CRS Reports

Maternal and Infant Early Childhood Home Visiting (MIECHV) Program: Background and Funding

May 5, 2015

The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy: Issues for the 114th Congress

Congress established the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) through the National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-282). The act states, “The primary function of the OSTP Director is to provide, within the Executive Office of the President [EOP], advice on the scientific, engineering, and technological aspects of issues that require attention at the highest level of Government.” Further, “The Office shall serve as a source of scientific and technological analysis and judgment for the President with respect to major policies, plans, and programs of the Federal Government.” The OSTP Director is appointed by the President, subject to Senate confirmation, and may also be appointed Assistant to the President for Science and Technology (APST). The APST manages the National Science and Technology Council, an interagency body established by Executive Order 12881 that coordinates science and technology policy across the federal government. The APST also co-chairs the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, a council established by Executive Order 13539 and composed of external advisors who provide advice to the President. In the Obama Administration, John Holdren is both the OSTP Director and the APST. OSTP is engaged in several activities of potential interest to the 114th Congress. Since FY2011, Congress has restricted OSTP’s ability to use appropriated funds “to develop, design, plan, promulgate, implement, or execute a bilateral policy, program, order, or contract of any kind to participate, collaborate, or coordinate bilaterally in any way with China or any Chinese-owned company” unless authorized to do so by a subsequent law. The 114th Congress may continue its interest in the participation of OSTP in China-related activities. OSTP plays a role in ensuring the scientific integrity of research conducted and supported by the federal government, as well as in the communication of scientific and technical information developed and analyzed by federal scientists and engineers. The 114th Congress may continue congressional consideration of the extent to which OSTP oversees these activities. OSTP has taken actions to provide greater public access to the results of federally funded research and development. In February 2013, OSTP Director Holdren issued a memorandum requiring federal agencies investing at least $100 million per year in research and development to develop policies allowing the general public access to the results of this investment. These policies are in the process of being released and implemented and may spur additional congressional oversight. Finally, OSTP has inventoried federal science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education investments and developed a strategic plan for them. In his FY2015 and FY2014 budget requests, the President proposed reorganizations of federal STEM education programs. The extent and success of this reorganization may further focus congressional attention on OSTP’s role as a coordinator of cross-agency science and technology activities.

May 5, 2015

International Investment Agreements (IIAs): Frequently Asked Questions

This report answers frequently asked questions about international investment agreements (IIAs) made between the United States and other countries. Questions are categorized in three main areas: background and context; U.S. international investment agreements; and investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS).

May 5, 2015

Iran's Foreign Policy

This report provides an overview of Iran's foreign policy, which has been a subject of numerous congressional hearings and of sanctions and other legislation for many years. The report analyzes Iranian foreign policy as a whole and by region. The regional analysis discusses those countries where Iranian policy is of U.S. concern. The report also makes reference to Iran's efforts to utilize its ties to various countries to try to mitigate the effects of U.S. sanctions.

May 5, 2015

Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and International Trade

Apr 23, 2015

Federal Financing for the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP)

The State Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) is a means-tested program that provides health coverage to targeted low-income children and pregnant women in families that have annual income above Medicaid eligibility levels but have no health insurance. CHIP is jointly financed by the federal government and the states, and the states are responsible for administering CHIP. The federal government pays about 70% of CHIP expenditures, and the federal government’s share of CHIP expenditures (including both services and administration) is determined by the enhanced federal medical assistance percentage (E-FMAP) rate. In FY2015, the E-FMAP rate ranges from 65% (13 states) to 82% (Mississippi). The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA; P.L. 111-148, as amended) included a provision to increase the E-FMAP rate by 23 percentage points for most CHIP expenditures from FY2016 through FY2019. The federal appropriation for CHIP is provided in statute. From this federal appropriation, states receive CHIP allotments, which are the federal funds allocated to each state and the territories for the federal share of their CHIP expenditures. In addition, if a state has a shortfall in federal CHIP funding, there are a few sources of shortfall funding, such as the Child Enrollment Contingency Fund, redistribution funds, and Medicaid funds. FY2015 was the final year for which federal CHIP funding was provided in statute, but the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA; P.L. 114-10) extended federal CHIP funding, among other provisions. Specifically, P.L. 114-10 extended CHIP funding for two additional years (i.e., through FY2017) and maintained the current allotment formula with the 23 percentage point increase to the E-FMAP. The bill also extended the qualifying state option, the Child Enrollment Contingency Fund, and outreach and enrollment grants. With FY2017 now being the final year for which federal CHIP funding is provided in statute, Congress’s action or inaction over the next couple of years will determine the future of CHIP and of health coverage for CHIP children. In considering the future of CHIP, Congress has a number of policy options, including extending federal CHIP funding and continuing the program or letting CHIP funding expire. Even though federal CHIP funding is set to expire after FY2017, under current law the ACA maintenance of effort (MOE) requirement for children is in place through FY2019. The MOE provision requires states to maintain income eligibility levels for CHIP children through September 30, 2019, as a condition for receiving federal Medicaid payments (notwithstanding the lack of corresponding federal CHIP appropriations for FY2018 and FY2019). If federal CHIP funding expires, the MOE requirement would impact CHIP Medicaid expansion programs and separate CHIP programs differently. States with CHIP Medicaid expansion programs must continue to cover their CHIP children once federal funding is no longer available. However, states with separate CHIP programs would not be required to continue coverage. This report provides an overview of CHIP financing, beginning with an explanation of the federal matching rate. It describes various aspects of federal CHIP funding, such as the federal appropriation, state allotments, the Child Enrollment Contingency Fund, redistribution funds, outreach and enrollment grants, and performance bonus payments. The report ends with a section about the future of CHIP funding, including the options for extending CHIP funding and what could happen if federal funding expires.

Apr 23, 2015

African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA)

Apr 22, 2015

Commemorations in Congress: Options for Honoring Individuals, Groups, and Events

This report summarizes the evolution of commemorative legislation as well as the laws, rules, and procedures that have been adopted to control the types of commemoratives considered and enacted.

Apr 22, 2015

Debates over “Currency Manipulation”

Apr 22, 2015

The Use of Modified Adjusted Gross Income (MAGI) in Federal Health Programs

Apr 22, 2015

Deferred Maintenance of Federal Land Management Agencies: FY2005-FY2014 Estimates

Each of the four major federal land management agencies maintains tens of thousands of diverse assets, including roads, bridges, buildings, and water management structures. These agencies are the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), National Park Service (NPS), and Forest Service (FS). Congress and the Administration continue to focus on the agencies’ deferred maintenance in regard to these assets—in essence, the cost of any maintenance that was not done when it should have been or was scheduled to be. Deferred maintenance is often called the maintenance backlog. In FY2014, the most recent year for which these estimates are available, the four agencies had a combined deferred maintenance estimated at between $16.31 billion and $21.43 billion, with a mid-range figure of $18.87 billion calculated by the Congressional Research Service. This figure includes $11.50 billion (61%) in deferred maintenance for NPS, $5.10 billion (27%) for FS, $1.53 billion (8%) for FWS, and $0.74 billion (4%) for BLM. The estimates reflect project costs but exclude indirect costs. Over the past decade (FY2005-FY2014), the total deferred maintenance for the four agencies increased by $1.33 billion in current dollars, from $17.54 billion to $18.87 billion, or 8%. Both the BLM and NPS estimates increased, whereas the FWS and FS estimates decreased. By contrast, in constant dollars the total deferred maintenance estimate for the four agencies decreased from FY2005 to FY2014 by $4.53 billion, from $23.40 billion to $18.87 billion, or 19%. The BLM estimate increased, and estimates for the other three agencies decreased. In each fiscal year, NPS had the largest portion of the total deferred maintenance, considerably more than any other agency. FS consistently had the second-largest share, followed by FWS and then BLM. Throughout the past decade, the asset class that included roads typically comprised the largest portion of each agency’s deferred maintenance. Congressional debate has focused on varied issues, including the level and sources of funds needed to reduce deferred maintenance, whether agencies are efficiently using existing funding, how to balance the maintenance of existing infrastructure with the acquisition of new assets, whether disposal of assets is desirable given limited funding, and the priority of maintaining infrastructure relative to other government functions. Still other questions relate to why deferred maintenance estimates have fluctuated over time. These fluctuations are likely the result of many factors, among them the following: Agencies have refined methods of defining and quantifying the maintenance needs of their assets. Levels of funding for maintenance, including funding to address the maintenance backlog, vary from year to year. The asset portfolios of the agencies change, with acquisitions and disposals affecting the number, type, size, age, and location of agency assets. Economic conditions, including costs of services and products, fluctuate. The extent to which these and other factors affected changes in each agency’s maintenance backlog over the past decade is not entirely clear. In some cases, comprehensive information is not readily available or has not been examined.

Apr 21, 2015

Federal Health Centers: An Overview

Apr 21, 2015

U.S. International Investment Agreements (IIAs)

Apr 20, 2015

HIPAA Privacy, Security, Enforcement, and Breach Notification Standards

The Privacy Rule, which was promulgated pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996, comprises a set of federal standards governing the use of personal health information. The Privacy Rule generally applies to individually identifiable health information created and maintained by payers and providers of health care, collectively referred to as covered entities. The rule establishes certain individual rights, including the right to inspect and obtain a copy of one’s health information; describes the circumstances under which covered entities are permitted to use or disclose health information; and requires covered entities to put in place administrative, physical, and technical safeguards to protect health information from unauthorized access, use, or disclosure. Broadly speaking, the Privacy Rule prohibits a covered entity from using or disclosing “protected health information” (PHI) except as expressly permitted or, in two instances, required by the rule. The Privacy Rule describes a wide range of circumstances under which it is permissible to use or disclose PHI. In so doing, the rule seeks to preserve the discretion that health care professionals have traditionally exercised when using or disclosing patient information. For all uses or disclosures of PHI that are not otherwise permitted or required by the rule, a covered entity must obtain a patient’s written authorization. Under the Privacy Rule, covered entities generally may use or disclose PHI for the purposes of treatment, payment, and other routine health care operations. Under certain other circumstances, the rule requires covered entities to give individuals the opportunity to object to the use or disclosure of their PHI. The rule also permits the use or disclosure of PHI for various specified activities not directly connected to treatment (e.g., research, law enforcement, public health). The Privacy Rule does not specify the types of safeguards that need to be implemented to protect PHI from misuse. That is the purpose of the companion HIPAA Security Rule, under which each of the safeguards—administrative, physician, and technical—is composed of a number of standards. The security standards are designed to be scalable to the size and complexity of the covered entity, as well as technology-neutral. They include implementing security management policies and procedures, workforce security procedures, facility access controls, and controls on access to information technology (IT) systems. Each standard consists of one or more implementation specifications (i.e., detailed instructions for implementing the standard). Covered entities have considerable discretion and flexibility in how they implement the security standards. The Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act of 2009 included a series of modifications to the HIPAA privacy and security standards. Many of the changes were enacted to address the concerns of privacy advocates and other stakeholders. The HITECH Act created a notification requirement for breaches of unsecured (i.e., unencrypted) PHI, increased the civil monetary penalties for violating HIPAA, and expanded and strengthened enforcement activities by the Office for Civil Rights. It also made business associates of covered entities (i.e., companies and consultants with whom covered entities share PHI to help them operate) directly liable and subject to civil and criminal penalties for HIPAA violations.

Apr 17, 2015

The National Institutes of Health (NIH): Background and Congressional Issues

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the focal point for federal health research. An agency of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), it uses its $30 billion budget to support more than 300,000 scientists and research personnel working at over 2,500 institutions across the United States and abroad, as well as to conduct biomedical and behavioral research and research training at its own facilities. The agency consists of the Office of the Director, in charge of overall policy and program coordination, and 27 institutes and centers, each of which focuses on particular diseases or research areas in human health. A range of basic and clinical research is funded through a highly competitive system of peer-reviewed grants and contracts. The congressional authorization committees and appropriation committees face many issues in working with NIH to set research priorities in the face of tight budgets. The last time Congress addressed NIH with comprehensive legislation was in December 2006, when it passed the NIH Reform Act (P.L. 109-482). While the Public Health Service Act (PHSA) provides the statutory basis for NIH programs, it is primarily through appropriations report language, not budget line items or earmarks, that Congress gives direction to NIH and allows a voice for advocacy groups. Congress accepts, for the most part, the priorities established through the agency’s complex process of weighing scientific opportunity and public health needs. Congress doubled the NIH budget over a five-year period from its FY1998 base of $13.7 billion to the FY2003 level of $27.1 billion. Since then, the growth rate of the NIH budget has been below the rate of inflation, which for biomedical research in FY2015 is estimated to be 2.2%. An exception occurred when the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 provided NIH with an additional $10.4 billion to be spent over the two-year period of FY2009 through FY2010. The FY2013 appropriation provided an increase of almost $70 million for the NIH Office of the Director, but it also required an across-the-board rescission of 0.2% for all accounts. In addition, a March 1, 2013, sequestration order and a transfer of funding under the authority of the HHS Secretary further reduced FY2013 amounts for NIH by $1.553 billion and $173 million, respectively, leaving the agency with an FY2013 program level budget of $29.151 billion. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (P.L. 113-76), provided an NIH program level total of $30.151 billion, a $1 billion increase over the FY2013 post-sequester level. The NIH program level in FY2015 is $30.311 billion. The President’s FY2016 budget requests an NIH program level total of $31.311 billion, an increase of $1 billion (3.3%) over the FY2015 level. Challenges facing the agency and the research enterprise, all aggravated by restrained budgets, include attracting and keeping young scientists in research careers; improving the translation of research results into useful medical interventions through more efficient clinical research; creating opportunities for transdisciplinary research that cuts across institute boundaries to exploit the newest scientific discoveries; and managing the portfolio of extramural and intramural research with strategic planning, openness, and public accountability. Also of concern is the position of U.S. biomedical research compared with the investments being made by other countries. A January 2015 study found that the total U.S. (public and private) share of global biomedical research funding declined from 57% in 2004 to 44% in 2012 while Asia, particularly China, tripled its investment from $2.6 billion (2004) to $9.7 billion (2012). Globally, the United States continues to be the top supporter of both public and industry medical research.

Apr 17, 2015

WTO Disciplines of Domestic Support for Agriculture

Apr 17, 2015

FEMA’s Public Assistance Grant Program: Background and Considerations for Congress

The Public Assistance Grant Program (PA Program) is administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and combines the authorities of multiple sections of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (P.L. 93-288, as amended, the Stafford Act). The PA Program is only available for states and communities that have received a major or emergency disaster declaration through the Stafford Act (and in a more limited fashion, Fire Management Assistance Grants). The PA Program provides grant assistance for eligible purposes, including Emergency work, as authorized by Sections 403, 407, and 502 of the Stafford Act, which provide for the removal of debris and emergency protective measures, such as the establishment of temporary shelters and emergency power generation. Permanent work, as authorized by Section 406, which provides for the repair, replacement, or restoration of disaster-damaged, publicly owned facilities and the facilities of certain private nonprofit organizations (PNPs). PNPs are generally eligible for permanent work assistance if they provide a governmental type of service, though PNPs not providing a “critical” service must first apply to the Small Business Administration for loan assistance for facility projects. At its discretion, FEMA may provide assistance for hazard mitigation measures that are not required by applicable codes and standards. As a condition of PA assistance, applicants must obtain and maintain insurance on their facilities for similar future disasters. Management costs, as authorized by Section 324, which reimburses some of the applicant’s administrative expenses incurred managing the totality of the PA Program’s projects and grants. FEMA will either award PA grants based on the estimated federal share of the total eligible cost of the project or award grants on the federal share of actual eligible costs evidenced through documentation from the applicant/grantee. The federal government provides a minimum of 75% of the cost of eligible assistance, and this cost-share can rise if certain criteria are met. The PA Program is appropriated for in the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF). Between FY2000 and FY2013, PA accounted for approximately 47% of all federal spending from the DRF. During this period, the PA Program provided approximately $21.2 billion in federal grants for emergency work assistance, $30.2 billion in permanent work assistance, and $1.2 billion in management assistance. Approximately $6.6 billion of these grant amounts was provided to PNPs for both emergency and permanent work. The PA Program authorities were most recently significantly amended by the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act (Division B of P.L. 113-2, SRIA). SRIA established “alternative procedures” for PA Program assistance, which has allowed FEMA to implement a Public Assistance Alternative Procedures (PAAP) Pilot Program. These procedures revise a number of elements of the PA Program, such as allowing grants for large, permanent work projects (facility restoration projects over $120,000) to be based on fixed estimates, as opposed to actual cost basis; and increasing the federal share of eligible costs when debris is removed more quickly by applicants. Given the importance of PA Program assistance to communities recovering from disasters, and the amount of federal dollars spent on the assistance, Congress may consider several policy issues related to the PA Program. For example, Congress may consider Reviewing current FEMA policies implementing the authorizing statute and, when desired, codifying or overriding the policies through further clarification in law; Evaluating major forthcoming changes to the PA Program authorized by SRIA and an earlier law, the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-390); Weighing options for decreasing the improper use of PA assistance by applicants, perhaps by revising the conditions of management cost assistance or improving the collection of data in the PA Program; Expanding or restricting the eligibility of the PA Program, possibly to exclude certain PNPs from assistance or to grant assistance to privately owned facilities; Deciding if and how the PA Program should provide hazard mitigation assistance on facility restoration projects; and Defining the role of PA Program as it potentially overlaps with the disaster assistance authorities of other federal agencies.

Apr 16, 2015

2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force: Issues Concerning Its Continued Application

In response to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks against the United States, Congress enacted the Authorization for Use of Military Force (2001 AUMF; P.L. 107-40; 50 U.S.C. §1541 note) to authorize the use of military force against those who perpetrated or provided support for the attacks. Under the authority of the 2001 AUMF, U.S. Armed Forces have conducted military operations in Afghanistan since October 2001. As armed conflict against Al Qaeda and the Taliban progressed, and U.S. counterterrorism strategy evolved, U.S. use of military force has expanded outside Afghanistan to include Al Qaeda and Taliban targets in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, and most recently, Syria. The 2001 AUMF is not the sole authority for all U.S. uses of military force in furtherance of U.S. counterterrorism objectives; other legislation and presidential powers under Article II of the Constitution are invoked to carry out U.S. counterterrorism activities globally. Nevertheless, the Obama Administration still finds itself relying on 2001 AUMF authority not only for continuing U.S. military operations in Afghanistan, but also for beginning a new campaign against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, with the possibility of expansion to other countries if the Islamic State or Al Qaeda groups or associates effectively expand their reach and pose a threat to U.S. national security and interests. At the same time, the President has requested that Congress enact new authority for U.S. operations to counter the Islamic State and has expressed a continued commitment to “working with the Congress and the American people to refine, and ultimately repeal, the 2001 AUMF.” As the United States has engaged in counterterrorism and other military operations against Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and other terrorist and extremist groups over the past 13-plus years, many Members of Congress and legal and policy analysts have questioned the continuing reliance on the 2001 AUMF as a primary, effective authority for U.S. military action in a number of countries. Some have asserted that the 2001 AUMF has become outdated, unsuited to the challenge of countering terrorism and extremism in a changed world, at times claiming that the executive branch has relied on the 2001 AUMF for military action outside its intended scope. Congress has for several years considered a number of legislative proposals to change the authority in the 2001 AUMF (by amending or repealing the law), the manner in which it is used, and the congressional role in its oversight and continuing existence. This process continues in the 114th Congress, and deliberations over the future of the 2001 AUMF have become entwined with consideration of proposals to enact a new authorization for use of military force to respond to the turmoil caused by the actions of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. Debate in Congress over the status of the 2001 AUMF may evolve in response to numerous developments overseas and U.S. policy responses. For further information on the Islamic State crisis, the U.S. response, and proposals to enact a new AUMF targeting the Islamic State, see CRS Report R43612, The “Islamic State” Crisis and U.S. Policy, by Christopher M. Blanchard et al., and CRS Report R43760, A New Authorization for Use of Military Force Against the Islamic State: Issues and Current Proposals in Brief, by Matthew C. Weed.

Apr 14, 2015

H.R. 2: The Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015

Apr 10, 2015

Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank

This report discusses a new development bank, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), launched by China that is posing a challenge to U.S. policymakers.

Apr 8, 2015

Barriers Along the U.S. Borders: Key Authorities and Requirements

Securing the borders is an issue of perennial concern to Congress. Federal law authorizes the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to construct barriers along the U.S. borders to deter illegal crossings. DHS is also required to construct reinforced fencing along at least 700 miles of the land border with Mexico (a border that stretches 1,933 miles), though Congress has not provided a deadline for its completion. At this time, fence construction has largely been halted, though DHS still needs to deploy fencing along nearly 50 additional miles of the southwest border to satisfy the 700-mile requirement. The primary statute authorizing DHS to deploy barriers along the international borders is Section 102 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA; P.L. 104-208, div. C). Congress made significant amendments to IIRIRA Section 102 through three enactments—the REAL ID Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-13, div. B), the Secure Fence Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-367), and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161, div. E). These amendments required that DHS construct hundreds of miles of new fencing along the border, and also provided the Secretary of DHS with broad authority to waive “all legal requirements” that may impede construction of barriers and roads under IIRIRA Section 102. These statutory modifications, along with increased funding for border projects, resulted in the deployment of several hundred miles of new barriers along the southwest border between 2005 and 2011. In recent years, DHS has largely stopped deploying additional fencing along the border, as the agency has altered its enforcement strategy in a manner that places less priority upon fencing. As amended by the Secure Fence Act in 2006, IIRIRA Section 102(b) required DHS to install at least two layers of reinforced fencing along five stretches of the southwest border totaling more than 700 miles. IIRIRA was substantially revised just over a year later by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, to replace this requirement with a mandate that DHS install reinforced fencing (but not necessarily in two or more layers) “along not less than 700 miles” of the border. Section 102(b) provides that “notwithstanding” this requirement, DHS is not legally obligated to install fencing at “any particular location.” One way to construe this clause is simply to indicate that, while DHS is required to install fencing along at least 700 miles of the border, it is not required to install any portion of the mandated fencing at any specific location (in contrast to the earlier requirement of the Secure Fence Act). An alternative interpretation of this clause has also been suggested (including by some DHS officials, but not consistently), under which DHS could potentially construct fencing along less than 700 miles of the border and satisfy the statute’s fencing requirements, if it determined additional fencing to be unwarranted. This broad interpretation of the clause seems problematic, however, as it would render Section 102(b)’s provision requiring fencing “along not less than 700 miles” of the border meaningless. The legislative history behind the changes made to IIRIRA Section 102(b) also favors the narrower interpretation. Legislation in the 114th Congress, including H.R. 399, the Secure Our Borders First Act of 2015, as reported by the House Homeland Security Committee, would effectively mandate the completion of the remaining mileage and also provide additional fencing specifications. This report discusses key statutory authorities and requirements governing DHS’s construction of barriers along the U.S. borders. It also includes appendixes listing federal laws that have been waived by DHS in furtherance of border construction projects. For more extensive discussion of ongoing activities and operations along the border between ports of entry, see CRS Report R42138, Border Security: Immigration Enforcement Between Ports of Entry, by Lisa Seghetti.

Apr 8, 2015

Proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership

Apr 7, 2015

Veterans and Homelessness

Apr 2, 2015

Yemen: Civil War and Regional Intervention

This report provides material on the latest crisis in Yemen and the U.S. policy response. Yemen's internationally backed transition government, which replaced the regime of former President Ali Abdullah Saleh in 2012, appears to have fully collapsed.

Mar 26, 2015

International Trade Agreements and Job Estimates

Mar 23, 2015

Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act: Overview and Issues

Mar 17, 2015

Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP): History and Overview

Mar 11, 2015

The Global Environment Facility (GEF)

Mar 9, 2015

Veterans’ Benefits: The Impact of Military Discharges on Basic Eligibility

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) offers a broad range of benefits to veterans of the U.S. Armed Forces and to certain members of their families; however, a claimant must meet the basic eligibility criteria. A benefit claimant must prove that he or she meets the statutory definition of a “veteran,” which includes (1) service in the active military (i.e., Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard) or commissioned officers of the Public Health Service (PHS), and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); (2) minimum length of service requirements; and (3) discharge or separation from military service under conditions “other than dishonorable.” This report focuses on the discharge or separation requirement for veteran status or, more specifically, how the VA determines that a former servicemember’s military service can be characterized as under conditions other than dishonorable. The conditions surrounding a servicemember’s discharge from the military can have important implications for his or her ability to subsequently claim entitlement to a host of benefits provided through the VA. The VA may deny benefits to former servicemembers whose military separation is characterized as “other than honorable” (OTH) or if they have received a punitive discharge adjudicated by a court-martial. In addition, certain types of misconduct could create a legal bar to receiving veterans’ benefits. The VA generally accepts discharges that are characterized as “honorable” or “general” (under honorable conditions) for purposes of veterans’ benefits. Such discharges generally do not disqualify a veteran for a wide range of VA benefits, including disability compensation and pension, health care services, educational assistance, vocational rehabilitation and employment services, home loan guaranty, and memorial and burial services. However, for purposes of the Montgomery GI Bill and the Post-9/11 GI Bill, a veteran must have received an honorable discharge. Furthermore, with certain exceptions, VA health care will be furnished for any disability incurred in or aggravated during a period of service terminated by a discharge under OTH conditions. However, an adverse discharge may preclude a former servicemember from receiving one or more VA benefits based on a complex set of statutory and regulatory restrictions. In these instances, the VA must develop the character of service, through an assessment of facts and other evidence related to a claimant’s time in the military, to determine whether his or her military service meets the general statutory and regulatory criteria for entitlement to veterans’ benefits. This report primarily focuses on the VA adjudication process for claimants who—as a result of an adverse discharge—are entitled to a character of service determination resulting in either a favorable finding of “other than dishonorable” service or an unfavorable finding of “dishonorable” service for the purposes of VA benefits. This report does not address Department of Defense (DOD) policy on military discharge procedures aside from descriptions of how military discharges impact the potential receipt of veterans’ benefits. Although a former servicemember may also exercise the right to seek redress through the Discharge Review Board (DRB) or the Board for Correction for Military/Naval Records (BCM/NV) of his or her military department, the VA has no involvement in DOD administrative remedies and therefore a discussion of DOD-related discharge issues is outside the scope of this report. Situations where policy or program overlap occurs between the VA and DOD are addressed where appropriate.

Mar 6, 2015

Foreign Affairs Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO): Background and Current Status

Mar 3, 2015

Locate an Agency or Program Within Appropriations Bills

This report, generated from House and Senate Appropriations Committee published materials, is intended as a resource to guide individuals seeking to verify sources of appropriations for selected federal agencies and programs. It is not a definitive or comprehensive listing of all federal agencies, programs, projects, or activities that appear in annual appropriations measures from year to year.

Feb 27, 2015

Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program: An Overview

This report provides a general overview of the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB). It describes the structure of FEHB, including eligibility for the program and coverage options available to enrollees, as well as premiums, benefits and cost sharing, and general financing of FEHB. The report also describes the role of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) in administering the program.

Feb 25, 2015

Cuba Sanctions: Legislative Restrictions Limiting the Normalization of Relations

This report provides information on legislative provisions restricting relations with Cuba. It lists the various provisions of law comprising economic sanctions on Cuba, including key laws that are the statutory basis of the embargo, and provides information on the authority to lift or waive these restrictions.

Feb 13, 2015

How Legislation Is Brought to the House Floor: A Snapshot of Parliamentary Practice in the 113th Congress (2013-2014)

The House of Representatives has several different parliamentary procedures through which it can bring legislation to the chamber floor. Which of these will be used in a given situation depends on many factors, including the type of measure being considered, its cost, the amount of political or policy controversy surrounding it, and the degree to which Members want to debate it and propose amendments. This report provides a snapshot of the forms and origins of measures that, according to the Legislative Information System of the U.S. Congress, received action on the House floor in the 113th Congress (2013-2014) and the parliamentary procedures used to bring them up for initial House consideration. In the 113th Congress, 943 pieces of legislation received floor action in the House of Representatives. Of these, 692 were bills or joint resolutions, and 251 were simple or concurrent resolutions, a breakdown between lawmaking and non-lawmaking legislative forms of approximately 73% to 27%. Of these 943 measures, 846 originated in the House, and 97 originated in the Senate. During the same period, 59% of all measures receiving initial House floor action came before the chamber under the Suspension of the Rules procedure, 18% came to the floor as business “privileged” under House rules and precedents, 16% were raised by a special rule reported by the Committee on Rules and adopted by the House, and 7% came up by the unanimous consent of Members. One measure, representing less than 1% of legislation receiving House floor action in the 113th Congress, was processed under the procedures associated with the call of the Private Calendar. When only lawmaking forms of legislation (bills and joint resolutions) are counted, 75% of such measures receiving initial House floor action in the 113th Congresses came before the chamber under the Suspension of the Rules procedure, 20% were raised by a special rule reported by the Committee on Rules and adopted by the House, and 5% came up by the unanimous consent of Members. Less than 1% of lawmaking forms of legislation received House floor action via the call of the Private Calendar or by virtue of being “privileged” under House rules. The party sponsorship of legislation receiving initial floor action in the 113th Congress varied based on the procedure used to raise the legislation on the chamber floor. Sixty-eight percent of the measures considered under the Suspension of the Rules procedure were sponsored by majority party Members. All but four of the 148 measures brought before the House under the terms of a special rule reported by the House Committee on Rules and adopted by the House were sponsored by majority party Members.

Feb 13, 2015

The Community Health Center Fund: In Brief

This report provides information on the Community Health Center Fund (CHCF) that may be useful for discussions about the fund's future. Specifically, it includes information on: the types of grants awarded, total funds disbursed, and the amount of CHCF funds that facilities in each state and territory received.

Feb 12, 2015

U.S. Secret Service Protection

Feb 12, 2015

Introduction to Financial Services: The Housing Finance System

Feb 5, 2015

The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR): Answers to Frequently Asked Questions

This report provides answers to 25 frequently asked questions regarding the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). These questions and their answers are organized into six broad categories, including (1) what the FAR is and what it covers; (2) promulgation of the FAR; (3) the relationship between the FAR and other authorities governing federal procurement (e.g., statutes, agency FAR supplements, other regulations, policies); (4) the FAR in relation to Congress and judicial and other tribunals; (5) the relationship between the FAR and federal procurement contracts; and (6) other topics.

Feb 3, 2015

National Forest System Management: Overview, Appropriations, and Issues for Congress

Jan 29, 2015

Inland Waterways Trust Fund

Jan 29, 2015

A Shift in the International Security Environment: Potential Implications for Defense--Issues for Congress

A shift in the international security environment could have significant implications for U.S. defense plans and programs. A previous shift in the international security environment--from the Cold War to the post-Cold War era--prompted a broad reassessment by the Department of Defense (DOD) and Congress of defense funding levels, strategy, and missions that led to numerous changes in DOD plans and programs. The issue for Congress is whether a shift in the international security environment has occurred, and if so, how to respond to that shift. This report briefly describes the shift in the international security environment that some observers believe has occurred, and identifies some defense-related issues for Congress that could arise from it. Congress' decisions on these issues could have significant implications for U.S. defense capabilities and funding requirements.

Jan 21, 2015

North Korea: Back on the State Sponsors of Terrorism List?

From 1988 until 2008, the United States designated the government of North Korea, officially known as the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), as a state sponsor of terrorism. The Reagan Administration designated the DPRK after it was implicated in the 1987 bombing of a South Korean airliner, in which more than 100 people died. The George W. Bush Administration removed the designation from the DPRK in 2008, one of the measures the United States took in exchange for North Korea’s agreement to take steps to disable its nuclear program. As of early 2015, only the governments of Cuba, Iran, Sudan, and Syria remain on the lists. The State Department can designate a government as a state sponsor of acts of international terrorism pursuant to three laws: the Export Administration Act of 1979; the Arms Export Control Act; and the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. Thus, there effectively are three state sponsors of terrorism “lists.” The State Department can use a variety of criteria when assessing whether a government should be added to and removed from the lists. In North Korea’s case, policy considerations appear to have weighed heavily in the designation of the DPRK from 1988-2007, as well as in the decision to remove the designation in 2008. In the 114th Congress, H.R. 204 expresses the sense of Congress that the State Department should redesignate the DPRK as a state sponsor of terrorism. According to the State Department, North Korea has not been conclusively linked to any terrorist acts since 1987. Some observers have questioned the Department’s claim. These observers support their contention by citing seizures of cargo ships carrying North Korean missile parts and conventional weapons, apparently to Syria and Burma (Myanmar). U.S. government agencies have stated that North Korea helped Syria build a nuclear reactor, and that North Korea and Iran cooperate closely in missile development. According to press reports, North Korea has provided support to Hamas and Hezbollah, and has targeted North Korean refugees living overseas for kidnapping and assassination. The 2010 sinking of a South Korean naval vessel also triggered calls to redesignate the DPRK. To date, cyber-related incidents such as the late 2014 attack on Sony have not been used as justification for designation as a state sponsor of terrorism. The 2009 and 2013 seizures of chemical protection equipment bound for Syria appear to be the only DPRK actions since 2008 that both (1) were recognized by official U.S. or U.N. bodies, and (2) conceivably could have met the statutory criteria for designation. Redesignating the DPRK as a terrorism sponsor appears unlikely to inflict significant direct economic punishment on North Korea, particularly in the short term. However, a decision to redesignate North Korea as a state sponsor of terrorism could have a significant impact on international diplomacy with North Korea. The Kim regime could perceive redesignation as a threat to its two-track policy of nuclear development and economic development, with the latter goal partially dependent upon influxes of foreign investment. Placing North Korea back on the lists could forestall future diplomatic initiatives between Washington and Pyongyang, particularly if North Korean leaders—as well as Chinese leaders—interpret it as a sign that the United States is not interested in dialogue. Given previous patterns of North Korean behavior, it is possible that Pyongyang would respond to a redesignation by taking additional provocative actions, such as more nuclear-weapon or long-range-missile tests. North Korea has not conducted such tests since early 2013. Returning Pyongyang to the terrorism sponsor lists also could complicate the South Korean government’s initiatives to improve relations with North Korea. Assessing the merits of these implications depends heavily on whether or not one believes the United States should adopt a harsher stance toward Pyongyang.

Jan 21, 2015

Federal Benefits and Services for People with Low Income: Programs and Spending, FY2008-FY2013

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) regularly receives requests about the number, size, and programmatic details of federal benefits and services targeted toward low-income populations, and the characteristics of people who participate. This report attempts to identify and provide information about such programs, including their federal spending during FY2008-FY2013. The report does not discuss social insurance programs such as Social Security, Medicare, or Unemployment Insurance, but includes only programs with an explicit focus on low-income people or communities. Tax provisions, other than the refundable portion of two tax credits, are excluded. Key findings include the following: No single label best describes all programs with a low-income focus, and no single trait characterizes those who benefit. Programs are highly diverse in their purpose, design, and target population. Readers should use caution in making generalizations about the programs described in this report. Total federal spending on low-income programs rose sharply between FY2008 and FY2009 as the Great Recession took hold. Spending ultimately peaked in FY2011, dropped in FY2012, and edged up again in FY2013. Total low-income spending in FY2013 totaled $744 billion, significantly higher than the FY2008 level of $561 billion but below the FY2010 level of $750 billion. Peak spending over the six years was $764 billion in FY2011. Health care is the single largest category of low-income spending, accounting for nearly half of the total, and drives overall trends. The single largest program within the health category is Medicaid. Cash aid and food assistance are the next largest categories, with food assistance seeing the largest growth over the six-year period. Other categories (in descending size) are education, housing and development, social services, employment and training, and energy assistance. Most low-income spending (82% in FY2013) is classified in budgetary terms as “mandatory” (or “direct”), which means the amount spent is a function of eligibility and payment rules established by Congress in authorizing laws. Congress determines the amount spent for the remaining “discretionary” programs through the annual appropriations process. Four programs accounted for 65% of low-income spending in FY2013, and 10 programs made up 82%. Medicaid alone contributed 39% of the total. In addition to Medicaid, the top four include the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and the refundable portion of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). The disabled receive the single largest share of federal low-income spending, based on an analysis of spending for the top 10 programs in FY2011. The disabled received almost a third of such spending, primarily for health care and secondarily for cash aid. Working families with children received the next largest share of spending (including from the EITC and Additional Child Tax Credit), followed by the elderly. The bulk of spending for low-income elderly was in the health category. Less than 12% of total low-income spending in FY2011 went to families with nonelderly nondisabled adults who were not working.

Jan 15, 2015

Introduction to Financial Services: Insurance Regulation

Jan 15, 2015

Institutional Eligibility for Participation in Title IV Student Financial Aid Programs

Jan 15, 2015

North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)

Jan 15, 2015

Programs for Minority-Serving Institutions (MSIs) Under the Higher Education Act (HEA)

Jan 15, 2015

Proposals to Change the ACA’s Definition of “Full Time”

Jan 13, 2015

The Work Opportunity Tax Credit

Jan 9, 2015

Reductions to Mandatory Agricultural Conservation Programs in Appropriations Law

Jan 9, 2015