CRS Reports

Campaign Contributions and the Ethics of Elected Officials: Regulation Under Federal Law

Allegations of political corruption often involve questions regarding a public official or candidate’s use of campaign funds or the relationship between campaign contributors and the candidate or official. A common concern is that a particular individual, private organization, company, or other entity “bought”—through large campaign contributions widely distributed—particular official favors, official acts, or official forbearance from officers or employees of the federal government. These issues have been highlighted in several high-profile cases over recent years. Most recently, the Supreme Court has agreed to consider McDonnell v. United States, a case providing the opportunity to clarify the boundaries of federal political corruption statutes. Oral arguments in this case are scheduled for April 27, 2016. In an effort to curb corruption in the political process, Congress has enacted laws that regulate campaign contributions made to federal office candidates. The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) regulates contributions in three general ways, by establishing limits, source restrictions, and disclosure requirements. Source restrictions include prohibitions on contributions from government contractors, foreign nationals, and the general treasuries of corporations and labor unions (corporate and labor union political action committee (PAC) contributions are permitted). Further, the law prohibits the converting of campaign funds for personal use; that is, it bans contributions from being used to fulfill any expense that would exist “irrespective” of the candidate’s campaign or federal officeholder duties. Courts have generally upheld these regulations in order to maintain the integrity of the democratic process by limiting the influence that one individual or entity may have on a particular elected official, and to protect against quid pro quo corruption and its appearance. In addition to civil penalties, it is notable that FECA sets forth a range of criminal penalties. In addition to the direct federal regulation of campaign contributions, a number of federal political corruption provisions that prohibit federal officials from receiving personal benefits that are related, in certain ways, to their official acts. Among some of the most common concerns raised in political corruption cases are bribery, illegal gratuities, and extortion. Laws criminalizing these activities bear upon the relationship of official acts to otherwise lawful contributions: The prohibition on bribery precludes officials from accepting contributions in exchange for performance of an official act. The prohibition on illegal gratuities does not require that the contribution be made in exchange for the official act, but instead precludes officials from accepting contributions made because of the official act. The prohibition on extortion precludes officials from using their position to demand contributions in exchange for official action. Additionally, a number of political corruption cases involve charges of so-called “honest services” fraud, alleged when public officials engage in schemes that deprive the public of honest services of government officials. This report provides an overview of federal campaign finance and public corruption laws that may be relevant to the political campaigns of elected officials, including discussion of provisions that could be implicated in cases involving the misuse of campaign funds or malintent of campaign contributions.

Apr 4, 2016

High Frequency Trading: Overview of Recent Developments

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

Apr 1, 2016

Energy and Water Development: FY2017 Appropriations for Nuclear Weapons Activities

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

Apr 1, 2016

FY2017 Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations: In Brief

The Agriculture appropriations bill funds the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), except for the Forest Service. It also funds the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and—in even-numbered fiscal years—the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). Agriculture appropriations include both mandatory and discretionary spending. Discretionary amounts, though, are the primary focus during the bill’s development, since mandatory amounts are generally set by authorizing laws such as the farm bill. The largest discretionary spending items are the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC); agricultural research; FDA; rural development; foreign food aid and trade; farm assistance programs; food safety inspection; conservation; and animal and plant health programs. The main mandatory spending items are the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), child nutrition, crop insurance, and the farm commodity and conservation programs paid by the Commodity Credit Corporation. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has not yet released an official re-estimate of the President’s budget request and compiled it on the basis of subcommittee jurisdiction, but the discretionary total of accounts in the FY2017 Agriculture appropriations bill is likely to be about $21.77 billion. This would be on par with the FY2016 enacted total (+0.1% on a comparable House-basis amount, or -0.3% on a Senate-basis amount excluding CFTC). The Administration is requesting funding increases for most agencies in the Agriculture bill. The total of the increases for agencies that would see their discretionary budget authority rise is an increase of $514 million, including $79 million more for agricultural research agencies, $75 million more for USDA administration, $66 million more for rural development, $18 million more for the Farm Service Agency, $16 million more for the Food Safety Inspection Service, $9.5 million more for Conservation Operations, $117 million more for the Food and Nutrition Service, $13 million more for FDA, and $80 million more for CFTC. The Administration proposes $492 million of reductions in programming or budget authority for some agencies compared to last year to offset some of the requested increases, including $8.2 million less for the Risk Management Agency’s discretionary appropriation, $117 million less for Agricultural Research Service buildings and facilities, and $136 million less for two foreign assistance programs. General provisions and scorekeeping also contribute $209 million of reductions compared to last year, owing to no disaster or supplemental programming and allowing more for mandatory programs that were used to reduce the budget last year.

Mar 31, 2016

The Comprehensive Care Joint Replacement Model

Mar 31, 2016

The Individual Mandate for Health Insurance Coverage: In Brief

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

Mar 30, 2016

The Article V Convention to Propose Constitutional Amendments: Current Developments

Article V of the U.S. Constitution provides two procedures for amending the nation’s fundamental charter: proposal of amendments by Congress, by a vote of two-thirds of the Members of both houses, and proposal by a convention called on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds (34) of the states, the “Article V Convention.” Amendments proposed by either method must be ratified by three-fourths (38) of the states in order to become part of the Constitution. This report provides information for Members of Congress and congressional staff on current developments in Congress, the states, and the advocacy and policy communities concerning the Article V Convention alternative. From the 1960s to the 1980s, supporters of Article V Conventions mounted vigorous but ultimately unsuccessful campaigns to call conventions to consider amendments related to diverse issues, including school busing to achieve racial balance, abortion restrictions, apportionment in state legislatures, and, most prominently, a balanced federal budget. After more than 20 years of comparative inaction, the past decade has seen a resurgence of interest in and support for the Article V Convention alternative. Advocacy groups across a broad range of the political spectrum are pushing for conventions to consider various amendments, including a revival of the balanced budget amendment proposed in the 1970s -1980s; an interstate compact that could call a convention, propose, and prospectively ratify, a balanced budget amendment; an amendment or amendments to restrict the authority of the federal government; and an amendment to permit regulation of corporate spending in election campaigns, which would nullify parts of the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. In the 114th Congress, the House of Representatives established new procedures for the receipt and publication of state memorials related to the convention issue, including new applications for a convention and rescissions of previous applications. Two relevant pieces of legislation have also been introduced. The first measure, H.Con.Res. 26, would “effect” the Compact for America’s Interstate Compact for a Balanced Budget, summon an Article V Convention, and propose the amendment approved by the convention to the states for ratification. The second, H.J.Res. 34, would amend the Constitution to authorize an Article V Convention to propose specifically worded amendments. Applications for one or more of the several pending Article V Convention variations were introduced in 47 states during 2015. Progress in enacting these measures has been comparatively slow, however: in 2015 only seven applications were filed by six states, and only the Balanced Budget Amendment Task Force, most of whose 27 claimed applications originated in the 1970s and 1980s, came close to the 34-state constitutional threshold. Two additional CRS Reports address other aspects of this issue. CRS Report R42589, The Article V Convention to Propose Constitutional Amendments: Contemporary Issues for Congress, identifies and analyzes the contemporary role of Congress in the Article V Convention process in greater detail. CRS Report R42592, The Article V Convention for Proposing Constitutional Amendments: Historical Perspectives for Congress examines the procedure’s constitutional origins and history and provides an analysis of related state procedures. This report will be updated as warranted by events.

Mar 29, 2016

Telehealth and Telemedicine: Description and Issues

Telehealth is the use of electronic information and telecommunications technologies to support remote clinical health care, patient and professional health-related education, public health, and other health care delivery functions. A narrower concept, telemedicine, refers to clinical services that are provided remotely via telecommunications technologies. Some sources use the two terms interchangeably, and there is no consensus among federal programs and among health care providers on the definition of either term. Federal involvement in telehealth is varied. As of 2014, more than 20 federal agencies were engaged in some aspect of telehealth. For example, in FY2015, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) was the largest telehealth provider in the federal government, providing 2.1 million telehealth consultations to some 677,000 veterans. In contrast, the Medicare (Part B) program, covering more than 52 million beneficiaries, the number of telehealth visits increased fivefold from 38,000 telehealth consultations (or visits) in 2009 to 192,692 in 2015. The VA, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the Institute of Medicine, and other stakeholders have identified barriers associated with the use of telehealth, notably that some telehealth modalities have a stronger evidence base than others. Furthermore, according to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), key issues requiring additional research are the impact of telehealth on individual and population health, and on moving away from traditional fee structures toward rewarding clinicians for value versus volume of care. Telehealth has been an active legislative issue thus far in the 114th Congress. For example, in February 2016, bipartisan legislation was introduced to expand telehealth reimbursement for remote patient monitoring under the Medicare program. In December 2015, the Senate Committee on Finance published options for expanding telehealth utilization for Medicare beneficiaries with chronic conditions. H.R. 6, the 21st Century Cures Act (as passed by the House), would require CMS and the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission to submit programmatic information to Congress on telehealth. The Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA; P.L. 114-10) includes a provision that encourages the use of telehealth as an element in the new Merit-Based Incentive Payment System and requires the Government Accountability Office to study telehealth and its use under the Medicare program. This report identifies telehealth activities at select federal agencies along with an assessment of the evidence regarding the potential impact of telehealth on health care access, cost, and quality.

Mar 29, 2016

Proposed Amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) in the 114th Congress: H.R. 2576 Compared with the Senate Substitute Amendment

This report compares H.R. 2576, the TSCA Modernization Act of 2015, as passed by the House on June 23, 2015, and the Senate’s substitute amendment (S.Amdt. 2932) to H.R. 2576, the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, as passed by the Senate on December 17, 2015. The Senate amendment is based, in part, on S. 697, as reported by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works on April 28, 2015. The House bill and the Senate amendment would amend Title I of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Enacted in 1976, TSCA is the primary federal law that authorizes the regulation of commercial chemicals throughout their lifecycle from manufacture to disposal. TSCA authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to determine whether regulation of a chemical is necessary to provide protection against “unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment.” The Senate amendment, but not the House bill, would also amend the Mercury Export Ban Act of 2008 and add a provision to the Public Health Service Act regarding potential cancer clusters. Over the 39-year history of TSCA, EPA, regulated entities, environmental and public health groups and others have observed significant challenges in implementing the statute. For example, concerns have been raised on whether the threshold to regulate a chemical under TSCA is too difficult for EPA to demonstrate and whether the agency is unnecessarily constrained by the requirement that it impose the “least burdensome requirement” to restrict a chemical. In addition, EPA has argued that limits in requesting test information have constrained its ability to assess risks of certain chemicals. Many have argued that these concerns have diminished public confidence in the “safety” of chemicals in commerce. Additionally, regulated entities and right-to-know advocates have raised concerns about the appropriate balance between disclosures of chemical information and confidentiality of business information submitted to EPA under TSCA. Regulated entities have also raised concerns that state and local governments are adopting different requirements with respect to particular chemicals and compliance may be difficult with this growing “patchwork” of requirements. They argue that there should be uniform regulation under TSCA nationally. However, certain states and others have expressed concerns regarding the role of preemption in limiting states’ ability to regulate chemicals. Since 2005, these concerns and others led to the introduction of legislation that would amend TSCA in each Congress. The first section of the report provides a brief background on TSCA. The second section provides a brief comparison between the House bill and the Senate amendment and also provides a background discussion of seven issues: Prioritization of chemicals for the evaluation of risks; Regulatory threshold for restricting a chemical; Regulatory options for restricting a chemical; Requirements for the development of test information; Preemption of state requirements; Confidentiality and disclosures of information; and Resources to administer TSCA. Finally, Table 1 presents a side-by-side comparison of the provisions of existing law, the House bill, and the Senate amendment. This report does not provide a comprehensive analysis of the potential effect of particular provisions. Ultimately, the outcome, if either the House bill or the Senate amendment were enacted, depends on implementation.

Mar 29, 2016

Pipeline Transportation of Natural Gas and Crude Oil: Federal and State Regulatory Authority

New technologies such as hydraulic fracturing and directional drilling have dramatically increased U.S. production of natural gas and crude oil from shales and other unconventional formations. As a result, companies have invested in new pipeline infrastructure to transport these resources from producing regions to domestic and foreign consuming markets. Siting, construction, operation, and maintenance of this infrastructure may raise environmental, health, and safety concerns, particularly when oil or gas moves by pipeline through heavily populated areas. Such concerns may prompt congressional interest in the relationship between federal and state authority over the siting and safety of pipeline infrastructure. Under the Natural Gas Act (NGA), siting of interstate natural gas pipelines and related facilities requires specific approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). When the pipeline company receives a certificate of public convenience and necessity from FERC, state or local laws that conflict with FERC’s exercise of its jurisdiction under federal law or would pose an obstacle to construction of the pipeline (e.g., local zoning laws) are preempted unless FERC requires the company to comply with them as a condition of granting the certificate. The NGA specifically preserves state authority over pipeline projects under the federal Clean Air Act (CAA), Clean Water Act (CWA), and Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). However, state authority under these laws remains subject to federal administrative and judicial oversight and review. Federal law also provides several avenues for a state to provide input into FERC’s siting and environmental reviews of a proposed interstate natural gas pipeline. In contrast to siting review of proposed interstate natural gas pipelines, interstate crude oil pipelines undergo a state-by-state siting approval process. No federal law broadly preempts state and local siting requirements for these pipelines. Construction or operation of any oil or gas pipeline, whether interstate or intrastate, may require additional federal or state authorizations or consultations, depending on the proposed route of the pipeline and its potential to discharge pollutants or affect natural, cultural, or historical resources. States retain broad authority to regulate to control pollution, as well as to protect and conserve natural, cultural, and historical resources. States play a significantly reduced role, however, with respect to applications for pipeline rights-of-way over federal lands or permission to cross an international border, which implicate powers of the federal government over federal lands, foreign trade, and/or foreign affairs. Although pipelines represent a relatively safe form of transporting oil and gas as compared to other modes of transportation, the presence of new pipelines in populated areas, including gathering lines, has increased interest in federal and state oversight of pipeline safety. The Pipeline Safety and Hazardous Materials Administration (PHMSA) within the Department of Transportation (DOT) has broad authority to promulgate minimum federal safety standards for pipeline facilities and transportation. States may also become authorized to administer and enforce PHMSA’s baseline safety standards for intrastate pipeline facilities and transportation; adopt and enforce stricter state standards for intrastate facilities compatible with DOT standards; and inspect interstate facilities for compliance with DOT regulations. Federal pipeline safety provisions specifically preempt state “safety standards” for interstate oil or gas pipelines. Generally, federal courts have held that federal pipeline safety laws do not preempt a state or local siting law that only incidentally affects safety. However, the NGA could potentially preempt a state’s or locality’s application of such a law to an interstate natural gas pipeline facility.

Mar 28, 2016

Framing Spectrum Policy: Legislative Initiatives

Access to radio frequency spectrum is essential to wireless communications. As demand for mobile services increases, from all sectors of society and the economy, so does the need to increase the capacity of wireless networks. Capacity for mobile broadband to support popular mobile services and devices can be improved in several ways. Examples include (1) providing new spectrum licenses for networks to expand; (2) investing in denser infrastructure; (3) directing network traffic between licensed and unlicensed capacity, as needed; (4) developing new technologies; and (5) expanding opportunities for sharing spectrum between two or more users. Providing spectrum licenses to support new uses for the airwaves has been a mainstay of spectrum policy since the original Communications Act of 1934. Most legislation over the last two decades that deals with spectrum assignment and allocation has focused on assuring the “highest and best use” for spectrum rights by assigning them through competitive auctions. Spectrum suitable for commercial use has often been allocated initially for federal purposes. Transferring this spectrum has become increasingly complex and costly. To facilitate the release of federal spectrum for commercial wireless services, the Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act of 2004 created the Spectrum Relocation Fund to reimburse federal agencies for costs incurred in vacating spectrum. The 2012 Spectrum Act (Title VI, Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, P.L. 112-96) includes provisions to increase the amount of spectrum licenses available for auction and to improve management of the Spectrum Relocation Fund. The Spectrum Pipeline Act of 2015 (Title X, Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, P.L. 114-74) has a similar focus on providing new spectrum licenses for auction but takes a somewhat broader approach to meeting spectrum needs, offering more support for spectrum sharing and for federal research to improve spectrum and network efficiency. Both acts also include provisions to provide unlicensed spectrum (typically allocated for Wi-Fi applications). Additionally, the Spectrum Act (sometimes referred to as the Public Safety and Spectrum Act) establishes a process for television broadcasters to release spectrum licensed to them to be auctioned as commercial licenses for mobile broadband (Broadcast Incentive Auctions). The act also includes provisions to apply spectrum-license auction revenues toward deficit reduction; to establish a planning and governance structure to deploy public safety broadband networks, using some auction proceeds for that purpose; and to assign additional spectrum resources for public safety communications. Two auctions required by the Spectrum Act have been completed. The final auction required by the Spectrum Act will be the Broadcast Incentive Auction, scheduled to commence on March 29, 2016. The Spectrum Pipeline Act requires the release of 130 MHz of federal and commercial spectrum in three phases, with the process beginning in 2022. Licenses for exclusive use and shared spectrum as well as allocations for unlicensed spectrum are allowed uses for repurposed federal spectrum. The act gives priority to using auction proceeds deposited in the federal Spectrum Relocation Fund for research programs that improve spectrum efficiency. A number of bills introduced in the 114th Congress may be considered during its 2nd Session. Bills of note include the MOBILE NOW Act (S. 2555) and the DIGIT Act (S. 2607). In brief, MOBILE NOW might be described as meeting the needs for growth within the existing wireless industry, and the DIGIT Act as expanding the availability of spectrum to meet the needs of the industries developing products and services for the Internet of Things. The 114th Congress has passed resolutions that call for strategic planning at the national level for the Internet of Things (S.Res. 110, H.Res. 195).

Mar 28, 2016

Burma’s 2015 Parliamentary Elections: Issues for Congress

The landslide victory of Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy (NLD) in Burma’s November 2015 parliamentary elections may prove to be a major step in the nation’s potential transition to a more democratic government. Having won nearly 80% of the contested seats in the election, the NLD has a majority in both chambers of the Union Parliament, which gave it the ability to select the President-elect, as well as control of most of the nation’s Regional and State Parliaments. Burma’s 2008 constitution, however, grants the Burmese military, or Tatmadaw, widespread powers in the governance of the nation, and nearly complete autonomy from civilian control. One quarter of the seats in each chamber of the Union Parliament are reserved for military officers appointed by the Tatmadaw’s Commander-in-Chief, giving them the ability to block any constitutional amendments. Military officers constitute a majority of the National Defence and Security Council, an 11-member body with some oversight authority over the President. The constitution also grants the Tatmadaw “the right to independently administer and adjudicate all affairs of the armed services,” and designates the Commander-in-Chief of Defence Services as “the Supreme Commander’ of all armed forces,” which could have serious implications for efforts to end the nation’s six-decade-long, low-grade civil war. For Congress and the Obama Administration, the election results and a transition period that will last several months raise a number of questions for U.S. policy toward Burma. To what extent does the election and formation of an NLD-led government constitute the partial achievement of the U.S. goal to see a civilian democratically elected government in Burma? Under what conditions and when should the Obama Administration and/or Congress consider relaxing or revoking existing restrictions on relations with Burma? Should the Obama Administration or Congress undertake any new programs or activities in Burma, and if so, at what stage in the transition process? Congress gave one indication of its answers to these questions in December 2015 when it passed the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (P.L. 114-113), which continued some restrictions on U.S. relations with Burma, while requiring new forms of engagement. A new NLD-led government may not be fully in place before summer 2016. The new Union Parliament took office in early February, and on March 15 selected Htin Kyaw as the nation’s next President. The President-elect is to be sworn into office on March 30, 2016, and will have to appoint new Ministers for his government, as well as Chief Ministers for the nation’s 14 Regions and States. The NLD government will face great expectations from the Burmese people to address the country’s more serious problems. These include a six-decade-long, low-grade civil war; serious ethnic and religious tensions (especially in Rakhine State); poor conditions for hundreds of thousands of internally displaced persons; and an inefficient and distorted economy. The new government faces the issue of cooperation with the Tatmadaw to address some of these problems; it is unclear if the Burmese military will be willing to cooperate. What measures the Obama Administration or Congress choose to take, if any, to alter current U.S. policy toward Burma will likely depend on several factors. The first factor is how the transition process proceeds and what the new NLD-led government looks like in terms of parliamentary and ministerial leadership. Another factor is timing; a clearer picture of Burma’s political situation is likely to emerge just as the United States enters into the height of its election season.

Mar 28, 2016

President Obama's Historic Visit to Cuba

This report briefly discusses the details of President Obama's visit to Cuba. Before the trip, the White House set forth the goals of the visit, stating that the President would build on progress toward normalizing relations, including advancing commercial and people-to-people ties and expressing support for human rights.

Mar 25, 2016

DHS Appropriations FY2016: Research and Development, Training, and Services

This report is part of a suite of reports that discuss appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for FY2016. It specifically discusses appropriations for the components of DHS included in the fourth title of the homeland security appropriations bill—U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC), the Science and Technology Directorate (S&T), and the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO). Collectively, Congress has labeled these components in appropriations acts in recent years as “Research and Development, Training, and Services.” The report provides an overview of the Administration’s FY2016 request for Research, Development, Training, and Services, the appropriations proposed by Congress in response, and those enacted. Rather than limiting the scope of its review to the fourth title, the report includes information on provisions throughout the proposed bill and report that directly affect these functions. Research and Development, Training, and Services is the second smallest of the four titles that carry the vast majority of the funding in the bill. The Administration requested $1,554 million for these components in FY2016, $241 million less than was provided for FY2015. These four components made up 3.7% of the Administration’s $41.4 billion request for the department in net discretionary budget authority. The completion of funding for construction of the National Bio- and Agro-defense Facility in FY2015 reduced the demand for facilities funding by $300 million—part of an overall reduction of $325 million in the request for S&T from FY2015 enacted levels. DNDO’s budget request rose by $49 million (16.1%), while USCIS and FLETC saw smaller increases in their requests. Senate-reported S. 1619 would have provided the components included in this title $1,451 million in net discretionary budget authority. This would have been $103 million (6.6%) less than requested, and $344 million (19.2%) less than was provided in FY2015. House-reported H.R. 3128 would have provided the components included in this title $1,503 million in net discretionary budget authority. This would have been $51 million (3.3%) less than requested, and $292 million (16.2%) less than was provided in FY2015. On December 18, 2015, the President signed into law P.L. 114-113, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, Division F of which was the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2016. The act included $1,499 million for these components in FY2016, a $55 million (3.5%) decrease from the request and $296 million (16.5%) below FY2015. Additional information on the broader subject of FY2016 funding for the department can be found in CRS Report R44053, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations: FY2016, as well as links to analytical overviews and details regarding appropriations for other components. This report will be updated if supplemental appropriations are provided for any of these components through the FY2016 appropriations process.

Mar 25, 2016

Financing Airport Improvements

There are five major sources of airport capital development funding: the federal Airport Improvement Program (AIP); local passenger facility charges (PFCs) imposed pursuant to federal law; tax-exempt bonds; state and local grants; and airport operating revenue from tenant lease and other revenue-generating activities such as landing fees. Federal involvement is most consequential in AIP, PFCs, and tax-exempt financing. The AIP has been providing federal grants for airport development and planning since the passage of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248). AIP funding is usually spent on projects that support aircraft operations such as runways, taxiways, aprons, noise abatement, land purchase, and safety or emergency equipment. The funds obligated for AIP are drawn from the airport and airway trust fund, which is supported by a variety of user fees and fuel taxes. Different airports use different combinations of these sources depending on the individual airport’s financial situation and the type of project being considered. Although smaller airports’ individual grants are of much smaller dollar amounts than the grants going to large and medium hub airports, the smaller airports are much more dependent on AIP to meet their capital needs. This is particularly the case for non-commercial airports, which received about 30% of AIP grants distributed in FY2015. Larger airports are much more likely to issue tax-exempt bonds or finance capital projects with the proceeds of PFCs. The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-95) provided annual AIP funding of $3.35 billion for four years from FY2012 to FY2015. That act left the basic structure of AIP unchanged, but included a provision permitting small airports reclassified as medium hubs due to increased passenger volumes to retain eligibility for up to a 90% federal share for a two-year transition period. It allowed certain economically distressed communities receiving subsidized air service to be eligible for up to a 95% federal share of project costs and expanded the number of airports that could participate in the Airport Privatization Pilot Program from five to 10. Only minor modifications were made in the PFC program. The Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2015 (P.L. 114-55) provided a six-month extension of the 2012 reauthorization act. Another extension, the Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2016 (H.R. 4721), was passed in March 2016 to further extend the authorization of FAA programs through July 15, 2016, as Congress works on a long-term aviation bill. The airport improvement issues Congress may face in the context of FAA reauthorization include the following: Should airport development funding be increased or decreased? Should the $4.50 ceiling on PFCs be eliminated, raised, or kept as it is? Could AIP be restructured to address congestion at the busiest U.S. airports, or should a large share of AIP resources continue to go to non-commercial airports that lack other sources of funding? Should Congress set tighter limits on the purposes for which AIP and PFC funds may be spent? This report provides an overview of airport improvement financing, with emphasis on AIP and the related passenger facility charges. It also discusses some ongoing airport issues that are likely to be included in a future FAA reauthorization debate.

Mar 24, 2016

The Federal Budget: Overview and Issues for FY2017 and Beyond

The federal budget is a central component of the congressional “power of the purse.” Each fiscal year, Congress and the President engage in a number of practices that influence short- and long-run revenue and expenditure trends. This report offers context for the current budget debate, and tracks legislative events related to the federal budget as they occur. In recent years, policies enacted to decrease spending, along with a stronger economy, have led to reduced budget deficits. The Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA; P.L. 112-25) implemented several measures intended to reduce the deficit from FY2012-FY2021. Three subsequent pieces of legislation have modified the BCA since its enactment—the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (ATRA; P.L. 112-240), the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 (BBA 2013; P.L. 113-67), and the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (BBA 2015; P.L. 114-74). These measures modified the discretionary budget authority levels permitted under the BCA for FY2013 through FY2017. Various deficit reduction measures were included to offset the costs of the changes to spending levels in that legislation, including extensions of the mandatory portion of spending reductions established by the BCA. The BCA will continue to affect spending limits in FY2017 and beyond, and Congress may debate enacting further modifications. The Obama Administration released its budget for FY2017 on February 9, 2016. If the policies included in the budget proposal are fully implemented, spending (outlays) would total an estimated $4,147 billion (21.5% of GDP) and revenues an estimated $3,644 billion (18.9% of GDP) in FY2017. Over the 10-year window, the proposed budget would decrease the deficit from an estimated 3.3% of GDP in FY2016 to 2.8% of GDP in FY2026, averaging 2.6% of GDP over the next decade. The President’s budget proposes a small decrease in the FY2017 cap on nondefense discretionary budget authority, followed by larger increases in the defense and nondefense discretionary caps for FY2018 through FY2021. The budget also proposes to eliminate the sequester on mandatory programs through FY2025. Deficit reduction is proposed through various changes to the tax code, immigration reform, and mandatory health programs. Congressional consideration of the FY2017 budget is underway. The Budget Committees in the House and Senate each develop a budget resolution as they receive information and testimony from a number of sources, including the Administration, the Congressional Budget Office, and congressional committees with jurisdiction over spending and revenues. In February, House Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price (R-GA) and Senate Budget Committee Chairman Mike Enzi (R-WY) began the process of preparing budget resolutions in advance of consideration in the House and Senate. Absent an agreement on a budget resolution conference report for FY2017 by the House and Senate, the BBA 2015 provides that the Senate Budget Committee Chairman submit an allocation for publication in the Congressional Record of FY2017 budgetary resources between April 15, 2016, and May 15, 2016. Though the federal budget deficit has fallen in recent years, trends resulting from current federal fiscal policies are generally thought by economists to be unsustainable in the long term. Projections suggest that achieving a sustainable long-term trajectory for the federal budget will require deficit reduction. Reductions in deficits could be accomplished through revenue increases, spending reductions, or some combination of the two.

Mar 24, 2016

Updating the Common Rule in an Era of Big Health Data

Mar 24, 2016

Financial Services and Cybersecurity: The Federal Role

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

Mar 23, 2016

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

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

Mar 23, 2016

China’s Greenhouse Gas and Energy Proposals for 2016-2020

Mar 23, 2016

FY2017 Appropriations for the Department of Justice

The Department of Justice (DOJ) provides legal advice and opinions, upon request, to the President and executive branch department heads. DOJ prosecutes individuals accused of violating federal laws and it represents the U.S. government in court. The department enforces federal criminal and civil laws, including antitrust, civil rights, environmental, and tax laws. DOJ, through agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI); the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA); and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), investigates organized and violent crime, illegal drugs, and gun and explosives violations. The department, through the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS), protects the federal judiciary, apprehends fugitives, and detains individuals who are not granted pretrial release. DOJ’s Bureau of Prisons (BOP) incarcerates individuals convicted of violating federal laws. The department also provides grants and training to state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies. For FY2016, Congress provided a total of $29.090 billion for DOJ. The Administration proposes a 2.8% increase in DOJ’s funding for FY2017 ($29.910 billion). The Administration’s request includes $2.789 billion for the U.S. Marshals, $9.502 billion for the FBI, $2.103 billion for the DEA, $1.306 billion for the ATF, $7.302 billion for the BOP, and $2.361 billion for grant programs. The Administration’s FY2017 budget request for DOJ includes proposals to either increase funding for existing programs or fund new programs that seek to address several issues that have risen to national prominence recently, such as concerns about gun violence in cities across the country, the relationship between law enforcement and the communities they serve, violent extremism and “home-grown” terrorism, preparing inmates to return to society after a period of incarceration, cybersecurity, and an increase in heroin addiction. For example, the Administration’s request includes $36 million to increase the ATF’s ability to enforce existing federal firearms laws, arrest violent criminals, prevent firearms from being transferred to people who cannot legally own them, and perform its regulatory duties; $3 million for COPS grants to help law enforcement agencies partner with local residents, business owners, community groups, and other stakeholders to build resilience against violent extremism; $20 million to expand education programs in BOP facilities; $30 million for grants to help law enforcement agencies purchase body-worn cameras; and $12 million to help the DEA create four new heroin enforcement groups.

Mar 23, 2016

FY2017 Appropriations for the Department of Justice Grant Programs

Each year Congress provides funding for a variety of grant programs through the Department of Justice (DOJ). These programs provide funding to state, local, and tribal governments and nonprofit organizations for a variety of criminal justice-related purposes, such as programs to combat violence against women, reduce backlogs of DNA evidence, support community policing efforts, assist crime victims, promote prisoner reentry efforts, and improve the functioning of the juvenile justice system. Congress funds these programs through five accounts in the annual Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies (CJS) appropriations act: Violence Against Women Programs; Research, Evaluation, and Statistics; State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance; Juvenile Justice Programs; and Community Oriented Policing Services. For FY2017, the Administration requests a total of $2.361 billion for these five accounts. This includes $489 million for the Office on Violence Against Women (which includes a proposed $326 million transfer from the Crime Victims Fund); $154 million for Research, Evaluation, and Statistics; $1.098 billion for State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance; $334.4 million for Juvenile Justice Programs; and $286 million for Community Oriented Policing Services. The Administration’s request for all of these accounts, with the exception of State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance, is greater than the FY2016 appropriation. The Administration’s FY2017 request for DOJ’s grant accounts includes several significant proposals. First, the Administration proposes to transfer $326 million from the Crime Victims Fund to the Office on Violence Against Women. It also proposes to eliminate funding for the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (-$210 million), while proposing to reduce funding for other programs, such as the National Criminal History Improvement program (-$23 million), and DNA backlog reduction initiatives (-$20 million). However, the Administration also proposes increases for grants to encourage arrest policies (+$11.3 million), grants authorized under the Second Chance Act (+$32 million), and programs for children exposed to violence (+$15 million). In addition, it proposes restoring funding to the Juvenile Accountability Block Grant (+$30 million), a program that was eliminated after FY2013, along with funding a variety of new programs and initiatives, such as the Byrne Incentive Grant program ($10 million), the Byrne Competitive Grant program ($15 million), and the Violence Reduction Network ($5 million).

Mar 23, 2016

Military Funeral Honors for Veterans

Eligible veterans are entitled to receive military honors at their funerals. Federal law, enacted in 1999 (P.L. 105-261) and amended in 2000 (P.L. 106-65) provides that each eligible veteran shall be provided, at minimum, a two-person funeral honors detail, the playing of taps, and the folding and presentation of a U. S. flag to the family. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) issues these honors at no cost to the veteran’s family. These honors can be augmented to include color guards, pallbearers, and firing parties provided either by the military or civilians in approved veterans or other organizations. Funeral honors at Arlington National Cemetery include additional elements according to the rank of the deceased. Persons involved in capital crimes are ineligible for military funeral honors. In 1997, Congress began prohibiting interment and inurnment in national cemeteries and military funeral honors for persons involved in federal or state capital crimes. In 2006, Congress passed a law (P.L. 109-461) ordering the cremated remains of a veteran who had been convicted of two counts of murder be removed from Arlington National Cemetery. In 2013, pursuant to the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Windsor, same-sex spouses of eligible veterans became eligible for interment and inurnment in national cemeteries.

Mar 23, 2016

Cybersecurity: Federal Government Authoritative Reports and Resources

This report serves as a starting point for congressional staff assigned to cover cybersecurity issues related to federal and military government activities. Much is written by and about the federal government’s efforts to address cybersecurity policy challenges, and this CRS report directs the reader to authoritative sources that address many of the most prominent issues. The annotated descriptions of these sources are listed in reverse chronological order with an emphasis on material published in the past several years. This report includes resources and studies from government agencies (federal, state, local, and international), think tanks, academic institutions, news organizations, and other sources related to Table 1, overview reports; Table 2, federal acquisitions rules and federal contractors; Table 3, federal agency audits and evaluations, including Government Accountability Office (GAO); Table 4, federal workforce; Table 5, White House and Office of Management and Budget (OMB); Table 6, cybersecurity framework and information sharing; Table 7, Department of Homeland Security (DHS); Table 8, Department of Defense (DOD); and Table 9, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The following CRS reports comprise a series that compiles authoritative reports and resources on these additional cybersecurity topics: CRS Report R44405, Cybersecurity: Overview Reports and Links to Government, News, and Related Resources, by Rita Tehan CRS Report R44406, Cybersecurity: Education, Training, and R&D Authoritative Reports and Resources, by Rita Tehan CRS Report R44408, Cybersecurity: Cybercrime and National Security Authoritative Reports and Resources, by Rita Tehan CRS Report R44410, Cybersecurity: Critical Infrastructure Authoritative Reports and Resources, by Rita Tehan CRS Report R44417, Cybersecurity: State, Local, and International Authoritative Reports and Resources, by Rita Tehan CRS Report R43310, Cybersecurity: Data, Statistics, and Glossaries, by Rita Tehan CRS Report R43317, Cybersecurity: Legislation, Hearings, and Executive Branch Documents, by Rita Tehan For access to additional CRS reports and other resources, see the Cybersecurity Issue Page at http://www.crs.gov.

Mar 22, 2016

Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) and the Foreign Investment in Real Property Tax Act (FIRPTA): Overview and Recent Tax Revisions

The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016 (P.L. 114-13) made several changes to the tax treatment of Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) and the Foreign Investment in Real Property Tax Act (FIRPTA, enacted in the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1980, P.L. 96-499) as it relates to REITs. REITs are corporations that issue shares of stock, are largely invested in real property, and do not generally pay corporate tax. REITs distribute and deduct most income as dividends to shareholders. U.S. individual shareholders pay tax at ordinary individual income tax rates on those dividends (rather than the lower rates normally applied to dividends on corporate stock). REITs were initially introduced, in part, to allow taxpayers of more modest means to invest in real estate. The size and scope of REITs has been increasing in past years, due in part to legislative and regulatory changes. REITs today are estimated to own $1.8 trillion in real estate. Legislative changes have meant REITs are increasingly not only owning and renting property as a passive investment, but also managing it through taxable subsidiaries. U.S. corporations have been spinning off (transferring to a separate corporation organized as a REIT) buildings (and other assets defined as real estate) in a tax-free reorganization. The scope of these spin-offs as well as new REITs has been increased through legislative and regulatory changes that treat assets such as timber, cell towers, and billboards as real estate. The expanding scope and size of REIT activities has raised issues as to whether the intent of the preferred treatment is still appropriate. Another issue concerning REITs is that provisions in FIRPTA have been discouraging foreign investors from purchasing REIT shares by taxing investments that exceed 5% of the REIT’s shares. Capital gains paid to foreign investors are generally exempt from U.S. tax. FIRPTA, however, imposes a capital gains tax on foreign investments for gains related to real estate, with an exception for a less than 5% ownership of a REIT. Investment in other types of securities is not subject to the U.S. capital gains tax. The Consolidated Appropriations Act makes several changes in response to these issues. The act disallows tax-free spin-offs of assets into a tax-exempt REIT by a regular corporation; increases from 5% to 10% the amount of ownership in a REIT by a foreign investor before the capital gains tax applies; and exempts foreign pension funds investing directly or indirectly in real estate from the FIRPTA capital gains tax. These provisions, taken together, result in federal tax revenue losses. There are also some smaller (in revenue effect) provisions affecting foreign investors that gain revenue. In addition to these rules, P.L. 114-13 includes some minor provisions, the most significant of these changes relating to the treatment of taxable REIT subsidiaries. The changes in the Consolidated Appropriations Act may lead to a period with no further REIT revisions. If tax reform is considered, however, additional REIT base broadening provisions might be considered. For example, former Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee Dave Camp’s proposed Tax Reform Act of 2014 (H.R. 1, 113th Congress) contained more restrictive provisions relating to spin-offs as well as other provisions primarily focused on the definition of real estate. Changes in a tax reform, such as lowering the corporate rate or allowing a corporate dividend deduction, could also affect the relative tax benefit of REITs. This report describes REITs and FIRPTA, provides historical developments, presents an overview of REIT size and activity, explains the provisions in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, and discusses possible policy issues in the future.

Mar 22, 2016

Electricity Markets—Recent Issues in Market Structure and Energy Trading

Electricity today is widely viewed as a commodity. As a commodity, electricity is bought and sold as power (measured in kiloWatts or MegaWatts) and energy (measured in kiloWatt-hours), with various attributes being traded in electricity markets. The importance of transparency in wholesale electricity markets was underscored by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), which aimed to facilitate price transparency in interstate markets for the sale and transmission of electric energy, and to prohibit energy market manipulation. Regional Transmission Organizations (RTOs) are regional entities authorized by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to administer the electricity transmission grid. RTOs use various types of markets to serve end-use customer needs, and to make operational decisions. Over time, each RTO market has developed its own regulations or variations thereof, all under FERC’s regulatory jurisdiction. However, these regulations and rules appear to be increasing in complexity, as the markets are revised to adjust for operational issues and regional differences. Electricity market issues can be usually separated into two categories—manipulation by market participants or RTO market structural issues. Capacity markets and Forward Capacity markets are two RTO topics often debated. Capacity markets have come under fire in some areas where they are used, as brownouts or blackouts have still occurred in unusually high demand periods. In other RTOs without formal capacity markets, the question has been whether the additional cost is justified by the perceived benefits. Several RTOs use Forward Capacity markets to provide some degree of certainty that there will be adequate capacity to serve future load demand and meet system reserve needs. However, there has been considerable debate on whether Forward Capacity markets work since high load pockets continue to persist in some RTO regions. RTO markets have enabled a variety of products and services including derivatives and hedges for market participants, ostensibly to reduce risks from volatile prices. Financial instruments were added to RTO markets essentially to increase liquidity. It could be reasonably argued that a drive to increase liquidity has also led to the addition of financial instruments, which ostensibly act to encourage speculation in the electricity markets. With the California (or Western) energy crisis of 2000 to 2001, the susceptibility of electricity markets to manipulation became evident. Enron and its affiliates were principally found liable for “engaging in various gaming and market manipulation schemes.” FERC continues to investigate allegations of energy market manipulation, with several recent cases ending in prominent settlements. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (DFA or Dodd-Frank, P.L. 111-203) was passed largely as a response to the recent U.S. financial crisis. DFA initiated a number of reforms intended to strengthen oversight of the U.S. financial sector. Dodd-Frank addresses issues related to market manipulation from fraud, stating that “specific intent” or “recklessness” would trigger a rules violation. FERC for its part states that its focus is on anti-competitive “conduct that threatens market transparency.” Some might argue that the recent spate of settlements at FERC leads to a lack of clarity about what constitutes market manipulation, and what does not. The electricity industry is entering a time of change, and electricity markets are evolving with the industry. The expected retirement of many coal-fired power plants can affect RTO markets as generator portfolios change to include more natural gas-fired plants, and the prices that this new generation is expected to command. With load growth stagnant in many regions, the pull towards a greater use of hedging and more liquid markets may increase as the need to decrease costs and stabilize revenues increases. Congress may choose to consider whether to change how RTO electricity markets are regulated and operated (i.e., through some standardization of these markets or elements in these markets), with an eye towards improving efficiency, and increasing regulatory clarity and transparency, lowering costs, and thus potentially reducing opportunities for fraud or market manipulation.

Mar 21, 2016

Nonprofit Challenges to the Contraceptive Coverage Requirement: The Meaning of Substantial Burdens on Religious Exercise Under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act

In the spring of 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court will consider a set of challenges alleging that the contraceptive coverage requirement of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) violates the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The Court has consolidated seven cases for review, each brought by nonprofit religious entities that have religious objections to the provision and use of contraceptives and that also object to the process by which their objections may be accommodated under ACA regulations that require employers to provide contraceptive coverage in group health plans. The question at the heart of these challenges is whether the accommodation process—requiring employers with religious objections to inform the government of their objection and third-party insurers to provide required coverage to the employer’s employees—would impose a substantial burden on religious exercise in violation of RFRA. The Court’s consideration of these cases (consolidated under the case name Zubik v. Burwell and referred to collectively throughout this report as “the nonprofit challenges”) follows its landmark 2014 decision, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., which has had ongoing implications for a number of legal and legislative issues. Hobby Lobby expanded the scope of entities recognized as eligible for protection under RFRA, but left open a number of other questions about how far RFRA’s protection may extend, including what governmental actions might constitute a “substantial burden” on religious exercise prohibited under RFRA. Federal courts have been divided on the standard for recognizing a substantial burden in many cases, particularly in challenges to the ACA regulations. While the Court’s decision almost certainly will provide clarification of RFRA’s application to the contraceptive coverage requirement, it also likely will impact RFRA claims in a range of other issues being litigated in courts and considered in legislatures, both on the federal and state level. RFRA applies to all federal actions, unless specifically exempted by Congress, meaning that the impacts of its interpretation may affect a broad number of legislative issues. Additionally, a number of states have enacted state versions, the interpretation of which may be influenced by the Court’s decisions. For example, organizations with religious objections to same-sex relationships have sought protection under RFRA for requirements to serve same-sex couples, including service by public accommodations; participation of religious providers in social service programs; and admission programs in religious institutions of higher education. Religious objections to other governmental mandates may affect other issues as well (e.g., abortion, health care, etc.). This report examines the current parameters on governmental restrictions on religious exercise. It discusses the history of federal protection offered under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and RFRA, and notes parallel protections available at the state level. It analyzes the current interpretations of RFRA as applied to the contraceptive coverage requirement of the ACA, including discussion of Hobby Lobby and a review of the lower courts’ interpretations of the nonprofit challenges. Finally, the report highlights a range of issue areas of interest to Congress that may be affected by the Court’s interpretation of RFRA.

Mar 21, 2016

Justice Antonin Scalia: His Jurisprudence and His Impact on the Court

On February 13, 2016, Justice Antonin Scalia passed away unexpectedly at the age of 79, vacating a seat on the Supreme Court which he had held for nearly 30 years. Justice Scalia’s lengthy tenure on the Court, coupled with his strongly held views on how constitutional and statutory texts are to be interpreted, led him to have significant influence on the development of the jurisprudence of various areas of law. He was also an active speaker and author outside the Court, having, among other things, recently coauthored a book which sought to articulate interpretative canons that would, in its authors’ view, “curb—even reverse—the tendency of judges to imbue authoritative texts with their own policy preferences” and “provide greater certainty in the law, and hence greater predictability and greater respect for the rule of law.” Like his approaches to many legal issues in his opinions on the Court, Justice Scalia’s approach to statutory interpretation in this book has prompted debate both over its desirability, as a normative matter, and over the consistency with which Justice Scalia applied that approach. This report discusses Justice Scalia’s jurisprudence on key areas of law, as well as how that jurisprudence could be seen to have influenced the Court’s approach to these subject matters. It begins with his views on two cross-cutting issues—the role of the judiciary and statutory interpretation—which highlight his well-known views about originalism, textualism, the importance of bright-line rules for judges to apply, and the proper role of the courts within the system of government established by the U.S. Constitution. It then addresses Justice Scalia’s jurisprudence on fourteen separate areas of law, which are arranged in alphabetical order from “administrative law” to “takings,” and were specifically selected as key areas of law where Justice Scalia’s absence from the Court could result in a change in its jurisprudence. The report concludes with an Appendix that lists the Supreme Court cases from the October 2010 term through the October 2015 term in which Justice Scalia was part of a bare five-member majority, indicating the legal issues where Justice Scalia’s absence from the Court could result in a shift in the Court’s jurisprudence. A separate report is being prepared to address the opinions of Merrick Garland, currently the Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and the President’s nominee to fill the seat vacated by Justice Scalia. The two reports, taken together, may assist Members of Congress and their staff in assessing the impact that replacement of Justice Scalia might have upon the High Court’s rulings. Other CRS reports address the procedural issues that the vacating of Justice Scalia’s seat poses for the Court, as well as the processes for nominating and confirming Supreme Court Justices. See CRS Report R44400, The Death of Justice Scalia: Procedural Issues Arising on an Eight-Member Supreme Court, by Andrew Nolan; CRS Report R44235, Supreme Court Appointment Process: President’s Selection of a Nominee, by Barry J. McMillion; CRS Report R44236, Supreme Court Appointment Process: Consideration by the Senate Judiciary Committee, by Barry J. McMillion; and CRS Report R44234, Supreme Court Appointment Process: Senate Debate and Confirmation Vote, by Barry J. McMillion.

Mar 18, 2016

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

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

Mar 17, 2016

Cybersecurity: State, Local, and International Authoritative Reports and Resources

Much is written by and about state, local, and international government efforts to address cybersecurity policy issues. This report and the CRS reports listed below link to authoritative sources that address many of the most prominent issues. It includes resources and studies from government agencies (federal, state, local, and international), think tanks, academic institutions, news organizations, and other sources. These sources are listed in reverse chronological order, with an emphasis on materials published in the past several years. This report is intended to serve as a starting point for congressional staff assigned to cover cybersecurity policy issues. It includes annotated descriptions of reports, websites, or external resources related to Table 1, state, local, and tribal governments, including selected state status reports, surveys, and guidance documents Table 2, international, including international laws, legislation and agreements, supply chain vulnerabilities, and intellectual property theft Table 3, international—China, including espionage, cybercrime, and national security issues Table 4, international—Europe, European Union, and United Kingdom The following CRS reports comprise a series that compiles authoritative reports and resources on these additional cybersecurity topics: CRS Report R44405, Cybersecurity: Overview Reports and Links to Government, News, and Related Resources, by Rita Tehan CRS Report R44406, Cybersecurity: Education, Training, and R&D Authoritative Reports and Resources, by Rita Tehan CRS Report R44408, Cybersecurity: Cybercrime and National Security Authoritative Reports and Resources, by Rita Tehan CRS Report R44410, Cybersecurity: Critical Infrastructure Authoritative Reports and Resources, by Rita Tehan CRS Report R43317, Cybersecurity: Legislation, Hearings, and Executive Branch Documents, by Rita Tehan CRS Report R43310, Cybersecurity: Data, Statistics, and Glossaries, by Rita Tehan For access to additional CRS reports and other resources, see the Cybersecurity Issue Page at http://www.crs.gov.

Mar 16, 2016

USDA Initiative Is Funding New Ethanol Infrastructure

Mar 16, 2016

DHS Appropriations FY2016: Departmental Management and Operations

This report is part of a suite of reports that discuss appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for FY2016. It specifically discusses appropriations for the components of DHS included in the first title of the homeland security appropriations bill—the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management, the Office of the Under Secretary for Management, the DHS headquarters consolidation project, the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, the Office of the Chief Information Officer, Analysis and Operations, and the Office of Inspector General for the department. Collectively, Congress has labeled these components in recent years as “Departmental Management and Operations.” The report provides an overview of the Administration’s FY2016 request for Departmental Management and Operations, the appropriations proposed by Congress in response, and those enacted thus far. Rather than limiting the scope of its review to the first title, the report includes information on provisions throughout the proposed bills and reports that directly affect these functions. Departmental Management and Operations is the smallest of the four titles that carry the bulk of the funding in the bill. The Administration requested $1,396 million in total budgetary resources for these components in FY2016, $255 million more than was provided for FY2015. Although only 3.4% of the Administration’s $41.4 billion request for the department, the proposed additional funding was 17.8% of the total net increase requested. While the Administration proposed increasing the budget of every component of Departmental Management and Operations, the largest increase, both in dollars ($167 million) and by percentage terms (441%), was to fund a revised plan for consolidation of DHS headquarters offices in the National Capital Region. Senate-reported S. 1619 would have provided $1,346 million, a decrease of $50 million (3.6%) from the request and $205 million (18.0%) above FY2015. House-reported H.R. 3128 would have provided $1,217 million, a $179 million (12.8%) decrease from the request and $76 million (6.7%) above FY2015. On December 18, 2015, the President signed into law P.L. 114-113, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, Division F of which was the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2016. The act included $1,546 million for these components in FY2016, $405 million more than was provided for FY2015, and $150 million more than was requested. Additional information on the broader subject of FY2016 funding for the department can be found in CRS Report R44053, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations: FY2016, as well as links to analytical overviews and details regarding appropriations for other components. This report will be updated if supplemental appropriations are provided for any of these components for FY2016.

Mar 16, 2016

Five Years of the Budget Control Act’s Disaster Relief Adjustment

Signed into law on August 2, 2011, the Budget Control Act (P.L. 112-25, or BCA) established a set of limits on federal spending, as well as a set of mechanisms to adjust those limits to accommodate special categories of spending that has special priority. One of these mechanisms—a limited allowable adjustment to pay for the congressionally designated costs of major disasters under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (hereinafter “the disaster relief allowable adjustment” or “allowable adjustment”)—represented a new approach to paying for disaster relief. By providing this flexibility in the budget caps, Congress changed the way it approached funding disaster relief and recovery efforts. The disaster relief allowable adjustment is based on a modified rolling average of annual federal government appropriations for the costs of major disasters, pursuant to a methodology laid out in the BCA. Annually, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) looks back at the past 10 years of disaster relief appropriations. For fiscal years prior to FY2012, OMB has identified appropriations associated with major disaster declarations for use in the calculation. For FY2012 and later years, OMB relies on explicit Congressional designations of appropriations as disaster relief pursuant to the BCA. OMB takes these 10 annual totals of disaster relief appropriations, drops the highest and lowest years, and averages the remaining 8. This modified average is then supplemented by any unused amounts from the average calculated for the previous fiscal year. This calculation generates a limit up to which the discretionary budget caps can be adjusted to accommodate appropriations on major disasters. In practice, this limitation on the size of the disaster relief adjustment has also limited the application of the disaster relief designation. Funds that would meet the definition of disaster relief may not be classified as such. Implementation of the disaster relief allowable adjustment has allowed Congress to fund the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) to a greater degree through annual appropriations, rather than through supplemental appropriations as it had before enactment of the BCA. Allowing the discretionary budget limitations to be adjusted to pay for disaster costs has removed, to an extent, the costs of disaster relief from competing with other annual priorities for funding. However, the allowable adjustment is expected to drop significantly in the near future as two of the highest disaster cost years roll out of the calculated average used in setting the adjustment. This report examines how the adjustment has functioned over the first five years, and what the future of disaster relief (as defined by the BCA) may look like for the next five years and beyond. Under current law, the allowable adjustment is expected to decline from a high of almost $18.5 billion in FY2015 to between $7.5 billion and $9.5 billion by the time the BCA discretionary spending limits expire after FY2021. As Congress considers budget planning and potential changes to how it budgets for disaster assistance for a variety of different types of incidents, it may consider whether the allowable adjustment has worked as planned. Congress may also consider changes to how it addresses disaster costs, through changes to the existing structure of the allowable adjustment, or by revisiting other laws.

Mar 15, 2016

Improving Child Nutrition Integrity and Access Act of 2016: In Brief

On January 20, 2016, by a unanimous voice vote, the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry voted to report its WIC and child nutrition reauthorization proposal. Bipartisan approval of the committee’s legislation, the Improving Child Nutrition Integrity and Access Act of 2016, is arguably the 114th Congress’s most significant step toward reauthorizing the child nutrition and WIC programs. Since the 2010 reauthorization, committees of jurisdiction, the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry and the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, have held related hearings, but this is the first legislative action. As of the date of this report, the House Committee on Education and the Workforce has not announced its plans for reauthorization. This report offers some basic background on the last reauthorization, its expiration, and some of the policies in the Senate Committee’s legislation. The “child nutrition programs” (National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and certain other institutional food service programs) and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) are primarily authorized by the permanent statutes, the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (codified at 42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.) and the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (codified at 42 U.S.C. 1771 et seq). These statutes and programs were last reauthorized by the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (HHFKA, P.L. 111-296). Some of the authorities created or extended in the last reauthorization law expired on September 30, 2015. As of the date of this report, Congress has not reauthorized the child nutrition and WIC programs, but the vast majority of operations and activities continue via the funding provided by the FY2016 omnibus appropriations law (P.L. 114-113). The Senate committee’s proposal would extend the authorizations of appropriations of the Summer Food Service Program, WIC, WIC FMNP, and State Administrative Expenses. (Other major programs—like NSLP and SBP—have a permanent authorization of programs). The proposal would also continue some of the authorizing provisions that had September 30, 2015, sunset dates. Regarding the activities that are currently expired, the Senate committee’s proposal would continue the California pilot, and the food safety audit authorities; but the proposal does not continue the permanent appropriation for a National Hunger Clearinghouse. Authorities extended through September 30, 2020 School Meals (National School Lunch program and School Breakfast Program). Nutrition Standards, sodium, whole grains. Application Verification. Summer Meals (Summer Food Service Program(SFSP) and Other)—congregate feeding, summer EBT, Summer Electronic Benefit Transfer for Children (SEBTC) Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) Farm to School Grant Program Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program Special Supplemental Nutrition program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC)—infant formula rebates

Mar 15, 2016

Nutrition Labeling of Restaurant Menu and Vending Machine Items

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

Mar 14, 2016

Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan (CO-OP) Program: Frequently Asked Questions

The Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan (CO-OP) program was included in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA; P.L. 111-148) in an effort to increase the competitiveness of state health insurance markets and improve choice. Under the program, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) uses appropriated funds to award low-interest loans to organizations applying to become CO-OPs—nonprofit, member-run health insurance issuers that sell health insurance in the state(s) in which they are licensed. CMS awarded loans to 24 CO-OPs. One of the 24 was dropped from the program prior to offering health plans. Among the remaining 23 CO-OPs, 11 are offering health plans in 2016. The other 12 offered health plans at one time but are not currently offering health plans and are in various stages of shutting down. CMS awarded about $2.4 billion to the 23 CO-OPs that ever offered health plans. The fact that about half of the CO-OPs have ceased operations has generated a lot of interest in the program. The purpose of this report is to address frequently asked questions about the CO-OP program. The report includes information about the structure of the CO-OP program, program requirements, the loan awards, and the current operating status of the CO-OPs.

Mar 11, 2016

Tribal Broadband: Status of Deployment and Federal Funding Programs

Tribal areas and communities continue to lag behind other areas and segments of American society with respect to broadband and telecommunications services. High poverty rates and low income levels in tribal lands—along with the fact that many tribal communities are located in remote rural areas (often with rugged terrain)—are major factors that may explain why tribal areas have comparatively poor levels of broadband access, and why providers may lack an economic incentive to serve those areas. Until recently, data on tribal broadband deployment had been scarce. However, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) have begun to collect and compile data on tribal broadband deployment. The most recent data show that, as of December 31, 2014, approximately 41% of Americans living on tribal lands lacked access to broadband at speeds of 25 Mbps download/3 Mbps upload. This compares unfavorably to 10% of all Americans lacking access to broadband at those speeds. Tribal areas that are the most lacking in broadband service are rural Alaskan villages and rural tribal lands in the lower 48 states. Because the presence of robust broadband and improved digital connectivity in tribal areas could play a significant role in revitalizing many tribal communities, the federal government continues to provide some financial assistance to tribal lands for broadband deployment. The Government Accountability Office, in its 2016 report, Challenges to Assessing and Improving Telecommunications for Native Americans on Tribal Lands, identified programs in two federal agencies that serve as the primary source of funding for deploying broadband infrastructure in tribal lands and communities. These federal agencies are the FCC and the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) in the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Tribal entities and projects are eligible for virtually all federal broadband programs. With a few exceptions, however, there are no carve-outs or dedicated funding streams specifically for tribal applicants or non-tribal entities proposing to serve tribal lands. Thus, annual amounts of federal financial assistance vary depending on the number and quality of tribal-related applications received, and the number of tribal-related broadband awards made by the funding agencies. Debate has centered on whether federal funding for tribal broadband is sufficient, and the extent to which portions of federal funds available for broadband should be specifically targeted for tribal broadband. In the 114th Congress, while there is no legislation that exclusively addresses federal funding for tribal broadband, there are a number of bills that address federal funding for broadband generally. Notwithstanding whether federal broadband funding programs target tribal lands, whether or not tribal lands will receive additional funding for broadband will likely be determined by the ongoing trajectory of overall federal funding for broadband.

Mar 10, 2016

SBA Disaster Loan Program: Frequently Asked Questions

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

Mar 9, 2016

Legislative Branch Appropriations: Frequently Asked Questions

This report responds to frequently asked questions about legislative branch appropriations. Frequently asked questions include the items that are funded within this bill; development, presentation, and consideration of the legislative branch budget requests; the legislative branch budget in historical perspective; and recent actions. For additional information, including information on the most recent legislative branch appropriations act, see CRS Report R44029, Legislative Branch: FY2016 Appropriations, by Ida A. Brudnick.

Mar 9, 2016

Cybersecurity: Critical Infrastructure Authoritative Reports and Resources

Critical infrastructure is defined in the USA PATRIOT Act (P.L. 107-56, Sec. 1016(e)) as “systems and assets, physical or virtual, so vital to the United States that the incapacity or destruction of such systems and assets would have a debilitating impact on security, national economic security, national public health and safety, or any combination of those matters.” Presidential Decision Directive 63, or PDD-63, identified activities whose critical infrastructures should be protected: information and communications; banking and finance; water supply; aviation, highways, mass transit, pipelines, rail, and waterborne commerce; emergency and law enforcement services; emergency, fire, and continuity of government services; public health services; electric power, oil and gas production; and storage. In addition, the PDD identified four activities in which the federal government controls the critical infrastructure: (1) internal security and federal law enforcement; (2) foreign intelligence; (3) foreign affairs; and (4) national defense. In February 2013, the Obama Administration issued PPD-21, Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience, which superseded HSPD-7 issued during the George W. Bush Administration. PPD-21 made no major changes in policy, roles and responsibilities, or programs, but did order an evaluation of the existing public-private partnership model, the identification of baseline data and system requirements for efficient information exchange, the development of a situational awareness capability. PPD-21 also called for an update of the National Infrastructure Protection Plan, and a new Research and Development Plan for Critical Infrastructure, to be updated every four years. This report serves as a starting point for congressional staff assigned to cover cybersecurity issues as they relate to critical infrastructure. Much is written about protecting U.S. critical infrastructure, and this CRS report directs the reader to authoritative sources that address many of the most prominent issues. The annotated descriptions of these sources are listed in reverse chronological order with an emphasis on material published in the past several years. The report includes resources and studies from government agencies (federal, state, local, and international), think tanks, academic institutions, news organizations, and other sources. Table 1 contains overview reports and resources Table 2 lists energy resources, including electrical grid, Smart Grid, SCADA, and Industrial Control Systems Table 3 presents financial industry resources, including banks, insurance, SEC guidance, FFIEC, FDIC, FSOC, and IRS Table 4 contains health, including Healthcare.gov, health insurance, Medicaid, and medical devices Table 5 contains telecommunications and communications, including wired, wireless, Internet service providers, GPS, undersea cables, and public safety broadband networks Table 6 features transportation, including Coast Guard, air traffic control, ports and maritime, and automobiles The following CRS reports comprise a series that compiles authoritative reports and resources on these cybersecurity topics: CRS Report R44405, Cybersecurity: Overview Reports and Links to Government, News, and Related Resources, by Rita Tehan CRS Report R44406, Cybersecurity: Education, Training, and R&D Authoritative Reports and Resources, by Rita Tehan CRS Report R44408, Cybersecurity: Cybercrime and National Security Authoritative Reports and Resources, by Rita Tehan CRS Report R43317, Cybersecurity: Legislation, Hearings, and Executive Branch Documents, by Rita Tehan CRS Report R43310, Cybersecurity: Data, Statistics, and Glossaries, by Rita Tehan For access to additional CRS reports and other resources, see the Cybersecurity Issue Page at http://www.crs.gov.

Mar 8, 2016

Health Privacy: Updating Federal Protections for Patient Records at Substance Abuse Treatment Programs

Mar 8, 2016

Overview of FY2017 Appropriations for Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies (CJS)

This report tracks and describes actions taken by the Administration and Congress to provide FY2017 appropriations for the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies (CJS) accounts. It also provides an overview of FY2016 appropriations for agencies and bureaus funded as part of annual CJS appropriations. Division B of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (P.L. 114-113), provided $66.000 billion for CJS, which included $9.246 billion for the Department of Commerce, $29.090 billion for the Department of Justice (DOJ), $26.754 billion for the science agencies, and $910 million for the related agencies. For FY2017, the Administration requests a total of $67.650 billion for CJS, which includes $9.723 billion for the Department of Commerce, $29.910 billion for DOJ, $26.995 billion for the science agencies, and $1.022 billion for the related agencies. The Administration proposes supplementing discretionary appropriations for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) with $763 million and $400 million, respectively, in new one-time mandatory funding. Over the past 10 fiscal years, nominal appropriations for CJS increased starting with FY2007, peaked in FY2010, and generally declined between FY2010 and FY2013. Nominal appropriations for CJS were relatively flat in FY2014 and FY2015. CJS appropriations increased by approximately $4 billion in FY2016, largely due to the fact that Congress increased the discretionary budget cap when it passed, and the President signed, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (P.L. 114-74). The data show that the increases in CJS appropriations in FY2009 and FY2010 were largely the result of Congress appropriating more funding for Commerce in support of the 2010 decennial census. Although decreased appropriations for Commerce mostly explain the overall decrease in CJS appropriations between FY2010 and FY2013, cuts in funding for DOJ and NASA and sequestration in FY2013 also contributed to the decrease. The exception to this trend has been funding for the NSF, which has generally increased each fiscal year since FY2007. Appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice and for NASA have generally increased each fiscal year since FY2013.

Mar 7, 2016

Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies: History, Membership, and Inaugural Activities

Every four years, at noon on January 20, the President-elect is sworn in as President of the United States. The year before the inauguration, Congress establishes the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies. The Joint Inaugural Committee is responsible for the planning and execution of the swearing-in ceremony and hosting an inaugural luncheon for the President and Vice President at the U.S. Capitol. Pursuant to S.Con.Res. 28 and S.Con.Res. 29 in the 114th Congress (2015-2016), the 2017 inaugural ceremony will be held at the U.S. Capitol, with the swearing-in ceremony on the West Front Steps and special events held in the Rotunda and Emancipation Hall of the Capitol Visitor Center. The tradition of authorizing a Joint Inaugural Committee dates to 1901 for the inauguration of President William McKinley. At that time, the House and Senate authorized that inaugural expenses be paid by the Clerk of the House of Representatives and the Secretary of the Senate and created a committee of three Representatives and three Senators appointed by the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House. Since 1901, the Joint Inaugural Committee has been authorized quadrennially. On February 3, 2016, Congress authorized the Joint Inaugural Committee for the 2017 Inauguration. Representing the Senate on the 2017 Joint Inaugural Committee are Senator Roy Blunt, chair of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration; Senator Mitch McConnell, Senate majority leader; and Senator Charles Schumer, ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration. Representing the House of Representatives are Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. This report provides historical information on the Joint Inaugural Committee, including the committee’s origin, membership, leadership, staffing, and inaugural activities.

Mar 4, 2016

Encryption: Selected Legal Issues

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

Mar 3, 2016

Housing Opportunity Through Modernization Act (H.R. 3700)

The Housing Opportunity Through Modernization Act (HOTMA; H.R. 3700) would make amendments to various Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) programs, including the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program (including the Family Unification Program (FUP), the public housing program, the Section 8 project-based rental assistance program, Federal Housing Administration (FHA) mortgage insurance for condominiums, and homeless assistance including the Continuum of Care and Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG) programs and Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) program. It would also make changes to the Section 502 guaranteed loan program administered by the Rural Housing Service at the Department of Agriculture.

Mar 3, 2016

Housing Issues in the 114th Congress

Housing and residential mortgage markets in the United States are continuing to recover from several years of turmoil that began in 2007-2008, though the recovery has been uneven across the country. Nationally, home prices have been consistently increasing since 2012. Negative equity and mortgage foreclosure rates have been steadily decreasing, though both remain elevated. Home sales have begun to increase, with sales of existing homes approaching levels that were common in the early 2000s, though sales of new homes and housing starts remain low. Mortgage originations have remained relatively low despite ongoing low interest rates, leading many to argue that it is too difficult for prospective homebuyers to qualify for a mortgage. Some believe that this is because mortgage regulations put in place in recent years are restricting access to mortgages for creditworthy homebuyers, while others hold that these rules provide important consumer protections and suggest that other factors are limiting mortgage access. Nearly three-quarters of new mortgages continue to be backed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac or insured by a government agency such as the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) or the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), with the remaining mortgages mostly being held on bank balance sheets. In the rental housing market, vacancy rates have continued to decline and rents have continued to increase as more households become renters. Although the supply of rental housing has also increased, it has generally not kept pace with the increasing demand. Rising rents have contributed to housing affordability problems, which are especially pronounced for low-income renters. The 114th Congress has been considering a number of housing-related issues against this backdrop. Some of these issues are related to housing for low-income individuals and families, including appropriations for housing programs in a limited funding environment, proposed reforms to certain rental assistance programs administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), debate over funding for two affordable housing funds (the Housing Trust Fund and the Capital Magnet Fund), and the possible reauthorization of the main program that provides housing assistance to Native Americans. Congress has also taken the occasion of HUD’s 50th anniversary to reflect on the department’s role through hearings and other actions. Congress has also been deliberating on certain housing finance-related issues, including possible targeted changes to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, oversight of mortgage-related rulemakings, and issues related to the future and financial health of FHA. Two fair housing issues have also been active in the 114th Congress. HUD recently released a new rule updating certain HUD grantees’ responsibilities to “affirmatively further” fair housing. Separately, the Supreme Court issued a decision affirming that disparate impact claims are allowable under the Fair Housing Act. Congress has expressed interest in both of these developments. As in recent years, the 114th Congress has considered several housing-related tax provisions as part of a broader tax extenders bill. These housing-related provisions include extensions of the exclusion for canceled mortgage debt, the deduction for mortgage insurance premiums, and provisions related to the low-income housing tax credit.

Mar 3, 2016

Cybersecurity: Education, Training, and R&D Authoritative Reports and Resources

Much is written on the topics of current gaps in the education and training of a cybersecurity workforce and the need for technology research and development (R&D) to solve cybersecurity technical issues. This CRS report directs the reader to authoritative sources that address these issues. The annotated descriptions of these sources are listed in reverse chronological order, with an emphasis on material published in the past several years. This report also includes resources and studies from government agencies (federal, state, local, and international), think tanks, academic institutions, news organizations, and other sources. Table 1 provides education and training resources, including scholarships, internships, the cybersecurity workforce, and the National Cybersecurity Centers of Excellence (NCCoE). Table 2 provides R&D resources, including the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA), National Science Foundation (NSF), Department of Defense (DOD), and private industry R&D programs and funding. The following CRS reports comprise a series that compiles authoritative reports and resources on these cybersecurity topics: CRS Report R44405, Cybersecurity: Overview Reports and Links to Government, News, and Related Resources, by Rita Tehan CRS Report R43317, Cybersecurity: Legislation, Hearings, and Executive Branch Documents, by Rita Tehan CRS Report R43310, Cybersecurity: Data, Statistics, and Glossaries, by Rita Tehan For access to additional CRS reports and other resources, see the Cybersecurity Issue Page at http://www.crs.gov.

Mar 3, 2016

Cybersecurity: Cybercrime and National Security Authoritative Reports and Resources

As online attacks grow in volume and sophistication, the United States is expanding its cybersecurity efforts. Cybercriminals continue to develop new ways to ensnare victims, whereas nation-state hackers compromise companies, government agencies, and businesses to create espionage networks and steal information. Threats come from both criminals and hostile countries, especially China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. Much is written on this topic, and this CRS report directs the reader to authoritative sources that address many of the most prominent issues. The annotated descriptions of these sources are listed in reverse chronological order, with an emphasis on material published in the past several years. This report includes resources and studies from government agencies (federal, state, local, and international), think tanks, academic institutions, news organizations, and other sources: Table 1—cybercrime, data breaches and security, including hacking, real-time attack maps, and statistics (such as economic estimates) Table 2—national security, cyber espionage, and cyberwar, including Stuxnet, China, and the Dark Web Table 3—cloud computing, the Internet of Things (IoT), and FedRAMP The following reports comprise a series of authoritative reports and resources on these additional cybersecurity topics: CRS Report R44405, Cybersecurity: Overview Reports and Links to Government, News, and Related Resources, by Rita Tehan CRS Report R44406, Cybersecurity: Education, Training, and R&D Authoritative Reports and Resources, by Rita Tehan CRS Report R44408, Cybersecurity: Cybercrime and National Security Authoritative Reports and Resources, by Rita Tehan CRS Report R44410, Cybersecurity: Critical Infrastructure Authoritative Reports and Resources, by Rita Tehan CRS Report R44417, Cybersecurity: State, Local, and International Authoritative Reports and Resources, by Rita Tehan CRS Report R44427, Cybersecurity: Federal Government Authoritative Reports and Resources, by Rita Tehan CRS Report R43317, Cybersecurity: Legislation, Hearings, and Executive Branch Documents, by Rita Tehan CRS Report R43310, Cybersecurity: Data, Statistics, and Glossaries, by Rita Tehan For access to additional CRS reports and other resources, see the Cybersecurity Issue Page at http://www.crs.gov.

Mar 3, 2016

Candidates, Groups, and the Campaign Finance Environment: A Brief Overview

Mar 3, 2016

Cybersecurity: Overview Reports and Links to Government, News, and Related Resources

Much is written on the topic of cybersecurity. This CRS report and those listed below direct the reader to authoritative sources that address many of the most prominent issues. Included in the reports are resources and studies from government agencies (federal, state, local, and international), think tanks, academic institutions, news organizations, and other sources. This report is intended to serve as a starting point for congressional staff assigned to cover cybersecurity issues. It includes annotated descriptions of reports, websites, or external resources: Table 1—cybersecurity overview Table 2—congressional and government resources Table 3—international organizations resources Table 4 —news resources Table 5—other associations and institutions resources The following CRS reports comprise a series that compiles authoritative reports and resources on these cybersecurity topics: CRS Report R43317, Cybersecurity: Legislation, Hearings, and Executive Branch Documents, by Rita Tehan CRS Report R43310, Cybersecurity: Data, Statistics, and Glossaries, by Rita Tehan For access to additional CRS reports and other resources, see the Cybersecurity Issue Page at http://www.crs.gov.

Mar 2, 2016