure 2 Clarifies that only U.S. citizens may vote Direct citizen-initiated constitutional amendment 66-34 Utah Proposition 4 Establishes an independent redistricting commission Direct citizen-initiated statute 50-50 Source: CRS, based on analysis of data from Ballotpedia, the National Conference of State Legislatures, and state election offices. Notes: This chart does not include campaign finance measures, election-related measures that do not apply to federal elections, or provisions of the listed measures that are unrelated to elections. Some of the listed measures apply to nonfederal as well as federal elections. Results are as of November 20, 2018. Bolded italics indicate that a measure was approved. Approval required 55% of the vote in Colorado and 60% in Florida. Florida has a Constitution Revision Commission that may refer constitutional amendments to the ballot. Statutes referred to the ballot by the Montana State Legislature and approved by voters cannot be vetoed. What Has Congress Proposed? Many of the election issues addressed by state ballot measures on November 6 have been the subject of legislation in the 115th Congress. Proposals include bills that would make the following changes for federal elections: establish a commission to report legislation to automatically register voters when they turn 18 or gain citizenship and to restore voting rights to voters with criminal convictions on release from incarceration (H.R. 893); restore voting rights to voters with criminal convictions except while incarcerated for a felony (H.R. 12, H.R. 5785, H.R. 6612, S. 1437, S. 1588); require states to either automatically register voters when they turn 18 or offer Election Day registration (S. 2106); provide for automatic registration at motor vehicle agencies and/or other agencies (H.R. 12, H.R. 2669, H.R. 2840, H.R. 2876, H.R. 3848, H.R. 5785, S. 1231, S. 1353, S. 1437, S. 1880); require states to offer same-day registration (H.R. 12, H.R. 1044, H.R. 3537, H.R. 3848, H.R. 5785, S. 360, S. 1437, S. 1880); prohibit states from requiring an excuse and/or setting other conditions for mail voting (H.R. 12, H.R. 946, H.R. 2669, H.R. 3132, H.R. 5785, S. 1231, S. 1437, S. 1510, S. 1880); require states to establish independent redistricting commissions (H.R. 145, H.R. 711, H.R. 712, H.R. 1102, H.R. 2981, H.R. 3057, H.R. 3537, H.R. 3848, S. 1880); prohibit officials from providing ballots to voters who do not present photo ID (H.R. 2090); amend the U.S. Constitution to prohibit unduly burdensome proof of identity or proof of citizenship requirements (H.J.Res. 28); prohibit officials from requiring voters to present photo ID to register or vote (H.R. 607); require states to accept specified submissions as voter ID (H.R. 2854, H.R. 5785, H.R. 7127, S. 3543); and prohibit states from registering voters who do not present proof of citizenship (H.R. 6723). As of this writing, none of the above bills had advanced beyond subcommittee referral.

Nov 21, 2018

Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program

Nov 20, 2018

Global Human Rights: International Religious Freedom Policy

Nov 20, 2018

Activities-Based Regulation and Systemic Risk

Past financial crises have shown that systemic risk can emanate from financial firms or activities. It can be caused by the failure of a large firm (hence, the moniker “too big to fail”) or it can be caused by correlated losses among many small market participants. Although historical financial crises have centered on banks, nonbank financial firms were also a source of instability in the 2007-2009 crisis. The 2010 Dodd-Frank Act (P.L. 111-203) was enacted in response to the crisis. It enhanced the regulation of certain financial firms and activities to reduce systemic risk, particularly prudential regulation administered by the Federal Reserve (Fed) of banks and nonbanks. All large banks would automatically be subject to more stringent standards, as would nonbanks designated by the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC), popularly known as systemically important financial institutions (SIFIs). This approach can be classified as an institution-based approach because it addresses risks to financial stability at the firm level. As discussed in this Insight, all four of the nonbanks that were designated by FSOC have since been de-designated, and the size threshold for enhanced regulation of banks was recently increased. The Treasury Department has argued that activities-based systemic risk regulation—regulating particular financial activities or practices to prevent them from causing financial instability—is preferable to institution-based regulation for nonbanks. The two approaches, however, need not be mutually exclusive. International insurance regulation has also moved away from a focus on institution-based regulation and toward activities-based regulation recently. Regulating Firms vs. Activities for Systemic Risk An institution-based approach addresses financial instability that stems primarily from the failure of large, interconnected firms. It particularly could address the experience during the 2007-2009 crisis, when large, complex firms, such as AIG, failed due to unanticipated correlated losses in different activities within a firm (credit default swaps and securities lending, in the case of AIG). An institution-based approach could also address the possibility of a firm failing due to more company-specific issues, such as inadequate internal controls, for example. Institution-based regulation allows for overall monitoring of firms’ risk-taking that activities-based regulation does not. (Dodd-Frank gave the Fed the authority to actively supervise SIFIs; all banks are subject to similar supervision, but some other types of financial firms are not.) For example, stress tests and living wills allow regulators to prepare for, respectively, how SIFIs would fare under stress and their orderly failure. Systemic risk might be more likely to build up undetected if regulators do not regularly examine large nonbanks because they are not subject to enhanced regulation. Institution-based regulation, however, also has drawbacks. It could create regulatory “cliffs” where two fairly similar firms do not compete on a “level playing field” because one is designated for enhanced regulation and the other is not. Such regulation could even backfire by pushing more “risky” activities into institutions that are not regulated for safety and soundness or systemic risk. Institution-based regulation, as put into place under Dodd-Frank, was also particularly criticized for the possibility of the Fed, a bank regulator, inappropriately applying bank-centric regulation to nonbanks. (Since the pertinent regulations were never finalized, the merits of this argument remain unknown.) An activities-based approach may be more effective at mitigating systemic risk unrelated to distress at large firms. In particular, systemic risk sometimes results from correlated activities among smaller firms, such as the U.S. savings and loan crisis in the 1980s, in which more than 1,000 smaller financial institutions failed. Some have argued that an activities-based approach is more appropriate in securities markets. For example, in the asset management industry, firms primarily managing customers’ assets may be less likely to fail themselves in a financial panic, but could serve as conduits for instability. One concern some have with activities-based regulation under the current structure is that regulators—particularly those who are not primarily prudential regulators—may not have the authority or capacity to identify and address systemic risk in all cases. In contrast to the Fed’s institution-based authority, FSOC itself does not have authority to promulgate new activities-based regulations as systemic threats emerge. Instead, Dodd-Frank relied on FSOC members’ existing authorities. In some cases, that authority is broad and discretionary; in others, it is not. Where individual agencies lack authority to address systemic risk posed by activities engaged in by the institutions they regulate, Congress would need to provide these agencies with the necessary authority to act. FSOC may make nonbinding recommendations to its member agencies to implement reforms, but cannot require the agency to implement the changes. FSOC has recommended activities-based systemic risk regulations only once—in 2012, when it recommended that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) implement money market reforms, which were ultimately adopted in 2014. Activities-Based Regulation and Insurers Since three out of four of the de-designated SIFIs are insurers, insurance regulation is potentially the most significantly affected by a shift from institution-based to activities-based regulation. Although insurers, particularly AIG, were instrumental in the recent crisis, traditional insurance (e.g., life, property, and casualty insurance), as an activity, is typically not seen as posing systemic risk. Insurance liabilities are often contingent and based on the occurrence of events uncorrelated with financial markets, such as extreme weather events. For these forms of insurance, “runs,” such as those that occur on banks during a financial panic, are essentially impossible. Some insurance policies, however, do allow for loans against policy values or forms of withdrawals that could partially mimic bank runs. Some insurers also offer forms of financial guaranty insurance, the payouts of which could be highly correlated with the financial markets. Beyond simple insurance policies, insurance companies may also undertake other financial market activities, such as repurchase agreements or securities lending, that could pose systemic risk. If FSOC were to deem any insurance activities as systemically risky, arguably no federal regulator would have jurisdiction to regulate them. There is also debate about whether the state-based insurance regulatory system—with its historical focus on individual insurer solvency and consumer protection, rather than systemic risk—can adequately address potential risks posed by insurers’ noninsurance activities.

Nov 20, 2018

United States and Saudi Arabia Energy Relations

Nov 19, 2018

Reissued Labor Department Rule Tests Congressional Review Act Ban on Promulgating “Substantially the Same” Rules

On November 5, 2018, the Department of Labor published a proposed rule in the Federal Register on the states’ ability to drug test certain unemployment compensation (UC) applicants. The proposed UC drug testing rule is a reissued version of a rule that the 115th Congress disapproved in 2017 under the Congressional Review Act (CRA). That rule had been issued by the Obama Administration on August 1, 2016, but was disapproved by P.L. 115-17, which President Donald Trump signed into law on March 31, 2017. Notably, this is the first time an agency reissued a rule after the original version was disapproved under the CRA. No Administration appears to have seriously considered reissuing the one rule that was disapproved prior to the 115th Congress, and none of the other 15 rules that have been disapproved in the 115th Congress have been reissued thus far. When a rule is disapproved under the CRA, the rule may not take effect or continue in effect, and, furthermore, the agency may not reissue the rule in “substantially the same form” or issue a “new rule that is substantially the same” as the disapproved rule unless Congress provides subsequent statutory authorization. Congress has not provided additional authorization since the UC drug testing rule was disapproved. Thus, DOL reissued the rule under the same authority as the disapproved rule, Section 2105 of P.L. 112-96, the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012. In so doing, the agency made clear that it was attempting to reissue the rule in a form that was sufficiently different from the disapproved rule so as not to violate this provision of the CRA. In the preamble to the reissued rule, DOL stated the following: “To comply with both the mandate to issue regulations [under the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act], and the CRA prohibition on reissuing the rule in substantially the same form,’ the Department has carefully considered the Act, the 2016 Rule, and the congressional notice of disapproval.” The CRA does not define “substantially the same.” Whether a reissued rule is “substantially the same” as the disapproved rule is likely to depend upon the specific circumstances surrounding the rule, such as whether the rule was required by statute (as was the case with the UC drug testing rule) and how much discretion the agency has. During floor consideration of the disapproval measure for the UC drug testing rule, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady, who was also the sponsor of the joint resolution of disapproval, stated that the UC drug testing rule issued by the Obama Administration had been inconsistent with congressional intent because the rule was written too narrowly, impairing the ability of states to implement their own requirements for drug testing. In the preamble to the newly reissued rule, DOL acknowledged this concern: “In this NPRM, the Department now proposes a substantially different and more flexible approach to the statutory requirements than the [disapproved] 2016 Rule, enabling States to enact legislation to require drug testing for a far larger group of UC applicants than the previous Rule permitted.” The CRA does not specify who is to decide whether a reissued rule is “substantially the same.” It is possible that Congress might be ultimately responsible for making that determination, rather than a court: the CRA contains a prohibition on judicial review, stating that “no determination, finding, action, or omission under this chapter shall be subject to judicial review.” This provision has generally been interpreted by courts to mean that they may not consider any claims under the CRA, although the “substantially the same” prohibition has not been tested in a court. Should the prevailing judicial interpretation of the CRA’s judicial review provision hold, a court would be unlikely to strike down the reissued UC drug testing rule on the basis that it violates the “substantially the same” prohibition in the CRA. A number of commentators have argued, however, that the CRA’s judicial review provision would not necessarily bar a court from reviewing whether a rule is “substantially the same” as a disapproved rule. If courts continue to bar all judicial challenges under the CRA, Congress would arguably be the sole arbiter of whether the reissued rule clears the “substantially the same” standard. Upon finalizing the new version of the rule, DOL would be required to submit it to Congress under the CRA, and Members would have the opportunity once again to introduce and act on resolutions of disapproval under the CRA. If Congress does not disapprove the rule, and if the prevailing interpretation of the CRA’s prohibition of judicial review holds, the rule would likely take effect—arguably giving Congress’s implicit acceptance of the reissued rule. Thus, the possibility of future action in Congress, in a sense, could be considered an enforcement mechanism for the “substantially the same” prohibition. Once the newly reissued UC drug testing rule is finalized, however, enactment of a CRA resolution of disapproval overturning it may be difficult. Enactment of a CRA resolution of disapproval requires either passage by both chambers of Congress and the signature of the President or an override of the President’s veto, which would require a two-thirds majority in both chambers. The President may be unwilling to sign a resolution of disapproval overturning a rule issued by his own Administration. Thus, one might expect that Congress would need to override the President’s veto if it wanted to disapprove the reissued rule, necessitating a supermajority in both houses. For more information on the CRA, see CRS Report R43992, The Congressional Review Act (CRA): Frequently Asked Questions. For a discussion of policy developments related to the UC drug testing rule, see CRS Insight IN10909, Recent Legislative and Regulatory Developments in States’ Ability to Drug Test Unemployment Compensation Applicants and Beneficiaries, by Julie M. Whittaker and Katelin P. Isaacs.

Nov 19, 2018

The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP): Background and Funding

The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) is a federal food distribution program that supports food banks, food pantries, soup kitchens, and other emergency feeding organizations serving low-income Americans. Federal assistance takes the form of federally purchased commodities—including fruits, vegetables, meats, and grains—and funding for administrative costs. Food aid and funds are distributed to states using a statutory formula that takes into account poverty and unemployment rates. TEFAP is administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition Service (USDA-FNS). TEFAP was established as the Temporary Emergency Food Assistance Program by the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983. The Emergency Food Assistance Act continues to govern program operations, while the Food and Nutrition Act provides mandatory funding authority for TEFAP commodities. Based on levels set in statute, appropriations provided $289.5 million in mandatory funding for TEFAP’s “entitlement” commodities in FY2018. TEFAP also incorporates “bonus” commodities, which are distributed at USDA’s discretion throughout the year to support different crops using separate budget authority. USDA purchased $268.6 million worth of bonus commodities for TEFAP in FY2017. A smaller amount of cash assistance ($64.4 million in FY2018) is appropriated to cover administrative and distribution costs under Emergency Food Assistance Act authority. These administrative funds are discretionary. USDA-FNS coordinates the purchasing of commodities and the allocation of commodities and administrative funds to states, and provides general program oversight. State agencies—often state departments of health and human services, agriculture, or education—determine program eligibility rules and allocations of aid to feeding organizations (called “recipient agencies”). States often task food banks, which operate regional warehouses, with distributing foods to other recipient agencies. TEFAP aid makes up a modest proportion of the food and funds available to emergency feeding organizations, which are reliant on private donations as well. TEFAP is the largest source of federal support for emergency feeding organizations. Other related food distribution programs focus on specific subpopulations; for example, the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA’s) Emergency Food and Shelter Program distributes food to homeless individuals and USDA’s Commodity Supplemental Food Program distributes food to low-income elderly individuals. TEFAP is typically amended and reauthorized through farm bills. Most recently, the 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79) extended and provided additional funding for TEFAP’s entitlement commodities. Current 2018 farm bill proposals (two versions of H.R. 2) would reauthorize and continue additional funding for entitlement commodities (as of the date of this report). They also include different approaches to incorporating non-federally donated foods and reducing food waste. Recent program developments include TEFAP’s use in disaster response and receipt of commodities from the 2018 trade aid package.

Nov 19, 2018

Insulin Products and the Cost of Diabetes Treatment

Nov 19, 2018

Quantum Information Science: Applications, Global Research and Development, and Policy Considerations

Quantum information science (QIS) combines elements of mathematics, computer science, engineering, and physical sciences, and has the potential to provide capabilities far beyond what is possible with the most advanced technologies available today. Although much of the press coverage of QIS has been devoted to quantum computing, there is more to QIS. Many experts divide QIS technologies into three application areas: Sensing and metrology, Communications, and Computing and simulation. The government’s interest in QIS dates back at least to the mid-1990s, when the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the Department of Defense (DOD) held their first workshops on the topic. QIS is first mentioned in the FY2008 budget of what is now the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Program and has been a component of the program since then. Today, QIS is a component of the National Strategic Computing Initiative (Presidential Executive Order 13702), which was established in 2015. Most recently, in September 2018, the National Science and Technology Council issued the National Strategic Overview for Quantum Information Science. The policy opportunities identified in this strategic overview include choosing a science-first approach to QIS, creating a “quantum-smart” workforce, deepening engagement with the quantum industry, providing critical infrastructure, maintaining national security and economic growth, and advancing international cooperation. The United States is not alone in increasing investment in QIS R&D. This research is also being pursued at major research centers worldwide, with China and the European Union having the largest foreign QIS programs. Further, even without explicit QIS initiatives, many other countries, including Russia, Germany, and Austria, are making strides in QIS research and development (R&D). The Senate has introduced two bills in the 115th Congress (S. 3143, S. 2998) and the House has introduced one bill in the 115th Congress (H.R. 6227) related to QIS. The first two bills would establish a federal program to accelerate U.S. QIS R&D and create a National Quantum Coordination Office within OSTP. The third bill would establish a Defense Quantum Information Consortium. The House has held three hearings related to QIS. Issues discussed in these hearings included a comparison of U.S. and international QIS R&D, and how to effectively train a QIS-knowledgeable workforce; China’s investment in leading-edge technologies, including QIS, and concerns that China may be closing the gap with the United States in advanced technology R&D; and an overview of quantum computers. This report provides an overview of QIS technologies: sensing and metrology, communications, and computing and simulation. It also includes examples of existing and potential future applications; brief summaries of funding and selected R&D initiatives in the United States and elsewhere around the world; a description of U.S. congressional activity; and a discussion of related policy considerations.

Nov 19, 2018

Infrastructure Investment and the Federal Government

Nov 19, 2018

Highway and Public Transit Funding Issues

Nov 19, 2018

Defense Primer: Navigating the NDAA

Nov 16, 2018

Defense Primer: Department of the Army and Army Command Structure

Nov 16, 2018

Defense Primer: Organization of U.S. Ground Forces

Nov 16, 2018

FY2018 and FY2019 Appropriations for Agricultural Conservation

The Agriculture appropriations bill funds the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) except for the Forest Service. The FY2018 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 115-141, Division A), and both of the FY2019 agriculture bills reported by the House and Senate Appropriations Committees (H.R. 5961, S. 2976) include funding for conservation programs and activities at USDA. Congress passed the FY2018 Consolidated Appropriations Act on March 23, 2018, which included agriculture appropriations under Division A. For FY2019, the House and Senate Appropriations Committees reported agriculture bills in May 2018. The Senate amended and passed its version as Division C of a four-bill minibus on August 1, 2018 (H.R. 6147). In the absence of a final appropriation, Congress enacted a continuing resolution through December 7, 2018 (P.L. 115-245, Division C). Agricultural conservation programs include both mandatory and discretionary spending. Most conservation program funding is mandatory and is authorized in omnibus farm bills. Other conservation programs—mostly technical assistance—are discretionary and are funded through annual appropriations. The largest discretionary program is the Conservation Operations (CO) account, which funds conservation planning and implementation assistance on private agricultural lands across the country. The enacted FY2018 appropriation provided $874 million for CO, an increase from the FY2017 enacted amount ($864 million). The FY2019 House-reported and Senate-passed bills would further increase funding for CO above FY2018 levels to $890 million and $879 million, respectively. Other discretionary spending is primarily for watershed programs. The largest—Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations (WFPO)—was funded at $150 million in FY2018. Both the House-reported and Senate-passed bills would fund WFPO at the $150 million level in FY2019. Most mandatory conservation programs are authorized in omnibus farm bills and do not require an annual appropriation. However, Congress has reduced mandatory conservation programs through changes in mandatory program spending (CHIMPS) in the annual agricultural appropriations law every year since FY2003. The enacted FY2018 omnibus marks the first appropriation since FY2002 that does not include CHIMPS to mandatory conservation programs. For FY2019, both the House and Senate appropriation bills do not include reductions to mandatory conservation programs, because most programs’ authorizations expired on September 30, 2018, making these programs ineligible for reduction. While this is infrequent, the Agriculture appropriations bill may also serve as a vehicle for amendments to authorized programs that permanently alter or create programs. The FY2018 enacted appropriation included two such amendments—one to WFPO and one to farm bill conservation program reporting requirements. The WFPO amendment increased the size threshold required for congressional approval. Under the amended language, the Senate and House Agriculture Committees must approve WFPO projects that include an estimated federal contribution of more than $25 million for construction, an increase from the previous $5 million threshold. Additionally, the FY2018 appropriation exempted farm bill conservation programs from select federal reporting requirements, including obtaining a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and System for Award Management (SAM) registration. Agriculture appropriations bills may also include policy-related provisions that direct how the executive branch should carry out the appropriation. The FY2018 enacted appropriation and both the FY2019 House-reported and Senate-passed bills include policy provisions for conservation programs that range from reports to Congress to suggested natural resource priorities.

Nov 16, 2018

Army Corps of Engineers: FY2019 Appropriations

Nov 16, 2018

Defense Primer: Defense Appropriations Process

Nov 16, 2018

The SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act (P.L. 115-271): Food and Drug Administration and Controlled Substance Provisions

On October 24, 2018, President Trump signed into law H.R. 6, the Substance Use-Disorder Prevention that Promotes Opioid Recovery and Treatment for Patients and Communities Act (P.L. 115-271; the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act, or the SUPPORT Act). The SUPPORT Act is a sweeping measure designed to address widespread overprescribing and abuse of opioids in the United States. The act includes provisions involving law enforcement, public health, and health care financing and coverage. Broadly, the legislation imposes tighter oversight of opioid production and distribution; imposes additional reporting and safeguards to address fraud; and limits coverage of prescription opioids, while expanding coverage of and access to opioid addiction treatment services. The bill also authorizes a number of programs that seek to expand consumer education on opioid use and train additional providers to treat individuals with opioid use disorders. The SUPPORT Act builds on recent efforts by the federal government to address the opioid epidemic, including the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act of 2016 (CARA; P.L. 114-198) and the 21st Century Cures Act (Cures Act; P.L. 114-255). CARA addressed substance use issues broadly, targeting the opioid crisis predominantly through public health and law enforcement strategies. The Cures Act, enacted that same year, largely focused on medical innovation but also authorized additional funding to combat opioid addiction and included provisions addressing various mental health and substance use activities. CRS is publishing a series of reports on the SUPPORT Act, which consists of eight titles. This report summarizes the provisions in Title III—the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) and Controlled Substance Provisions, as well as Section 4004 “Modernizing the Reporting Requirements of Biological and Biosimilar Products” in Title IV—Offsets. Subtitle A of Title III addresses FDA medical product regulation and includes provisions that, among other things, facilitate the development of new medical products for treatment of pain, provide for special packaging and disposal mechanisms for opioids, and amend postmarket study and labeling requirements. Subtitle B of Title III addresses Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) regulation of controlled substances and includes provisions that, among other things, provide additional flexibility with respect to medication-assisted treatment (MAT) for opioid use disorders, modify controlled substances disposal requirements at qualified hospice programs, and authorize grants to states to increase participation of eligible collectors in drug-disposal programs. Section 4004 of Title IV amends reporting requirements for certain agreements between brand drug, generic drug, and biosimilar product manufacturers.

Nov 15, 2018

Defense Primer: Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering

Nov 14, 2018

DACA: Litigation Status Update

Nov 14, 2018

The Charitable Deduction for Individuals

Nov 13, 2018

Defense Primer: Congress’s Constitutional Authority with Regard to the Armed Forces

Nov 13, 2018

Defense Primer: Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation

Nov 13, 2018

Defense Primer: Legal Authorities for the Use of Military Forces

Nov 13, 2018

Labor Enforcement Issues in U.S. FTAs

Nov 13, 2018

Presidential Proclamation on Unlawful Border Crossers and Asylum

On November 9, 2018, President Donald Trump issued a presidential proclamation to immediately suspend the entry of foreign nationals (aliens) who cross into the United States at the U.S.-Mexico border without inspection. The pronouncement further references that those who enter in contravention of the suspension will be ineligible for asylum under an interim final rule issued jointly by the Departments of Homeland Security and Justice on that same date. The proclamation and the rule are being challenged in federal court. In the words of the proclamation, its issuance was prompted by the anticipated arrival at the U.S. Southwest border of “a substantial number of aliens primarily from Central America who appear to have no lawful basis for admission.” According to the proclamation, such migration “has precipitated a crisis and undermines the integrity of our borders” and requires “immediate action to protect the national interest, and to maintain the effectiveness of the asylum system.” The need to conduct foreign affairs effectively is another reason offered for the proclamation. Citing both constitutional and statutory authority, the President finds that the entry of aliens at the Southwest border without inspection “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and that their entry should be subject to certain restrictions, limitations, and exceptions.” The proclamation indicates that its entry suspension and limitation provisions will expire 90 days after its issuance date or on the date that the United States and Mexico reach a bilateral safe third country agreement that allows for the removal of asylum seekers to Mexico, whichever is earlier. Under the interim final rule, as noted, aliens who cross the U.S.-Mexico border unlawfully between ports of entry will be ineligible for asylum. By contrast, aliens without visas or other proper documentation who present themselves at a U.S. port of entry at the Southwest border will continue to be able to pursue asylum. In general, under Section 208(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), an alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of entry) may apply for asylum, regardless of his or her immigration status. At the same time, INA §208(b)(2) enumerates grounds of ineligibility for asylum, such as an applicant’s firm resettlement in another country prior to his or her U.S. arrival, and authorizes the executive branch to establish additional ineligibilities consistent with Section 208. In order to be granted asylum, an alien must show, among other requirements, that he or she meets the definition of a refugee in INA §101(a)(42); that is, that he or she is unable or unwilling to return to his or her home country because of past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution based on one of five protected grounds (race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion). After one year of physical presence in the United States, an alien granted asylum (an asylee) may become a U.S. lawful permanent resident (LPR), provided he or she is otherwise eligible. Under the proclamation and the rule, aliens who enter the United States at the Southwest border without inspection will continue to be eligible for consideration for forms of protection from removal other than asylum—namely, withholding of removal (INA §241(b)(3)) and protections under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT). The interim final rule addresses eligibility for asylum and screening procedures for these aliens. There are key differences between asylum on the one hand and withholding of removal and protections under the CAT on the other. These latter forms of protection have a higher standard of proof than asylum. The threshold for an asylum applicant to be considered to have a well-founded fear of future persecution is that “there is a reasonable possibility of suffering [persecution based on one of the five protected grounds] if he or she were to return to that country.” The comparable standard applicable to an applicant for withholding of removal under INA §241(b)(3) is “it is more likely than not that he or she would be persecuted on [one of the protected grounds].” Similarly, the standard for withholding of removal or deferral of removal under the CAT is “it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal.” Withholding of removal under INA §241(b)(3) and protections under the CAT also differ from asylum in that they do not provide a pathway to LPR status. The proclamation directs the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of Homeland Security to submit a recommendation jointly to the President about whether to extend or renew the suspension and limitations on entry within 90 days.

Nov 13, 2018

Federal District Court Enjoins the Department of Homeland Security from Terminating Temporary Protected Status

Nov 9, 2018

Defense Primer: The NDAA Process

Nov 9, 2018

Introduction to U.S. Economy: Business Investment

Nov 8, 2018

Defense Primer: Department of the Navy

Nov 8, 2018

Defense Primer: Geography, Strategy, and U.S. Force Design

Nov 8, 2018

Defense Primer: Naval Forces

Nov 8, 2018

Military Medical Care: Frequently Asked Questions

Military medical care is a congressionally authorized entitlement that has expanded in size and scope since the late 19th century. Chapter 55 of Title 10 U.S. Code, entitles certain health benefits to military personnel, retirees, and their families. These health benefits are administered by a Military Health System (MHS). The primary objectives of the MHS, which includes the Defense Department’s hospitals, clinics, and medical personnel, are (1) to maintain the health of military personnel so they can carry out their military missions and (2) to be prepared to deliver health care during wartime. Health care services are delivered through either Department of Defense (DOD) medical facilities, known as military treatment facilities (MTFs) as space is available, or through civilian health care providers. As of 2017, the MHS operates 681 MTFs, employs nearly 63,000 civilians and 84,000 military personnel, and serves 9.4 million beneficiaries across the United States and in overseas locations. Since 1966, civilian care for millions of retirees, as well as dependents of active duty military personnel and retirees, has been provided through a program still known in law as the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS), more commonly known as TRICARE. TRICARE has three main benefit plans: a health maintenance organization option (TRICARE Prime), a preferred provider option (TRICARE Select), and a Medicare supplement option (TRICARE for Life) for Medicare-eligible retirees. Other TRICARE plans include TRICARE Young Adult, TRICARE Reserve Select, and TRICARE Retired Reserve. TRICARE also includes a pharmacy program and optional dental and vision plans. Options available to beneficiaries vary by the sponsor’s duty status and geographic location. This report answers selected frequently asked questions about military health care, including How is the Military Health System structured? What is TRICARE? What are the different TRICARE plans and who is eligible? What are the costs of military health care to beneficiaries? What is the relationship of TRICARE to Medicare? How does the Affordable Care Act affect TRICARE? When can beneficiaries change their TRICARE plan? What is the Medicare Eligible Retiree Health Care fund, which funds TRICARE for Life? This report does not address issues specific to battlefield medicine, veterans, or the Veterans Health Administration. Veterans’ health issues are addressed in CRS Report R42747, Health Care for Veterans: Answers to Frequently Asked Questions, by Sidath Viranga Panangala.

Nov 8, 2018

Reclamation Water Storage Projects: Section 4007 of the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation (WIIN) Act

Nov 8, 2018

The Global Research and Development Landscape and Implications for the Department of Defense

For more than 70 years, the technological superiority of the United States military has offset the size and geographic advantages of potential adversaries. The Department of Defense (DOD), due in large part to the magnitude of its investments in research and development (R&D), has driven the global R&D and technology landscape. However, DOD and the federal government more broadly are no longer overriding funders of R&D, and this shift in support for R&D has substantial implications for how DOD obtains advanced technology and maintains the battlefield overmatch that technology has historically provided. In 1960, the United States accounted for 69% of global R&D, with U.S. defense-related R&D alone accounting for more than one-third of global R&D (36%). Additionally, the federal government funded approximately twice as much R&D as U.S. business. However, from 1960 to 2016, the U.S. share of global R&D fell to 28%, and the federal government’s share of total U.S. R&D fell from 65% to 24%, while business’s share more than doubled from 33% to 67%. As a result of these global, national, and federal trends, federal defense R&D’s share of total global R&D fell to 3.7% in 2016. This decline resulted primarily from more rapid increases in the R&D of other nations (public and private) and partially from increases in U.S. business R&D and federal nondefense R&D. Some defense experts and policymakers have recognized the shift in the global R&D landscape and the need for DOD to rely increasingly on technologies developed by commercial companies for commercial markets. Among the challenges DOD faces in acquiring new, innovative technologies and maintaining U.S. military technical superiority are developing/modifying organizations and business models to access this technology; adapting the DOD business culture to seek and embrace technologies developed outside of DOD, the United States, and its traditional contractor base; and finding ways to adapt and leverage commercial technologies for defense applications. Congress plays a central role in how DOD creates and acquires leading-edge technologies, including establishing and refining the organizational structure of DOD R&D activities, providing policy direction, establishing acquisition policies and authorities, and appropriating funds for R&D and innovation-related activities. Congress and the Administration have undertaken a number of actions to address the perceived decline in technical superiority, including establishing the position of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering to coordinate DOD’s research enterprise, drive the development of key technologies, and create a more agile and innovative department; increasing DOD collaboration and engagement with industry and academia. For example, DOD has increased its presence in U.S. commercial technology hubs through the Defense Innovation Unit, established partnership intermediary agreements with various organizations, and co-located DOD research and development personnel at partner institutions across the country; and working to alter the culture of DOD to increase the speed technologies are developed, adapted, and acquired, including through the use of other transaction authority. As DOD implements these reform efforts congressional oversight may include monitoring how effectively DOD is addressing congressional directives and intent to create a more risk tolerant and innovative DOD.

Nov 8, 2018

Panama: Country Overview and U.S. Relations

Nov 7, 2018

Defense Primer: The United States Air Force

Nov 7, 2018

Defense Primer: Military Officers

Nov 7, 2018

Defense Primer: Military Enlisted Personnel

Nov 7, 2018

Defense Primer: United States Airpower

Nov 7, 2018

Impact Aid, Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act: A Primer

The Impact Aid program, administered by the U.S. Department of Education (ED) and authorized by Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), was originally established in 1950 by P.L. 81-815 and P.L. 81-874, 15 years prior to the enactment of the ESEA. Impact Aid compensates local educational agencies (LEAs) for a “substantial and continuing financial burden” resulting from federal activities. These activities include federal ownership of certain lands, as well as the enrollments in LEAs of children whose parents work or live on federal property and children living on Indian lands. The federal government provides compensation because LEAs are unable to collect property or other taxes from these individuals (e.g., members of the uniformed services living on military bases) or their employers, even though the LEAs are obligated to provide free public education to their children. Thus, Impact Aid is intended to compensate LEAs, in part, for the resulting loss of tax revenue. The Impact Aid program authorizes several types of payments, as detailed in the table below. Table 1. Impact Aid Payments: FY2019 (Dollars in thousands) Impact Aid Payment FY2019 Percentage of Total Impact Aid Funding Payments for federal property (Section 7002) $74,313 5.1% Basic support payments (Section 7003(b)) $1,301,242 90.0% Payments for children with disabilities (Section 7003(d)) $48,316 3.3% Construction (Section 7007) $17,406 1.2% Facilities maintenance (Section 7008) $4,835 0.3% Total $1,446,112 100.00% Source: Table prepared by CRS based on data available from the U.S. Department of Education (ED), Budget Service. Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Overall, the Impact Aid program received about $1.4 billion in FY2019. The largest Impact Aid payment is basic support payments (BSPs) for federally connected children (Section 7003(b)), accounting for nearly 90% of the total appropriation. Federally connected children are those who reside with a parent who is a member of the uniformed services living on or off federal property, with a parent who is an accredited foreign military officer living on or off federal property, on Indian lands, in low-rent public housing, or with a parent who is a civilian working or living on federal property. BSPs are allocated directly to LEAs based on a formula that uses weights assigned to different categories of federally connected children, cost factors to determine maximum payment amounts, and provisions to determine payment amounts when appropriations are insufficient to provide maximum payments. In addition to the Impact Aid programs administered by ED, a smaller set of programs administered by the Department of Defense (DOD) are often referred to as the “DOD Impact Aid” programs. These two programs include one that provides supplemental aid to LEAs serving military children, and one that provides assistance to LEAs serving military children with severe disabilities. For FY2018, total appropriations for these programs were $35 million ($30 million for the first program and $5 million for the second).

Nov 7, 2018

Child Care Entitlement to States: An Overview

Nov 6, 2018