CRS Reports

Systemically Important or "Too Big to Fail" Financial Institutions

Report that discusses the economic issues raised by "too big to fail" (TBTF), the historical experience with TBTF before and during the financial crisis of the 2000s, broad policy options, and policy changes made by the relevant Dodd-Frank provisions.

Jun 19, 2013

Transfer and Reprogramming of Appropriations: An Overview of Authorities, Limitations, and Procedures

Enacted appropriations and other budgetary legislation may vary in the level of detail they provide regarding how agencies should spend the funds that have been provided. Even when the purpose of appropriations is specified in great detail, agencies may be provided with some flexibility to make budgetary adjustments throughout the fiscal year. These adjustments may be necessary due to changing or unforeseen circumstances. In some instances, agencies are provided with transfer authority (i.e., authority to shift funds from one appropriations or fund account to another). In addition, agencies are generally permitted to shift funds from one purpose to another within an appropriations account. This practice, usually referred to as “reprogramming,” is subject to statutorily imposed limitations. An agency may only transfer budgetary resources if Congress has provided the agency with the statutory authority to do so. Transfer authority may be provided either in authorizing statutes or in appropriations acts. Transfer authority may be broad or narrow in scope, and may apply to all agencies, to select agencies, or only to a single agency. Transfer authority may be limited to a specific dollar amount. Alternatively, transfer authority may be provided for an indefinite amount, but with specific restrictions on the circumstances under which the authority may be used. Reprogramming is generally permitted unless otherwise restricted or prohibited by statute. An agency’s ability to reprogram may be restricted by including “limiting provisions” within its annual appropriations acts or other statutes. In addition, an agency may not reprogram funds if doing so would violate any other provisions of law. In general, transferred and reprogrammed funds are subject to any limitations or conditions that were imposed by their original appropriations act. Statutes that provide transfer and reprogramming authority will commonly impose additional limitations or conditions, such as “not-to-exceed” limits, which place a cap on the amount of funds that may be transferred or reprogrammed, and “purpose” restrictions, which prohibit transferred or reprogrammed funds from being used for certain activities. Agencies may be required by statute to notify Congress prior to (or shortly after) transferring or reprogramming funds. Such requirements usually involve notification to the relevant House and Senate Appropriations Committees a certain number of days (often 15, 30, or 45 calendar days) prior to transferring or reprogramming funds. Typically, all account-to-account transfers will require prior notification to Congress. Reprogramming actions generally require prior notification only when they exceed a certain dollar amount or “threshold.” When done so in accordance with the applicable authorities and procedures, transferring or reprogramming funds may enable agencies to operate more effectively or efficiently, and in a manner that is consistent with congressional intent. When transfers or reprogramming actions deviate from the applicable authorities, procedures, and limitations, however, it is possible that funds may be used in ways contrary to congressional intent. This report provides an overview of transfers and reprogramming, and describes the statutory limitations and requirements for congressional notification that are applicable to each. This report concludes by discussing some of the challenges that transfers and reprogramming may pose for congressional oversight of budget execution.

Jun 6, 2013

U.S. International Investment Agreements: Issues for Congress

Foreign direct investment (FDI) is an increasingly important driver of the global economy. In the absence of an overarching multilateral framework on investment, bilateral investment treaties (BITs) and investment chapters in free trade agreements (FTAs), collectively referred to as “international investment agreements,” have emerged as the primary mechanism for promoting a rules-based system for international investment. These agreements contain provisions on nondiscriminatory treatment of investments by the host country, limits on expropriation of investments, and access to impartial binding procedures to settle investment-related disputes with host governments, among other things. FTA investment chapters generally contain provisions identical or similar to those in U.S. BITs. As FDI flows have expanded, the number of international investment agreements also has increased, both between developed and developing countries and between developing countries. Presently, there are over 3,000 BITs globally. The United States has concluded 47 BITs, 41 of which have entered into force. Of the 14 FTAs agreed by the United States, 12 contain investment provisions. Investment dynamics also have given rise to more investment disputes. In 2011, the number of investment disputes filed in international arbitration forums was 47, its highest level ever for a single year. Congress plays an active role in developing and implementing U.S. policy on FDI through its oversight and legislative responsibilities. Congress can set investment negotiating objectives for U.S. trade agreements in trade promotion authority (TPA). Unlike FTAs, which require a full vote of Congress on implementing legislation, BITs, as international treaties, require only Senate ratification. The United States, which remains both a major source for and a major destination of FDI, uses international investment agreements to reduce restrictions on foreign investment, provide non-discriminatory treatment for foreign investment, and reduce other market-distorting measures to maximize the benefits of such investment, while balancing other U.S. policy interests. In April 2012, the Obama Administration announced the conclusion of its review of the U.S. Model BIT, the template which the United States uses to negotiate BITs and investment chapters in FTAs. The 2012 Model BIT maintains the “core” or substantive investor protections affirmed in the 2004 Model BIT. It also clarifies that BIT obligations apply to state-owned enterprises (SOEs); limits performance requirements; strengthens labor and environmental provisions; clarifies which financial services provisions may fall under a prudential exception (such as to address balance of payments problems); expands transparency obligations; and increases requirements for stakeholder input in the standards-setting process. The conclusion of the Model BIT review may generate momentum to conclude previously launched negotiations with countries such as China and India, or to launch investment negotiations with other U.S. trading partners. Investment policy issues feature prominently in other ongoing U.S. trade negotiations, including the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) FTA, as well as the anticipated Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) negotiation. In addition to considering negotiating priorities for these and proposed BITs with major emerging economies, Members may also want to consider the effectiveness of BITs in promoting and protecting investment.

Apr 29, 2013

U.S. Air Force Bomber Sustainment and Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress

This report addresses potential congressional oversight and appropriations concerns for the sustainment and modernization of the U.S. Air Force's bomber force.

Apr 23, 2013

The Reclamation Fund: A Primer

The Reclamation Fund was established in 1902 to fund the development of irrigation projects on arid and semiarid lands of the 17 western states. It originated as a revolving fund for construction projects and was supported by the proceeds of the sale of land and water in the western United States. Over time, it was amended to receive proceeds from a number of other sources. It is currently derived from repayments and revenues associated with federal water resources development as well as the sales, rentals, and leases (including natural resource leasing) of federal land in the western United States. Portions of the fund’s balance are appropriated annually by Congress for multiple purposes, including some of the operational expenditures of the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and the Power Marketing Administrations. Through FY2012, collections deposited into the Reclamation Fund totaled more than $40 billion, while total appropriations from the fund totaled more than $30 billion. The Reclamation Fund did not finance all Reclamation investments in the western United States. As a result of limited funding availability, a number of large dams and other Reclamation investments were financed by the General Fund of the U.S. Treasury. Notwithstanding advances to the Reclamation Fund by Congress in 1910 and 1931, deposits into and appropriations out of the fund have been roughly equal over time. From the 1940s until the 1990s, the fund maintained a small, relatively stable balance. Beginning in the mid-1990s, balances in the fund began to increase significantly as receipts from mineral leasing and power sales increased, while appropriations from the fund largely remained static. At the end of FY2012, the fund had a balance of more than $10.8 billion, and it is expected to continue to grow. Receipts deposited into the Reclamation Fund are made available to Reclamation by Congress through annual discretionary appropriations bills, which are subject to congressional budgetary allocations. Some have proposed that Congress appropriate some portion of the surplus balance in the Reclamation Fund to reclamation activities in western states, including new water storage projects or the rehabilitation of existing projects. These interests argue that the Reclamation Fund was set up to benefit western states and should now be used to increase investments in these areas. As the balance of the Reclamation Fund continues to increase, Congress may reevaluate the Reclamation Fund’s status, including its financing of new or ongoing activities. The Omnibus Lands Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-11) included provisions that will transfer $120 million per year from the fund from FY2020 through FY2034, without further appropriation, to a separate fund that provides for Indian Water Settlement construction projects. In the 113th Congress, a bill before the Senate (S. 715) proposes to redirect funding that would otherwise go to the Reclamation Fund for the construction of rural water projects. Major changes to the Reclamation Fund may have scoring implications in the annual budget and under congressional pay-as-you-go rules.

Apr 18, 2013

How Legislation Is Brought to the House Floor: A Snapshot of Parliamentary Practice in the 112th Congress (2011-2012)

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 (LIS), received action on the House floor in the 112th Congress (2011-2012) and the parliamentary procedures used to bring them up for initial House consideration. In the 112th Congress, 888 pieces of legislation received floor action in the House of Representatives. Of these, 602 were bills or joint resolutions and 286 were simple or concurrent resolutions, a breakdown between lawmaking and non-lawmaking legislative forms of approximately 68% to 32%. Of these 888 measures, 783 originated in the House and 105 originated in the Senate. During the same period, 53% of all measures receiving initial House floor action came before the chamber under the Suspension of the Rules procedure; 23% came to the floor as business “privileged” under House rules and precedents; 15% 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. Seven measures, representing approximately 1% of legislation receiving House floor action in the 112th Congress, were processed under the procedures associated with the call of the Private Calendar. When only lawmaking forms of legislation (bills and joint resolutions) are counted, 72% of such measures receiving initial House floor action in the 112th Congresses came before the chamber under the Suspension of the Rules procedure; 21% 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. Around 1% of lawmaking forms of legislation received House floor action via the call of the Private Calendar and an even smaller fraction of lawmaking measures were “privileged” under House rules. The party sponsorship of legislation receiving initial floor action in the 112th Congress varied based on the procedure used to raise the legislation on the chamber floor. Sixty-seven percent of the measures considered under the Suspension of the Rules procedure were sponsored by majority party Members. All but three of the 137 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.

Apr 15, 2013

Federal Traffic Safety Programs: An Overview

This report discusses trends in traffic safety and federal efforts to improve overall safety on the roads including the encouragement of safer driving behavior, vehicle improvements, roadway improvements, and commercial transportation safety.

Apr 1, 2013

The Child Tax Credit: Current Law and Legislative History

Mar 25, 2013

An Overview of the Housing Finance System in the United States

This report provides an overview of how the housing finance system works and provides context for housing finance-related policy issues that Congress might choose to consider.

Mar 13, 2013

Federal Financial Reporting: An Overview

This report discusses the federal financial reporting -- defined here as the process of recording retrospective executive department-level financial and performance information -- may provide both a snapshot of the government's financial health at a given moment in time, as well as an accounting of its financial performance over a given time frame.

Feb 27, 2013

Sequestration as a Budget Enforcement Process: Frequently Asked Questions

Feb 27, 2013

National Park System: What Do the Different Park Titles Signify?

This report addresses questions that legislators have asked about park unit titles, when considering proposals to establish new park units, to redesignate existing units, or to change the provisions governing a unit It also discusses potential advantages and disadvantages of systemwide recommendations to simplify park nomenclature.

Feb 20, 2013

Government Assistance for AIG: Summary and Cost

This report discusses the American International Group (AIG), which was the largest direct recipient of government financial assistance during the recent financial crisis.

Feb 7, 2013

Medicare, Medicaid, and Other Health Provisions in the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012

Several policies that would have reduced spending and increased revenues were poised to take effect at the end of 2012; collectively, these were referred to by some as the “fiscal cliff.” Had these policies taken effect, CBO projected that the ensuing fiscal contraction would have resulted in a recession in 2013. On January 2, 2013, the President signed H.R. 8, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (ATRA, P.L. 112-240), which prevented most—but not all—of the fiscal cliff policies from going into effect. This Act was passed by the Senate on January 1, 2013 by a vote of 89-8, and by the House later that day, 257-167. Title VI of the Act extends several expiring provisions in the Medicare and Medicaid programs and makes other changes in federally funded health programs. Provisions in Title VI of ATRA that will result in higher physician fee schedule payments include the override of the sustainable growth rate (SGR) update mechanism of the Medicare physician fee schedule that would have reduced payments had it taken effect, and the extensions of the physician work geographic adjustment. Other provisions preserved some Medicare hospital payments by extending adjustments for low-volume hospitals and the Medicare-dependent hospital program. Sections that addressed Medicare managed care include the extension of the Medicare Advantage special needs plans and reasonable cost contracts. Medicare beneficiaries will continue to have access to the exceptions process for outpatient therapy limits and outreach and assistance programs for low-income beneficiaries. Other health programs extended by the ATRA include the qualifying individual program, the transitional medical assistance program, the Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) express lane option, family-to-family health information centers, and special diabetes programs for Type I diabetes and for American Indians and Alaska Natives. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the health provisions in H.R. 8 will result in a net increase in direct spending of $800 million over the ten-year period from FY2013 through FY2022. The physician payment override (“doc fix”) and the various health-related extensions cumulatively add an estimated $29.3 billion to direct spending. CBO estimates that the other health provisions cumulatively result in offsets of all but $800 million as a result of the direct effects of the provisions and the interactions between provisions. While some sections of ATRA make changes to federal health programs that result in savings to the federal budget, other sections addressing federal health care programs have little or no impact on direct spending in the federal budget.

Jan 31, 2013

Regular Appropriations Bills: Terms of Initial Consideration and Amendment in the House, FY1996-FY2012

This report examines the terms under which the regular appropriations bills are typically brought up and initially considered on the House floor, as well as the practices of the House with regards to amendment opportunities and the waiver of points of order, for FY1996 to FY2012 (104th-112th Congresses).

Jan 23, 2013

P.L. 111-3: The Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009

Jan 10, 2013

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP): A Primer on Eligibility and Benefits

Jan 9, 2013

Domestic Food Assistance: Summary of Programs

Jan 3, 2013

Education-Related Regulatory Flexibilities, Waivers, and Federal Assistance in Response to Disasters and National Emergencies

The 21st century has seen the operation of elementary, secondary, and postsecondary educational institutions and the education of the students they enroll disrupted by natural disasters, such as hurricanes and floods, and by national emergencies, such as the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. This report is intended to inform Congress of existing statutory and regulatory provisions that may aid in responding to future disasters and national emergencies that may affect the provision of or access to education and highlight the actions of previous Congresses to provide additional recovery assistance. The majority of federal aid for disaster management is made available from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act; P.L. 93-288). Under the Stafford Act, public school districts, charter schools, private nonprofit educational institutions, public institutions of higher education (IHEs), and federally recognized Indian tribal governments are eligible to receive assistance for activities such as debris removal, infrastructure and equipment repair and replacement, hazard mitigation, and temporary facilities. The Stafford Act also authorizes federal agency heads to waive administrative, but not statutory, requirements to expedite assistance. In addition to the assistance available through the Stafford Act, assistance is available through numerous provisions in education laws. At the elementary and secondary level, there are several existing provisions that may be helpful in providing assistance in response to a disaster. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) grants the Secretary of Education authority to issue waivers of any statutory or regulatory requirement of the ESEA for a state educational agency (SEA), local educational agency (LEA), Indian tribe, or school that receives funds under an ESEA program and requests a waiver. In response to recent disasters, waivers have been granted to address funding flexibility issues and accountability requirements. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) grants the Secretary of Education authority to waive state maintenance of effort (MOE) requirements and requirements to supplement, not supplant, federal funds under certain circumstances. The Secretary is not, however, able to waive all statutory and regulatory requirements with respect to the acts. For example, under the ESEA the Secretary may not waive civil rights requirements or prohibitions against the use of funds for religious worship or instruction. Under IDEA, for example, the Secretary may not grant waivers from the right to a free appropriate public education. At the postsecondary level, various provisions exist to ensure continuity of operations and continuity of federal funding following a disaster. Under the Higher Education Act (HEA), the Secretary of Education has authority to waive several of the requirements for aid recipients, IHEs, and financial institutions when a disaster has been declared. In particular, waivers have been provided from various requirements related to the disbursement, repayment, and administration of federal student aid. Under Title 38 of the U.S. Code, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) may extend payment of veterans educational assistance benefits to cover periods when enrollment is interrupted. In response to the Gulf Coast hurricanes, Congress enacted legislation that provided short-term programs or temporary allowances in order to aid recovery from 2005 to 2009. Additional funds were appropriated to help affected institutions restart, replace equipment, or renovate. Funds were appropriated to support the recruitment, retention, and compensation of elementary and secondary school staff. Funds were also appropriated to provide grants to postsecondary students and support the enrollment of students displaced or made homeless by the disaster. Congress allowed the Secretary of Education to waive or modify the statutory and regulatory requirements of some programs on a temporary basis to ensure funds were targeted to affected populations and institutions at the postsecondary level and to ease the associated financial and accountability burden at the elementary and secondary levels. As of the date of this report, Congress had not enacted legislation to specifically support education as a result of and in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, which primarily affected areas of the mid-Atlantic and northeast in October 2012.

Jan 2, 2013

The FHA Single-Family Mortgage Insurance Program: Financial Status and Related Current Issues

Dec 21, 2012

Permanent Legal Immigration to the United States: Policy Overview

Dec 17, 2012

Emergency Assistance for Agricultural Land Rehabilitation

This report discusses the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) several permanently authorized programs to help producers recover from natural disasters. Most of these programs offer financial assistance to producers for a loss in the production of crops or livestock. In addition to the production assistance programs, USDA also has several permanent disaster assistance programs that help producers repair damaged crop and forest land following natural disasters.

Dec 11, 2012

Iran’s Ballistic Missile and Space Launch Programs

Iran has long been a source of concern for the United States and other countries because its goals are at odds with core U.S. objectives in the Middle East. Although it is not certain that Iran has made the decision to develop a nuclear weapon, it is taking steps to drastically reduce the time needed to obtain nuclear weapons should a decision be made to do so. It is the prospect of an Iranian nuclear weapon mated to an effective missile delivery capability that is especially worrisome to most. Congress has long been interested in these matters. Congress has held numerous hearings on Iran, passed various resolutions regarding Iran and approved a range of sanctions against Iran over the past several decades. According to the U.S. government, Iran has the largest number of ballistic missiles in the Middle East; it is developing missiles and space launch vehicles for multiple purposes. Iran is pursuing its missile and space programs with development and testing facilities that are scattered throughout the country. Assessing Iran’s ballistic missile programs is challenging for many reasons, including the lack of specificity in official public sources, the secretive nature of Iran’s regime and the regime’s frequent exaggerations of its ballistic missile capabilities, and the overwhelming amount of and often conflicting information found in non-official sources. The vast majority of Iran’s heavy artillery rockets and ballistic missiles are short-range of less than about 500 kilometers. Most of Iran’s ballistic missiles in fact are Scud-B and Scud-Cs, with a majority likely being Scud Cs, which are 500 km range capable. Iran views its short-range ballistic missiles (SRBM) capability as necessary for battlefield and tactical military purposes. These missiles could not strike U.S. or allied bases in the region unless they were moved far from their operating base and launched from vulnerable positions along Iran’s Persian Gulf coastline. This is not likely because of logistical and operational security reasons. Although these SRBMs are not very accurate, they could be fired against economic or civilian targets. Also, any such missile attacks against U.S. bases, while not militarily decisive, could disrupt or complicate (but not halt) base operations. Iran has grown increasingly self-sufficient in the production of SRBMs, but it still probably relies on others for some key components. Gaining access to these kinds of critical components and materials has grown increasingly difficult for Iran. Stricter international enforcement of export controls and broadening sanctions have reportedly slowed down Iran’s efforts and forced Iran to find less reliable alternative sources of rocket and missile technology. Iran is developing and producing medium-range ballistic missile (MRBM) capabilities with ranges estimated up to about 2,000 kilometers (with some non-U.S. government sources citing slightly higher ranges), sufficient to strike targets throughout the Middle East. U.S. intelligence assessments state such missiles are inherently capable of carrying a nuclear warhead. Although the number of Iran’s MRBMs is thought to be relatively small by official U.S. estimates, it is expected to continue to build more capable MRBMs. Iran views these missiles as an important deterrent and retaliatory force against U.S. and other forces in the region in the event of war. Iran has also constructed an underground network of bunkers and underground silo-like missile launch facilities, and is seeking improved air defenses presumably to enhance the survivability of their MRBMs against preemptive attack. Currently Iran must rely on others for certain key missile components and materials in its MRBM program. Export controls and sanctions have made it increasingly difficult, but certainly not impossible, for Iran to acquire the best of such items. On the other hand, these export control measures and sanctions have forced Iran to try to exploit weaknesses in existing export and nonproliferation regimes, including by trying to find foreign sellers willing to circumvent those laws. Iran also has a genuine and ambitious space launch program, which seeks to enhance Iran’s national pride, and perhaps more importantly, its international reputation as a growing advanced industrial power. Iran also sees itself as a potential leader in the Middle East offering space launch and satellite services. Iran has stated it plans to use future launchers for placing intelligence gathering satellites into orbit, although such a capability is a decade or so in the future. Many believe Iran’s space launch program could mask the development of an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) – with ranges in excess of 5,500 km that could threaten targets throughout Europe, and even the United States if Iran achieved an ICBM capability of at least 10,000 km. ICBMs share many similar technologies and processes inherent in a space launch program, but it seems clear that Iran has a dedicated space launch effort and it is not simply a cover for ICBM development. Since 1999, the U.S. Intelligence Community (IC) has assessed that Iran could test an ICBM by 2015 with sufficient foreign assistance, especially from a country such as China or Russia (whose support has reportedly diminished over the past decade). It is increasingly uncertain whether Iran will be able to achieve an ICBM capability by 2015 for several reasons: Iran does not appear to be receiving the degree of foreign support many believe would be necessary, Iran has found it increasingly difficult to acquire certain critical components and materials because of sanctions, and Iran has not demonstrated the kind of flight test program many view as necessary to produce an ICBM. This report will be updated regularly.

Dec 6, 2012

U.S. Implementation of the Basel Capital Regulatory Framework

This report discusses the implementation of the Basel III international regulatory framework, which is the latest in a series of evolving agreements among central banks and bank supervisory authorities to standardize bank capital requirements, among other measures.

Nov 14, 2012

The Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA): Workers' Compensation for Federal Employees

Report concerning the Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA), its legislative history, a program overview, and issues regarding FECA's generous benefits.

Nov 7, 2012

Tax-Preferred College Savings Plans: An Introduction to 529 Plans

Nov 2, 2012

Child Welfare: A Detailed Overview of Program Eligibility and Funding for Foster Care, Adoption Assistance and Kinship Guardianship Assistance under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act

Under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act, states, territories, and tribes are entitled to claim partial federal reimbursement for the cost of providing foster care, adoption assistance, and kinship guardianship assistance to children who meet federal eligibility criteria. The Title IV-E program, as it is commonly called, provides support for monthly payments on behalf of eligible children, as well as funds for related case management activities, training, data collection, and other costs of program administration. In FY2011, states (including the 50 states and the District of Columbia) spent $12.4 billion under the Title IV-E program and received federal reimbursement of $6.7 billion, or 54% of that spending. At the federal level, the Title IV-E program is administered by the Children’s Bureau, an agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). More than two-thirds of all Title IV-E spending supports provision of foster care, which is a temporary living arrangement for children who cannot remain safely in their own homes. Title IV-E foster care maintenance payments are subsidies provided to foster caregivers to support the daily living costs of eligible children. Title IV-E program administration primarily supports caseworker and agency efforts to ensure the safety and well-being of each child in foster care and to plan for, and achieve, permanency for them via family reunification, adoption, or legal guardianship. Just 29% of the $8.3 billion in total (state and federal) Title IV-E foster care spending for FY2011 was used for maintenance payments, while close to half (46%) of those Title IV-E foster care dollars supported program administration (primarily for case planning and case management). Close to one-third of all Title IV-E spending (state and federal) supports children in permanent adoption or guardianship placements. Title IV-E adoption assistance payments are monthly subsidies provided for eligible adopted children (most of whom were previously in foster care), for whom the state determined they could not be returned home and that there was a condition or factor that precluded their adoption without assistance (e.g., age, medical condition, or membership in a sibling group). Kinship guardianship assistance payments are ongoing subsidies for eligible children placed with a legal relative guardian, for whom returning home from foster care is not possible or appropriate and for whom the agency also determines adoption is not appropriate. In FY2011, more than 80% of the total spending for Title IV-E adoption assistance ($4.0 billion) and Title IV-E kinship guardianship assistance ($51 million) supported ongoing subsidies for eligible children. States receiving Title IV-E funding are required to provide foster care and adoption assistance to eligible children. They may also choose to provide kinship guardianship assistance to all eligible children. Federal eligibility for all types of Title IV-E assistance is limited by age. Additional criteria vary by the kind of assistance but often require children to have been removed from low income households. Each month during FY2011, an average of 168,400 children received a Title IV-E foster care maintenance payment and 413,800 received Title IV-E adoption assistance. On a national basis, children who received Title IV-E foster care maintenance payments comprise less than half of all children in foster care and about one-quarter of those receiving ongoing adoption subsidies. The number of children in foster care overall, as well as the number of those children receiving Title IV-E foster care support has been in decline for most of the past decade; the amount of money spent for Title IV-E foster care is also declining. During most of the same time period, however, the number of children receiving Title IV-E adoption assistance and the amount of spending for Title IV-E adoption assistance grew rapidly. Although representing a small part of the program now, both the number of children assisted via Title IV-E kinship guardianship assistance and the amount of spending for that purpose are expected to increase.

Oct 26, 2012

An Overview of the Transaction Account Guarantee (TAG) Program and the Potential Impact of Its Expiration or Extension

Oct 24, 2012

GI Bills Enacted Prior to 2008 and Related Veterans' Educational Assistance Programs: A Primer

This report describes the GI Bills enacted prior to 2008. Although participation in the programs has ended or is declining, the programs' evolution and provisions inform current policy. Included is a description of the eligibility requirements, eligible programs of education, benefit availability, and benefits. The report also provides some summary statistics, comparisons between the programs, and brief discussions of related programs.

Oct 22, 2012

Federal Civil Aviation Programs: An Overview

This report focuses on Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Department of Transportation (DOT) civil aviation programs addressed in the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-95), enacted on February 14, 2012, which authorizes AATF taxes and revenue collections and civil aviation program expenditures through FY2015. Programs for these agencies are funded primarily through a special trust fund, the airport and airways trust fund (AATF), and, in part, through general fund contributions.

Oct 17, 2012

House Committee Funding: Process and Analysis of Disbursements

This report provides an overview of the committee funding process in the House; it analyzes funding levels since 1995, reviews House floor and committee action on committee funding in the 112th Congress, summarizes the rules and regulations that structure the use of committee funds, and analyzes actual committee funding spending patterns during five previous years.

Oct 16, 2012

Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFI) Fund: Programs and Policy Issues

This report begins by describing the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund's (Fund's) history, current appropriations, and each of its programs. The next section of the report analyzes four policy considerations of congressional interest, regarding the Fund and the effective use of federal resources to promote economic development. Lastly, this report examines the Fund's programs and management to see if they represent an effective and efficient government effort to promote economic development in low-income and distressed communities.

Oct 3, 2012

The Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2008 (Post-9/11 GI Bill): Primer and Issues

This report provides a description of the eligibility requirements, benefit availability, benefit payments, participation, and obligations of the Post-9/11 GI Bill. The report also describes a few issues that may be addressed by Congress.

Sep 21, 2012

Health Care for Veterans: Answers to Frequently Asked Questions

Sep 20, 2012

Carbon Tax: Deficit Reduction and Other Considerations

Sep 17, 2012

The TRIO Programs

Sep 10, 2012

TARP Assistance for Chrysler: Restructuring and Repayment Issues

The recent recession and accompanying credit crisis posed severe challenges for all automakers, but especially for General Motors and Chrysler. Executives of both companies testified before congressional committees in the fall of 2008 requesting federal bridge loans. Legislation that would have provided such financial assistance passed the House of Representatives but did not pass the Senate. In lieu of that assistance, the Bush Administration turned to the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), a $700 billion program that was enacted in October 2008 to shore up the financial system and prevent spillover to the broader economy. The Bush Administration used TARP to provide both automakers and two auto financing companies with nearly $25 billion in loans, and told the automakers to submit viability plans if they were to seek additional aid. Chrysler submitted such a plan in February 2009, outlining how it planned to restructure its operations, including a strategic alliance with Fiat. Some questions were raised as to whether Chrysler could survive as a free-standing company, even with government assistance, because of its relatively small size. The Obama Administration rejected Chrysler’s initial viability plan as insufficient and gave the company 30 days to develop a new plan in an effort to avert bankruptcy. Working with the Administration’s Auto Task Force, Chrysler developed a restructuring plan that included a revised labor agreement, cost reductions from dealers and suppliers, reductions in creditor claims, and limitations on executive compensation. Despite agreement with most stakeholders, all creditors did not agree to the restructuring, prompting Chrysler to file for bankruptcy in April 2009. With much of the restructuring plan in place, however, the bankruptcy court was able to quickly approve the proposals, including a creditor agreement. Many of the assets of Old Chrysler were sold to a new legal entity, Chrysler Group LLC, whose largest equity owner was the United Auto Workers’ retiree medical trust fund, owning 67.7%. Fiat took a management role in the new company and a 20% equity stake, which was deemed central to the survival of New Chrysler. Under new Fiat management, New Chrysler revamped its fleet of automobiles and light trucks, and has been profitable in 2011 and 2012. Its commercial and financial success accelerated its plans for repaying federal assistance. In May 2011, New Chrysler repaid a $5.9 billion debt to the U.S. government that was not fully due until 2017. On July 21, 2011, Fiat purchased the U.S. government’s common equity interests and options in New Chrysler for $560 million. In addition, the ownership of New Chrysler significantly changed as Fiat met a series of performance benchmarks that allowed it to raise its equity stake to 58.5% at the end of 2011. Of the $10.9 billion that was loaned to Chrysler through TARP, not all of it has been, or will be, recouped by the U.S. Treasury. Following the transaction that closed on July 21, 2011, the U.S. government has no remaining financial interest in New Chrysler. While $9.6 billion of the assistance given to the company has been recouped, an approximate $1.3 billion shortfall remains. New Chrysler has no legal responsibility to make up this shortfall.

Sep 7, 2012

The Role of TARP Assistance in the Restructuring of General Motors

Sep 7, 2012

Federal Public Transportation Program: An Overview

Report that provides an introduction to the Federal Public Transportation Program (FPTP). Includes a brief background of public transportation as well as FPTP's funding, expenses, and structure.

Sep 6, 2012

The War Powers Resolution: After Thirty-Eight Years

Report that discusses and assesses the War Powers Resolution and its application since enactment in 1973, providing detailed background on various cases in which it was used, as well as cases in which issues of its applicability were raised.

Sep 5, 2012

Stafford Act Declarations 1953-2011: Trends and Analyses, and Implications for Congress

Report that describes the declaration process of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act and the types of declarations that can be made under the Stafford Act.

Aug 31, 2012

Stealing Trade Secrets and Economic Espionage: An Overview of 18 U.S.C. 1831 and 1832

Report that gives an overview of 18 U.S.C. 1832 (theft of trade secrets) and 18 U.S.C. 1831 (economic espionage). It also describes what constitutes as a stolen trade secret, and how such crimes are prosecuted.

Aug 28, 2012

The Crime Victims Fund: Federal Support for Victims of Crime

Report that provides background and funding information for Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) programs and the Crime Victims Fund (CVF). It describes the process through which CVF funds are allocated and explains how the CVF impacts the annual budget for Department of Justice (DOJ).

Aug 22, 2012

The Posse Comitatus Act and Related Matters: The Use of the Military to Execute Civilian Law

The Constitution permits Congress to authorize the use of the militia “to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.” And it guarantees the states protection against invasion or usurpation of their “republican form of government,” and, upon the request of the state legislature, against “domestic violence.” These constitutional provisions are reflected in the Insurrection Acts, which have been invoked numerous times both before and after passage of the Posse Comitatus Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 1385, in 1878. Congress has also enacted a number of statutes that authorize the use of the land and naval forces to execute their objective. The Posse Comitatus Act outlaws the willful use of any part of the Army or Air Force to execute the law unless expressly authorized by the Constitution or an act of Congress. History supplies the grist for an argument that the Constitution prohibits military involvement in civilian affairs subject to only limited alterations by Congress or the President, but the courts do not appear to have ever accepted the argument unless violation of more explicit constitutional command could also be shown. The express statutory exceptions include the legislation that allows the President to use military force to suppress insurrection or to enforce federal authority, 10 U.S.C. Sections 331-335, and laws that permit the Department of Defense to provide federal, state and local police with information, equipment, and personnel, 10 U.S.C. Sections 371-382. Case law indicates that “execution of the law” in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act occurs (a) when the Armed Forces perform tasks assigned to an organ of civil government, or (b) when the Armed Forces perform tasks assigned to them solely for purposes of civilian government. Questions concerning the act’s application arise most often in the context of assistance to civilian police. At least in this context, the courts have held that, absent a recognized exception, the Posse Comitatus Act is violated when (1) civilian law enforcement officials make “direct active use” of military investigators; or (2) the use of the military “pervades the activities” of the civilian officials; or (3) the military is used so as to subject “citizens to the exercise of military power which was regulatory, prescriptive, or compulsory in nature.” The act is not violated when the Armed Forces conduct activities for a military purpose. The language of the act mentions only the Army and the Air Force, but it is applicable to the Navy and Marines by virtue of administrative action and commands of other laws. The law enforcement functions of the Coast Guard have been expressly authorized by act of Congress and consequently cannot be said to be contrary to the act. The act has been applied to the National Guard when it is in federal service, to civilian employees of the Armed Forces, and to off-duty military personnel. The act probably only applies within the geographical confines of the United States, but supplemental provisions of 10 U.S.C. Sections 371-382 appear to apply worldwide. Finally, the act is a criminal statute under which there has been but a handful of known prosecutions. Although violations will on rare occasions result in the exclusion of evidence, the dismissal of criminal charges, or a civil cause of action, as a practical matter compliance is ordinarily the result of military self-restraint. This report provides an historical analysis of the use of the Armed Forces to execute domestic law and of the Posse Comitatus Act, including their apparent theoretical and constitutional underpinnings. The report then outlines the current application of the act as well as its statutory exceptions, and reviews the consequences of its violation. This report appears in abridged form as CRS Report R42669, The Posse Comitatus Act and Related Matters: A Sketch.

Aug 16, 2012

Continuing Resolutions: Overview of Components and Recent Practices

Aug 6, 2012

Appropriations: CRS Experts

Jul 31, 2012

Medicaid Financing and Expenditures

This report provides an overview of Medicaid’s financing structure, including both federal and state financing issues. The Medicaid expenditures section of the report discusses economic factors affecting Medicaid, state variability in spending, and projected program spending. Other issues that are examined include congressional proposals to turn Medicaid into a block grant program, federal deficit reduction proposals affecting Medicaid, and state fiscal conditions affecting Medicaid financing and services.

Jul 30, 2012

The Article V Convention for Proposing Constitutional Amendments: Historical Perspectives for Congress

This report identifies and examines historical issues related to the Article V Convention, which allows amendments to be added to the Constitution via Congressional vote or votes by the people.

Jul 10, 2012

The Article V Convention to Propose Constitutional Amendments: Contemporary Issues for Congress

This report looks at how Article V of the Constitution allows Congress to propose amendments, specifically the process of organizing an Article V Convention, a method which has never been used and which is only breifly outlined in the Constitution.

Jul 9, 2012

U.S. Renewable Electricity: How Does the Production Tax Credit (PTC) Impact Wind Markets?

This report discusses the use of wind as a power source, including: production tax credits (PTC), U.S. electricity demand growth, and the price of natural gas. Issues for Congress include whether or not the PTC will be extended.

Jun 20, 2012