CRS Reports

U.S. Farm Policy: Local and Regional Food Systems

May 28, 2015

Commemorative Commissions: Overview, Structure, and Funding

May 27, 2015

An Overview of the Employment-Population Ratio

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) defines the employment-population ratio as the ratio of total civilian employment to the civilian noninstitutional population. Simply put, it is the portion of the population that is employed. The ratio is used primarily as a measure of job holders and to track the pace of job creation, relative to the adult population, over time. The employment-population ratio has several properties that make it an attractive indicator for labor market analysis. It is easy to interpret and can be used to make meaningful comparisons across time and groups with dissimilar population size. Because it takes into account both the impacts of labor force participation and unemployment, it is a useful summary measure when those forces place countervailing pressures on employment. Like all labor market indicators, it has limits. For example, it does not distinguish between part-time and full-time employment, and it is silent on wages, benefits, and job conditions. Trends in the employment-population ratio also do not provide information about job flows (i.e., whether a drop in employment represents more people exiting employment or fewer new entrants). Recent estimates show that employment as a percentage of the civilian population has not returned to pre-recessionary levels. In November 2007, the employment-population ratio was 62.9%, indicating that 62.9% of the adult population had a job in that month. This rate fell steadily during the recession and several months beyond, before stabilizing around 58.5% in October 2009. Between October 2009 and March 2014, the ratio fluctuated within 0.3 percentage points of 58.5%. Since then, the employment-population ratio has climbed slowly to 59.3%, its value in April 2015. These patterns should be taken in the context of shifting demographics and other recent developments in the United States. Notably, the large baby boomer cohort has started to retire, and younger individuals are spending more time in school or otherwise delaying labor market entry. A comparison of recent employment-population ratio trends for the “prime-age” population (persons in the 25- to 54-year-age group) with those for the full adult population (persons 16 years and older) suggests that recent labor force participation patterns of young and older workers have placed downward pressure on the employment-population ratio, but age factors do not fully explain its slow recovery.

May 27, 2015

Tracking Federal Funds to States and Congressional Districts using USAspending.gov

May 27, 2015

FY2016 Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations: In Brief

May 27, 2015

Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) FY2016 Budget Request and Funding History: Fact Sheet

May 26, 2015

DHS Budget v. DHS Appropriations: Fact Sheet

(TO BE SUPPRESSED) Department of Homeland Security DHS budget Appropriations FY2016, FY2015 funding analysis non-appropriated funding adjustments under the Budget Control Act supplemental mandatory user fee trust fund

May 26, 2015

Nigeria

May 26, 2015

EPA and the Army Corps' Proposed "Waters of the United States" Rule: Congressional Response and Options

This report discusses four legislative options that Congress could consider to halt or redirect the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineer's proposed "waters of the United States" rule: the Congressional Review Act, appropriations bill limitations, targeted legislation, and broad amendments to the Clean Water Act. Each option faces a steep path to enactment.

May 26, 2015

Department of Homeland Security Appropriations: FY2016

May 26, 2015

Comparing DHS Appropriations by Component, FY2016: Fact Sheet

May 26, 2015

Trends in the Timing and Size of DHS Appropriations: In Brief

May 26, 2015

Invasive Species: Issues in Brief

For the first few centuries after the arrival of Europeans in North America, plants and animals of many species were sent between the two continents. The transfer of non-natives consisted not only of intentional westbound species ranging from pigs to dandelions but also of intentional eastbound species, such as gray squirrels and tomatoes. And for those centuries, the remaining non-native species crossing the Atlantic, uninvited and often unwelcome, were ignored if they were noticed at all. They were joined by various species arriving deliberately or accidentally from Asia and Africa. The national focus on invasive species arose in the 19th century, primarily owing to losses in agriculture (due to weeds or plant diseases), the leading industry of the time. A few recently arrived invasive species, and estimates of adverse economic impacts exceeding $100 billion annually, have sharpened that focus. Very broadly, the unanswered question regarding invasive species concerns whose responsibility it is to ensure economic integrity and ecological stability in response to the actual or potential impacts of invasive species. As this report shows, the current answer is not simple. It may depend on answers to many other questions: Is the introduction deliberate or accidental? Does it affect agriculture? By what pathway does the new species arrive? Is the potential harm from the species already known? Is the species already established in one area of the country? Finally, if the answers to any of these questions are unsatisfactory, what changes should be made? The specific issue before Congress is whether new legislative authorities and funding are needed to address issues related to invasive species and their increasing economic and ecological impacts on such disparate matters as power plant operations, grazing lands, and coral reef fishes. Such legislation could affect domestic and international trade, tourism, industries dependent on importing non-native species and those dependent on keeping them out, and, finally, the variety of natural resources that have little direct economic value and yet affect the lives of a broad segment of the public. In the century or so of congressional responses to invasive species, the usual approach has been an ad hoc attack on the particular problem, from impure seed stocks to Asian carp in the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal. A few notable attempts have begun to address specific pathways by which invasives arrive (e.g., ship ballast water), but no current law addresses the broad general concern over non-native species and the variety of paths by which they enter this country. A 1999 executive order took a step in bringing together some of the current authorities and resources to address a problem that has expanded with both increasing world trade and travel and decreasing transit time for humans and cargo. Multiple bills have been introduced on this subject in recent Congresses as well as in the 114th Congress. There are two basic approaches to addressing invasive species: a species-by-species assessment of the risks or benefits of admitting or excluding species, and a policy based on controlling pathways of entry in which vigilance is maintained on incoming ballast tanks, cargo holds, packing materials, and similar vehicles for unwanted organisms. These two approaches may complement each other. Policymakers also have the choice of an emphasis on preventing the arrival or establishment of more invasive species versus post hoc control of species that have already arrived and become established.

May 22, 2015

The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS): Waiver Authority and Modification of Volumes

This report discusses the process and criteria for the Environmental Protection Agency to waive various portions of the renewable fuel standard (RFS), and the modification of applicable volumes.

May 21, 2015

U.S. Trade with Free Trade Agreement (FTA) Partners

The United States is negotiating two mega-regional comprehensive and high-standard trade agreements that potentially could affect U.S. economic and trade relations with Europe and Asia. Discussions of these and other FTAs often focus on trade balances, particularly U.S. bilateral merchandise trade balances with its FTA partner countries as one way of measuring the success of the agreement. Although bilateral merchandise trade balances can provide a quick snapshot of the U.S. trade relationship with a particular country, most economists argue that such balances serve as incomplete measures of the comprehensive nature of the trade and economic relationship between the United States and its FTA partners. Indeed, current trade agreements include trade in services, provisions for investment, and trade facilitation, among others that are not reflected in bilateral merchandise trade balances. This report presents data on U.S. merchandise (goods) trade with its Free Trade Agreement (FTA) partner countries. The data are presented to show bilateral trade balances for individual FTA partners and groups of countries representing such major agreements as the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Central American Free Trade Agreement and Dominican Republic (CAFTA-DR) relative to total U.S. trade balances. This report also discusses the issues involved in using bilateral merchandise trade balances as a standard for measuring the economic effects of a particular FTA.

May 21, 2015

Transportation Conformity Under the Clean Air Act

Under the Clean Air Act, areas that have not attained one or more of the six National Ambient Air Quality Standards (currently more than 100 areas with a combined population of 143 million) must develop State Implementation Plans (SIPs) providing for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS. The act requires that, in these areas, federal agencies not engage in, approve, permit, or provide financial support for activities that do not “conform” to the area’s SIP. Although a wide range of federal funding and programs is subject to conformity, it is transportation planning (and ultimately highway funding) that is most commonly affected. Before a new transportation plan or transportation improvement program (TIP) can be approved by the Federal Highway Administration or Federal Transit Administration or a new non-exempt project can receive federal funding in a nonattainment area, a regional emissions analysis must generally demonstrate that the projected emissions from the entire transportation system, including the new projects, are consistent with the emissions ceilings established in the SIP. While some express concern at the potential impact of these conformity determinations in delaying or altering new highway projects, others note that the process simply obligates the federal government to support rather than undermine the legally adopted state plans for achieving air quality. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, there were numerous lapses of conformity: 63 areas, in 29 states and Puerto Rico, had lapses between 1997 and 2003. In 2005, however, Congress amended the Clean Air Act to provide a 12-month grace period to demonstrate compliance following an area’s designation as nonattainment before conformity will lapse. Since 2007, only seven areas have experienced a conformity lapse, despite the imposition of more stringent ambient air quality standards for both ozone and particulate matter. All but one of the lapses since 2007 were resolved within a year. As Congress considers reauthorization of surface transportation programs this year, questions have again been raised regarding the impact of conformity requirements, and whether the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) current proposal to strengthen the ambient air quality standard for ozone will affect the number of areas required to make conformity determinations. Particular concern has been expressed for rural areas that may never have been classified nonattainment for an air quality standard before. The number of areas ultimately affected will depend on numerous factors, including the level at which EPA sets the final ozone standard and trends in emissions and weather in the period before EPA designates any new nonattainment areas. Although these factors introduce elements of uncertainty in future projections, most rural areas are unlikely to be designated nonattainment for the ozone standard, because they do not have ozone monitors in place. In the few rural areas that have been designated nonattainment, conformity needs only to be determined if there is a non-exempt transportation project that depends on federal funding or approval—a rare occurrence. In addition, EPA’s conformity regulations provide exceptions for areas with insignificant motor vehicle emissions, which may facilitate the demonstration of conformity in any rural areas that will be designated nonattainment. This report explains the statutory conformity requirements, reviews the recent history of their implementation, and examines how conformity requirements might affect areas designated nonattainment for a revised ozone air quality standard.

May 21, 2015

Venezuela: U.S. Policy Overview

May 20, 2015

Insurance Regulation: Background, Overview, and Legislation in the 114th Congress

May 20, 2015

Sudan: an Overview

May 20, 2015

Defense Spending and the Budget Control Act Limits

This report discusses the Budget Control Act, which sets limits on defense spending between FY2012 and FY2021. The current debate in Congress has centered on whether to adjust the BCA defense caps upward; move base budget spending to accounts designated for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) that are not subject to spending limits; reduce the defense spending in the Administration's request to comply with BCA revised caps; or use some combination of these approaches, all in order to avoid a sequester.

May 19, 2015

Indian Health Service FY2016 Budget Request and Funding History: Fact Sheet

May 19, 2015

The Changing Federal STEM Education Effort

May 19, 2015

Stored Communications Act: Reform of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA)

In 1986, Congress enacted the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) to both protect the privacy of an individual’s electronic communications and provide the government with a means for accessing these communications and related records. Although passed at the infancy of the Internet, the Stored Communications Act (SCA), which is part of ECPA, has been interpreted over the years to cover the content of emails, private Facebook messages, YouTube videos, and so-called metadata, or non-content information, connected to our Internet transactions (e.g., websites visited, to/from and time/date stamps on emails). The scope of the SCA is determined largely by the entities to which it applies, “electronic communication service” (ECS) providers and “remote computing service” (RCS) providers, as defined in the statute. It does not apply to government access to records held by a party to the communication. The SCA has two core components. First, it creates a broad bar against service providers voluntarily disclosing a customer’s communications to the government or others, subject to various exceptions, and second, it establishes procedures under which the government can require a provider to disclose customers’ communications or records. As to government access, ECPA utilizes a tiered system with different levels of evidence required depending on whether the provider is an ECS or RCS; whether the data sought is content or non-content; whether the email has been opened; and whether advance notice has been given to the customer. In recent years, ECPA has faced increased criticism from both the technology and privacy communities that it has outlived its usefulness in the digital era and does not provide adequate privacy safeguards for individuals’ electronic communications. In light of these concerns, various reform bills have been introduced in the past several Congresses, with three major reform bills pending in the 114th Congress. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act Amendments Act of 2015 (S. 356, H.R. 283) and the Email Privacy Act (H.R. 699), almost identical in text, would, among other things, place both ECS and RCS providers under the same legal requirement; eliminate the current 180-day rule found in the SCA and require a warrant for emails no matter how long they have been stored or whether they have been opened; and remove the reliance on the definition of “electronic storage,” which has confused the lower courts. Additionally, the Online Communications and Geolocation Privacy Act (H.R. 656) would make similar changes to the SCA. Some federal agencies, most prominently the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which currently rely on their subpoena authority to access electronic communications, have argued that these bills would stymie their ability to conduct investigations as they have no legal authority to obtain a warrant. In response to this concern, both the Email Privacy Act and the ECPA Amendments Act include a rule of construction providing that nothing in these bills should be read to preclude the SEC or any other federal agency from seeking these records directly from a party to the communication, rather than the target’s service provider. Finally, there has been ongoing litigation in the lower federal courts as to ECPA’s extraterritorial reach. The Law Enforcement Access to Data Stored Abroad (LEADS) Act (S. 512, H.R. 1174) would require third-party service providers to disclose the contents of U.S persons’ electronic communications held overseas upon issuance of a warrant based on probable cause.

May 19, 2015

Senate Banking: Financial Regulatory Improvement Act

This report briefly highlights some of the major policy proposals included in a May 12, 2015 discussion draft released by Senator Richard Shelby that is scheduled for markup by the Senate Banking Committee. The draft encompasses a broad package of reforms to the financial regulatory system, including some changes to the Dodd-Frank Act (P.L. 111-203).

May 19, 2015

Selected Issues in Homeland Security Policy for the 114th Congress

In 2001, in the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11th, “homeland security” went from being a concept discussed among a relatively small cadre of policymakers and strategic thinkers to a broadly discussed issue in Congress. Debates over how to implement coordinated homeland security policy led to the passage of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296) and the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Evolution of America’s response to terrorist threats has continued under the leadership of different Administrations, Congresses, and in a shifting environment of public opinion. DHS is currently the third-largest department in the federal government, although it does not incorporate all of the homeland security functions at the federal level, even if one constrains the definition of homeland security to the narrow field of prevention and response to domestic acts of terrorism. In policymaking terms, homeland security is a very broad and complex network of interrelated issues. In its executive summary the Quadrennial Homeland Security Review issued in 2014 delineates the missions of the homeland security enterprise as follows: prevent terrorism and enhance security; secure and manage the borders; enforce and administer immigration laws; safeguard and secure cyberspace; and strengthen national preparedness and resilience. This report outlines an array of homeland security issues that may come before the 114th Congress. After a brief discussion of the definitions of homeland security, the homeland security budget, and the role of homeland security actors in the intelligence community, the report divides the specific issues into four broad categories: Counterterrorism and Security Management, Border Security and Trade, Disaster Preparedness, Response, and Recovery, and DHS Management Issues. Each of those areas contains a survey of topics briefly analyzed by Congressional Research Service experts. The information included only scratches the surface of most of these issues. More detailed information can be obtained by consulting the CRS reports referenced herein, or by contacting the relevant CRS expert.

May 19, 2015

Cuba: President Obama’s New Policy Approach

May 18, 2015

China’s Currency Policy

May 18, 2015

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Functions and Funding

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), an agency within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), performs multiple functions including the adjudication of immigration and naturalization petitions, consideration of refugee and asylum claims and related humanitarian and international concerns, and a range of immigration-related services, such as issuing employment authorizations and processing nonimmigrant change-of-status petitions. Processing immigrant petitions remains USCIS’s leading function. In FY2014, it handled roughly 6 million petitions for immigration-related services and benefits. USCIS’s budget relies largely on user fees. The agency and its predecessor, the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), have had the legal authority to charge fees for immigration services since before the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (INA). In 1988, Congress created the Immigration Examinations Fee Account, which made the portion of USCIS’s budget collected from user fees no longer subject to annual congressional approval. Since the President announced the Immigration Accountability Executive Action on November 20, 2014, USCIS’s budgetary structure has received increased attention. Among other provisions, the executive action included an expansion of the existing Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program that was initiated in 2012, as well as a new Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) program that grants certain unauthorized aliens protection from removal, and work authorization, for three years. If implemented, these programs would require applicants to submit petitions and pay a user fee to USCIS. The user fees would purportedly pay for the cost of administering the program. Some in Congress oppose deferred action programs. However, Congress has limited options for halting the programs using the annual appropriations process. The executive action highlights some challenges Congress faces if it wishes to exert control over an agency whose funding is largely independent of the annual appropriations process. To alter existing statutory provisions governing the collection of user fees in the Immigration Examinations Fee Account, the availability of user fees for expenditure, or their prohibited use for certain purposes would require an enactment of law. Congress does appropriate a small portion of the agency’s budget each year, primarily to fund E-Verify, a system used to electronically confirm that individuals have proper authorization to work in the United States. Since 2003, such annual direct appropriations have constituted a declining portion of USCIS’s budget. While some have welcomed this trend for reducing the cost to U.S. taxpayers of running USCIS, others have voiced concerns over the limitations on congressional oversight it reflects. Some contend that such budget independence also makes the agency less responsive to the need for affordable user fees and timely and effective customer service. Potential issues that Congress may decide to consider include USCIS’s accountability to Congress, given that much of its funding does not require annual congressional approval; whether some fees are at levels that inhibit some potential applicants from applying for benefits or inhibit lawful permanent residents from becoming citizens; whether the pace and progress of information technology modernization is sufficient to meet the agency’s multiple functions and efficiently serve petitioners; and whether USCIS’s management of its personnel and resources adequately addresses sudden demands for processing and adjudication of petitions while maintaining processing times and adequate levels of service for all other petitions.

May 15, 2015

California Drought: Water Supply and Conveyance Issues

May 15, 2015

"Regulatory Relief" for Banking: Selected Legislation in the 114th Congress

This report discusses regulatory relief legislation for banks in the 114th Congress that, at the time this report was published, has seen floor action or has been ordered to be reported by a committee.

May 14, 2015

Burundi’s Electoral Crisis: In Brief

May 14, 2015

Nuclear Weapon “Pit” Production: Options to Help Meet a Congressional Requirement

A pit is the plutonium core of a thermonuclear weapon. Imploding it with conventional explosives provides the energy to detonate the rest of the weapon. The Rocky Flats Plant made up to 2,000 pits per year (ppy) through 1989; since then, the United States has made 29 pits for the stockpile. Yet the FY2015 National Defense Authorization Act requires the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), which manages the nuclear weapons program, to produce at a rate of 80 ppy for 90 days in 2027. How can that requirement be met? Pits are to be made at Los Alamos National Laboratory’s main plutonium facility, PF-4. To manufacture pits, a facility must have enough laboratory floor space and a high enough limit for Material At Risk (MAR), the amount of radioactive material a worst-case accident could release. Producing 80 ppy requires enough “margin,” the space or MAR available to produce pits minus space or MAR required for that production rate. While space and MAR available have been calculated, amounts required to produce 80 ppy have never been calculated rigorously, leaving space and MAR needs undefined. Further, the report cannot address whether certain options could meet the 2027 date because time to implement them cannot be determined. Accordingly, this report presents 16 options that seek to increase the feasibility of producing 80 ppy by 2027, including: The radiation dose an individual would receive from a worst-case accident determines MAR permitted in PF-4. A ten-factor equation calculates dose as a function of MAR. NNSA uses worst-case values in this equation, yet median values may provide sufficient conservatism. Median values reduce calculated dose by orders of magnitude, permitting a large increase in PF-4 MAR. Yet merely doubling permitted MAR might suffice for producing 80 ppy. Providing this increase through construction at PF-4 could be costly and take years. In determining MAR for PF-4, the closest offsite individual is at a nearby trailer park. Relocating it would place the next closest individual farther away. The added distance would reduce dose, permitting increased MAR in PF-4. Using a different meteorological model and different assumptions would greatly reduce the currently calculated dose, perhaps permitting doubling PF-4 MAR. Plutonium decays radioactively, creating elements that various processes remove to purify plutonium. One process generates byproducts; plutonium is recovered from them with processes that take space and MAR. Since the United States has tons of plutonium surplus to defense needs, byproducts could be dispositioned as waste. Pits use weapons-grade plutonium (WGPu). U.S. WGPu is about 50 years old. About nine-tenths of plutonium-241, a WGPu isotope, decays to americium-241 in that time. Since plutonium-241 is the source of americium-241 in WGPu, removing the current americium-241 would prevent WGPu from ever reaching its americium-241 limit, permitting reduction in equipment for that process and reducing worker radiation exposure. A plutonium isotope used in space probes, plutonium-238, is extremely radioactive. It accounts for a small quantity of PF-4 plutonium but a quarter of PF-4’s MAR. Building a “module” near PF-4 for plutonium-238 work would free MAR and space in PF-4, so one module might suffice instead of two or three. To reduce risk of collapse, loss of life, and radiation release from an earthquake, NNSA increased the seismic resilience of PF-4. More steps are planned; more could be taken. Achieving the congressionally mandated capacity will probably require choosing among options to create a package. MAR margin could be increased by relocating a trailer park, using a new meteorological model, installing rugged containers in the PF-4 production line, increasing PF-4’s seismic resilience, and using less conservative assumptions in the MAR-to-dose equation. Similar choices exist for other options. At issue for Congress: What are the risks, costs, and benefits of the options? What is the optimum combination of options? CRS Report R44047, In Brief: Options to Help Meet a Congressional Requirement for Nuclear Weapon “Pit” Production, by Jonathan E. Medalia, is a condensed version of this report.

May 14, 2015

FY2016 Appropriations: District of Columbia

May 14, 2015

Legislative Branch: FY2016 Appropriations

May 13, 2015

Principles, Requirements, and Guidelines (PR&G) for Federal Investments in Water Resources

May 13, 2015

The Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF) Program

Congress created the Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF) program to offer long-term, low-cost loans to railroad operators, with particular attention to small freight railroads, to help them finance improvements to infrastructure and investments in equipment. The program is intended to operate at no cost to the government, and it does not receive an annual appropriation. Since 2000, the RRIF program has made 34 loans totaling $2.7 billion (valued at $2.9 billion in 2015 dollars). Although the program, which is administered by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), regularly receives applications, it has approved only one loan since 2012. Congress has authorized $35 billion in loan authority for the RRIF program and repeatedly has urged FRA to increase the number of loans the program makes. Reports suggest the uncertain length and outcome of the RRIF loan application process and the up-front costs to prospective borrowers are among the elements of the program that have reduced its appeal compared with other financing options available to railroads. By statute, FRA has 90 days from the time a completed application is submitted to render a decision on the application. This timeline becomes uncertain due to FRA’s discretion in determining when a loan application is “complete.” A 2014 audit indicated that some loan applications had been in process for more than a year. Unlike the Department of Transportation’s other prominent loan assistance program, the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) program, RRIF loan recipients are required to deposit the equivalent of a bond, referred to as a credit risk premium, which is intended to offset the risk of a default on their loan. The money is returned to the borrower when the loan is paid back. The credit risk premium helps the program comply with a congressional requirement that federal loan assistance programs operate at no cost to the federal government. However, it may make RRIF loans less attractive to borrowers than TIFIA loans, for which Congress appropriates funds to pay the cost of the credit risk premium for loan recipients, or than private loans, in which risk premiums typically are folded in to the cost of the loan and paid as part of the loan repayment schedule. Since 2008, several RRIF loans have been made to government-run intercity passenger rail projects. A number of private companies seeking to build intercity passenger rail lines also have expressed interest in RRIF loans. Such loans likely would be quite large relative to those RRIF typically extends to small freight railroads, raising questions about the risk to the federal government if the projects are not completed or if they fail to generate sufficient revenue to service the loans. Legislation introduced in the 114th Congress would reserve 40% of RRIF lending authority for Amtrak and would change elements of the RRIF program to make it more attractive to potential applicants.

May 13, 2015

Coastal Flood Resilience: Policy, Roles, and Funds

May 13, 2015

Clean Air Issues in the 114th Congress: An Overview

This report discusses regulatory actions that have recently received attention in the 114th Congress including EPA's proposed regulations on the emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) from power plants, and a proposed revision of the ambient air quality standard for ozone.

May 12, 2015

U.S. Global Health Assistance: The FY2016 Budget

May 11, 2015

The 2015 National Security Strategy: Authorities, Changes, Issues for Congress

This report discusses a number of potential oversight questions raised by a National Security Strategy (NSS) document released by the Obama Administration.

May 11, 2015

Cambodia: Background and U.S. Relations in Brief

The United States and the Kingdom of Cambodia have been strengthening bilateral ties for several years. U.S. concerns about governmental abuses of power and human rights violations, however, have constrained the development of relations. Areas of congressional concern have included providing development assistance, promoting democracy and human rights, and supporting victims of Khmer Rouge atrocities. U.S. interests in Cambodia, one of the poorest countries in Asia, include strengthening democratic institutions and norms, encouraging civic participation in politics, promoting the rule of law, increasing bilateral trade and investment, supporting economic growth, reducing poverty, and improving public health. U.S. military engagement includes naval port visits, military assistance, education and training, and joint exercises related to international peacekeeping, humanitarian and disaster response, and counterterrorism. The United States also has provided assistance to Cambodia, one of the countries in the world most heavily afflicted by unexploded ordnance (UXO), for de-mining programs and victims of UXO. The Lower Mekong Initiative (LMI), launched by the Obama Administration in 2009, is a foreign assistance effort through which the United States aims to promote cooperation and capacity building among Lower Mekong River countries (Burma, Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, and Vietnam) in several sectors. The LMI has become an element of the U.S. strategic rebalance to the Asia-Pacific region. During the past decade, Cambodia has made fitful progress in some areas of governance and human rights, including the conduct of elections, the development of civil society, and improvements in labor conditions. Economic growth has brought prosperity to some Cambodians, particularly in urban areas, and many rural residents also have experienced improvements in their lives. Political institutions, however, remain weak and economic disparities have widened. Labor relations have shown growing signs of strain in recent years. The State Department reported that although the 2013 parliamentary elections were “mostly peaceful” and the election campaigns were “largely free of intimidation,” the voting process was “fraught with irregularities.” According to some experts, Prime Minister Hun Sen has flouted democratic institutions and norms but also made some political compromises in the face of domestic and international pressure. Cambodia has entered a period of nominal political power sharing after several years of one party rule by the Cambodian People’s Party (CPP). The national elections of 2013 resulted in a striking reversal of fortunes for the CPP and a boost for the opposition Cambodian National Rescue Party (CNRP). The election results reflected a changing electorate, one that is younger and with rising expectations and more concerned about corruption and inequality. Many analysts remain doubtful about whether Hun Sen will respect checks on his power as part of an agreement reached with the opposition in July 2014. During the Khmer Rouge’s three-year rule over Cambodia (1975-1978), nearly 2 million out of a population of 8 million Cambodians died from execution, torture, overwork, starvation, and disease. The Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC), a court with international and Cambodian judges and prosecutors, began proceedings in 2006 to try Khmer Rouge leaders responsible for grave violations of national and international law, including crimes against humanity. The court has delivered guilty verdicts to three former high ranking officials. Cambodian and international human rights groups have advocated expanding the scope of prosecutions to include mid-ranking Khmer Rouge officials, while Prime Minister Hun Sen has opposed expanding the number of indictments.

May 11, 2015

Genomic Data and Privacy: Background and Relevant Law

Advances in genomics technology and information technology infrastructure, together with policies regarding the sharing of research data, support new approaches to genomic research but also raise new issues with respect to privacy. The development of new genomic sequencing technologies has allowed for the generation of big data, and recent changes in information technology infrastructure have facilitated big data storage and analytics. These developments are expected to support significant changes in health research and, eventually, in health care delivery. Genetic and genomic research—and other “omics” research—have generated large amounts of genetic data. If these “large-scale genomic data” are generated as a part of research funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), then they are subject to specific data sharing policies and are often held in publicly available databases. Among other things, advances in sequencing technology have enabled this research, making large amounts of data available at a rate that has generally outpaced the ability to both store and analyze that data. NIH has established a comprehensive policy for the sharing of genomic data that “applies to all NIH-funded research that generates large-scale human or non-human genomic data as well as the use of these data for subsequent research.” This policy requires investigators to outline their data sharing plans as part of their funding applications; if investigators fail to submit the required data, NIH may withhold funding. Investigators are required to de-identify the data prior to submitting it to NIH-designated data repositories, according to the requirements of both the HHS Common Rule and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rule. Some recent studies have begun to suggest that different types of molecular data may be more likely to cause privacy issues than had been previously understood, and specifically, that de-identified large-scale genomic sequence data may in fact be able to be reidentified. In a recent study, researchers were able to reidentify research participants using the publicly available de-identified personal genome data and other publicly available metadata. This demonstration of reidentified individuals in a research study using de-identified genome data raises the question of whether—and if so, how—relevant current law should be modified in response to this new capability. Relevant law governs informed consent, access to research data, and the use of this data, and includes (1) the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy and Security Rules; (2) the HHS Regulations for the Protection of Human Research Subjects, or the Common Rule; and (3) the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA). In addition, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is relevant, not in the sense that it protects information from a potential privacy breach, but in that it allows public access to much of the information held by the federal government. This report discusses these considerations in the context of each of the relevant laws and regulations.

May 11, 2015

Implementation of the Veterans Choice Program (VCP)

May 11, 2015

Fundamentals of the U.S. Sugar Program

May 8, 2015

Medicaid’s Institutions for Mental Disease (IMD) Exclusion

May 8, 2015

In-Country Refugee Processing: In Brief

The Obama Administration has established a new refugee program for certain minors in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras with a parent who is lawfully present in the United States. Created in response to the FY2012-FY2014 surge in unaccompanied child arrivals to the United States from these countries, the Administration has described the new Central American Minors (CAM) program as providing an alternative to a dangerous journey to the United States. The CAM program is an in-country refugee processing program, which means that eligible minors will be processed by the U.S. government from within their countries of origin for possible admission to the United States as refugees. Under the program, a parent who is lawfully present in the United States can request a refugee resettlement interview for an unmarried child in El Salvador, Guatemala, or Honduras. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) defines a refugee, in part, as a foreign national who has experienced, or has a well-founded fear of, persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. Refugees are processed and admitted to the United States from abroad. Typically, a refugee being considered for resettlement in the United States is outside his or her country of origin (in a host country). The INA, however, also authorizes the President, after appropriate consultation with Congress, to specify groups for in-country refugee processing. Since the late 1980s, Presidents typically have specified three or four groups as being eligible for in-country processing in a fiscal year. In addition to the new CAM program, there are several ongoing in-country refugee processing programs operating in FY2015. These previously established programs are for designated groups in an independent state of the former Soviet Union or of Estonia, Latvia or Lithuania; in Cuba; and in Iraq, as well as, in exceptional circumstances, for persons identified by a U.S. embassy in any location. This report supplements CRS Report RL31269, Refugee Admissions and Resettlement Policy, which provides a broader look at the U.S. refugee program.

May 7, 2015

Energy and Water Development: FY2016 Appropriations for Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Stewardship

May 6, 2015

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

May 5, 2015

International Investment Agreements (IIAs): Frequently Asked Questions

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

May 5, 2015

Iran's Foreign Policy

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

May 5, 2015