CRS Reports

Medicaid Financial Eligibility for Long-Term Services and Supports

Apr 24, 2014

The Target Data Breach: Frequently Asked Questions

This report answers some frequently asked questions about the Target (store) data breach, including what is known to have happened in the breach, and what costs may result. It also examines some of the broader issues common to data breaches, including how the payment system works, how cybersecurity costs are shared and allocated within the payment system, who bears the losses in such breaches more generally, what emerging cybersecurity technologies may help prevent them, and what role the government could play in encouraging their adoption, as well as some of the legislation that the 113th Congress has introduced to deal with these issues.

Apr 22, 2014

Trade Promotion Authority (TPA): Frequently Asked Questions

This report provides background information Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), and discusses U.S. trade negotiating objectives, procedures for congressional-executive notification and consultation, and expedited legislative procedures.

Apr 21, 2014

FY2015 Budget Documents: Internet and GPO Availability

This report provides brief descriptions of the budget volumes and related documents, together with Internet addresses, Government Printing Office (GPO) stock numbers, and prices for obtaining print copies of these publications. It also explains how to find the locations of government depository libraries, which can provide both printed copies for reference use and Internet access to the online versions.

Apr 17, 2014

Iran-North Korea-Syria Ballistic Missile and Nuclear Cooperation

This report describes the key elements of a nuclear weapons program; explains the available information regarding cooperation among Iran, North Korea, and Syria on ballistic missiles and nuclear technology; and discusses some specific issues for Congress.

Apr 16, 2014

Federal Reserve: Oversight and Disclosure Issues

The report discusses recently-enacted legislation and legislation introduced in the 113th Congress related to the Federal Reserve (Fed). It also provides information about the potential impact of greater oversight and disclosure on the Fed's independence and its ability to achieve its macroeconomic and financial stability goals.

Apr 15, 2014

Implementing the Affordable Care Act: Delays, Extensions, and Other Actions Taken by the Administration

This report discusses the health care reform, private health insurance provisions and the implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

Apr 14, 2014

Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) and Related Non-Tariff Barriers to Agricultural Trade

Sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures are the laws, rules, standards, and procedures that governments employ to protect humans, animals, and plants from diseases, pests, toxins, and other contaminants. Examples include meat and poultry processing standards to reduce pathogens, residue limits for pesticides in foods, and regulation of agricultural biotechnology. Technical barriers to trade (TBT) cover technical regulations, product standards, environmental regulations, and voluntary procedures relating to human health and animal welfare. Examples include trademarks and patents, labeling and packaging requirements, certification and inspection procedures, product specifications, and marketing of biotechnology. SPS and TBT measures both comprise a group of widely divergent standards and standards-based measures that countries use to regulate markets, protect their consumers, and preserve natural resources. According to the World Trade Organization (WTO), SPS and TBT measures have become more prominent concerns for agricultural exporters and policy makers, as tariff-related barriers to trade have been reduced by various multilateral, regional, and bilateral negotiations and trade agreements. The concerns include whether SPS and TBT measures might be used to unfairly discriminate against imported products or create unnecessary obstacles to trade in agricultural, food, and other traded goods. Notable U.S. trade disputes involving SPS and TBT measures have included a European Union (EU) ban on U.S. meats treated with growth-promoting hormones and also certain pathogen reduction treatments, and an EU moratorium on approvals of biotechnology products, among other types of trade concerns with other countries. Foreign countries have also objected to various U.S. trade measures. Multilateral trade rules allow governments to adopt measures to protect human, animal, or plant life or health, provided such measures do not discriminate or use them as disguised protectionism. This principle was clarified in the mid-1990s by WTO members’ approval of the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (“SPS Agreement”). The SPS Agreement sets out the basic rules for ensuring that each country’s food safety and animal and plant health laws and regulations are transparent, scientifically defensible, and fair. Similarly, in the late 1970s, the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (“TBT Agreement”) addressed the use of technical requirements and voluntary standards for a range of traded goods. In addition, the United States has entered into, or is currently negotiating, numerous regional and bilateral free trade agreements (FTAs) that contain SPS and TBT language. In an effort to resolve perceived intractable trade problems regarding SPS and TBT matters, many in U.S. agriculture and the food industry are supporting efforts to build on and go beyond rules, rights, and obligations in the SPS Agreement and TBT Agreement, as well as beyond commitments in existing U.S. FTAs. The U.S. meat and poultry industry initially proposed efforts to adopt tougher WTO rules for animal health regulations as part of the ongoing Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations. These concepts were later reinforced by recommendations from U.S. and EU trade officials involved in the ongoing Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) negotiations. These efforts are referred to as WTO-Plus rules, SPS-Plus, and TBT-Plus rules. In Congress, which must approve legislation if a trade agreement is to be implemented, many Members are interested in how a trade agreement might address SPS and TBT matters. Many remain concerned that countries are turning to non-tariff measures, such as SPS and TBT measures, to protect their farmers from import competition. U.S. rights and obligations regarding SPS and TBT measures are also relevant to regulations affecting imported food.

Mar 31, 2014

Farm Commodity Provisions in the 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79)

Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R43448 Summary The farm commodity program provisions in Title I of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (P.L. 113-79, the 2014 farm bill) include three types of support for crop years 2014-2018: Price Loss Coverage (PLC) payments, which are triggered when the national average farm price for a covered commodity (e.g., wheat, corn, soybeans, rice, and peanuts) is below its statutorily fixed “reference price”; Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) payments, as an alternative to PLC, which are triggered when crop revenue is below its guaranteed level based on a multi-year moving average of historical crop revenue; and Marketing Assistance Loans (MALs), which offer interim financing for the loan commodities (covered crops plus several others) and, if prices fall below loan rates set in statute, additional low-price protection, sometimes paid as loan deficiency payments (LDPs). The enacted 2014 farm bill eliminated “direct payments,” which were provided annually to producers and landowners of covered commodities from 1996 to 2013 based on historical production and a fixed payment rate set in statute. All farm program support now consists of variable payments. The PLC and ARC programs are enhanced relative to their predecessors via higher reference prices for PLC and more “local” coverage for ARC (whereby payments are triggered by county or individual losses rather than at the state level). In a major departure from previous farm bills and in response to a trade dispute with Brazil, upland cotton is no longer a covered commodity, with support for that crop now provided by a new crop insurance policy called the Stacked Income Protection Plan (STAX). Approximately three-fourths of the 10-year, $47 billion in savings associated with the elimination of 2008 farm bill commodity programs was used to offset the costs of revising the overall farm safety net, specifically farm programs in Title I of the 2014 farm bill, adding permanent disaster assistance (also in Title I), enhancing the permanently authorized federal crop insurance program (Title XI), and enhancing the Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program or NAP (Title XII). Crop insurance is available for more than 100 crops, including fruits and vegetables, and is designed primarily to cover losses from natural disasters. Farm programs do not require a participation fee, while crop insurance requires participating farmers to pay part of program costs. The enacted 2014 farm bill sets a $125,000 per person cap on the total of PLC, ARC, marketing loan gains and loan deficiency payments. The limit applies to the total from all covered commodities except peanuts, which has a separate $125,000 limit. Also, to be eligible for payments, persons must be “actively engaged” in farming. The 2014 farm bill instructs USDA to write regulations (beginning with the 2015 crop year) that define “significant contribution of active personal management” to more clearly and objectively implement existing law. A single, total adjusted gross income (AGI) limit for payment eligibility is established at $900,000, which is less than the sum of the two separate limits (farm and non-farm) in the 2008 farm bill. The Congressional Budget Office cost estimate (score) of the Title I provisions represents five-year savings of $6.3 billion and 10-year savings of $14.3 billion (both relative to baseline projections made in May 2013 assuming continuation of the 2008 farm bill). If these scores are added to the 2013 CBO baseline of budget outlays used to write the farm bill, then CBO’s estimated cost of Title I is $23.6 billion for FY2014-2018 and $44.5 billion over 10 years. Contents Introduction 1 Background 1 Policy Rationale for Farm Subsidies 1 Authorizing Legislation 2 Eligible Commodities 2 Definition of “Farm” 3 Base Acres 3 “Partially Decoupled” Payments 4 Eligible Producers 4 Eliminated 2008 Farm Bill Programs 5 Farm Commodity Program Provisions 5 Price Loss Coverage (PLC) 6 Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) 9 County ARC 9 Individual ARC 9 Marketing Assistance Loan Program 10 Cotton Not Eligible for Either PLC or ARC 11 Planting Fruits and Vegetables on Base Acres 12 Payment Limits 12 “Actively Engaged” 12 Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) Limit 13 Interaction with Federal Crop Insurance 13 Estimated Cost of the Commodity Title 13 Implementation 15 Figures Figure 1. Price Loss Coverage (PLC) 8 Figure 2. Price Loss Coverage (PLC): Low Price Scenario for Rice 8 Figure 3. Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC)–County Coverage 10 Figure 4. Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC)–Low Revenue Scenario for Corn 10 Figure 5. Outlays for Farm Commodity Program and Disaster Assistance 14 Tables Table 1. Loan Rates and Reference Prices in the 2014 Farm Bill 7 Table 2. Cost of Provisions in the Commodity Title of the 2014 Farm Bill 14 Appendixes Appendix. Major Farm Commodity Provisions in the Enacted 2014 Farm Bill 17 Contacts Author Contact Information 32 Acknowledgments 32 Introduction On February 7, 2014, President Obama signed into law a new five-year omnibus farm bill, the Agricultural Act of 2014 (H.R. 2642; P.L. 113-79, the 2014 farm bill). The House had voted, 251-166, to approve the conference report (H.Rept. 113-333) on January 29, 2014, and the Senate approved the conference report on February 4, 2014, by a vote of 68-32. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is now implementing the provisions, most of which take effect this year. This report describes the farm commodity programs in Title I of the 2014 farm bill for “covered commodities” such as wheat, corn, soybeans, rice, and peanuts. Producer support is provided for the 2014-2018 crop years primarily through either statutory (“reference”) prices or historical revenue guarantees based on the five most recent years of crop prices and yields. Important policy developments in the new law are also discussed and compared to prior law. The most significant policy change for commodity programs in the 2014 farm bill was the elimination of fixed direct payments and the enhancement of variable payments to farmers and landowners when crop prices or revenue declines. Table A-1 provides detailed descriptions of farm commodity program provisions compared with prior law. For more on the legislative history of the 2014 farm bill and a side-by-side summary of crop insurance and all other farm bill provisions, see CRS Report R43076, The 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79): Summary and Side-by-Side. Background Policy Rationale for Farm Subsidies Federal farm support began in the 1930s through Depression-era efforts to raise farm household income when commodity prices were low because of prolonged weak consumer demand. While initially intended to be a temporary effort, the commodity support programs survived, but have been modified away from supply control and management of commodity stocks (which was designed to prop up prices) into direct income support payments. The 2014 farm bill continues traditional farm support via variable payments relative to statutory price levels or historical crop revenue. Proponents of farm commodity programs argue that federal involvement in the sector is needed to stabilize and support farm incomes by shifting some of the risks to the federal government. These risks include short-term market price instability and longer-term capacity adjustments. Proponents see the goal of farm policy as maintaining the economic health of the nation’s farm sector so that it can use its comparative advantage in feeding the nation and competing in the global market for food and fiber. Critics argue that farm commodity programs waste taxpayer dollars, distort production of certain crops, capitalize benefits to the owners of the resources, encourage concentration of production, and comparatively harm smaller domestic producers and farmers in lower-income foreign nations. Authorizing Legislation The authority for USDA to operate farm commodity programs comes from three permanent laws, as amended: the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 (P.L. 75-430), the Agricultural Act of 1949 (P.L. 81-439), and the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) Charter Act of 1948 (P.L. 80-806). Congress typically alters these laws through multi-year omnibus farm bills to address current market conditions, budget constraints, or other concerns. If a new farm bill is not enacted when an old one expires, farm programs would revert to the permanent laws mentioned above for most of the major program crops. Under permanent law, eligible commodities would be supported at levels much higher than they are now, and many of the currently supported commodities might not be eligible. Since reverting to permanent law is incompatible with current national economic objectives, global trading rules, and federal budgetary policies, pressure builds at the end of one farm bill to enact another. The 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79) contains the most recent version of the farm commodity support programs. It supersedes the commodity provisions of previous farm bills, and suspends the relevant price support provisions of permanent law. Eligible Commodities Federal support exists for about two dozen farm commodities representing about one-third of gross farm sales. During FY2005-FY2014, five crops (corn, cotton, wheat, rice, and soybeans) accounted for about 90% of these payments. Under the 2014 farm bill, the “covered commodities” are the primary crops eligible for farm support: wheat, oats, and barley (including wheat, oats, and barley used for haying and grazing); corn, grain sorghum, long grain rice, medium grain rice, and pulse crops (dry peas, lentils, small chickpeas, and large chickpeas); soybeans, other oilseeds (including sunflower seed, rapeseed, canola, safflower, flaxseed, mustard seed, crambe, and sesame seed), and peanuts. In a major departure from all previous farm bills and in response to a trade dispute with Brazil, upland cotton is no longer a covered crop, with support for that crop now provided by a new crop insurance policy called the Stacked Income Protection Plan (STAX). “Loan commodities” include all of the “covered commodities” plus upland cotton, extra long staple cotton, wool, mohair, and honey. These commodities are eligible for the marketing loan program only. The 2014 farm bill replaces the dairy product price support program and Milk Income Loss Contract (MILC) payments with new dairy programs to (1) protect producer margins (milk prices minus feed costs), and (2) buy excess dairy products to boost demand when margins drop below certain levels. Sugar support is indirect through import quotas, price guarantees, and domestic marketing allotments. No direct payments are made to growers and processors. There was no change to the sugar program in the 2014 farm bill. See CRS Report R42551, Sugar Provisions of the 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79). Meats, poultry, fruits, vegetables, nuts, hay, and nursery products (about two-thirds of farm sales) do not receive direct support or payments under the commodity programs of the farm bill. However, livestock and tree fruit producers receive disaster support under Title I of the 2014 farm bill. (See Table A-1 and CRS Report RS21212, Agricultural Disaster Assistance, for a description of disaster programs.) Also, under the permanently authorized federal crop insurance program, subsidized crop insurance is available for more than 100 crops, including fruits and vegetables which are not supported by farm programs. Crop insurance is designed primarily to cover losses from natural disasters and within-season price or revenue declines (see CRS Report R40532, Federal Crop Insurance: Background). Definition of “Farm” The definition of “farm” used to administer the commodity programs is different from other statistical or perceived definitions of farms. Under Farm Service Agency (FSA) regulations, a “farm” for program payment purposes is one or more tracts of land considered to be a separate operation. Land in a farm does not need to be contiguous; however, all tracts within a farm must have the same operator and the same owner (unless all owners agree to combine multiple tracts into a single FSA farm). Thus, one producer may be operating several “farms” if he/she is renting land from several landlords, or has purchased land in several tracts. Base Acres For the purpose of calculating program payments, the term “base acres” is the historical planted acreage on each FSA farm, using a multi-year average from as far back as the 1980s. Technically, a farm’s base with respect to a covered commodity is the number of acres in effect under the 2008 farm bill (7 U.S.C. 8702, 8751) as of September 30, 2013, subject to any reallocation, adjustment, or reduction under the 2014 farm bill. Base is calculated for each covered commodity and transfers to the new owner when land is sold, making the new landowner eligible for farm programs. Because a farmer’s actual plantings may differ from farm base acres, program payments may not necessarily align with financial losses associated with market prices or crop revenue. In order to better match program payments with farm risk, the 2014 farm bill provides farmers with a one-time opportunity to update individual crop base acres by reallocating acreage within their current base to match their actual crop mix (plantings) during 2009-2012. Farmers can also choose to not reallocate their base if they expect payments to be maximized under their current base. In the case of cotton, which is no longer a covered commodity, former cotton base acres are renamed “generic base” and added to a producer’s base for potential payments if a covered crop is planted on the farm. “Partially Decoupled” Payments Payments under the new programs in the 2014 farm bill are made on base acres, not current plantings. This feature—decoupling payments from current plantings—is intended to better comply with World Trade Organization (WTO) rules on domestic support and to minimize any influence on producer behavior and prevent any subsequent market distortion. The payments are considered “partially decoupled” because the payment amount remains connected to current market prices. In the 2008 farm bill, farm payments were calculated using either base or planted area, depending upon the program. Eligible Producers The 2014 farm bill defines a producer (for purposes of farm program benefits) as an owner-operator, landlord, tenant, or sharecropper that shares in the risk of producing a crop and is entitled to a share of the crop produced on the farm. For payment eligibility, a term commonly used in federal regulations is “actively engaged in farming,” which generally means providing significant contributions of capital (land or equipment) and labor and/or management, and receiving a share of the crop as compensation. The 2014 farm bill requires USDA to write new regulations that define “significant contribution of active personal management.” See “Payment Limits,” below. Producers do not pay to participate in farm programs. However, an individual must comply with certain conservation and planting flexibility rules. Conservation rules include protecting wetlands, preventing erosion, and controlling weeds. Planting flexibility rules allow crops other than the program crop to be grown, but under the 2014 farm bill, eligible payment acreage is reduced when fruits, vegetables, or wild rice are planted in excess of 15% of base acres (or 35% depending upon a farmer’s program choice discussed below). Also, a producer on a farm may not receive farm program payments if the sum of the base acres on the farm is 10 acres or less. A farm enterprise usually involves some combination of owned and rented land. Two types of rental arrangements are common: cash rent and share rent. Under cash rental contracts, the tenant pays a fixed cash rent to the landlord. The landlord receives the same rent, bears no risk in production, and thus is not eligible to receive program payments. The tenant bears all of the risk, takes all of the harvest, and receives all of the government subsidy. Under share rental contracts, the tenant usually supplies most or all of the labor and machinery, while the landlord supplies land and perhaps some machinery or management. Both the landlord and the tenant bear risk in producing a crop and receive a portion of the harvest. Both are eligible to share in the government subsidy. Even though tenants might receive all of the government payments under cash rent arrangements, they might not keep all of the benefits if landlords demand higher rent. Economists widely agree that a large portion of government farm payments passes through to landlords, since government payments boost the rental value of land. The amount of total land in farms rented by farm operators has ranged between 34% and 43% of farmland during 1964-2007. Eliminated 2008 Farm Bill Programs Under the enacted 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79), farm support for traditional program crops is restructured by eliminating the direct payment (DP) and counter-cyclical payment (CCP) programs, and the Average Crop Revenue Election (ACRE) program. For the 1996 through 2013 crop years, direct payments were made to producers and landowners based on historical production of corn, wheat, soybeans, cotton, rice, peanuts, and other “covered” crops. Direct payments lost political support in recent years because recipients did not need to suffer an income loss in order to receive a payment. Approximately three-fourths of the 10-year, $47 billion in savings associated with the elimination of current farm programs was used to offset the costs of revising farm programs in Title I of the 2014 farm bill, adding permanent disaster assistance (also in Title I), enhancing the permanently-authorized federal crop insurance program (Title XI), and enhancing the Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program or NAP (Title XII). Farm Commodity Program Provisions The farm commodity program provisions in Title I of the 2014 farm bill include three types of support for crop years 2014-2018: Price Loss Coverage (PLC) payments, which are triggered when the national average farm price for a covered commodity is below its statutorily-fixed “reference price”; Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) payments, as an alternative to PLC, which are triggered when crop revenue is below its guaranteed level based on a multi-year moving average of historical crop revenue; and Marketing Assistance Loans (MALs) that offer interim financing for the loan commodities (covered crops plus several others as indicated above) and, if prices fall below loan rates set in statute, additional low-price protection, sometimes paid as loan deficiency payments (LDPs). Farmers with base acres of covered commodities have a one-time irrevocable decision to choose between PLC and “county” ARC (based on a county guarantee) on a commodity-by-commodity basis for each farm. Alternatively, all covered crops on a farm can be enrolled in “individual” ARC, which is based on a farm-level guarantee. (See “Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC),” below.) If no choice is made, the producer forfeits any payments for the 2014 crop year and the farm is enrolled automatically in PLC for the 2015-2018 crop years. The “optimal” decision depends in part on expected prices through 2018 relative to guarantees in each program. The PLC and ARC programs are similar conceptually to the 2008 farm bill’s counter-cyclical payment (CCP) program and Average Crop Revenue Election (ACRE) program, respectively. However, compared with the previous programs, they have enhanced levels of protection from low prices (i.e., higher price parameters in PLC) or revenue loss (i.e., county- or farm-level guarantees for ARC rather than state-level in ACRE). PLC and ARC payments are proportional to base acres, and not planted acres. Payments are made with a lag of approximately one year as annual price and yield data are compiled for USDA’s calculations. USDA is to issue payments beginning October 1 after the end of each marketing year, which varies by crop. For example, the marketing year for corn harvested in fall of 2014 ends in August 2015. Marketing assistance loans are available for covered crops and other loan commodities. The program continues mostly unchanged from the 2008 farm bill, with loan rates set at relatively low levels compared to historical prices. All three types of payments are subject to a combined payment limit of $125,000 per person. Also, the income limit for program eligibility is $900,000 for adjusted gross income (three-year average). See “Payment Limits” and “Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) Limit,” below. Price Loss Coverage (PLC) For each covered commodity on a farm, producers may select the Price Loss Coverage (PLC) program to receive a payment on 85% of base acres when the annual national average farm price is below the reference price set in statute. This option could be attractive if farmers expect farm prices to drop below statutory minimums. Payments are proportional to a farm’s base acres, historical farm yield, and the difference between the reference price and the annual farm price. Hence payments are generally “decoupled” from planted acreage and actual yield but not price. PLC payments operate the same as CCPs under the 2008 farm bill, which have been reported to the WTO by the United States as “amber box” subsidies, and thus limited in size together with other amber box subsidies. Commodity groups successfully argued for an increase in reference prices relative to the payment trigger levels in the 2008 farm bill (i.e., target price minus direct payment rate). For example, the payment trigger level has been raised by 51% for wheat, 57% for corn, 51% for soybeans, 72% for rice (98% for temperate Japonica rice), and 17% for peanuts. Reference prices and a comparison with 2008 farm bill parameters for each covered commodity are shown in Table 1. The PLC payment formula is 85% times the number of base acres times historical payment yield times the difference between the reference price and the annual farm price (or loan rate if higher). See Figure 1 for a graphical interpretation of the formula and Figure 2 for a hypothetical example for rice. The historical payment yield is equal to 90% of the 2008-2012 average yield per planted acre for the farm. As an alternative, the producer can keep the program yield used for calculating CCPs in the 2008 farm bill (generally based on 1998-2001 yields). Table 1. Loan Rates and Reference Prices in the 2014 Farm Bill Price at which a payment is triggered: 2008 and 2014 farm bills Loan Rate 2008 farm bill Target Price minus Direct Payment Rate 2014 farm bill Reference Price % change from 2008 farm bill Wheat, $/bu 2.94 4.17 – 0.52 = 3.65 5.50 +51% Corn, $/bu 1.95 2.63 – 0.28 = 2.35 3.70 +57% Sorghum, $/bu 1.95 2.63 – 0.35 = 2.28 3.95 +73% Barley, $/bu 1.95 2.63 – 0.24 = 2.39 4.95 +107% Oats, $/bu 1.39 1.79 – 0.024 = 1.766 2.40 +36% Upland Cotton, $/lb 2008 farm bill: 0.52 2014 farm bill: 0.45 to 0.52 0.7125 – 0.0667 = 0.6458 n.a. n.a. ELS cotton, $/lb 0.7977 n.a. n.a. n.a. Rice, $/cwt 6.50 10.50 – 2.35 = 8.15 14.00; 16.10 for temperate japonica +72%; +98% for temperate japonica Soybeans, $/bu 5.00 6 – 0.44 = 5.56 8.40 +51% Minor oilseeds, $/lb 0.1009 0.1268 – 0.008 = 0.1188 0.2015 +70% Peanuts, $/ton 355 495-36 = 459 535 +17% Peas, dry, $/cwt 5.40 8.32 – 0 = 8.32 11.00 +32% Lentils, $/cwt 11.28 12.81 – 0 = 12.81 19.97 +56% Sm.chickpeas, $/cwt 7.43 10.36 – 0 = 10.36 19.04 +84% Lg.chickpeas, $/cwt 11.28 12.81 – 0 = 12.81 21.54 +68% Wool, graded, $/lb 1.15 n.a. n.a. n.a. Wool, nongraded 0.40 n.a. n.a. n.a. Mohair $/lb 4.20 n.a. n.a. n.a. Honey, $/lb 0.69 n.a. n.a. n.a. Sugar, raw cane, $/lb 0.1875 n.a. n.a. n.a. Sugar, beet, $/lb 0.2409 n.a. n.a. n.a. Source: CRS. Note: n.a. = not applicable. Figure 1. Price Loss Coverage (PLC) (makes payment when national average farm price drops below the reference price) Source: CRS. Note: In a declining market, the per-bushel payment rate increases until the farm price drops below the loan rate. At this point, benefits under the Marketing Assistance Loan Program may become available. Figure 2. Price Loss Coverage (PLC): Low Price Scenario for Rice Source: CRS. Notes: In a declining market, the per-bushel payment rate increases until the farm price drops below the loan rate ($6.50/cwt. for rice). If market prices decline further, benefits under the Marketing Assistance Loan Program may become available. Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) Producers more concerned about declines in crop revenue (i.e., yield times price) than just price can select the county Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) program as an alternative to PLC for each covered commodity. Payments are made on 85% of base acres when annual crop revenue is less than 86% of its historical level. If farmers prefer individual farm level protection, they must enroll all covered crops on the farm in the ARC-individual coverage option instead of selecting between PLC and county ARC for each crop. County ARC For producers choosing between ARC and PLC on each covered commodity on a farm, the county ARC program has a county revenue guarantee, and only a crop revenue loss at the county level triggers a payment. For ARC county coverage, payments are made on 85% of base acres when actual county crop revenue drops below the county revenue guarantee, which is 86% of historical or “benchmark” revenue. The benchmark revenue per acre is equal to the average historical county yield for the most recent 5 crop years (excluding the years with the highest and lowest yields, or “Olympic average”) times the national average market price received by producers during the 12-month marketing year for the most recent 5 crop years (excluding the years with the highest and lowest prices). With the guarantee set at 86%, the producer absorbs the first 14% of the shortfall, and the government absorbs the next 10% of revenue shortfall. (The per-acre payment rate is capped at 10% of benchmark revenue.) Remaining losses are backstopped by crop insurance if purchased at sufficient coverage levels by the producer and by the marketing assistance loan program. The county ARC payment formula is 85% times the number of base acres times the difference between the county revenue guarantee and the actual crop revenue. See Figure 3 for a graphical interpretation of the formula and Figure 4 for a hypothetical example for corn. Individual ARC Farm level protection is provided if producers enroll all covered crops on the farm in the ARC-individual coverage option, which uses individual farm yields for each covered crop (which are more variable than county averages) and aggregates all crop revenue into a single, whole-farm guarantee. Individual coverage was not available for ACRE in the 2008 farm bill; farm-level coverage was provided instead by the Supplemental Revenue Assistance (SURE) disaster program (not reauthorized under the 2014 farm bill). The individual ARC payment formula is 65% times the number of total base acres for the farm times the difference between the revenue guarantee and the actual crop revenue. The calculation for the guarantee and actual revenue are based on the aggregation of all covered crops on the farm using individual farm yields instead of county yields. Figure 3. Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC)–County Coverage (payment when actual county-wide revenue drops below 86% of historical revenue [“shallow loss”]) Source: CRS. Notes: Five-year averages exclude high and low years. Instead of an ARC county guarantee on a crop-by-crop basis, farmers can select a farm-level guarantee for all covered crops on a farm. Payment acreage is reduced to 65% of base acres, and a single, whole farm guarantee (and payment) is calculated as a weighted average for all crops (i.e., not on a crop-by-crop basis). Figure 4. Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC)–Low Revenue Scenario for Corn Source: CRS. Notes: Assumes five-year average price (excluding high and low years) is $5.27 per bushel and five-year average yield (excluding high and low years) is 100 bushels per acre. Marketing Assistance Loan Program The Marketing Assistance Loan (MAL) program provides additional financial benefits to farmers in the form of a guaranteed floor price for qualifying field crops, in addition to providing short-term financing. The process begins with a government loan to participating farmers of designated crops (covered commodities, plus upland cotton, extra long staple cotton, wool, mohair, and honey). The loan is made at a specified “per-unit” loan rate using the crop as collateral. This loan rate, in effect, establishes a price guarantee. Prior to loan maturity, if the local market price (called the “posted price”) is at or above the loan rate, the farmer repays the loan principal and interest. In contrast, when the posted price is below the loan rate, the farmer may repay the loan at that price (called the “loan repayment rate”) and pocket the difference as a “marketing loan gain.” Or, rather than taking the loan when the posted price is below the loan rate, farmers may request a “loan deficiency payment,” with the payment rate equal to the difference between the loan rate and the loan repayment rate. Program benefits are available on the entire crop produced, which means a farmer receives no benefits in the event of a crop loss. This is in contrast to the other two programs (PLC and ARC) that make payments on historical acres and yields and therefore are not dependent on current production. In the 2014 farm bill, for 2014-2018 crop years, loan rates remain the same as prior law except for upland cotton (see Table 1 for loan rates). The loan rate for upland cotton is changed from $0.52 per lb. to the simple average of the adjusted prevailing world price for the two immediately preceding marketing years, but not less than $0.45 per pound or more than $0.52 per pound. Given recent relatively high price levels, the MAL program has paid only limited benefits in recent years for most crops. As a result, some farmers have criticized loan rates as being too low relative to prevailing market prices. MAL program benefits, combined with payments under PLC and ARC, are subject to a payment limit of $125,000 per person for all covered commodities (except peanuts, which has a separate limit of $125,000). Benefits derived from loan forfeitures are exempt from the limit. The 2008 farm bill did not have a payment limit for MAL. Cotton Not Eligible for Either PLC or ARC Beginning with the 2014 farm bill, cotton is no longer a covered commodity and not eligible for PLC/ARC payments. Instead it is eligible for a new crop insurance policy called Stacked Income Protection or STAX. Cotton remains eligible for MAL but the loan rate was altered slightly as specified above. The policy revision was sought by U.S. cotton producers in an attempt to resolve a long-running trade dispute with Brazil that requires changing the U.S. cotton support program so it does not distort international markets. As part of the transition, farm payments are made for upland cotton for the 2014 crop year, and for 2015 if STAX is not available. Payment acres in 2014 equal 60% of 2013 cotton base acres and 36.5% of 2013 cotton base acres in 2015. Separately, the 2014 farm bill specifies that upon resolution of the trade dispute, funds paid by the U.S. government to Brazil (as part of an agreement made in 2010) may be used for research conducted collaboratively between Brazil and USDA research agencies or with a college, university, or research foundation located in the United States. Among several provisions, the agreement required annual payments of $147.3 million from the United States (via the Commodity Credit Corporation, CCC) to Brazil in order to provide technical assistance and capacity-building for Brazil’s cotton sector, but it explicitly excluded funding research. Planting Fruits and Vegetables on Base Acres Any crop may be planted without effect on base acres. However, payment acres on a farm are reduced in any crop year in which fruits, vegetables (other than mung beans and pulse crops), or wild rice have been planted on more than 15% of base acres (or 35% in the case of the individual coverage option for ARC). The reduction to payment acres is one-for-one for every

Mar 28, 2014

Worker Participation in Employer-Sponsored Pensions: A Fact Sheet

The main part of this report is a fact sheet that provides data on the percentage of American workers who have access to and who participate in employer-sponsored pension plans. The data was collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) through the National Compensation Survey (NCS).

Mar 26, 2014

U.S. Crude Oil Export Policy: Background and Considerations

This report provides background and context about the crude oil legal and regulatory framework, discusses motivations that underlie the desire to export U.S. crude oil, and presents analysis of issues that Congress may choose to consider during debate about U.S. crude oil export policy.

Mar 26, 2014

Bonus Depreciation: Economic and Budgetary Issues

This report discusses bonus depreciation as either a temporary stimulus provision or a permanent part of the tax code.

Mar 24, 2014

The Budget Control Act of 2011: Legislative Changes to the Law and Their Budgetary Effects

This report provides information on the levels of deficit reduction that would occur if the Budget Control Act's (BCA) automatic cuts are implemented as under current law, contrasted with alternative proposals offered by some Members of Congress and President Obama. It also discusses specific determinations made by the Office of Management and Budget regarding the exempt/non-exempt status of certain programs, as well as a discussion of information to be disclosed regarding the FY2013 BCA sequester impact.

Mar 6, 2014

Costs of Government Interventions in Response to the Financial Crisis: A Retrospective

In August 2007, asset-backed securities (ABS), particularly those backed by subprime mortgages, suddenly became illiquid and fell sharply in value as an unprecedented housing boom turned into a housing bust. Losses on the many ABS held by financial firms depleted their capital. Uncertainty about future losses on illiquid and complex assets led to firms having reduced access to private liquidity, sometimes catastrophically. In September 2008, the financial crisis reached panic proportions, with some large financial firms failing or having the government step in to prevent their failure. Initially, the government approach was largely ad hoc, addressing the problems at individual institutions on a case-by-case basis. The panic in September 2008 convinced policy makers that a system-wide approach was needed, and Congress created the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) in October 2008. In addition to TARP, the Treasury, Federal Reserve (Fed) and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) implemented broad lending and guarantee programs. Because the crisis had many causes and symptoms, the response tackled a number of disparate problems and can be broadly categorized into programs that (1) increased financial institutions’ liquidity; (2) provided capital directly to financial institutions for them to recover from asset write-offs; (3) purchased illiquid assets from financial institutions to restore confidence in their balance sheets and thereby their continued solvency; (4) intervened in specific financial markets that had ceased to function smoothly; and (5) used public funds to prevent the failure of troubled institutions that were deemed systemically important, popularly referred to as “too big to fail.” The primary goal of the various interventions was to end the financial panic and restore normalcy to financial markets, rather than to make a profit for taxpayers. In this sense, the programs were arguably a success. Nevertheless, an important part of evaluating the government’s performance is whether financial normalcy was restored at a minimum cost to taxpayers. By this measure, the financial performance of these interventions far exceeded initial expectations that direct losses to taxpayers would run into the hundreds of billions of dollars. Initial government outlays are a poor indicator of taxpayer exposure, because outlays were used to acquire or guarantee income-earning debt or equity instruments that could eventually be repaid or sold, potentially at a profit. For broadly available facilities accessed by financially sound institutions, the risk of default became relatively minor once financial markets resumed normal functioning. Most of the programs that were introduced have been wound down or have shrunk to a fraction of their previous size. This report presents how much the programs ultimately cost (or benefited) the taxpayers based on straightforward cash accounting as reported by the various agencies. Of the 23 programs reviewed in this report, principal repayment and income exceed initial outlays in 17, principal repayment and income fell short of initial outlays in three, and it is too soon to tell for the remaining three. Of the three programs that lost money, two assisted automakers, not financial firms. Altogether to date, realized gains across the various programs exceed realized losses by tens of billions of dollars. Most of the remaining principal outstanding is to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, where net income will exceed principal outstanding once recently announced quarterly payments are transferred. More sophisticated estimates that would take into account the complete economic costs of assistance, such as the time value of the funds involved, are not consistently available. In this sense, cash flow measures overestimate gains to the taxpayers.

Feb 27, 2014

Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA): Background and Funding

The focus of this report is on the federal response to domestic violence under the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA). "Domestic violence" is used in the report to describe violence among intimate partners, including those involved in dating relationships.

Feb 25, 2014

Independence of Federal Financial Regulators

This report discusses institutional features that make federal financial regulators (as well as other independent agencies) relatively independent from the President and Congress.

Feb 24, 2014

The Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Strategy: In Brief

This report briefly analyzes the Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Strategy (HSRS), which is the key strategic document released by the Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Task Force established by executive order. It also discusses overarching issues for Congress that may arise in oversight of the Hurricane Sandy recovery process and how lessons learned from Hurricane Sandy can be applied to future disasters.

Feb 10, 2014

Community Development Block Grants: Recent Funding History

The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), under the Community Development Fund (CDF) account, was first authorized by Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act (HCDA) of 1974, P.L. 93-383. During the program’s nearly 40-year existence, Congress has allocated approximately $138 billion to help state and local governments undertake housing, economic development, neighborhood revitalization, and other community development activities. In addition to its annual appropriations, Congress, as events have warranted, has used the program’s framework to provide supplemental and special appropriations to assist states and communities in responding to various economic crises and manmade and natural disasters. This report is a review of the CDF account’s funding history from FY2000 to FY2013, as well as current funding in FY2014. It includes a discussion of the three primary components of the CDF account: (1) CDBG formula grants; (2) CDBG-related set-asides and earmarks; and (3) CDBG-linked supplemental and special appropriations. It is intended to provide recent historical background as the 113th Congress considers CDF funding levels and composition. For information on CDF appropriation legislation considered during the 113th Congress, the reader should consult CRS Report Community Development Block Grant Funding Issues in the 113th Congress. From FY2000 to FY2014, total appropriations for the CDF account—excluding special and supplemental appropriations for disasters, mortgage foreclosures, and economic recovery—fluctuated between a high of $5.112 billion in FY2001 and a low of $3.008 billion in FY2012. During this period the average grant amount allocated to CDBG entitlement communities (typically metropolitan-based cities and counties) declined by 43.7% from a high of $3 million in FY2002 to a low of $1.7 million in FY2012. The decline in the average grant amount is both a function of fewer dollars appropriated and an increase in the number of entitlement communities as more cities and counties achieve the population threshold necessary to be designated an entitlement community. From FY2000 to FY2013, the number of jurisdictions receiving a direct allocation as CDBG entitlement communities increased by 171 (16.9%), from 1,012 to 1,183, while the average allocation for entitlement communities declined by 37.9%. Short of appropriating additional funds, Congress may consider a number of options intended to address the decline in average CDBG formula allocations. These may include (1) increasing the population threshold for eligibility as a CDBG entitlement community, or (2) encouraging communities receiving less than a designated minimum allocation to enter into cooperative agreements with the urban county in which they are located. From FY2000 to FY2014, both the number of and appropriations for set-aside programs included in the CDF account have fluctuated significantly. In FY2001 Congress appropriated $713 million for CDF set-asides, with earmarks under the Economic Development Initiative (EDI) and Neighborhood Initiative (NI) programs accounting for 56% of this total. By FY2013 CDBG-linked set-asides reached a low for the period of $57 million as other national priorities have supplanted the programs funded under the account, or those activities have been transferred to other accounts or agencies.

Feb 6, 2014

Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) Negotiations

This report provides: (1) context for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) negotiations; (2) analysis of possible trade and investment issues in the negotiations; and (3) discussion of issues for Congress. The U.S.-EU negotiations on TTIP are not public, however, the information and analysis in this report on issues in the negotiations are based on publicly-available information.

Feb 4, 2014

Iran: U.S. Economic Sanctions and the Authority to Lift Restrictions

This report identifies the legislative bases for sanctions imposed on Iran, and the nature of the authority to waive or lift those restrictions. It comprises two tables that present legislation and executive orders that are specific to Iran and its objectionable activities in the areas of terrorism, human rights, and weapons proliferation.

Feb 4, 2014

Gulf Coast Restoration: RESTORE Act and Related Efforts

This report provides information on environmental damage and restoration activities related to the Deepwater Horizon spill. An overview of how the RESTORE Act is being implemented and a discussion of multiple funding sources and plans to recover and restore the Gulf Coast environment are discussed. Further, potential issues for Congress related to this restoration initiative are presented.

Jan 27, 2014

Dynamic Scoring for Tax Legislation: A Review of Models

This report first explains dynamic scoring, including the types of effects incorporated and the types of models used, as well as what groups conduct or have conducted macroeconomic analysis of tax changes. The following section discusses the specific issues associated with tax reform. The final section discusses general issues surrounding the use of various models and reviews the empirical evidence on supply side responses.

Jan 24, 2014

Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI): Becoming Insured, Calculating Benefit Payments, and the Effect of Dropout Year Provisions

Eligibility for Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits are based on a worker’s insured status, and payment levels are associated with the individual’s career earnings under covered employment. Monthly payments are calculated using a formula that takes into account the period of employment, a worker’s average earnings over that period, and the application of “dropout years.” To be insured for SSDI benefits, a claimant must have worked a minimum amount of time in covered employment. First, a worker must be “fully insured,” which requires one quarter of coverage for each calendar year after the age of 21, with a minimum of six quarters and a maximum of 40 quarters. In 2014, each quarter of coverage requires $1,200 in earnings. Second, a recency of work test requires 20 quarters of coverage in the 40 quarters preceding the onset of a disability; that is generally five years of work in the last 10, although fewer quarters are required for younger workers. In calculating the SSDI benefit level, up to five years of a worker’s lowest years of earnings are eliminated or “dropped” to minimize the effect of lower years of earnings on monthly payments. An eligible worker who becomes disabled has one year of earnings dropped (via the disability dropout year provision) for every five years of earnings, known as the one-for-five rule. A separate childcare dropout year (CDY) provision also disregards from benefit calculations up to two years in which a beneficiary received no income during periods when he or she was caring for a young child. The number of CDYs applied to a benefit calculation may be offset by the number of disability dropout years applied and vice versa. The CDY provision largely benefits a small subset of SSDI recipients with lower career earnings. This report provides (1) an overview of the SSDI program and how workers become insured for SSDI benefits, (2) an explanation of how benefit payments are calculated, and (3) a description of how the dropout year provisions affect the calculation of disability benefit payments. The report concludes with a brief analysis of the earnings of disabled workers that have been credited with CDYs.

Jan 24, 2014

Block Grants: Perspectives and Controversies

This report provides an overview of the six grant types with criteria for defining a block grant and a list of current block grants. It also examines competing perspectives concerning the use of block grants versus other grant mechanisms to achieve national goals, provides an historical overview of the role of block grants in American federalism, and discusses recent changes to existing block grants and proposals to create new ones.

Jan 16, 2014

Medicaid: An Overview

Jan 10, 2014

The Indian Health Care Improvement Act Reauthorization and Extension as Enacted by the ACA: Detailed Summary and Timeline

On March 23, 2010, President Obama signed into law a comprehensive health care reform bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA; P.L. 111-148). Among its provisions, the ACA reenacts, amends, and permanently reauthorizes the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (IHCIA). IHCIA authorizes many specific Indian Health Service (IHS) activities, sets out the national policy for health services administered to Indians, and sets health condition goals for the IHS service population to reduce “the prevalence and incidence of preventable illnesses among, and unnecessary and premature deaths of, Indians.” The reauthorization of IHCIA in the ACA amends the IHCIA to, among other changes, expand programs that seek to augment the IHS health care workforce, increase the amount and type of services available at facilities funded by the IHS, and increase the number and type of programs that provide behavioral health and substance abuse treatment to American Indians and Alaska Natives. This report provides a brief overview of IHCIA and summarizes the provisions of the Indian Health Care Improvement Reauthorization and Extension Act of 2009 as enacted and amended by Section 10221 of the ACA. Appendix A presents a timeline of the deadlines included in the act. Another report, CRS Report R41152, Indian Health Care: Impact of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), by Elayne J. Heisler, more briefly summarizes the major changes made by the ACA to IHCIA and includes a discussion of other provisions in the ACA that may affect IHS and American Indian and Alaska Native health and their access to health care. This report is primarily for reference purposes. The material in it is intended to provide context to help the reader better understand the intent of ACA’s individual provisions at the time of enactment. The report does not track or discuss ongoing ACA-related regulatory and other implementation activities.

Jan 3, 2014

U.S. Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits and Pension Funding Issues

Jan 2, 2014

The Higher Education Act (HEA): A Primer

This report discusses the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA; P.L. 89-329) that authorizes numerous federal aid programs that provide support to both individuals pursuing a postsecondary education and institutions of higher education (IHEs).

Jan 2, 2014

Shadow Banking: Background and Policy Issues

Shadow banking refers to financial firms and activities that perform similar functions to those of depository banks. Although the term is used to describe dissimilar firms and activities, a general policy concern is that a component of shadow banking could be a source of financial instability, even though that component might not be subject to regulations designed to prevent a crisis, or be eligible for emergency facilities designed to mitigate financial turmoil once it has begun. This concern is magnified by the experience of 2007-2009, during which financial problems among nonbank lenders, and disruption to securitization (in which both banks and nonbanks participated), contributed to the magnitude of the financial crisis. This report provides a framework for understanding shadow banking, discusses several fundamental problems of financial intermediation, and describes the experiences of several specific sectors of shadow banking during the financial crisis and related policy concerns. Shadow banking is contrasted with luminated banking, a term which the report uses to describe chartered banks that gather funds from depositors in order to offer loans that the chartered bank holds itself. Luminated banking, like all forms of financial intermediation, is subject to well-known risks, including credit risk, interest rate risk, maturity mismatch, and the potential for runs. Each sector of shadow banking is generally subject to the same problem of financial intermediation to which the sector is analogous. For example, if a sector of shadow banking such as money market funds (MMF) has investors that are analogous to depositors in luminated banking, then the potential for runs may be similar. Or, if the sector relies on collateralized loans, such as asset-backed commercial paper (ABCP), then disruptions in the market for the underlying collateral can cause fire sales that may reinforce and magnify price declines. The regulatory regime and eligibility for emergency financial assistance for shadow banking varies from sector to sector and type of firm to type of firm. For example, the Dodd-Frank Act subjects certain large nonbank firms funded by repurchase agreements (repos) to safety and soundness regulation similar to banks. The Dodd-Frank Act prohibits emergency assistance to individual firms as was done in 2008 for Bear Stearns or AIG, but preserves the ability of the Federal Reserve to provide more generally eligible assistance to shadow banking sectors such as ABCP through the Term Asset Backed Liquidity Facility (TALF). Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act allows the FDIC to resolve the failure of any firm, including shadow banking firms, whose failure may pose a threat to financial stability. Several components of shadow banking rely on securities markets to fund debt. These securities regulations are typically activity based, applying to all securities market participants if there is no explicit exemption. Securities regulation requires disclosure of material risks, but often does not attempt to limit the risks of firms funded through securities markets. In contrast, banking regulation sometimes applies only to firms with specific charters. Furthermore, banking regulators oversee linkages between banks, such as the payment system. Thus, debt funded through securities markets is likely to be subject to regulation no matter who does it, but that regulation is unlikely to be risk-based or to incorporate linkages between firms. Banking regulation is likely to be risk based, but to miss debt funded through securities markets. Some policy options for shadow banking firms and markets are often analogous to policy options for depository banking or securities markets. Firms that engage in shadow banking could be subjected to safety and soundness regulation and capital requirements in order to limit risk and encourage resilience. Providers of short-term credit to shadow banks could be offered guarantees analogous to deposit insurance in order to minimize runs. Non-bank firms that rely on short-term credit to fund lending (or the holding of debt) can be made eligible for emergency lending facilities from a lender of last resort in order to address liquidity problems. There are alternatives to the banking approach. Banks and other firms that fund themselves with substitute for deposits could be assessed higher fees to account for potential systemic costs that current market prices might not incorporate. More financial regulation could be made activity based, rather than charter based, in order to lessen regulatory arbitrage. Differences in banking regulation and securities regulation for the funding of debt could be preserved, but each separate category of regulation could be addressed where it applies. The report analyzes five sectors of shadow banking. These sectors include (1) repos, (2) non-bank intermediaries, (3) ABCP, (4) securitization, and (5) MMFs. For each of these sectors, the report briefly defines the sector, recounts the sector’s experience during the financial crisis, and outlines some related policy concerns. Each policy problem is described in the context of the general problems of financial intermediation introduced earlier in the report.

Dec 31, 2013

Brief History of NIH Funding: Fact Sheet

This report provides a brief history of National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding and figures on NIH appropriations for FY1994-FY2014.

Dec 23, 2013

The Medical Device Excise Tax: Economic Analysis

This report reviews the issues surrounding the medical devices tax within the framework of basic principles surrounding the choice of commodities to tax under excise taxes. The next section describes the tax and its legislative origins. After that, the report analyzes the arguments for retaining and repealing the tax.

Dec 23, 2013

Bitcoin: Questions, Answers, and Analysis of Legal Issues

This report has three major sections. The first section answers some basic questions about Bitcoin and the operation of the Bitcoin network and its interaction with the current dollar-based monetary system. The second section summarizes likely reasons for and against widespread Bitcoin adoption. The third section discusses legal and regulatory matters that have been raised by Bitcoin and other digital currencies.

Dec 20, 2013

Interim Agreement on Iran's Nuclear Program

This report discusses the recent development regarding the negotiations with Iran about its nuclear program. The report provides background information on Iranian nuclear program and debates the November 24 Joint Plan of Action Elements.

Dec 11, 2013

Medicaid Coverage of Long-Term Services and Supports

This report provides a description of the various statutory authorities that either require or otherwise allow states to cover LTSS under Medicaid. The Appendix provides a brief legislative history of Medicaid LTSS from Medicaid’s enactment and initial coverage requirements for institutional care through the evolution of HCBS options available to states.

Dec 5, 2013

The Renewable Fuel Standard: In Brief

This report provides a basic description of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), including some of the widely discussed issues.

Nov 27, 2013

Infrastructure Banks and Debt Finance to Support Surface Transportation Investment

Investment in surface transportation infrastructure is funded mainly with current receipts from taxes, tolls, and fares, but it is financed by public-sector borrowing and, in some cases, private borrowing and private equity investment. This report discusses current federal programs that support the use of debt finance and private investment to build and rebuild highways and public transportation. It also considers legislative options intended to encourage greater infrastructure financing in the future. The federal government’s largest source of support for surface transportation infrastructure is the highway trust fund (HTF), which is funded principally by taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel. Funds from the HTF are distributed to state governments and local transit agencies for projects meeting federal standards. State governments, local governments, and transit agencies must also contribute their own resources because grants from the HTF do not meet states’ entire surface transportation capital needs. The federal government supports additional infrastructure spending by providing a tax exclusion for owners of municipal bonds, or “munis,” issued by state and local governments. The federal government also supports project finance through loan programs, such as the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) program, which can help leverage private investment via public-private partnerships (P3s), and through federally authorized state infrastructure banks (SIBs). All of these financing mechanisms impact the federal budget, although none are as costly as federal grant funding. With less federal support, financing places a greater burden on state and local governments to identify revenue sources to repay loans or to provide a return to private investors. In many cases, nonfederal revenue to finance a project is provided by a highway or bridge toll, but it could be a pledge of future sales tax or real estate tax revenue. There are many legislative options that Congress might consider in modifying the federal role in surface transportation financing. This report considers five: Creation of a new type of tax credit bond, such as the American Fast Forward Bonds. More funding for the TIFIA program, which already has received enough applications to almost exhaust the budget authority made available for FY2013 and FY2014. Greater encouragement for P3s, including creation of a federal office that could provide technical advice and consulting services and help develop the P3 market. Creation of a national infrastructure bank (I-bank), an independent federal agency with financing and project expertise that would provide low-cost long-term loans on flexible terms. Enhancement of SIBs that already exist in many states, possibly with dedicated federal funding.

Nov 18, 2013

Health Benefits for Members of Congress and Certain Congressional Staff

This report summarizes the provisions of the final rule and describes how it affects current and retired Members and congressional staff. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has indicated that Members and congressional staff will be eligible for other health benefits related to federal employment, including: FSAFEDS, the Federal Employees Dental and Vision Insurance Program (FEDVIP), the Federal Long Term Care Insurance Program (FLTCIP), the Office of the Attending Physician, and treatment in military facilities. This report also discusses Members' and staff's eligibility for Medicare, which does not appear to be affected by the final rule.

Nov 4, 2013

FY2014 Appropriations Lapse and the Department of Homeland Security: Impact and Legislation

This report examines the DHS contingency plan and the potential impacts of a lapse in annual appropriations on DHS operations, focusing primarily on the emergency furlough of personnel, and then discusses seven legislative vehicles that have mitigated or have the potential to mitigate those same impacts.

Oct 11, 2013

Current Debates over Exchange Rates: Overview and Issues for Congress

This report provides information on current debates over exchange rates in the global economy. It offers an overview of how exchange rates work; analyzes specific disagreements and debates; and examines existing frameworks for potentially addressing currency disputes. It also lays out some policy options available to Congress, should Members want to take action on exchange rate issues.

Sep 26, 2013

The Army's Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV): Background and Issues for Congress

This report provides background information on the Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV) and it discusses the Army's proposed replacement to the Vietnam-era M-113 personnel carriers, which are still in service in a variety of support capacities in Armored Brigade Combat Teams (ABCTs).

Sep 24, 2013

Federal Climate Change Funding from FY2008 to FY2014

Direct federal funding to address global climate change totaled approximately $77 billion from FY2008 through FY2013. The large majority—more than 75%—has funded technology development and deployment, primarily through the Department of Energy (DOE). More than one-third of the identified funding was included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5). The President’s request for FY2014 contains $11.6 billion for federal expenditures on programs. In the request, 23% would be for science, 68% for energy technology development and deployment, 8% for international assistance, and 1% for adapting to climate change. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) also reports that energy tax provisions that may reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions would reduce tax revenues by $9.8 billion. At least 18 federal agencies administer climate change-related activities, according to OMB. Federal policy on climate change has been built largely from the “bottom up” from a variety of existing programs and mandates, presidential initiatives, and congressionally directed activities; funding has largely reflected departmental missions and support for each activity. Recently, the Obama Administration, in the context of its Climate Action Plan announced in June 2013, outlined an overall strategy with programs, resources, and tax incentives in a cross-agency, inter-governmental initiative. The new Climate Action Plan and a recent OMB report required by Congress on federal funding for climate change activities outline four main components of the strategy: Climate and Global Change Research and Education Reducing Emissions through Clean Energy Investments and Standards International Leadership Climate Change Adaptation Possible Funding-Related Issues for Congress Some Members of Congress have expressed interest in how federal funding may reflect and enable the Obama Administration’s overall strategy, and priorities within it, to address climate change. Legislative issues regarding the federal funding of climate change activities may include the following: the sufficiency and alignment of federal resources to support a strategy to achieve long-term climate change policy goals; the demands of climate change adaptation programming for federal agencies, their programs, and resources; whether additional and predictable foreign aid resources may be provided to support actions by low-income countries to mitigate greenhouse gases or adapt to climate change; possible legislative proposals to restructure or improve collaboration among agencies regarding climate change activities; the incorporation of recommendations from evaluations (whether internal or external) to improve climate change programs; and possible requirements for reporting to Congress of funding, budget justifications, and programmatic progress that are adequate to support congressional decision-making and oversight. Scope and Purpose of This Report This report summarizes direct federal funding identified as climate change-related from FY2008 enacted funding through FY2013 and the FY2014 request (as well as a less consistent series beginning with FY2001). It reports the Administration’s estimates of tax revenues not received due to energy tax provisions that may reduce GHG emissions. The report briefly identifies the programs and funding levels, as well as some qualifications and observations on reporting of federal funding. It further offers some issues that Members may wish to consider in deliberating on U.S. climate change strategies.

Sep 13, 2013

Harbor Maintenance Finance and Funding

This report discusses the harbor maintenance trust fund (HMTF), which receives revenue from taxes on waterborne cargo and on cruise ship passengers. The future of the HMTF is a major issue in consideration of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA), which is now pending in Congress.

Sep 11, 2013

Remittances: Background and Issues for Congress

This report focuses on remittances, transfers of money and capital sent by migrants and foreign immigrant communities to their home country. At over $400 billion globally in 2012, up from $75 billion in 1990, remittances are the second largest resource flow to developing countries and are expected to exceed $500 billion by 2015. The United States is the largest destination for international migrants and by far the largest source of global remittances. The World Bank records $51.6 billion in official remittance outflows from the United States in 2011. As the market for remittances has ballooned, banks, traditional money transfer companies, and entrepreneurs have responded to increased demand by increasing the amount of remittance channels available to migrants, including mobile, Internet, and card-based options. The dramatic rise in the importance of remittances to global capital flows has led Congress and other policymakers to take a greater interest in these flows. Key issues for Congress include: Regulation of Remittances. Members may want to review the regulatory landscape for remittance providers. Effective and proportional regulation of remittances reduces corruption, enhances transparency, and facilitates a more robust business environment. At the same time, additional regulatory requirements, such as recent consumer protection requirements included in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Consumer Protection Act, may raise concerns about the compliance costs for remittance providers and consumers. Congress may also want to consider whether current federal and state regulation are appropriate for new and emerging payments systems such as mobile and card options, which are starting to capture part of the remittance market. Members may also want to review recent efforts to improve foreign regulatory and supervisory mechanisms. Remittances are often sent to recipients in developing countries with weak regulatory systems, increasing the risk of money laundering and possible financing of terrorism. Impact on U.S. Development Policy. Remittances represent a substantial percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) in several developing countries. Whether remittances can be leveraged to support U.S. foreign development policy is another issue of concern to some Members of Congress. Some analysts argue that since remittances are comprised of private transfers between family members and friends, U.S. efforts should be directed to reducing the transaction costs involved in remittance transactions. Others note the potential beneficial development aspects of remittances, including promoting investment and access to financial services, and encouraging government programs to help stimulate these positive effects. Remittances and U.S. Immigration Policy. Members may want to consider the interplay of U.S. remittance policy and U.S. immigration policy. A major goal of U.S. policy on remittances is increasing the attractiveness of regulated remittance systems to potential remittance customers, without regard to their legal status. Thus, U.S. Treasury officials allow remittance providers to accept certain foreign-issued means of identification to meet their customer identification requirements. Some Members argue that policies like these may undermine U.S. immigration laws and advocate restricting remittances to those with legal status under U.S. immigration laws. Others argue that more restrictive identification measures would only push remittance flows toward high-risk, unregulated and underground channels.

Sep 9, 2013

Community Development Block Grants: Funding Issues in the 113th Congress

Sep 4, 2013

The Affordable Care Act and Small Business: Economic Issues

This report explains how employer-sponsored insurance can be used to address concerns about health insurance coverage and cost. Then, it summarizes the three ACA provisions most relevant to small businesses. Also, it analyzes these provisions for their potential effects on small businesses. Last, this report presents several approaches that could address some concerns associated with these provisions (particularly the employer penalty).

Aug 15, 2013

The President's Budget: Overview of Structure and Timing of Submission to Congress

Report that contains a brief overview of the origins, deadlines, and typical content of the President's budget.

Jul 25, 2013

Legislative Branch: FY2014 Appropriations

Jul 16, 2013

U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy

Report that provides background information and discussion related to immigration issues.

Jul 11, 2013

Federal Disaster Assistance after Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Wilma, Gustav, and Ike

This report provides information on federal financial assistance provided to the Gulf States after major disasters were declared in Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas in response to the widespread destruction that resulted from Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma in 2005 and Hurricanes Gustav and Ike in 2008. Congressional interest in Gulf Coast assistance has increased in recent years because of the significant amount of assistance provided to the region. Congress has also been interested in how the money has been spent, what resources have been provided to the region, and whether the money has reached the people and entities intended to receive the funds. The financial information is also useful for congressional oversight of the funds to identify the entities that have received the funds and to evaluate the overall effectiveness of the assistance. In addition, the information can help frame the congressional debate concerning federal assistance for current and future disasters. The financial information for the 2005 and 2008 Gulf Coast storms is provided in two sections of this report: Table 1 of Section I summarizes disaster assistance supplemental appropriations enacted into public law primarily for the needs associated with the five hurricanes, with the information categorized by federal department and agency; and Section II contains information on the federal assistance provided to the five Gulf Coast states through the most significant federal programs, or categories of programs. The financial findings in this report include: Congress has appropriated roughly $120.5 billion in hurricane relief for the 2005 and 2008 hurricanes in 10 supplemental appropriations statutes. The appropriated funds have been distributed among 11 departments, 3 independent agencies/entities, numerous sub-entities, and the federal judiciary. Congress appropriated almost half of the funds ($53 billion, or 44% of the total) to the Department of Homeland Security, most of which went to the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Congress targeted roughly 22% of the total appropriations (almost $27 billion) to the Department of Housing and Urban Development for community development and housing programs. Almost $25 billion was appropriated to Department of Defense entities: $15.6 billion for civil construction and engineering activities undertaken by the Army Corps of Engineers and $9.2 billion for military personnel, operations, and construction costs. FEMA has reported that roughly $5.9 billion has been obligated from the DRF after Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma to save lives and property through mission assignments made to over 50 federal entities and the American Red Cross (see Table 19), $160.4 million after Hurricane Gustav through 32 federal entities (see Table 20), and $441 million after Hurricane Ike through 30 federal entities (see Table 21). In total, federal agencies obligated roughly $6.5 billion for mission assignments after the five hurricanes. The Small Business Administration approved almost 177,000 applications in the region for business, home, and economic injury loans, with a total loan value of almost $12 billion (Table 31 and Table 32). The Department of Education obligated roughly $1.8 billion to the five states for elementary, secondary, and higher education assistance (Table 12). This report also includes a brief summary of each hurricane and a discussion concerning federal to state cost-shares. Federal assistance to states is triggered when the President issues a major disaster declaration. In general, once declared the federal share for disaster recovery is 75% while the state pays for 25% of recovery costs. However, in some cases the federal share can be adjusted upward when a sufficient amount of damage has occurred, or when altered by Congress (or both). In addition, how much federal assistance is provided to states for major disasters is influenced not only by the declaration, but also by the percentage the federal government pays for the assistance. This report includes a cost-share discussion because some of these incidents received adjusted cost-shares in certain areas. Since 2005 Congress has been interested in not only the amount of funding that has been directed to the Gulf Coast after the 2005 and 2008 hurricanes, but also in the wide range of activities and programs brought to bear to help the Gulf Coast states recover and prepare for future storms. This report summarizes the funds Congress directed to the area as well as the federal activities and programs that were put to use in response to the 2005 and 2008 hurricanes.

Jul 5, 2013

Medicaid Disproportionate Share Hospital Payments

Jun 20, 2013