CRS Reports

Congressional Efforts to Reduce Restrictions on Growing Industrial Hemp

This report briefly discusses U.S. agricultural policies regarding the industrial use of hemp.

Oct 29, 2015

Federal Advisory Committees: An Introduction and Overview

Federal advisory committees—which may also be labeled as commissions, councils, or task forces—are established to assist the executive branch in deliberating and, in some cases, helping to solve complex or divisive issues. Congress, the President, or an agency head may establish a federal advisory committee to render independent advice or provide policy recommendations. In 1972, Congress enacted the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA; 5 U.S.C. Appendix—Federal Advisory Committee Act; 86 Stat. 770, as amended), prompted by the perception that some advisory committees were duplicative, inefficient, and lacked adequate oversight. FACA mandates certain structural and operational requirements, including formal reporting and oversight procedures. Additionally, FACA requires committee meetings be open to the public, unless they meet certain requirements. Also, FACA committee records are to be accessible to the public. Pursuant to statute, the General Services Administration (GSA) maintains and administers management guidelines for federal advisory committees. During FY2014, 989 active federal advisory committees reported a total of 68,179 members. Federal operating costs for those committees was reported as $334,538,221, of which $192,458,943 (57.5%) was spent on federal support staff. For Congress, several aspects of federal advisory committees may command attention. For example, Congress can require the establishment of new federal advisory committees; oversee the operations of existing advisory committees; and legislate changes to the requirements of FACA or the ethics responsibilities placed on members who serve on FACA committees. This report offers a history of FACA, examines its current requirements, and provides data on federal advisory committees operations and costs. To date in the 114th Congress (2015-2016), one bill has been introduced that would amend FACA’s implementation and administration. H.R. 2347, the Federal Advisory Committee Act Amendments of 2015, would create a formal process for the public to recommend potential advisory committee members and require member selection without regard to their partisan affiliation. In addition, H.R. 2347 seeks to clarify the ethics requirements placed on committee members, and would increase records access requirements. On May 15, 2015, H.R. 2347 was concurrently referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and the House Committee on Ways and Means. No further action has been taken on the bill.

Oct 28, 2015

Social Security and Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) Provisions in the Proposed Bipartisan Budget Agreement of 2015

Oct 28, 2015

Policy Issues Related to Credit Union Lending

Oct 28, 2015

Air Force Bomber Contract Awarded

This report briefly discusses the Department of Defense's recent announcement of its intention to award the contract to build the new Long Range Strike Bomber (LRS-B) to Northrop Grumman Corporation. The program will continue under the LRS-B name; the Air Force has not yet assigned the aircraft a "B-3"-style type designation.

Oct 28, 2015

The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act and the One-Stop Delivery System

The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA; P.L. 113-128), which succeeded the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-220) as the primary federal workforce development legislation, was enacted in July 2014 to bring about increased coordination among federal workforce development and related programs. Most of WIOA’s provisions went into effect July 1, 2015. WIOA authorizes appropriations for each of FY2015 through FY2020 to carry out the programs and activities authorized in the legislation. Workforce development programs provide a combination of education and training services to prepare individuals for work and to help them improve their prospects in the labor market. They may include activities such as job search assistance, career counseling, occupational skill training, classroom training, or on-the-job training. The federal government provides workforce development activities through WIOA’s programs and other programs designed to increase the employment and earnings of workers. WIOA includes five titles: Workforce Development Activities (Title I), Adult Education and Literacy (Title II), Amendments to the Wagner-Peyser Act (Title III), Amendments to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Title IV), and General Provisions (Title V). Title I, whose programs are primarily administered through the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) of the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), includes three state formula grant programs, multiple national programs, and Job Corps. Title II, whose programs are administered by the U.S. Department of Education (ED), includes a state formula grant program and National Leadership activities. Title III amends the Wagner-Peyser Act of 1933, which authorizes the Employment Service (ES). Title IV amends the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which authorizes vocational rehabilitation services to individuals with disabilities. Title V includes provisions for the administration of WIOA. The WIOA system provides central points of service via its system of around 3,000 One-Stop centers nationwide, through which state and local WIOA employment and training activities are provided and certain partner programs must be coordinated. This system is supposed to provide employment and training services that are responsive to the demands of local area employers. Administration of the One-Stop system occurs through Workforce Development Boards (WDBs), a majority of whose members must be representatives of business and which are authorized to determine the mix of service provision, eligible providers, and types of training programs, among other decisions. WIOA provides universal access (i.e., an adult age 18 or older does not need to meet any qualifying characteristics) to its career services, including a priority of service for low-income adults. WIOA also requires Unified State Plans (USPs) that outline the workforce strategies for the six core WIOA programs—adult, dislocated worker, and youth programs (Title I of WIOA), the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA; Title II of WIOA), the Employment Service program (amended by Title III of WIOA), and the Vocational Rehabilitation State Grant Program (amended by Title IV of WIOA). Finally, WIOA adopts the same six “primary indicators of performance” across most of the programs authorized in the law. This report provides details of WIOA Title I state formula program structure, services, allotment formulas, and performance accountability. In addition, it provides a program overview for national grant programs. It also offers a brief overview of the Employment Service (ES), which is authorized by separate legislation but is an integral part of the One-Stop system created by WIOA.

Oct 27, 2015

The European Union (EU): Current Challenges and Future Prospects in Brief

This report provides a brief history of the EU and the major simultaneous challenges currently facing the EU as an institution. It also discusses the potential implications both for the EU itself and for U.S.-EU relations.

Oct 27, 2015

The Federal Advisory Committee Act: Analysis of Operations and Costs

Federal advisory committees are established to allow experts from outside the federal government to provide advice and recommendations to executive branch agencies or the President. Federal advisory committees can be created either by Congress, the President, or an executive branch agency. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) requires agencies to report on the structure, operations, and costs of qualifying federal advisory committees. The General Services Administration (GSA) is authorized to collect, retain, and verify the reported information, and does so using an online tool called the FACA Database. This report provides an overview of the data that populates the FACA Database, which details the costs and operations of all active federal advisory committees. This report examines the data from FY2004-FY2014, with additional in-depth analysis of FY2014. Generally, the data show that the number of active FACA committees has remained relatively stable over time, hovering around 1,000 committees in any given fiscal year. The Department of Health and Human Services consistently operates the most federal advisory committees, with 264 active committees in FY2014. The Department of Agriculture had the second most active committees in FY2014 with 166. In any given year, around half of the active FACA committees were required to be established by statute. In FY2014, Congress established 10 new FACA committees by statute. Generally, around 70,000 people serve as members on FACA committees and subcommittees in any given year. In FY2014, 68,179 members served. In FY2014, 825 federal advisory committees held 7,173 meetings and cost more than $334 million to operate. The report provides an in-depth examination of FACA committee operations, using the data collected by GSA. The report concludes by providing a list of policy options that Congress can consider when deliberating current or future legislation to amend FACA.

Oct 27, 2015

A Survey of House and Senate Committee Rules on Subpoenas

House Rule XI, clause 2(m)(1) and (3) authorizes House committees and subcommittees to issue subpoenas for the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents. Senate Rule XXVI, paragraph 1 authorizes Senate committees and subcommittees to subpoena witnesses and documents. In turn, most House and Senate committees have adopted in their own rules subpoena provisions containing procedures for exercising this grant of power from their parent chamber. Committee rules may cover authorization, issuing, and service of subpoenas; may cover just one or two of these actions; or may be silent on exercise of the subpoena power. A subpoena must be authorized—a decision to approve this legal order to a person to appear to testify or to provide documents. Once authorized, a subpoena must be issued—signed and given to an individual to deliver the subpoena to the person named in it. To deliver a subpoena to the person named is to serve the subpoena. Most House and Senate committees have specifically included in their rules one or more provisions on committees’ and subcommittees’ power to authorize subpoenas by majority vote. Most House committees have also delegated to their chair the power to authorize subpoenas. Many of these rules delegating authority also require the chair to consult the committee’s ranking minority Member. Most Senate committees’ subpoena rules delegate to the chair and ranking minority Member together the power to authorize subpoenas. In addition to rules on authorizing subpoenas, the rules of most committees in both chambers also address issuing subpoenas. Most House committees’ rules delegate authority to issue subpoenas to the chair or to another committee member who has been designated by the committee. Most Senate committees’ rules delegate authority to issue subpoenas to the chair or to another committee member designated by the chair. Some committees’ rules are explicit on procedures for subcommittees to authorize subpoenas; other committees’ rules are not explicit. Other requirements or limitations pertaining to subpoenas may also appear in committees’ rules. The distinctions among committees’ subpoena rules are varied and nuanced. Committees’ other procedural rules might have an effect on scheduling and conducting meetings to authorize a subpoena. These other rules deal with the notice for and agenda of a meeting, the quorum to conduct business, voting, and consideration.

Oct 26, 2015

Argentina's 2015 Presidential Election

This report briefly discusses the Argentinian Presidential election, held on October 25, 2015. The close results set up a second round on November 22, 2015, between Daniel Scioli and Mauricio Macri.

Oct 26, 2015

Sentencing Reform: Comparison of Selected Proposals

This is a comparison of selected criminal sentencing reform bills as introduced: H.R. 3713, H.R. 2944, S. 502, and H.R. 920; and S. 2123 as passed by the Senate Judiciary Committee with a manager’s amendment. It consists of narrative and charts comparing the bills with respect to adjustments in the mandatory minimum sentencing provisions that apply to controlled substance and firearms offenses, the safety valve, and retroactive application of the Fair Sentencing Act (FSA).

Oct 26, 2015

Israel: Background and U.S. Relations In Brief

This report focuses on the following: Recent dynamics in U.S.-Israel relations, U.S.-Israel next steps following the July 2015 Iranian nuclear deal, regional threats Israel perceives from Hezbollah, Syria, and elsewhere, recently intensified Israeli-Palestinian tensions and violence in connection with Jerusalem's holy sites, and domestic political developments in Israel.

Oct 23, 2015

Electing the Speaker of the House of Representatives: Frequently Asked Questions

This report briefly poses and answers several "frequently asked questions" in relation to the floor proceedings used to elect a Speaker of the House. Current practice for electing a Speaker, either at the start of a Congress or in the event of a vacancy, is by roll-call vote, during which Members state aloud the name of their preferred candidate.

Oct 23, 2015

Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage: Implications for Religious Objections

The U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Obergefell v. Hodges in June 2015 held that the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution required states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and to recognize same-sex marriages formed in other states. The Court’s decision in Obergefell does not directly address incidental claims related to religious freedom in the context of same-sex marriage. However, the case has generated a number of other questions regarding potential implications of the Court’s decision, particularly with respect to the rights of individuals or entities with religious objections to same-sex marriage. Among the issues raised are the obligation of marriage officiants to perform or facilitate same-sex marriage ceremonies; civil rights protections for same-sex couples and religious objectors; potential protections for religious social service providers in federally funded programs; and the impact on tax-exempt status of religious entities that object to same-sex marriage. Questions related to the solemnization of same-sex marriages involve whether individuals who serve as marriage officiants, either in religious or civil ceremonies, would be required to solemnize marriages to which they object. Although long-standing Supreme Court jurisprudence indicates that religious officiants would be protected under the First Amendment, the protections available to civil servants whose duties include issuing state marriage licenses or officiating at civil ceremonies are not as straightforward, and may depend on a number of other factors. Expansion of constitutional protection to same-sex couples also may have implications under civil rights law and certain federally funded social service programs. Under federal and state civil rights provisions, questions have involved whether owners of public accommodations may be required to serve same-sex couples; whether health care providers may be required to provide medical treatment regardless of a patient’s sexual orientation; and whether religious institutions must provide housing to same-sex couples. Generally, courts are finding that a business must provide the same services to same-sex couples as it provides to opposite-sex couples, or that the business must not offer services that it would object to offering to same-sex couples. In the context of social service programs, some religious organizations receive federal funding to provide certain social services (e.g., adoption). However, concerns have been raised regarding whether such organizations could decline to serve same-sex couples based on their religious objections to same-sex marriage. Finally, the Court’s decision may affect religious entities’ tax-exempt status under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. One qualification for Section 501(c)(3) status is that an organization cannot engage in activities that are illegal or violate a fundamental public policy. This is referred to as the “illegality doctrine.” A question that has been raised in light of the Obergefell decision is whether religious entities that act in opposition to same-sex marriage could be in violation of the doctrine. In testimony before Congress in July 2015, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Commissioner stated that the IRS would not currently apply the doctrine to religious entities acting in opposition to same-sex marriage, but left open the possibility that the agency could change its position in response to future legal and policy developments. If the doctrine were to apply, one question that might arise is whether a religious entity’s First Amendment rights would be violated if its tax-exempt status were revoked due to actions based on sincerely held religious beliefs. The Supreme Court has held in another context that denial of tax-exempt status of religious schools under the illegality doctrine may be permissible under the First Amendment, so long as the law or policy requiring the denial advances a compelling governmental interest that could not be served by less restrictive means and is based on neutral, secular criteria. Notably, the Court’s holding did not address the doctrine’s application to houses of worship, thus leaving open the possibility that they may be afforded greater protections.

Oct 23, 2015

The Effect of Base-Broadening Measures on Labor Supply and Investment: Considerations for Tax Reform

One source of interest in a tax reform that broadens the base and lowers the rate is the potential increase in growth, as labor supply and investment respond to lower marginal tax rates. Yet, studies of a signature reform in the past, the Tax Reform Act of 1986, found little effect on growth. The act was revenue and distributionally neutral, which is a goal of some recent tax reform proposals. One reason advanced for the limited effects on growth is that the effects of provisions that broaden the base to finance lower statutory rates increase effective marginal tax rates for some taxpayers. This report shows how options to broaden the tax base by placing limitations on itemized deductions can potentially work counter to the growth effects of reducing marginal tax rates, primarily through reducing labor supply. It also shows how these effects—along with other base-broadening provisions, such as slowing depreciation—limit the effects on investment and savings and can eventually reduce the size of the capital stock in the economy. The effects on labor supply and the capital stock are considered in turn. To examine the potential effects of base broadening on effective tax rates facing labor, the analysis examines provisions to eliminate itemized deductions for state and local taxes, for charitable contributions, and for both. It also examines provisions to eliminate itemized deductions altogether or to impose dollar caps ($17,000 and $25,000). Eliminating itemized deductions would raise effective marginal tax rates by almost two percentage points on average and is estimated, using common behavioral responses, to reduce labor supply by 0.2% to 0.6%. These effects are significant compared to projected effects in the Tax Reform Act of 2014 (H.R. 1, 113th Congress), where labor supply was projected to increase by 0.4% to 0.8%. More limited restrictions to itemized deductions result in smaller reductions in labor supply. Similar to the analysis for labor supply, the potential effects of base broadening on effective tax rates for capital investment are examined. The analysis includes two itemized deduction restrictions: disallowing the deduction for state and local taxes and disallowing all itemized deductions. Eliminating these provisions increases the effective marginal tax rate on business income, interest income, dividends, and capital gains. It also included the effects of three provisions that affect how quickly an investment is recovered. One is to move to the alternative depreciation system that forms the baseline for measuring the benefits of accelerated depreciation. The other two provisions are to depreciate two types of intangible investments, research and development and advertising, over a 10-year period. The analysis also considered repeal of the production activities deduction (which allows a 9% deduction from taxable income for certain domestic production, such as manufacturing) and indexation of interest deductions and payments for inflation. Moving to the alternative depreciation system had the greatest effect, reducing the long-run capital stock (using a range of behavioral responses) by 0.8% to 1.6%. It more than offset the effect of a 10 percentage point corporate rate reduction. Indexing interest deductions and payments for inflation had the next largest effect, 0.5% to 1.1%. Repealing itemized deductions for state and local taxes reduced the capital stock by 0.1% to 0.2%, and repealing all itemized deductions reduced it by 0.1% to 0.3%. Repealing all itemized deductions offset about a third of the effect of reducing the statutory corporate tax rate by 10 percentage points. An inevitable characteristic of a revenue-neutral tax reform is a tendency to balance out positive and negative effects on labor supply and growth. Revenue-neutral tax reform may have other virtues, but given the inevitable trade-off of such an approach, a major impact on growth may not be one of them.

Oct 22, 2015

Department of Veterans Affairs FY2016 Appropriations: In Brief

This report discusses budget issues for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), which provides a range of benefits and services to veterans who meet certain eligibility rules.

Oct 22, 2015

Escalating Violence in El Salvador

This report briefly discusses gangs and violence in El Salvador. It also examines the U.S. policy response.

Oct 22, 2015

Potential Policy Implications of the House Reconciliation Bill (H.R. 3762)

This report provides background on the reconciliation process and summarizes the provisions in the Restoring Americans' Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act of 2015 (H.R. 3762), including their projected budgetary impact. It then briefly examines some of the bill's policy implications.

Oct 21, 2015

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations

This report discusses the Agriculture appropriations bill for FY 2016, which funds the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) -- except for the Forest Service -- as well as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and, in even-numbered fiscal years, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).

Oct 21, 2015

Potential Impact of No Social Security COLA on Medicare Part B Premiums in 2016

This report provides an overview of Medicare Part B premiums, the relationship between the Social Security cost-of-living increase (COLA) and Part B premiums, and the potential impact of a projected 0% Social Security COLA in 2016 on Medicare premiums, based on recent projections by the Medicare Trustees.

Oct 20, 2015

Supreme Court Appointment Process: Senate Debate and Confirmation Vote

The procedure for appointing a Justice to the Supreme Court is provided for in the U.S. Constitution in only a few words. The “Appointments Clause” in the Constitution (Article II, Section 2, clause 2) states that the President “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the supreme Court.” While the process of appointing Justices has undergone some changes over two centuries, its most essential feature—the sharing of power between the President and the Senate—has remained unchanged: To receive lifetime appointment to the Court, one must first be formally selected (“nominated”) by the President and then approved (“confirmed”) by the Senate. For the President, the appointment of a Supreme Court Justice can be a notable measure by which history will judge his Presidency. For the Senate, a decision to confirm is a solemn matter as well, for it is the Senate alone, through its “Advice and Consent” function, without any formal involvement of the House of Representatives, which acts as a safeguard on the President’s judgment. This report provides information and analysis related to the final stage of the confirmation process for a nomination to the Supreme Court—the consideration of the nomination by the full Senate, including floor debate and the vote on whether to approve the nomination. Traditionally, the Senate has tended to be less deferential to the President in his choice of Supreme Court Justices than in his appointment of persons to high executive branch positions. The more exacting standard usually applied to Supreme Court nominations reflects the special importance of the Court, coequal to and independent of the presidency and Congress. Senators are also mindful that Justices—unlike persons elected to legislative office or confirmed to executive branch positions—receive lifetime appointments. The appointment of a Supreme Court Justice might or might not proceed smoothly. From the appointment of the first Justices in 1789 through its consideration of nominee Elena Kagan in 2010, the Senate has confirmed 124 Supreme Court nominations out of 160 received. Of the 36 nominations which were not confirmed, 11 were rejected outright in roll-call votes by the Senate, while nearly all of the rest, in the face of substantial committee or Senate opposition to the nominee or the President, were withdrawn by the President, or were postponed, tabled, or never voted on by the Senate. Six of the unconfirmed nominations, however, involved individuals who subsequently were re-nominated and confirmed. Additional CRS reports provide information and analysis related to other stages of the confirmation process for nominations to the Supreme Court. For a report related to the selection of a nominee by the President, see CRS Report R44235, Supreme Court Appointment Process: President’s Selection of a Nominee, by Barry J. McMillion. For a report related to consideration of nominations by the Senate Judiciary Committee, see CRS Report R44236, Supreme Court Appointment Process: Consideration by the Senate Judiciary Committee, by Barry J. McMillion.

Oct 19, 2015

Commodity Futures Trading Commission: Proposed Reauthorization in the 114th Congress

Oct 19, 2015

Supreme Court Appointment Process: President’s Selection of a Nominee

Oct 19, 2015

Supreme Court Appointment Process: Consideration by the Senate Judiciary Committee

The appointment of a Supreme Court Justice is an event of major significance in American politics. Each appointment is of consequence because of the enormous judicial power the Supreme Court exercises as the highest appellate court in the federal judiciary. To receive appointment to the Court, a candidate must first be nominated by the President and then confirmed by the Senate. Although not mentioned in the Constitution, an important role is played midway in the process (after the President selects, but before the Senate considers) by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Specifically, the Judiciary Committee, rather than the Senate as a whole, invariably assumes the principal responsibility for investigating the background and qualifications of each Supreme Court nominee, and typically the committee conducts a close, intensive investigation of each nominee. Since the late 1960s, the Judiciary Committee’s consideration of a Supreme Court nominee almost always has consisted of three distinct stages—(1) a pre-hearing investigative stage, followed by (2) public hearings, and concluding with (3) a committee decision on what recommendation to make to the full Senate. During the pre-hearing investigative stage, the nominee responds to a detailed Judiciary Committee questionnaire, providing biographical, professional, and financial disclosure information to the committee. In addition to the committee’s own investigation of the nominee, the FBI also investigates the nominee and provides the committee with confidential reports related to its investigation. During this time, the American Bar Association also evaluates the professional qualifications of the nominee, rating the nominee as “well qualified,” “qualified,” or “not qualified.” Finally, prior to hearings starting, the nominee pays courtesy calls on individual Senators in their offices, including Senators who do not serve on the Judiciary Committee. Once the Judiciary Committee completes its investigation of the nominee, he or she testifies in hearings before the committee. On average, for Supreme Court nominees who have received hearings from 1975 to the present, the nominee’s first hearing occurred 39 days after his or her nomination was formally submitted to the Senate by the President. Questioning of a nominee by Senators has involved, as a matter of course, the nominee’s legal qualifications, biographical background, and any earlier actions as public figures. Other questions have focused on social and political issues, the Constitution, particular court rulings, current constitutional controversies, and judicial philosophy. For the most recent nominees to the Court, hearings have lasted for four or five days (although the Senate may decide to hold more hearings if a nomination is perceived as controversial—as was the case with Robert Bork’s nomination in 1987, who had 11 days of hearings). Usually within a week upon completion of the hearings, the Judiciary Committee meets in open session to determine what recommendation to “report” to the full Senate. The committee’s usual practice has been to report even those Supreme Court nominations opposed by a committee majority, allowing the full Senate to make the final decision on whether the nomination should be approved. Consequently, the committee may report the nomination favorably, report it unfavorably, or report it without making any recommendation at all. Of the 15 most recent Supreme Court nominations reported by the Judiciary Committee, 13 were reported favorably, 1 was reported unfavorably, and 1 was reported without recommendation. Additional CRS reports provide information and analysis related to other stages of the confirmation process for nominations to the Supreme Court. For a report related to the selection of a nominee by the President, see CRS Report R44235, Supreme Court Appointment Process: President’s Selection of a Nominee, by Barry J. McMillion. For a report related to Senate floor debate and consideration of nominations, see CRS Report R44234, Supreme Court Appointment Process: Senate Debate and Confirmation Vote, by Barry J. McMillion.

Oct 19, 2015

Creating a Federal Advisory Committee in the Executive Branch

Federal advisory committees allow members of the public to formally provide advice and recommendations to the executive branch of the federal government. These advisory committees, of which about 1,000 operate at any given time, provide advice and recommendations on issues ranging from how to support trade goals of small and minority-owned businesses to which drugs best treat arthritis pain. Many federal advisory committees are required to operate pursuant to the open meetings and records access requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). Advisory committees are established for a number of reasons, including to acquire new ideas from outside experts, remove certain controversial topics from politically charged arenas, and to help reduce the workload of Members of Congress. Congress has an important role in the establishment of federal advisory committees. Of the active federal advisory committees in FY2014, 705 (71.3%) were required or authorized by Congress—515 (52.1%) of which were required by statute while 190 (19.2%) were authorized, but not required, by statute. Other federal advisory committees were established by executive branch agencies or the President. A committee’s establishment and mandate, membership requirements, powers, funding, and termination are some of the many components that Congress may consider when establishing an advisory committee. This report provides a brief overview on how Congress can establish federal advisory committees, and provides some considerations as to why a federal advisory committee may or may not be an appropriate mechanism for a particular policy or funding question. It presents data on the number of active committees established by Congress with special emphasis on the committees established in FY2014. This report concludes by presenting a list of the federal advisory committees currently proposed for establishment in legislation in the 114th Congress.

Oct 19, 2015

Federal Aid for Reconstruction of Houses of Worship: A Legal Analysis

In late October 2012, Hurricane Sandy struck the East Coast of the United States, causing severe damage to the mid-Atlantic and northeast regions of the country. The resulting destruction led to major disaster declarations in 12 states and the District of Columbia, making those states eligible for certain federal supplemental assistance to aid in the recovery process. The damage resulting from Hurricane Sandy devastated a wide range of communities, and many individuals and organizations sought federal assistance for recovery, including churches, which, in turn, raised constitutional concerns regarding the provision of federal assistance to religious organizations. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution generally prohibits the government from sponsoring or financing religious activities. The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the restrictions on federal aid provided to religious institutions in a number of contexts. In the context of providing aid to fund the construction or maintenance of religious buildings, the Court has permitted such aid if the building is not used for worship or religious instruction in a series of decisions issued in the early 1970s. Over time, however, the focus of the Court’s analysis in Establishment Clause cases involving public aid to religious institutions has shifted. More recent cases arguably suggest that neutrality in the eligibility of participants competing for public funds may be paramount. At least one federal court of appeals and the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) have relied on this shift to support conclusions that funding may be permitted to provide assistance to religious facilities in some scenarios, such as urban development, emergency and disaster assistance, and historic preservation. This report examines the constitutional rules governing federal funding for religious buildings and analyzes the Court’s previous decisions on this issue. It also analyzes more recent lower court and administrative opinions that have distinguished the Court’s decisions and allowed public funds to be awarded to houses of worship. Finally, the report discusses examples in which Congress has proposed or provided funding related to the construction and maintenance of religious buildings, including the Federal Disaster Assistance Nonprofit Fairness Act (H.R. 3066, 114th Cong.), which would authorize the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to provide disaster recovery assistance to houses of worship and other buildings operated by religious organizations.

Oct 19, 2015

The Army's M-1 Abrams, M-2/M-3 Bradley, and M-1126 Stryker: Background and Issues for Congress

This report discusses various issues surrounding the M-1 Abrams Tank, the M-2/M-3 Bradley Fighting Vehicle (BFV), and the M-1126 Stryker Combat Vehicle, centerpieces of the Army's Armored Brigade Combat Teams (ABCTs) and Stryker Brigade Combat Teams (SBCTs). Congress is concerned with the long-term military effectiveness of these vehicles.

Oct 15, 2015

Less-than-Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement Signed in Burma

Eight ethnic groups and representatives of Burma's government signed a ceasefire agreement on October 15, possibly moving the country one step closer to ending its six decade long civil war. This report briefly discusses the process that lead to the agreement and its implications.

Oct 15, 2015

Sentence Reform Acts: S. 2123 and H.R. 3713

As introduced, the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act of 2015, S. 2123, and the Sentencing Reform Act of 2015, H.R. 3713, use virtually identical language to reduce the impact of the mandatory minimum sentences which federal courts must now impose for certain drug trafficking and firearms offenses. Key Takeaways Existing law requires long minimum sentences for certain drug traffickers who have prior drug convictions. S. 2123 and H.R. 3713 would shorten the mandatory minimums, but apply them for both prior drug and violent felony convictions. The safety valve permits judges to ignore mandatory minimums for certain low-level, nonviolent drug traffickers with virtually no criminal record. The bills would make the safety valve available to traffickers with slightly more serious criminal records. The bills would establish a mini-safety valve which would permit judges to treat the 10-year drug trafficking mandatory minimums as if they were 5-year mandatory minimums for the benefit of nonviolent defendants with no prior serious drug or violent crime convictions. The proposals would permit retroactive application of the 2010 Fair Sentencing Act crack/powder cocaine amendments under some circumstances. S. 2123 and H.R. 3713 would reduce the Armed Career Criminal mandatory minimum to 10 years from 15 years. The bills would increase to 15 years the maximum penalties for possession of a firearm by a felon and various other firearms offenses. H.R. 3713, but not S. 2123, would add a consecutive term of imprisonment for not more than five years to the mandatory minimums in drug trafficking cases which involve heroin or fentanyl (a heroin cutter and counterfeit). S. 2123, but not H.R. 3713, would establish new mandatory minimums for certain interstate domestic violence offenses and International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) violations. S. 2123, but not H.R. 3713, would direct the Attorney General to prepare an inventory of federal statutory crimes and various federal agencies to prepare a comparable inventory of federal regulatory offenses.

Oct 14, 2015

The Internet of Things: Frequently Asked Questions

“Internet of Things” (IoT) refers to networks of objects that communicate with other objects and with computers through the Internet. “Things” may include virtually any object for which remote communication, data collection, or control might be useful, such as vehicles, appliances, medical devices, electric grids, transportation infrastructure, manufacturing equipment, or building systems. In other words, the IoT potentially includes huge numbers and kinds of interconnected objects. It is often considered the next major stage in the evolution of cyberspace. Some observers believe it might even lead to a world where cyberspace and human space would seem to effectively merge, with unpredictable but potentially momentous societal and cultural impacts. Two features make objects part of the IoT—a unique identifier and Internet connectivity. Such “smart” objects each have a unique Internet Protocol (IP) address to identify the object sending and receiving information. Smart objects can form systems that communicate among themselves, usually in concert with computers, allowing automated and remote control of many independent processes and potentially transforming them into integrated systems. Those systems can potentially impact homes and communities, factories and cities, and every sector of the economy, both domestically and globally. Although the full extent and nature of the IoT’s impacts remain uncertain, economic analyses predict that it will contribute trillions of dollars to economic growth over the next decade. Sectors that may be particularly affected include agriculture, energy, government, health care, manufacturing, and transportation. The IoT can contribute to more integrated and functional infrastructure, especially in “smart cities,” with projected improvements in transportation, utilities, and other municipal services. The Obama Administration announced a smart-cities initiative in September 2015. There is no single federal agency that has overall responsibility for the IoT. Agencies may find IoT applications useful in helping them fulfill their missions. Each is responsible for the functioning and security of its own IoT, although some technologies, such as drones, may fall under the jurisdiction of other agencies as well. Various agencies also have relevant regulatory, sector-specific, and other mission-related responsibilities, such as the Departments of Commerce, Energy, and Transportation, the Federal Communications Commission, and the Federal Trade Commission. Security and privacy are often cited as major issues for the IoT, given the perceived difficulties of providing adequate cybersecurity for it, the increasing role of smart objects in controlling components of infrastructure, and the enormous increase in potential points of attack posed by the proliferation of such objects. The IoT may also pose increased risks to privacy, with cyberattacks potentially resulting in exfiltration of identifying or other sensitive information about an individual. With an increasing number of IoT objects in use, privacy concerns also include questions about the ownership, processing, and use of the data they generate. Several other issues might affect the continued development and implementation of the IoT. Among them are the lack of consensus standards for the IoT, especially with respect to connectivity; the transition to a new Internet Protocol (IPv6) that can handle the exponential increase in the number of IP addresses that the IoT will require; methods for updating the software used by IoT objects in response to security and other needs; energy management for IoT objects, especially those not connected to the electric grid; and the role of the federal government, including investment, regulation of applications, access to wireless communications, and the impact of federal rules regarding “net neutrality.” No bills specifically on the IoT have been introduced in the 114th Congress, although S.Res. 110 was agreed to in March 2015, and H.Res. 195 was introduced in April. Both call for a U.S. IoT strategy, a focus on a consensus-based approach to IoT development, commitment to federal use of the IoT, and its application in addressing challenging societal issues. House and Senate hearings have been held on the IoT, and several congressional caucuses may consider associated issues. Moreover, bills affecting privacy, cybersecurity, and other aspects of communication could affect IoT applications.

Oct 13, 2015

Colombian Peace Talks Breakthrough: A Possible End- Game?

This report briefly discusses the recent breakthrough reached in talks between the Colombian government and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) just a day after Pope Francis left Cuba, following more than 40 rounds of discussions held in Havana since November 2012.

Oct 13, 2015

The Internet of Things: CRS Experts

Oct 13, 2015

EPA Policies Concerning Integrated Planning and Affordability of Water Infrastructure

This report examines recent initiatives by EPA, an integrated planning policy and a framework policy for assessing a community's financial capability to meet objectives and requirements of the Clean Water Act (CWA).

Oct 8, 2015

Issues in a Tax Reform Limited to Corporations and Businesses

Some tax proposals have focused on broadening the tax base and lowering the rates of both individual and corporate income taxes. In some cases, these proposals have advanced a revenue-neutral tax reform. In other instances, they have proposed revenue increases. An example of a broad-based revenue-neutral income tax reform is H.R. 1 introduced in the 113th Congress by then Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp. The bill proposed lowering both individual and corporate rates, while increasing the tax base through revising both business-related tax benefits (such as accelerated depreciation) and individual benefits (such as itemized deductions). Given the challenges of adopting a broad income tax reform, some proposals have focused on business-only tax reform. The Obama Administration has proposed such a reform, which would be revenue neutral and include cutting the corporate rate, reducing business-related tax expenditures, reducing taxes on manufacturing, simplifying taxes for small business, and reforming the international tax system. A challenge to confining tax reform to businesses is that provisions that expand the tax base may affect pass-through businesses, such as partnerships, proprietorships, and small business (Subchapter S) corporations. Unlike income in regular corporations, which is subject to the corporate income tax rate, income in pass-through businesses passes through to the individual owners and is taxed at the individual income tax rate. The effects on pass-throughs of broadening the tax base most likely could not be offset by generally lowering individual tax rates because the vast majority of those individual rates apply to labor or passive income. The cost of lowering the individual rates on this labor or passive income would probably be prohibitive. As a result, a revenue-neutral tax reform composed solely of corporate rate reductions and base-broadening provisions would likely increase the tax burden on pass-through businesses in the absence of other revisions. Noncorporate business income is large relative to that of the corporate sector, but small relative to total individual income. Noncorporate business and rental income is estimated to be 45% of total business income but only 9.2% of income reported on individual income taxes. Unincorporated businesses are estimated to own around 40% of the business capital stock. Broadening the tax base could be achieved by eliminating various tax expenditures, such as exemptions, credits, or deductions. Of the major corporate tax expenditures and other provisions that might be considered for base-broadening, the largest is the deferral of tax on foreign source income, which accounts for about 40% of corporate tax expenditures and is almost entirely corporate. This provision, however, may not be available for corporate rate reduction, based on international tax reform proposals that have been advanced. Of the other tax expenditures, some have limited overlap with unincorporated businesses whereas others significantly affect pass-through businesses. The next two largest tax corporate tax expenditures, accelerated depreciation for equipment and the production activities deduction, also benefit pass-through businesses. Increasing the tax burden on pass-through businesses to finance corporate rate reductions could lead to efficiency gains because corporate income currently is taxed more heavily than noncorporate income. Moreover, any tax reform will produce winners and losers (for example, creditors will also experience higher effective tax rates and industries will be affected differentially). Other options for business only tax reform are to target base-broadening provisions that are primarily corporate, limit changes in provisions to corporations, introduce or expand provisions that benefit small business, allow a deduction or alternative rate structure for pass-through income, or limit corporate reform to international tax changes.

Oct 8, 2015

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

The Impact Aid program, administered by the U.S. Department of Education (ED) and authorized by Title VIII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) is one of the oldest federal education programs, dating from 1950. Impact Aid compensates local educational agencies (LEAs) for “substantial and continuing financial burden” resulting from federal activities. These activities include federal ownership of certain lands, as well as the enrollments in LEAs of children whose parents work or live on federal land and children living on Indian lands. The federal government provides compensation because LEAs are unable to collect property or other taxes from these individuals (e.g., members of the Uniformed Services living on military bases) even though the LEAs are obligated to provide free public education to their children. Thus Impact Aid is intended to compensate LEAs for the resulting loss of tax revenue. Authorizations of appropriations for the program were explicitly authorized through FY2007. Congress has not acted to reauthorize the Impact Aid program, though it continues to receive annual appropriations (which are thus considered to be implicitly rather than explicitly authorized). The Impact Aid program authorizes several types of payments: Federal Property (Section 8002), Federally Connected Children: Basic Support Payments (Section 8003(b) and Payments for Children with Disabilities (Section 8003(d), Construction (Section 8007), and Facilities Maintenance (Section 8008). Overall, the Impact Aid program received about $1.3 billion in FY2015. The largest Impact Aid payment is basic support payments for federally connected children (Section 8003(b)), accounting for nearly 90% of the total appropriation. Federally connected children are children who reside with a parent who is a member of the Uniformed Services living on or off federal property; with a parent who is an accredited foreign military officer living on or off federal property; on Indian lands; in low-rent public housing; or with a parent who is a civilian working or living on federal land. Basic support payments are allocated directly to LEAs based on a formula that uses weights assigned to different categories of federally connected children and cost factors to determine maximum payment amounts. This report begins with a general overview of the various payments made under the Impact Aid program, followed by a detailed discussion of each section of Title VIII. This discussion is followed by information about recent appropriations for Impact Aid. The report concludes with an overview of programs administered by the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) that are often referred to as the “DOD Impact Aid” programs.

Oct 8, 2015

Department of Labor’s 2015 Proposed Fiduciary Rule: Background and Issues

Oct 8, 2015

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG) FY2016 Appropriations: Overview

The Financial Services and General Government (FSGG) appropriations bill includes funding for the Department of the Treasury, the Executive Office of the President (EOP), the judiciary, the District of Columbia, and more than two dozen independent agencies. In its current form, it has existed since the 2007 reorganization of the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. The House and Senate FSGG bills fund the same agencies, with one exception. The Commodities and Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) is funded through the Agriculture appropriations bill in the House and the FSGG bill in the Senate. On February 2, 2015, President Obama submitted his FY2016 budget request. The request included a total of $46.8 billion for agencies funded through the FSGG appropriations bill, including $322 million for the CFTC. On July 9, 2015, the House Committee on Appropriations reported a Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2016 (H.R. 2995, H.Rept. 114-194). Total FY2016 funding in the reported bill would be $41.6 billion, with another $245 million for the CFTC included in the Agriculture appropriations bill (H.R. 3049, H.Rept. 114-205), which was reported on July 14, 2015. The combined total of $41.8 billion would be about $4.9 billion below the President’s FY2016 request. On July 30, 2015, the Senate Committee on Appropriations reported the Financial Services and General Government Act, 2016 (S. 1910, S.Rept. 114-97). S. 1910 would appropriate $42.1 billion for FY2016, about $4.7 billion below the President’s request. On September 30, 2015, H.R. 719, a continuing resolution (CR) for FY2016, was signed into law by the President (P.L. 114-53). The CR generally provides budget authority for FY2015 projects and activities at the rate they were funded during that fiscal year. Most projects and activities funded in the CR are subject to an across-the-board decrease of less than 1% (0.2108%). The FSGG section of the CR also includes a small number of provisions that designate exceptions to the formula and purpose for which any referenced funding is extended (referred to as anomalies). Although financial services are a major focus of the bills, FSGG appropriations bills do not include many financial regulatory agencies, which are funded outside of the appropriations process. Both H.R. 2995 and S. 1910 include language that would alter the appropriations status of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), changing its primary funding source to the FSGG bill instead of unappropriated funds provided through the Federal Reserve. The Senate committee FSGG bill also includes the text of S. 1484, a broad financial regulatory reform package that was previously reported by the Senate Banking Committee, but has not been considered by the full Senate.

Oct 8, 2015

Linking with Constituents: Presentation of Social Media on Member of Congress Websites

Oct 8, 2015

Allocation of Funds Under Title I-A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act: Formula Changes Under S. 1177 and H.R. 5

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was last comprehensively reauthorized by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB; P.L. 107-110). During the 114th Congress, the House Education and the Workforce Committee reported the Student Success Act (H.R. 5), which would provide for a comprehensive reauthorization of the ESEA. The bill was subsequently passed on the House floor on July 7, 2015. The Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee reported the Every Child Achieves Act of 2015 (ECAA; S. 1177), which was subsequently passed on the Senate floor on July 16, 2015. Title I-A of the ESEA authorizes aid to local educational agencies (LEAs) for the education of disadvantaged children. Title I-A grants provide supplementary educational and related services to low-achieving and other students attending pre-kindergarten through grade 12 schools with relatively high concentrations of students from low-income families. Title I-A has also become a vehicle to which a number of requirements affecting broad aspects of public K-12 education for all students have been attached as conditions for receiving Title I-A grants. It is the largest program authorized under the ESEA and was funded at $14.4 billion for FY2015. Under Title I-A, funds are allocated to LEAs via states using four different allocation formulas specified in statute: Basic Grants, Concentration Grants, Targeted Grants, and Education Finance Incentive Grants (EFIG). Annual appropriations bills specify that portions of each year’s appropriation be allocated under each of these different formulas. Under three of the formulas—Basic Grants, Concentration Grants, and Targeted Grants—funds are initially calculated at the LEA level. State grants are the total of allocations for all LEAs in the state adjusted for state minimum grant provisions. Under EFIG, grants are first calculated for each state overall and are subsequently suballocated to LEAs within a state using a different formula. Once funds reach LEAs, the amounts allocated under the four formulas are combined and used jointly. H.R. 5 and S. 1177 would both make changes to the formulas used to allocate funds under Title I-A. Under S. 1177, an Equity Grant formula would be added to the existing formulas used to distribute Title I-A funds to state educational agencies (SEAs) and LEAs. S. 1177 would also modify the process by which Title I-A funds are allocated from LEAs to schools. Under H.R. 5, a new option for distributing funds from the state level to LEAs and from LEAs to schools would be available. This option is often referred to as the “state option” or “Title I portability.” H.R. 5 would also make changes to the determination of weighted child counts under two of the four Title I-A formulas included in current law. This report begins with a detailed discussion of how Title I-A grants are determined under current law. It then discusses the changes to these formulas that have been proposed by S. 1177 and H.R. 5. Table A-1 in Appendix A provides an overview of the key elements included in the four Title I-A formulas authorized under current law and the Equity Grant formula that would be added by S. 1177.

Oct 7, 2015

Pharmaceutical Patent-Antitrust: Reverse Payment Settlements and Product Hopping

Congressional attention has recently been directed towards two practices within the pharmaceutical industry. The first pertains to “reverse payment” or “pay-for-delay” settlements of patent litigation. Under this scenario, a generic firm agrees to neither challenge the brand-name company’s patents nor sell a generic version of the patented drug for a period of time. In exchange, the brand-name drug company agrees to compensate the generic firm, sometimes with substantial monetary payments over a number of years. Because the payment flows counterintuitively, from the patent owner to the accused infringer, this compensation has been termed a “reverse” payment. Although the private settlement of disputes is usually encouraged, some observers believe that these arrangements are anticompetitive. Another widely followed practice has been termed “product hopping.” Most observers would agree that the introduction of new medicines lies in the public interest. However, some stakeholders have accused brand-name firms of releasing new, patent-protected versions of existing drugs—while simultaneously discontinuing an earlier drug that is near patent expiration—with the primary goal of delaying generic entry into the marketplace. Because the Hatch-Waxman Act presupposes the existence of a brand-name drug in order for a generic version to enter the market, product hopping can potentially delay generic competition. Two notable judicial opinions have subjected these practices to antitrust scrutiny. In its 2013 decision in Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court held that the legality of reverse payment settlements should be evaluated under the “rule of reason” approach. Under this approach, courts consider whether conduct was reasonable by balancing the anticompetitive consequences of a challenged practice against its business justifications and potentially procompetitive impact. The 2015 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York ex rel. Schneiderman v. Actavis PLC applied the rule of reason to product hopping, concluding that this activity may indeed violate the antitrust laws. Congress possesses a number of alternatives for addressing reverse payment settlements and product hopping. One possibility is to await further judicial developments. Another option is to stipulate antitrust standards that courts and antitrust enforcement agencies would follow in the future. Congress could also alter incentives for generic firms to settle with brand-name firms under the food and drug laws.

Oct 7, 2015

Integrated Mortgage Disclosure Forms and H.R. 3192 and S. 1484/S. 1910: In Brief

On November 20, 2013, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) issued the TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure (TRID) Final Rule that would require mortgage lenders to use more easily understood and streamlined mortgage disclosure forms. The Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) have long required lenders to provide consumers disclosures about the estimated and actual real estate settlement costs and financial terms of the mortgages they offer. These disclosures are intended to help consumers compare the terms and make informed decisions regarding the suitability of various mortgage products and services they are offered. However, TILA and RESPA required disclosures of duplicative information while using inconsistent language, which might have led to increased regulatory costs and consumer confusion. In light of these concerns, Sections 1098 and 1100A of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act required the CFPB to develop “a single, integrated disclosure for mortgage loan transactions ... to aid the borrower ... in understanding the transaction by utilizing readily understandable language to simplify the technical nature of the disclosures” that remains compliant with both TILA and RESPA. The CFPB chose to give the industry until August 1, 2015—nearly two years from the date on which the Final Rule was first publicly released—to comply. In spite of this lead time, mortgage bankers and lenders in recent months have expressed concern about their inability to update software and make other necessary changes to meet the compliance deadline. This led some to plead with CFPB Director Richard Cordray for additional time to get into compliance before the CFPB starts enforcing the law. Those pleas went unheeded until it was discovered that, because of an “administrative error,” the August 1 effective date would violate a provision of the Congressional Review Act (CRA) that prevents a major rule from going into effect until at least 60 days from the date on which the rule was published in the Federal Register or was formally reported to Congress, whichever is later. The CFPB recently announced that,“[t]o comply with the CRA and to help ensure the smooth implementation of the TILA-RESPA Final Rule, the Bureau is extending the effective date ... [from August 1 to] October 3, 2015.... ” The CFPB has also announced what some have characterized as a restrained enforcement period related to the integrated disclosures. Some in Congress argue that an additional two months is insufficient for lenders to make the upgrades needed to satisfy the deadline and that the restrained enforcement period does not address several underlying concerns. Several bills respond to these concerns. The Homebuyers Assistance Act (H.R. 3192) was reported by the House Committee on Financial Services on October 1, 2015. The Financial Regulatory Improvement Act of 2015 (S. 1484) was reported by the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs on June 2, 2015. The Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2016 (S. 1910) was reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations on July 30, 2015. The proposals would provide a safe harbor for lenders related to the integrated disclosure forms.

Oct 6, 2015

The Obama Administration’s Feed the Future Initiative

Oct 5, 2015

New Climate Change Joint Announcement by China and the United States

Oct 2, 2015

DHS Appropriations FY2016: Security, Enforcement and Investigations

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 second title of the homeland security appropriations bill—Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), and the U.S. Secret Service (USSS). Collectively, Congress has labeled these components in recent years as “Security, Enforcement, and Investigations.” The report provides an overview of the Administration’s FY2016 request for Security, Enforcement, and Investigations, and the appropriations proposed by the House and Senate appropriations committees thus far. Rather than limiting the scope of its review to the second title, the report includes information on provisions throughout the proposed bill and report that directly affect these functions. Security, Enforcement, and Investigations is the largest of the four titles that carry the bulk of the funding in the bill. The Administration requested $32,481 million for these components in FY2016, $807 million more than was provided for FY2015. Although 78.5% of the Administration’s $41.4 billion request for the department in net discretionary budget authority, the proposed additional funding is 46.7% of the total net increase requested. The largest budget increase proposed in the request for these five agencies was $806 million (7.4%) for CBP, while the largest budget decrease proposed was $227 million (2.8%) for the USCG. Senate-reported S. 1619 envisions the components included in this title receiving $32,484 million in net discretionary budget authority. This would be $3 million (0.01%) more than requested, and $810 million (2.6%) more than was provided in FY2015. House-reported H.R. 3128 envisions the components included in this title receiving $32,182 million in net discretionary budget authority. This would be $299 million (0.9%) less than requested, and $508 million (1.6%) more than was provided in 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 throughout the FY2016 appropriations process.

Oct 2, 2015

Pope Francis in Cuba

Oct 2, 2015

Hurricane Events: CRS Experts

The following table provides access to names and contact information for CRS experts on policy concerns relating to hurricane events in the United States. Policy areas identified include disaster assistance and recovery matters extending to impacts such as displaced residents and business, , disruptions in the energy sector and transportation, problems with water treatment and supply; responses and recovery operations such as disaster declarations and federal assistance, public health provisions, federal flood insurance, agricultural disaster relief and assistance, tax relief, environmental cleanup; and mitigation efforts including emergency planning, floodplain mapping, and flood control and storm protection. Supporting agencies include FEMA and its operations under the Federal Stafford Act and Small Business Administration (SBA) and its disaster loan program. Hurricane Sandy, Hurricane Sandy Hurricane Sandy Hurricane Sandy, Hurricane Sandy, Hurricane Sandy Hurricane Sandy Hurricane Sandy, Hurricane Sandy, Hurricane Sandy Hurricane Sandy Hurricane Sandy, Hurricane Sandy, Hurricane Sandy Hurricane Sandy Hurricane Sandy, Hurricane Sandy, Hurricane Sandy Hurricane Sandy Hurricane Sandy, Hurricane Sandy, Hurricane Sandy Hurricane Sandy Hurricane Sandy, Hurricane Sandy, Hurricane Sandy Hurricane Sandy Hurricane Sandy, Hurricane Sandy, Hurricane Sandy Hurricane Sandy Hurricane Sandy, Hurricane Isaac, hurricanes, Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Rita, Hurricane Isabel, Miami, Louisiana, Gulf of Mexico, New Orleans, wind damage, evacuation, disaster, Florida Flooding, Mississippi, Mobile, Destin, Alabama, Mississippi River, national flood insurance, disaster assistance hurricane, Mississippi Flooding, flood insurance, flood, flooding, national flood insurance, disaster assistance flooding, hurricane convention, hurricane science, hurricane frequency, energy disruption, gulf oil, disaster recovery, disaster response, hurricane medical, medical evacuation, health hurricane, hurricane disruption, hurricane railroads, hurricane barge, hurricane tanker, hurricane highway, hurricane displaced, hurricane economics, hurricane levees, hurricane floodwalls, hurricane business, hurricane federal assistance, natural disaster, hurricane federal response plan, displaced residents, temporary housing, temporary shelter, hurricane drinking water, hurricane gas prices, hurricane gas, hurricane oil, hurricane production, hurricane highways and bridges, hurricane environment, hurricane spill, hurricane critical infrastructure, federal flood insurance, hurricane housing; hurricane debris removal, hurricane community and economic development, hurricane public facilities; hurricane agricultural relief; hazard mitigation, hazard planning, hurricane climate change, hurricane science, extreme weather, coastal zone planning; flood damage reduction, levees, hurricane science, supplemental disaster appropriations, hurricane tax relief, disaster tax relief, international response hurricane, Hurricane Isaac, hurricanes, Hurricane Katrina, Louisiana, Gulf of Mexico, New Orleans, wind damage, evacuation, disaster, Florida Flooding, Mississippi, Mobile, Destin, Alabama, Mississippi River, national flood insurance, disaster assistance hurricane, Mississippi Flooding, flood insurance, national flood insurance, disaster assistance flooding, hurricane convention, energy disruption, gulf oil, disaster recovery, disaster response, hurricane medical, medical evacuation, health hurricane, hurricane disruption, hurricane railroads, hurricane barge, hurricane tanker, hurricane highway, hurricane displaced, hurricane economics, hurricane levees, hurricane floodwalls, hurricane business, hurricane federal assistance, natural disaster, hurricane federal response plan, displaced residents, temporary housing, temporary shelter, hurricane drinking water, hurricane gas prices, hurricane gas, hurricane oil, hurricane production, hurricane highways and bridges, hurricane environment, hurricane spill, hurricane critical infrastructure, federal flood insurance, hurricane housing; hurricane debris removal, hurricane community and economic development, hurricane

Oct 1, 2015

Overview of the FY2016 Continuing Resolution (H.R. 719)

The purpose of this report is to provide an analysis of the FY2016 continuing appropriations in H.R. 719. None of the FY2016 regular appropriations bills were enacted by the start of the fiscal year (October 1, 2015). On September 30, 2015, H.R. 719, a continuing resolution (CR) for FY2016, was signed into law by the President (P.L. 114-53). The CR for FY2016 covers all 12 regular appropriations bills by providing continuing budget authority for projects and activities funded in FY2015 by that fiscal year’s regular appropriations acts, with some exceptions. It includes both budget authority that is subject to the statutory discretionary spending limits on defense and nondefense spending and also budget authority that is effectively exempt from those limits, such as that designated as for “Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on Terrorism.” Funding under the terms of the CR is effective October 1, 2015, through December 11, 2015—roughly the first 10 weeks of the fiscal year. The CR generally provides budget authority for FY2015 projects and activities at the rate they were funded during that fiscal year. Most projects and activities funded in the CR are subject to an across-the-board decrease of less than 1% (0.2108%). According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the total amount of annualized budget authority for regular appropriations in the FY2016 CR that is subject to the statutory discretionary spending limits is $1,016.582 billion. When spending is included in the CBO estimate that is effectively not subject to those limits, the total amount of annualized budget authority in the CR is $1,099.962 billion. In addition to the general provisions that establish the coverage, duration, and rate, CRs usually include provisions that are specific to certain agencies, accounts, or programs. These include provisions that designate exceptions to the formula and purpose for which any referenced funding is extended (referred to as “anomalies”) and provisions that have the effect of creating new law or changing existing law (often used to renew expiring provisions of law). The CR includes a number of such provisions, each of which is briefly summarized in this report. CRS appropriations process experts for each of these provisions are listed in Table 1. For general information on the content of CRs and historical data on CRs enacted between FY1977 and FY2015, see CRS Report R42647, Continuing Resolutions: Overview of Components and Recent Practices, by Jessica Tollestrup. For information on the FY2016 appropriations process, see CRS Report R44062, Congressional Action on FY2016 Appropriations Measures, by Jessica Tollestrup.

Oct 1, 2015

Poverty in the United States in 2014: In Brief

In 2014, approximately 46.7 million people, or 14.8% of the population, had incomes that fell below the official definition of poverty in the United States. Neither the number of people in poverty, nor the poverty rate (the percentage that were in poverty), had changed discernably from the previous year. In this brief, the numbers and percentages of those in poverty are based on the Census Bureau’s estimates. While the official measure is regarded as a statistical yardstick rather than as a complete description of what people and families need to live, it does offer a measure of economic hardship faced by the low-income population. The Census Bureau releases these poverty estimates every September for the prior calendar year. Hence, most of the comparisons discussed below are year-to-year comparisons. However, in addition to the most recent year’s data, a historical perspective is provided. This brief will also present information on poverty for demographic groups (by family structure, age, race and Hispanic origin, and work status) and for states. Over the past several decades, criticisms of the official measure have led to the development of an alternative research measure called the Supplemental Poverty Measure, or SPM, which the Census Bureau has also computed and released. Statistics comparing the official measure with the SPM are provided at the conclusion of this brief.

Sep 30, 2015

Accelerated Repayment of Bureau of Reclamation Construction Costs

Sep 30, 2015

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): FY2016 Appropriations

This report presents a discussion of the FY2015 enacted appropriations and requested funding for FY2016 for selected EPA programs and activities highlighted in the congressional debate.

Sep 29, 2015