CRS Reports

Increased Campaign Contribution Limits in the FY2015 Omnibus Appropriations Law: Frequently Asked Questions

This report provides brief answers to frequently asked questions about increased campaign contribution limits in the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (H.R. 83; P.L. 113-235), enacted and signed into law in December 2014. The relevant language increases certain contribution limits to national political party committees. This language changes the amounts the two major parties may solicit and collect. Most notably, three units within each of the national Democratic and Republican parties could be affected. These include a headquarters committee (e.g., the Democratic National Committee), a House campaign committee (e.g., the National Republican Congressional Committee), and a Senate campaign committee (e.g., the National Republican Senatorial Committee). The language permits all six of these national party committees to establish additional accounts, with higher contribution limits than previously permitted. In practice, it appears that maximum individual contributions to a national party have increased from at least $97,200 (or $129,600 if following a recent Federal Election Commission (FEC) advisory opinion) annually to at least $777,600. Inflation adjustments announced in February 2015 bring the individual total to at least $801,600 for 2015. Other national parties, such as third parties, would also be eligible for larger contributions. Although this report emphasizes individual contribution limits, political action committees (PACs) may also increase their party contributions under the bill, to a total of $360,000 for multicandidate PACs—the most common form of PAC. This updated report is based on information available as of this writing. The FEC has not yet issued regulations or definitive guidance about how the limits will be interpreted. Similarly, political parties have yet to adopt widespread fundraising practices under the new limits. This report will be updated as additional information becomes available.

Mar 17, 2015

Terrorist Attacks in Europe and Mounting Security Concerns

This report briefly discusses the European policy response to recent terrorist attacks.

Mar 16, 2015

Cybersecurity and Information Sharing: Legal Challenges and Solutions

Over the course of the last year, a host of cyberattacks has been perpetrated on a number of high profile American companies. The high profile cyberattacks of 2014 and early 2015 appear to be indicative of a broader trend: the frequency and ferocity of cyberattacks are increasing, posing grave threats to the national interests of the United States. While considerable debate exists with regard to the best strategies for protecting America’s various cyber-systems and promoting cybersecurity, one point of general agreement amongst cyber-analysts is the perceived need for enhanced and timely exchange of cyber-threat intelligence both within the private sector and between the private sector and the government. Nonetheless, there are many reasons why entities may opt to not participate in a cyber-information sharing scheme, including the potential liability that could result from sharing internal cyber-threat information with other private companies or the government. More broadly, the legal issues surrounding cybersecurity information sharing—whether it be with regard to sharing between two private companies or the dissemination of cyber-intelligence within the federal government—are complex and have few certain resolutions. In this vein, this report examines the various legal issues that arise with respect to the sharing of cybersecurity intelligence, with a special focus on two distinct concepts: (1) sharing of cyber-information within the government’s possession and (2) sharing of cyber-information within the possession of the private sector. With regard to cyber-intelligence that is possessed by the federal government, the legal landscape is relatively clear: ample legal authority exists for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to serve as the central repository and distributor of cyber-intelligence for the federal government. Nonetheless, the legal authorities that do exist often overlap, perhaps resulting in confusion as to which of the multiple sub-agencies within DHS or even outside of DHS should be leading efforts on the distribution of cyber-information within the government and with the public. Moreover, while the government has wide authority to disclose cyber-intelligence within its possession, that authority is not limitless and is necessarily tied to laws that restrict the government’s ability to release sensitive information within its possession. With regard to cyber-intelligence that is possessed by the private sector, legal issues are clouded with uncertainty. A private entity that wishes to share cyber-intelligence with another company, an information sharing organization like an Information Sharing and Analysis Organization (ISAO) or an Information Sharing and Analysis Centers (ISAC), or the federal government may be exposed to civil or even criminal liability from a variety of different federal and state laws. Moreover, because of the uncertainty that pervades the interplay between laws of general applicability—like federal antitrust or privacy law—and their specific application to cyber-intelligence sharing, it may be very difficult for any private entity to accurately assess potential liability that could arise by participating in a sharing scheme. In addition, concerns may arise with regard to how the government collects and maintains privately held cyber-intelligence, including fears that the information disclosed to the government could (1) be released through a public records request; (2) result in the forfeit of certain intellectual property rights; (3) be used against a private entity in a subsequent regulatory action; or (4) risk the privacy rights of individuals whose information may be encompassed in disclosed cyber-intelligence. The report concludes by examining the major legislative proposal—including the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA), Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (CISA), and the Cyber Threat Sharing Act (CTSA)—and the potential legal issues that such laws could prompt.

Mar 16, 2015

Alternative Inflation Measures for the Social Security Cost-of-Living Adjustment (COLA)

Mar 13, 2015

Balancing Tourism against Terrorism: The Visa Waiver Program

This report briefly discusses Congress's concern that some foreign fighters might exploit the Visa Waiver Program (VWP) to enter the United States and commit acts of terrorism. The VWP allows eligible visitors from 38 European nations and a few prosperous Asia-Pacific countries to enter the United States for short business or leisure stays without first obtaining a visa from a U.S. consulate abroad.

Mar 13, 2015

Medal of Honor Recipients in the 113th Congress: A Fact Sheet

This fact sheet lists names of recipients of the Congressional Medal of Honor, the highest award for valor, awarded during the 113th Congress. Previous congressional use of the information contained in this fact sheet has included examinations of legislative measures that have waived or accelerated timeline reviews for potential Medal of Honor recipients. The material has been used in speeches, including Memorial and Veterans Day holiday observations. Terms for metadata: Congressional Medal of Honor, Date of Issue, MOH Home of Record, Medal of Honor, General Orders Congressional Medal of Honor Society Authorizing Legislation, U.S. Center of Military History United States Army, artillery, Navy, battle, Air Force, casualties, Garcia, Company Gomez, gallantry, Kapaun, grenade, Kravitz, Gunner Lara, Legislation, Leonard, posthumous, Mendoza, recipient, Negron, valor, Nietzel, Adkins, Peña, Alvarado, Pena, Baldonado, Pitts, Cano, Rivera, Carpenter, Romesha, Carter, Schwab ,Condé-Falcon, Swenson, Copas, Weinstein, Cushing, White, Duran, Erevia, Espinoza, Gandara.

Mar 13, 2015

Chicken Imports from China

Mar 12, 2015

Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP): History and Overview

Mar 11, 2015

U.S. Circuit and District Court Judges: Profile of Select Demographic Characteristics

Mar 11, 2015

Commemorative Works in the District of Columbia: Background and Practice

In 1783, the Continental Congress authorized the first memorial in American history, an equestrian statue to honor George Washington that was to be constructed by the “best artist” in Europe. Since that time, Congress has authorized more than 100 commemorative works in the District of Columbia. Even with multiple authorized works, however, no specific process existed for the creation of commemorative works for almost two centuries. While Congress has long been responsible for authorizing memorials on federal land, the process for approving site locations, memorial design plans, and funding was historically haphazard. At times, Congress was involved in the entire design and building process. In other instances, that authority was delegated to executive branch officials, federal commissions were created, or Congress directly authorized a sponsor group to establish a memorial. In 1986, in an effort to create a statutory process for the creation, design, and construction of commemorative works in the District of Columbia, Congress debated and passed the Commemorative Works Act (CWA). The CWA codified congressional procedure for authorizing commemorative works when federal land is administered by the National Park Service or the General Services Administration. The act delegated responsibility for overseeing design, construction, and maintenance to the Secretary of the Interior or the Administrator of the General Services Administration, and several other federal entities, including the National Capital Planning Commission, the Commission of Fine Arts, and the National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission. Additionally, the CWA restricts placement of commemorative works to certain areas of the District of Columbia based on the subject’s historic importance. These areas include the Reserve (i.e., the National Mall), where no new commemorative works are permitted; Area I, where new commemorative works must be of preeminent historical and lasting significance to the United States; and Area II, which is reserved for subjects of lasting historical significance to the American people. The act further stipulates that the Secretary of the Interior or the Administrator of the General Services Administration provide recommendations to Congress on the placement of works within Area I. Pursuant to the CWA, the National Park Service and the National Capital Planning Commission outlined a 24-step process to guide the creation of a commemorative work in the District of Columbia. The guidelines include initiation of a memorial, authorizing legislation, site selection and approval, fundraising, design approval, construction, and memorial dedication. Once a commemorative work is authorized, Congress may continue its involvement in the process in two ways. First, because the CWA provides a seven-year authorization for all commemorative works (with an administrative extension available), Congress is sometimes asked to extend a memorial sponsor group’s authority beyond the initial period. Second, in some circumstances, Congress is asked to provide appropriations to assist a sponsor group’s fundraising. In the past, appropriations for commemorative works have been in the form of both direct appropriations and matching funds. This report does not address memorials outside the District of Columbia.

Mar 10, 2015

Nigeria's Boko Haram and the Islamic State

This report discusses the Nigerian Islamist insurgent group Boko Haram, and their statement pledging loyalty to the leader of the Syria/Iraq-based Islamic State (IS/ISIL) organization and the implication for U.S. foreign policy and national security.

Mar 10, 2015

The Global Environment Facility (GEF)

Mar 9, 2015

The Climate Investment Funds (CIFs)

Mar 9, 2015

Set-Asides for Small Businesses: Legal Requirements and Issues

Mar 9, 2015

U.S. Circuit and District Court Nominations During President Obama’s First Six Years (2009-2014): Comparative Analysis with Recent Presidents

The selection and confirmation process for U.S. circuit and district court judges is of continuing interest to Congress. Recent Senate debates over judicial nominations have focused on issues such as the relative degree of success of President Barack Obama’s nominees in gaining Senate confirmation compared with other recent Presidents, as well as the time from nomination to confirmation for nominees, and the relative prevalence of vacant judgeships compared to years past. This report addresses these issues, and others, by providing a statistical analysis of nominations to U.S. circuit and district court judgeships during the first six years of President Obama’s time in office and that of his three most recent two-term predecessors, Presidents Reagan, Clinton and G.W. Bush. Some of the report’s findings include the following: During his first six years in office, President Obama nominated 61 persons to U.S. circuit court judgeships. Of the 61, 53 were also confirmed during this same six-year period. The 53 confirmed Obama circuit court nominees represented the second-highest number of nominees confirmed during recent Presidents’ first six years. President Clinton had the lowest number at 50. The percentage of circuit court nominees confirmed during President Obama’s first six years, 86.9%, was also the second-highest, while the percentage confirmed during President G.W. Bush’s, 75.0%, was the lowest. Of the four Presidents, President Reagan had both the greatest number (66) and percentage (97.1%) of circuit court nominees confirmed within the first six years of his presidency. Of the 270 persons nominated by President Obama to U.S. district court judgeships during his first six years, 250 (92.6%) were confirmed. Of the four recent two-term Presidents analyzed here, this was the greatest number and second-greatest percentage of district court nominees confirmed. Of the comparison group, President Reagan had the greatest percentage of district court nominees confirmed (97.4%), while President G.W. Bush had the lowest percentage confirmed (86.8%). President Clinton had, during his first six years, 90.2% of his district court nominees confirmed. The average number of days elapsed from nomination to confirmation for circuit court nominees confirmed during a President’s first six years ranged from a low of 55.8 days during the Reagan presidency to a high of 366.7 days during the G.W. Bush presidency. The median number of days from nomination to confirmation for circuit court nominees confirmed during a President’s first six years ranged from a low of 37.0 days (Reagan) to a high of 228.0 (Obama). The average number of days elapsed from nomination to confirmation for district court nominees confirmed during a President’s first six years ranged from a low of 50.2 days during the Reagan presidency to a high of 219.4 days during the Obama presidency. The median number of days from nomination to confirmation for district court nominees confirmed during a President’s first six years ranged from a low of 35.0 days (Reagan) to a high of 214.5 (Obama). The percentage of circuit court judgeships vacant on January 1 of President Obama’s seventh year in office was less than the percentage of such judgeships vacant on January 1 of his sixth year in office (3.9% and 9.5%, respectively). The percentage of circuit court judgeships vacant at the beginning of President Obama’s seventh year in office was less than the percentage vacant at the beginning of the seventh year of the Reagan, Clinton, and G.W. Bush presidencies. The percentage of district court judgeships vacant on January 1 of President Obama’s seventh year in office was less than the percentage of such judgeships vacant on January 1 of his sixth year in office (4.9% and 11.1%, respectively). The percentage of district court judgeships vacant at the beginning of President Obama’s seventh year in office was less than the percentage vacant at the beginning of the seventh year of the Reagan, Clinton, and G.W. Bush presidencies.

Mar 9, 2015

Veterans’ Benefits: The Impact of Military Discharges on Basic Eligibility

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) offers a broad range of benefits to veterans of the U.S. Armed Forces and to certain members of their families; however, a claimant must meet the basic eligibility criteria. A benefit claimant must prove that he or she meets the statutory definition of a “veteran,” which includes (1) service in the active military (i.e., Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard) or commissioned officers of the Public Health Service (PHS), and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); (2) minimum length of service requirements; and (3) discharge or separation from military service under conditions “other than dishonorable.” This report focuses on the discharge or separation requirement for veteran status or, more specifically, how the VA determines that a former servicemember’s military service can be characterized as under conditions other than dishonorable. The conditions surrounding a servicemember’s discharge from the military can have important implications for his or her ability to subsequently claim entitlement to a host of benefits provided through the VA. The VA may deny benefits to former servicemembers whose military separation is characterized as “other than honorable” (OTH) or if they have received a punitive discharge adjudicated by a court-martial. In addition, certain types of misconduct could create a legal bar to receiving veterans’ benefits. The VA generally accepts discharges that are characterized as “honorable” or “general” (under honorable conditions) for purposes of veterans’ benefits. Such discharges generally do not disqualify a veteran for a wide range of VA benefits, including disability compensation and pension, health care services, educational assistance, vocational rehabilitation and employment services, home loan guaranty, and memorial and burial services. However, for purposes of the Montgomery GI Bill and the Post-9/11 GI Bill, a veteran must have received an honorable discharge. Furthermore, with certain exceptions, VA health care will be furnished for any disability incurred in or aggravated during a period of service terminated by a discharge under OTH conditions. However, an adverse discharge may preclude a former servicemember from receiving one or more VA benefits based on a complex set of statutory and regulatory restrictions. In these instances, the VA must develop the character of service, through an assessment of facts and other evidence related to a claimant’s time in the military, to determine whether his or her military service meets the general statutory and regulatory criteria for entitlement to veterans’ benefits. This report primarily focuses on the VA adjudication process for claimants who—as a result of an adverse discharge—are entitled to a character of service determination resulting in either a favorable finding of “other than dishonorable” service or an unfavorable finding of “dishonorable” service for the purposes of VA benefits. This report does not address Department of Defense (DOD) policy on military discharge procedures aside from descriptions of how military discharges impact the potential receipt of veterans’ benefits. Although a former servicemember may also exercise the right to seek redress through the Discharge Review Board (DRB) or the Board for Correction for Military/Naval Records (BCM/NV) of his or her military department, the VA has no involvement in DOD administrative remedies and therefore a discussion of DOD-related discharge issues is outside the scope of this report. Situations where policy or program overlap occurs between the VA and DOD are addressed where appropriate.

Mar 6, 2015

Allocation of Funds Under Title I-A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act: H.R. 5 and the State Option

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was last amended 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 considered and reported the Student Success Act (H.R. 5), a bill that would reauthorize the ESEA. H.R. 5 would make several changes to current law, but one issue that has attracted substantial congressional interest is a new option that would be available to states for distributing funds available under Title I-A of the ESEA to local educational agencies (LEAs) and schools. In H.R. 5, this option is referred to as “Title I Portability” and “Title I Funds Follow the Low-Income Child State Option.” Hereinafter, this option will be referred to as the “state option.” Under current law, Title I-A grants to LEAs are calculated based on four formulas specified in statutory language. In order to receive funds under each grant, an LEA must meet certain eligibility requirements related to the number and percentage of children (primarily those living in families in poverty) in the LEA. That is, only LEAs meeting specific thresholds are eligible to receive Title I-A funds. Once the U.S. Department of Education (ED) calculates these grants, the grant information is shared with states, which subsequently make adjustments to these grant amounts based on provisions included in current law. After states make the grant adjustments, funds are provided to LEAs, which subsequently make grants primarily to schools with relatively high concentrations of poverty. Under the state option, Title I-A LEA grants would be calculated at the LEA level by ED using the four formulas prescribed by current statute and the grant allocation information would be provided to the states. However, once the grants were calculated, each state would have the option to reallocate the total amount of Title I-A funds that were “earned” by the LEAs in the state using a new formula. States would be permitted to redistribute all of the Title I-A funds received to LEAs based on each LEA’s share of enrolled eligible children. An eligible child would be defined as a child from a family with an income below 100% of the poverty level based on the most recent data available from the Department of Commerce. LEAs would, in turn, distribute the funds received to individual public schools in the LEA based on each school’s share of enrolled eligible children. Under the state option, grants to LEAs and schools would not be targeted based on the number or percentage of eligible children, but rather any LEA or public school that enrolled at least one eligible child would receive a grant. The amount provided per child in poverty would be the same for every child in the state. This would result in millions of dollars moving among LEAs in a given state: LEAs with the highest numbers or percentages of eligible children would receive lower grants per child in poverty under the state option than under current law so that LEAs with lower numbers or percentages of children in poverty could receive the standard state amount per child in poverty, which would exceed their grant amount per child in poverty under current law.

Mar 6, 2015

Deficient Bridge Count Drops Again

Mar 6, 2015

The Federal Budget: Overview and Issues for FY2016 and Beyond

Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R43933 Summary The federal budget is central to Congress’s ability to exercise its “power of the purse.” Each fiscal year Congress and the President undertake a variety of steps intended to set levels of spending and revenue and to make policy decisions. The purpose of this report is to provide an overview and background on the current budget debate. This report will track legislative events related to the federal budget and will be updated as budgetary legislation moves through Congress. In recent years, policies enacted to restrain spending, along with a stronger economy, have led to reductions in the budget deficit. On August 2, 2011, the President signed into law the Budget Control Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-25). The BCA contained a variety of measures intended to reduce the deficit by at least $2.1 trillion over the FY2012-FY2021 period, along with a mechanism to increase the debt limit. Two subsequent pieces of legislation have modified the BCA since it was enacted—the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (ATRA; P.L. 112-240) and the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 (BBA; P.L. 113-67). Both pieces of legislation allow for more discretionary spending than was provided under the BCA for FY2013, FY2014, and FY2015. Various deficit reduction measures were included to offset the costs of the changes to spending levels in both ATRA and the BBA. The BCA will continue to affect spending levels in FY2016 and beyond and Congress may debate enacting further changes. The Obama Administration released its budget for FY2016 on February 2, 2015. If the policies contained within the budget proposal are fully implemented, spending (outlays) would total an estimated $3,999 billion (21.3% of GDP) and revenues an estimated $3,525 billion (18.7% of GDP), resulting in a budget deficit of $474 billion (2.5% of GDP) in FY2016. Over the 10-year window, the proposed budget would reduce the deficit from an estimated 3.2% of GDP in FY2015 to 2.5% of GDP in FY2025, averaging 2.5% of GDP over the next decade. The President’s budget proposes increasing the caps on discretionary spending, originally put in place as part of the BCA. For FY2016, the budget proposes to increase discretionary spending by $74 billion relative to current law, divided between the defense ($37.9 billion) and nondefense ($37.5 billion) categories. The budget also proposes to eliminate the sequester on mandatory programs through FY2024. Deficit reduction is proposed through various changes to the tax code, immigration reform, and other mandatory health programs. Congressional consideration of the FY2016 budget has already begun. The budget committees in the House and Senate each work to develop a budget resolution as they receive information and testimony from various sources, such as the Administration, CBO, and congressional committees with jurisdiction over spending and revenues. House Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price (R-GA) and Senate Budget Committee Chairman Mike Enzi (R-WY) have stated that they are committed to completing budget resolutions by mid-March and have them ready for consideration and passage by the House and Senate before the end of March. Though the federal budget deficit has fallen in recent years, CBO, GAO, and the Administration agree that current federal fiscal policies are unsustainable in the long term. Projections indicate that putting the federal budget on a sustainable long-term path will require an agreement on additional deficit reduction. Such an agreement could include increases in revenues, changes to large spending programs, or some combination of the two. Contents Overview 1 Budget Cycle 1 Budget Baseline Projections 2 Spending and Revenue Trends 4 Federal Spending 5 Federal Revenue 7 Deficits, Debt, and Interest 8 Budget Deficits 9 Federal Debt and Debt Limit 9 Net Interest 10 Recent Budget Policy Legislation and Events 10 Budget Control Act of 2011 11 American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 11 Appropriations and Government Shutdown 12 The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 12 Budget for FY2016 12 Obama Administration’s FY2016 Budget 12 Deficit Projections in the FY2016 Budget 14 The FY2016 Congressional Budget Resolution 16 Considerations for Congress 16 Addressing Ongoing Budget Issues 16 Appropriations and Related Legislation 17 Debt Limit 17 Long-Term Considerations 17 Figures Figure 1. Total Outlays and Revenues, FY1970-FY2014 4 Figure 2. Outlays by Type, FY2000-FY2025 6 Figure 3. Revenue by Type, FY2000-FY2025 8 Figure 4. Discretionary Cap Changes in the President’s FY2016 Budget Proposal 13 Figure 5. Budget Deficit Projections 15 Tables Table 1. Selected CBO Baseline Budget Projections 3 Table 2. Fiscal Gap Under CBO’s Extended Baseline 19 Appendixes Appendix. Budget Documents 20 Contacts Author Contact Information 21 T he federal budget is central to Congress’s ability to exercise its “power of the purse.” Federal budget decisions also express Congress’s priorities and reinforce Congress’s influence on federal policies. Making budgetary decisions for the federal government is a complex process and requires balancing competing goals. Over the last decade, economic turmoil put a strain on the federal budget due to declining revenues and increasing spending levels. Subsequently, policies enacted to restrain spending, along with an improved economy, have improved the budget outlook, at least in the near term. In August 2011, budget negotiations resulted in the enactment of the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA; P.L. 112-25), which contained provisions to reduce the budget deficit by about $2 trillion over the next decade. Since that time, various legislative changes to the law have lessened the impact on certain types of federal spending. However, the long-term costs of federal health care programs and the effects of the baby boom generation’s retirement continue to put pressure on the federal budget. Operating these programs in their current form may pass on substantial economic burdens to future generations. Congress and the President may consider proposals for additional deficit reduction if fiscal issues remain a key item on the legislative agenda. This report will provide an overview of federal budget issues, focusing on recent fiscal policy changes. It will also discuss the major policy proposals contained in the President’s FY2016 budget and the House and Senate budget resolutions. Finally, it also addresses major short- and long-term fiscal challenges. This report will track legislative events related to the federal budget and will be updated as budgetary legislation moves through Congress. Overview Each fiscal year Congress and the President undertake a variety of steps intended to set levels of spending and revenue and to make policy decisions. This section provides a brief summary of the budget cycle along with an explanation of how budget baselines are constructed. Budget baselines are used to measure how legislative changes affect the budget outlook and are integral to evaluating these policy choices. Budget Cycle A single year’s budget cycle takes roughly three calendar years from initial formation by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) until final audit. The executive agencies begin the budget process by compiling detailed budget requests in the calendar year before the President’s budget submission. Many agencies start working on their budgets during the spring and summer—about a year and a half before the fiscal year begins. OMB oversees the development of these agency requests. The President submits a budget to Congress, which is based on work by OMB and federal agencies, typically around the first Monday in February or about eight months before the fiscal year begins. Congress typically begins formal consideration of the budget resolution once the President submits the budget request. The budget resolution sets out a plan, agreed to by the House and Senate, which establishes the framework for subsequent budgetary legislation. Because the budget resolution is a concurrent resolution, it is not sent to the President for approval. Congress does not always complete action on a budget resolution. In years when Congress is late in adopting, or does not adopt, a budget resolution, the House and Senate independently may adopt “deeming resolution” provisions for the purpose of enforcing certain budget levels. The last time the House and Senate agreed to a budget resolution was for FY2010. The FY2010 budget resolution was agreed to on April 29, 2009. House and Senate Appropriations Committees and their subcommittees typically begin reporting discretionary spending bills after the budget resolution is agreed upon. Appropriations Committees review agency funding requests and propose levels of budget authority (BA). Appropriations acts passed by Congress set the amount of BA available for specific programs and activities. Authorizing committees, which control mandatory spending, and committees with jurisdiction over revenues also play important roles in budget decision making. During the fiscal year, which begins on October 1, Congress and OMB oversee the execution of the budget. Once the fiscal year ends on the following September 30, the Treasury Department and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) begin year-end audits. Budget Baseline Projections Budget baseline projections are used to measure how future legislation would affect the budget picture. They are not meant to be predictions of the future budget outlook. Due to the nature of projections, slight changes in assumptions can lead to large effects in outyear totals. Therefore, it is important to understand what projections include and the assumptions on which they are based. Baseline projections are included in both the President’s budget and the congressional budget resolution. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) computes current law baseline projections using assumptions set out in budget enforcement legislation. Since Congress and the President have resolved certain questions related to expiring tax policy and have enacted specific policies set to control discretionary spending over the next decade, there are fewer policy uncertainties affecting the baseline levels under current law. More specifically, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (ATRA; P.L. 112-240; see additional discussion below) permanently set into law many individual tax rates and tax policy provisions. On the spending side, baseline discretionary spending levels are largely constrained by the caps and automatic spending reductions enacted as part of the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA; P.L. 112-25) and further modified by the Bipartisan Budget Act (BBA; P.L. 113-67; see additional discussion below). In addition to these elements of current law, macroeconomic assumptions, specifically of gross domestic product (GDP) growth, inflation, and interest rates, will also affect the baseline estimates and projections. The CBO baseline also incorporates policy provisions in current law even though they have historically been revised prior to the policy change actually taking effect. Specifically, the CBO baseline assumes that sharp reductions in Medicare’s payment rates for physician services will take effect as scheduled in April 2015 and that certain expired and expiring tax provisions will not be extended. This leads to baseline projections of lower spending and higher revenue levels relative to what some consider likely based on previous policy actions. The projections in the baseline also contain additional uncertainty, particularly as it relates to future federal borrowing and health care costs. Minor changes in the economic or technical assumptions that are used to project the baseline also could result in significant changes in the outyear deficit levels. Current baseline projections show stable budget deficits over the next several years. These figures represent marked declines in the budget deficit relative to the past few fiscal years. This is primarily due to continued improvements in the economy, restraints on discretionary spending, and certain assumptions used in constructing the baseline (i.e., certain tax provisions will expire as scheduled under current law). These budget deficit levels are projected to result in slight reductions in the level of debt held by the public as a percentage of GDP through FY2018. In other words, these budget deficits would be fiscally sustainable. However, after FY2018, deficit levels are projected to rise again, reaching 3.9% of GDP by FY2022 and 4.0% of GDP by FY2025. Under the baseline assumptions, budget deficits are projected to average 3.3% of GDP over the FY2016 to FY2025 period. (See Table 1 below.) Table 1. Selected CBO Baseline Budget Projections (percentage of GDP) FY2014 (actual) FY2016 FY2018 FY2025 Budget Deficit 2.8% 2.5% 2.6% 4.0% Debt Held by the Public 74.1% 73.8% 73.3% 78.7% Source: CBO, The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2015 to 2025, February 2015, Table 1-2. CBO also provides projections based on alternative policy assumptions, which illustrate the levels of spending and revenue if current policies continue, rather than expire as scheduled under current law. If Medicare payment rates for physician services remain the same, expiring tax provisions are extended, and the provisions of the Budget Control Act’s automatic spending reduction process do not remain in effect for FY2016 and beyond, CBO projects a cumulative increase in the budget deficit by more than $2.5 trillion relative to the current law baseline, including increased debt service costs, over the FY2016 to FY2025 period. Beyond the 10-year forecast window, federal deficits are expected to grow unless major policy changes are made. This is a result of increased outlays largely attributable to health care costs and baby boomer retirements. Spending and Revenue Trends Over the last four decades, on average, federal spending accounted for approximately 20% of the economy (as measured by gross domestic product), while federal revenues averaged roughly 17% of GDP. Since FY2002, spending exceeded revenue in each fiscal year resulting in budget deficits. Between FY2009 and FY2012, spending and revenue deviated significantly from historical averages primarily as a result of the economic downturn and policies enacted in response to financial turmoil. In FY2014, the U.S. government spent $3.5 trillion and collected $3.0 trillion in revenue resulting in a budget deficit of 2.8% of GDP, the smallest imbalance since 2007. The trends in revenues and outlays between FY1970 and FY2014 are shown in Figure 1. Figure 1. Total Outlays and Revenues, FY1970-FY2014 (as a percentage of GDP) Source: CRS figure using data from CBO, Historical Tables, February 2015. Federal Spending Federal outlays are often divided into the broad categories of discretionary and mandatory spending, and net interest. Discretionary spending is controlled by annual congressional appropriations acts. Mandatory spending encompasses spending on entitlement programs and spending controlled by laws other than annual appropriation acts. Entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid make up the bulk of mandatory spending. Congress sets eligibility requirements and benefits for entitlement programs, rather than appropriating a fixed sum each year. Therefore, if the eligibility requirements are met for a specific mandatory program, outlays are made automatically. Net interest comprises the government’s interest payments on the debt held by the public, offset by small amounts of interest income the government receives from certain loans and investments. Federal Spending Relative to the Size of the Economy (GDP) In FY2000, total outlays equaled 17.6% of GDP (the lowest level since FY1966). In FY2009, outlays peaked at 24.4% of GDP. Outlays have fallen steadily since then. In FY2014, total outlays were 20.3% of GDP or equal to the historical average over the last four decades. Under the CBO baseline, total outlays are projected to begin rising again after FY2014 and will reach 22.3% of GDP in FY2025. Figure 2 shows the level of federal spending as a percentage of GDP, broken into the discretionary, mandatory, and net interest categories, between FY2000 through FY2025, as projected in the CBO baseline. Figure 2. Outlays by Type, FY2000-FY2025 (as a percentage of GDP) Source: CRS figure using data from CBO, Historical Tables, February 2015 and The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2015 to 2025, February 2015, Table 1-2. Notes: Data for FY2015 are estimates and data for FY2016-FY2025 are projections under the current law baseline. In FY2000, discretionary spending totaled 6.1% of GDP. Discretionary spending increased in most years between FY2000 and FY2010 largely as a result of increases in security spending and, more recently, the funding provided in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA; P.L. 111-5). Discretionary spending peaked in FY2010 at 9.1% of GDP. In FY2014, discretionary spending totaled 6.8% of GDP. By FY2018, according to CBO’s baseline projections, discretionary spending will fall to 5.8% of GDP, its lowest level ever. Discretionary spending in FY2025 is projected to total 5.1% of GDP. The projected decline in discretionary spending in the baseline over the next decade is largely due to the reductions under current law contained in the Budget Control Act. Mandatory spending totaled 12.2% of GDP in FY2014, up from 9.4% of GDP in FY2000, as shown in Figure 2. Mandatory spending peaked in FY2009 at 14.5% of GDP. Mandatory spending levels during the FY2009-FY2012 period were elevated mainly because of increases in outlays for income security programs as a result of the recession. The continuing economic recovery has resulted in lower mandatory spending on certain programs. However, mandatory spending is projected to resume its upward trend towards the end of the decade due to increases in certain entitlement programs. As a result, under current law, CBO projects that mandatory spending will total 14.2% of GDP in FY2025, nearly the FY2009 level. Size of Federal Spending Components Relative to Each Other In addition to their size relative to the economy, the components of federal spending can also be examined relative to each other. In FY2014, mandatory spending amounted to 59.8% of total outlays, discretionary spending reached 33.6% of total outlays, and net interest comprised the remaining 6.5% of total outlays. The largest mandatory programs, Social Security, Medicare, and the federal share of Medicaid, constituted 49.8% of all federal spending in FY2014. By FY2025, mandatory and net interest spending are projected to increase, thereby reducing discretionary spending’s share of total outlays. Mandatory spending is projected to rise to 63.6% of total outlays while discretionary spending’s share is projected to fall to 22.9% in that year. Net interest spending is projected to rise to 13.5% of total outlays in FY2025. Because discretionary spending currently represents roughly one-third of total federal outlays, some budget experts contend that to achieve significant reductions in federal spending, reductions in mandatory spending are needed. Other budget and social policy experts contend that cuts in mandatory spending would cause substantial disruption to many households, because mandatory spending comprises important parts of the social safety net. Even though the budget deficit has recently been declining, future projections of increasing deficits and resulting high debt levels still warrant further action to restore fiscal health over the long term. Federal Revenue In FY2014, federal revenue collection totaled 17.5% of GDP, slightly higher than the historical average over the last four decades. Between FY2009 and FY2013, revenue collection was depressed as the result of the economic downturn and certain tax relief provisions. In FY2009 and FY2010, revenue collection totaled 14.6% of GDP. Policies enacted during the 112th Congress enhanced certainty with respect to the revenue outlook. The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (ATRA; P.L. 112-240) permanently extended reduced tax rates for most income groups, while raising tax rates for upper-income households beginning in calendar year 2013. Under the CBO baseline, revenues are projected to total 18.3% of GDP in FY2025. Individual income taxes have long been the largest source of federal revenues, followed by social insurance (payroll) and corporate income taxes. In FY2014, individual income tax revenues totaled 8.1% of GDP. Social insurance tax revenue accounted for 5.9% of GDP, and corporate income tax revenues equaled 1.9% of GDP in FY2014. All other taxes accounted for 1.6% of GDP in FY2014. Figure 3 shows revenue collections between FY2000 and FY2025, as projected in the CBO baseline. Figure 3. Revenue by Type, FY2000-FY2025 (as a percentage of GDP) Source: CRS figure using data from CBO, Historical Tables, February 2015 and The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2015 to 2025, February 2015, Table 1-2. Notes: Data for FY2015 are estimates and data for FY2016-FY2025 are projections under the current law baseline. Deficits, Debt, and Interest The annual differences between revenue (i.e., taxes and fees) that the government collects and outlays (i.e., spending) result in the budget deficit (or surplus). Annual budget deficits or surpluses determine, over time, the level of publicly held federal debt and affect the level of interest payments to finance the debt. Budget Deficits Between FY2009 and FY2012, annual budget deficits as a percentage of GDP were sharply higher than deficits in any period since FY1945. The unified budget deficit in FY2014 was $483 billion, or 2.8% of GDP—the lowest level since FY2007. The unified deficit, according to some budget experts, gives an incomplete view of the government’s fiscal condition because it includes off-budget surpluses. Excluding off-budget items (Social Security benefits paid net of Social Security payroll taxes collected and the U.S. Postal Service’s net balance), the on-budget FY2014 federal deficit was $513 billion. Budget Deficit for FY2015 The February 2015 CBO baseline estimated the FY2015 budget deficit at $468 billion or 2.6% of GDP. The decline in the estimated budget deficit for FY2015 is mainly the result of increased revenues due to higher individual income tax collections. Outlays for FY2015 are estimated to be equal as a percentage of GDP to FY2014 levels (though slightly higher in dollar terms). Federal Debt and Debt Limit Gross federal debt is composed of debt held by the public and intragovernmental debt. Intragovernmental debt is the amount owed by the federal government to other federal agencies, to be paid by the Department of the Treasury. This amount largely consists of money contained in trust funds, such as the Social Security trust fund, that has been invested in federal securities as required by law. Debt held by the public is the total amount the federal government has borrowed from the public and remains outstanding. This measure is generally considered to be the most relevant in macroeconomic terms because it is the debt sold in credit markets. Changes in debt held by the public generally track the movements of the annual unified deficits and surpluses. Whether or not the movements of gross federal debt will follow those of debt held by the public depends on how intragovernmental debt changes. Historically, Congress has set a ceiling on federal debt through a legislatively established limit. The debt limit also imposes a form of fiscal accountability that compels Congress, in the form of a vote authorizing a debt limit increase, and the President, by signing the legislation, to take visible action to allow further federal borrowing when nearing the statutory limit. Since February 2013, however, three consecutive pieces of legislation have suspended the debt limit accompanied by specific dates upon which the suspension expires. The debt limit is currently suspended as a result of the Temporary Debt Limit Extension Act (P.L. 113-83) through March 15, 2015. It should be noted that the debt limit by itself has no effect on the borrowing needs of the government. The debt limit, however, can hinder the Treasury’s ability to manage the federal government’s finances when the amount of federal debt approaches this ceiling or when the suspension expires. In those instances, the Treasury has had to take unusual and extraordinary measures to meet federal obligations, leading to inconvenience and uncertainty in Treasury operations at times. At the end of FY2014 (September 30, 2014), federal debt subject to limit was approximately $17,824 billion, of which $12,785 billion was held by the public. Net Interest In FY2014, the United States spent $229 billion or 1.3% of GDP on net interest payments on the debt. What the government pays in interest depends on market interest rates as well as on the size and composition of the federal debt. Currently, low interest rates have held net interest payments as a percentage of GDP below the historical average despite increases in borrowing to finance the debt. Some economists, however, have expressed concern that federal interest costs could rise once the economy fully recovers, resulting in future strain on the budget. Interest rates are projected to gradually rise in the CBO baseline resulting in net interest payments of $827 billion or 3.0% of GDP in FY2025. If interest costs rise to this level, they will be higher than the historical average. Recent Budget Policy Legislation and Events During the 112th and 113th Congresses, several legislative actions and events affected the fiscal outlook. In August 2011, negotiations over increasing the debt limit resulted in the enactment of the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA). Subsequently, two pieces of legislation have revised this law. First, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (ATRA) was enacted in January 2013 to deal with numerous expiring tax provisions, the BCA’s across-the-board spending cuts (i.e., sequester), and other short-term considerations that were scheduled to take effect at the very end of 2012 or in early 2013. This combination of policies was referred to by some as the “fiscal cliff.” During October 2013, certain activities of the federal government ceased operation (i.e., shutdown) due to a lapse in appropriations. Several months after the shutdown, the second piece of legislation modifying the BCA, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 (BBA), was enacted (December 2014). It contained new discretionary spending levels for FY2014 and FY2015 replacing the old levels as prescribed by the BCA. These actions are discussed in more detail below. Budget Control Act of 2011 The Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA; P.L. 112-25) was enacted on August 2, 2011. The BCA contained a variety of measures intended to reduce the deficit by at least $2.1 trillion over the FY2012-FY2021 period, along with a mechanism to increase the debt limit. The deficit reduction provisions included $917 billion in savings from statutory caps on discretionary spending and the establishment of a Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (Joint Committee) to identify further budgetary savings of at least $1.2 trillion over 10 years. Because the Joint Committee was unable to reach an agreement, an automatic spending reduction process was triggered to begin in FY2013. This automatic process was intended to reduce spending levels further in the absence of other legislation to implement these changes. American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 As the BCA’s additional spending reductions were set to take effect in early 2013, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (ATRA; P.L. 112-240) was signed into law by President Obama on January 2, 2013. ATRA included a number of spending provisions. First, ATRA postponed the start of the FY2013 BCA automatic spending reductions until March 1, 2013. ATRA also reduced the FY2013 BCA spending reductions implemented via the automatic process by $24 billion (i.e., two months’ worth of reductions), to roughly $85 billion equally divided between defense and non-defense. These provisions were offset by other changes in spending or revenue. Other spending changes unrelated to the BCA included an extension of certain unemployment benefits, prevention of reductions in Medicare physician payment rates, and a one-year extension of the 2008 farm bill. In addition, ATRA made a variety of changes to tax policy, including the permanent extension of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts on both ordinary income and capital gains and dividends for taxpayers with taxable income below $400,000 ($450,000 for married taxpayers filing jointly). For taxpayers with taxable income above these thresholds, the marginal tax rate on ordinary income rose from 35% to 39.6% on the portion of their income above these thresholds, and the top tax rate on long term capital gains and dividends rose from 15% to 20%. ATRA also reinstated the personal exemption phase-out (PEP) and limitation on itemized deductions (Pease) for taxpayers with adjusted gross income (AGI) above $250,000 ($300,000 for married couples filing jointly), allowing these limitations to expire for those with AGI below these thresholds. ATRA also extended the tax changes to a variety of tax credits, provided marriage tax penalty relief, and modified certain education-related tax incentives. ATRA also included a permanent “patch” for the alternative minimum tax and provided permanent estate and gift tax rules. Expiring provisions commonly known as “tax extenders” were extended through the end of 2013. The 113th Congress acted in December 2014 to extend most (but not all) provisions that had expired at the end of 2013 by enacting the Tax Increase Prevention Act of 2014 (P.L. 113-295). Appropriations and Government Shutdown On October 1, 2013, the federal government experienced a funding gap and partial shutdown after appropriations to fund many departments and agencies were not enacted by the beginning of FY2014. The funding gap and associated shutdown ended on October 17, 2013, with the enactment of the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2014 (P.L. 113-46). The act provided interim appropriations through January 15, 2014. As part of the negotiations related to the passage of the Continuing Appropriations Act, the House and Senate agreed to go to conference on the FY2014 budget resolution. On December 9, 2013, Senator Patty Murray and Representative Paul Ryan released an agreement on discretionary spending caps for the remainder of the current fiscal year (FY2014) and the next fiscal year (FY2015), which was later enacted into law as the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013. The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 (BBA; P.L. 113-67) replaced a portion of the BCA’s automatic spending process reductions for FY2014 ($45 billion) and FY2015 ($18 billion). These changes allow for more discretionary spending than was provided under the BCA for FY2014 and FY2015. Various deficit reduction measures were included to offset the cost of the increased discretionary spending. Budget for FY2016 The Obama Administration released its FY2016 budget on February 2, 2015. The President’s budget lays out for Congress the Administration’s views on national priorities and policy initiatives. Congress has also begun its consideration of the FY2016 budget. Obama Administration’s FY2016 Budget In his budget for FY2016, President Obama presented his policy agenda. If the policies are fully implemented, spending would total an estimated $3,999 billion (21.3% of GDP) and revenues an estimated $3,525 billion (18.7% of GDP), resulting in a budget deficit of $474 billion (2.5% of GDP). Over the 10-year window, the proposed budget would reduce the deficit from an estimated 3.2% of GDP in FY2015 to 2.5% of GDP in FY2024, averaging 2.5% of GDP over the next decade. The President’s budget proposes a variety of tax and spending measures intended to pay for a number of initiatives. Specifically, the President’s budget proposes to increase the caps on discretionary spending, originally put in place as part of the Budget Control Act (BCA). In August 2011, the BCA placed limits on spending via discretionary spending caps and included provisions for additional spending cuts to be implemented vi

Mar 6, 2015

Foreign Affairs Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO): Background and Current Status

Mar 3, 2015

Food Safety Issues: FDA Judicial Enforcement Actions

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has a statutory mission to ensure the safety of all food except for meat, poultry, and certain egg products over which the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has regulatory oversight. Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), the FDA has the authority to regulate the manufacturing, processing, and labeling of food, with the primary goal of promoting food safety. Congress has vested the FDA with the authority to take both administrative and judicial enforcement actions. The agency initiates and carries out administrative enforcement actions while judicial enforcement actions, including seizures and injunctions, require some type of involvement by the federal courts. While the FDA gathers information to recommend a judicial enforcement action, the Department of Justice represents the FDA before a federal court. This report focuses on the statutory authority for both the FDA and federal courts to initiate the following judicial enforcement actions: injunctions, seizures, and criminal prosecution. For more information about FDA’s administrative enforcement actions, see CRS Report R43794, Food Recalls and Other FDA Administrative Enforcement Actions, by Emily M. Lanza. Injunctions: An injunction is a civil judicial order initiated against an industry participant to stop or prevent a violation of the FFDCA and to halt the flow of violative products in interstate commerce. An injunction also provides an opportunity for the industry participant to correct the conditions that triggered the violation before the FDA takes additional enforcement action. The FFDCA grants federal district courts with the jurisdiction to issue such an order. Unlike the legal standard for injunctions for private litigants, the government does not need to prove irreparable harm for a court to grant an injunction. Seizure: The government may seize an article of food that is adulterated or misbranded in interstate commerce. A seizure is a civil action used by the federal government when the removal of adulterated or misbranded goods from interstate commerce is necessary to reduce consumer accessibility to those goods. The government proceeds by filing a Complaint for Forfeiture and obtaining a warrant for the arrest directing the U.S. Marshal to seize the article of food. Criminal Prosecution: The FDA’s Office of Criminal Investigations conducts and coordinates criminal investigations and prosecutions for violations of the FFDCA. Potential defendants of a criminal prosecution are strictly liable for violations of the act. The government grants potential defendants notice and a hearing before proceeding with any criminal investigations. The government may prosecute both corporations and corporate officials for violations of the FFDCA under the Park doctrine, which grants the government the ability to prosecute both corporations and corporate officials. The FFDCA also outlines various penalties for persons and/or companies found guilty of violations of the act. Food safety and oversight, including enforcement actions such as those described above, are of a continual interest to Congress. H.R. 609 and S. 287, introduced in the 114th Congress, propose restructuring federal oversight of food safety and would impact the federal government’s enforcement of various food safety issues.

Mar 3, 2015

Locate an Agency or Program Within Appropriations Bills

This report, generated from House and Senate Appropriations Committee published materials, is intended as a resource to guide individuals seeking to verify sources of appropriations for selected federal agencies and programs. It is not a definitive or comprehensive listing of all federal agencies, programs, projects, or activities that appear in annual appropriations measures from year to year.

Feb 27, 2015

Cuba: Issues for the 114th Congress

This report is divided into three major sections analyzing Cuba's political and economic environment, U.S. policy toward Cuba, and selected issues in U.S.-Cuban relations. While legislative initiatives are noted throughout the report where appropriate, a final section of the report provides a listing of bills and resolutions introduced in the 114th Congress.

Feb 27, 2015

Freedom of Information Act Legislation in the 114th Congress: Issue Summary and Side-by-Side Analysis

Both the House and Senate are currently considering legislation that would make substantive changes to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). FOIA was originally enacted in 1966 and has been amended numerous times since—most recently in 2009. FOIA provides the public with a presumptive right to access agency records, limited by nine exemptions that allow agencies to withhold certain types or categories of records. The legislation under consideration in the 114th Congress, S. 337 and H.R. 653, is largely based on bills from the 113th Congress, S. 2520 and H.R. 1211. Both of the bills in the current Congress seek to amend a number of provisions of FOIA for the purpose of increasing public access—including improving electronic accessibility of agency records, clarifying the right to request information related to intra- and inter-agency memoranda or letters, standardizing the use of search and duplication fees by agencies, and requiring agencies to notify requestors of dispute resolution processes for requests that have been denied. Both bills would also create a Chief FOIA Officers Council, responsible for informing government-wide FOIA administrators of best practices, and would establish new FOIA-related oversight responsibilities and reporting requirements. In addition, both the House and Senate legislation would establish a statutory “presumption of openness,” whereby information may only be withheld if it harms an interest protected by a statutory exemption or if disclosure is prohibited by law. This presumption of openness would codify the principles outlined in the current Administration’s guidance on FOIA. While these bills address a number of similar topics, often in similar ways, there are substantive differences between them. For instance, S. 337 provides a timetable for the assessment of fees if an agency fails to comply with a statutory FOIA request response deadline. Conversely, H.R. 653 would authorize applicable federal inspectors general to review agencies’ FOIA compliance and recommend the agency head take potential adverse actions against improper or negligent execution of the law. In addition, H.R. 653 includes new language seeking to narrow the exemption that provides for agencies’ withholding of intra- or inter-agency records. A summary of provisions in both bills, a side-by-side comparison of these provisions, and analysis of selected provisions is provided in this report.

Feb 26, 2015

Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program: An Overview

This report provides a general overview of the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB). It describes the structure of FEHB, including eligibility for the program and coverage options available to enrollees, as well as premiums, benefits and cost sharing, and general financing of FEHB. The report also describes the role of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) in administering the program.

Feb 25, 2015

The National Wild and Scenic Rivers System: A Brief Overview

Feb 25, 2015

Medicare Advantage—Proposed Benchmark Update and Other Adjustments for CY2016: In Brief

SUMMARY TO BE SUPPRESSED] Medicare Advantage MA Part C Advance notice of methodological changes for CY 2016 Capitation Rates, AHIP Benchmark Bid National Per Capita MA Growth Percentage US Per Capita Cost Growth Percentage USPCC, NPCMAGP payments quality bonus payment demonstration applicable amount specified amount Affordable Care Act phase-in to new benchmark coding pattern differences normalization ACA

Feb 25, 2015

Climate Change Adaptation by Federal Agencies: An Analysis of Plans and Issues for Congress

Though Congress has debated the significance of global climate change and what federal policies, if any, should address them, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) since 2013 has identified the changing climate as one of the 30 most significant risks facing the federal government. President Obama established adaptation as a prominent part of his Climate Action Plan in June 2013. The November 2013 Executive Order 13653, Preparing the United States for the Impacts of Climate Change, directed agencies to undertake vulnerability assessments and planning for adaptation. The Administration aimed efforts at reducing agencies’ own risks, taking advantage of “no-regrets” adaptation opportunities, and actions that promote resilience to climate changes. Scope of Report This report reviews current actions (as of January 2015) of selected federal departments and agencies to adapt their own missions, infrastructure, operations, and personnel to projected climate change. (It does not address federal programs meant primarily to assist others to adapt, although the boundary is often hard to delineate.) This synthesis is not comprehensive. It identifies common approaches among agencies, examples of specific actions, and notable barriers the federal government faces. As of December 2014, almost 40 federal departments and agencies had, to varying degrees, produced climate change adaptation plans, climate change vulnerability assessments, adaptation milestones, and/or metrics to evaluate adaptation performance. These efforts have identified wide-ranging vulnerabilities to potential climate changes, as well as some opportunities. Most agencies are in formative stages of their assessments and strategic planning. Some agencies are embarking on more detailed analyses and limited implementation actions. Overall, few examples are apparent of day-to-day agency decisions or actions that are different as a result of their adaptation efforts. Numerous challenges face federal officials in their efforts, including constrained resources, data gaps regarding location-specific climate changes or existing facilities, insufficient personnel training, and—sometimes—low priority among priorities. CRS identified few on-the-ground adaptations and few evaluations, as yet, of the effectiveness and efficiency of alternative adaptation approaches and actions. It may not be possible to tally budgetary resources associated with federal adaptation efforts. While some are reported in the President’s budget proposals, many are indivisible from the activities with which they are associated, reflecting more of a change in how efforts are undertaken than a change in level of effort. Role of Congress In light of agencies’ risk assessments and adaptation planning, Congress may consider whether agencies have appropriate statutory authorities to take various climate change adaptation actions; how to make data pertinent to adaptation more accessible and usable by federal agencies and the public; the appropriate priority for federal adaptation efforts in the context of agency missions and budgetary constraints; and timeliness of activities. Congress may provide federal agencies direction on how they should organize and fund their adaptation efforts; whether and how to measure and evaluate program performance (e.g., effectiveness at reducing risks to property, lives, and habitats relative to the federal and private investment of an adaptation measure); and desirable reporting and accountability to Congress and the public. Congress also may assess the role, costs, benefits, and timing of adaptation in the context of discussions regarding climate change mitigation and other broad policy fields such as natural disaster, infrastructure, energy, environmental, agricultural, federal lands, defense, health, tax, and budget policies. The President’s FY2016 budget request and other related administrative announcements roughly concurrent with its release on February 2, 2015, are not addressed in this report. While the President’s FY2016 budget request and other recent announcements (e.g., executive order on flooding and proposed FEMA rules) may mention adaptation (or “resilience”) to climate change, most pertain to programs outside the narrow scope of this report: assessments and actions that agencies may be undertaking to address potential risks to their missions, property, operations, and personnel. For further detail or updates on climate change adaptation plans by individual agencies, the report provides contact information for CRS analysts at the end of each agency section in Part II.

Feb 23, 2015

Domestic Human Trafficking Legislation in the 114th Congress

This report discusses domestic human trafficking-related issues that have received legislative action or are of significant interest in the 114th Congress.

Feb 23, 2015

Overview of FY2016 Appropriations for Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies (CJS)

This report tracks and describes actions taken by the Administration and Congress to provide FY2016 appropriations for the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies (CJS) accounts. It also provides an overview of FY2015 appropriations for agencies and bureaus funded as part of the annual appropriation for CJS.

Feb 23, 2015

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 114th Congress: Selected Key Issues

This report examines major features of H.R. 5 with respect to current law. It begins by discussing the approach that H.R. 5 takes toward reshaping the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) in key areas. Next, the report considers the ESEA by title and part to examine how the ESEA would be reconfigured under H.R. 5, followed by an examination of proposed program authorizations included in H.R. 5.

Feb 23, 2015

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): FY2015 Appropriations

Enacted on December 16, 2014, Title II of Division F of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (P.L. 113-235; H.R. 83) provided $8.14 billion for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for FY2015. The act appropriated funding for the full fiscal year through September 30, 2015, for 11 of the 12 regular appropriations acts, including “Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies,” under which EPA is funded. Total discretionary appropriations available in FY2015 for all federal departments and agencies were based on a cap of $1.014 trillion set in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 (P.L. 113-67, Division A). No regular appropriations acts for FY2015—including the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies—were enacted prior to the start of the fiscal year. Instead, EPA and other federal departments and agencies operated under a series of continuing resolutions prior to the enactment of P.L. 113-235. The total FY2015 enacted appropriations of $8.14 billion for EPA was a $249.9 million (3.2%) increase above the President’s FY2015 request of $7.89 billion but $60.1 million (0.7%) below the FY2014 enacted appropriations of $8.20 billion. The July 15, 2014, House Appropriations Committee–reported bill H.R. 5171, for the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies would have provided $7.48 billion for EPA for FY2015. The chairman of the Senate Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee recommendations for FY2015 in the form of a draft bill on August 1, 2014, would have provided a total of $8.18 billion for EPA. There were both increases and decreases across the individual program activities funded within the nine EPA appropriations accounts when comparing the FY2015 enacted appropriations with those proposed for FY2015 and the FY2014 enacted levels. Considerable attention during the debate and hearings on EPA’s appropriations for FY2015 focused on federal financial assistance to states for wastewater and drinking water infrastructure projects, various categorical grants to states to support general implementation and enforcement of federal environmental programs as delegated to the states, funding for the agency’s implementation and research support for air pollution control requirements, EPA actions to address climate change and greenhouse gas emissions, and funding for environmental cleanup. In addition to funding for specific programs and activities, several recent and pending EPA regulatory actions received attention during hearings on FY2015 appropriations for EPA—similar to the debate regarding appropriations for the agency for recent fiscal years. The general provisions in Title IV of Division F of P.L. 113-235 included provisions restricting the use of funds for certain EPA actions similar to those contained in previous recent appropriations but only a subset of those included in the House committee reported bill, H.R. 5171. Provisions retained in P.L. 113-235 address EPA air quality regulation of livestock operations and reporting requirements for manure systems, use of U.S. iron and steel for drinking water infrastructure projects, and EPA regulation of lead in ammunition and fishing tackle. This CRS report provides an overview of funding levels for EPA accounts and certain program activities specified in P.L. 113-235 compared to H.R. 5171 as reported, the Senate subcommittee chairman’s draft, the President’s FY2015 request, and FY2014 enacted appropriations. The report also highlights issues associated with a subset of accounts and programs that were prominent in the debate on EPA’s FY2015 appropriations during the 113th Congress.

Feb 19, 2015

Cuba Sanctions: Legislative Restrictions Limiting the Normalization of Relations

This report provides information on legislative provisions restricting relations with Cuba. It lists the various provisions of law comprising economic sanctions on Cuba, including key laws that are the statutory basis of the embargo, and provides information on the authority to lift or waive these restrictions.

Feb 13, 2015

How Legislation Is Brought to the House Floor: A Snapshot of Parliamentary Practice in the 113th Congress (2013-2014)

The House of Representatives has several different parliamentary procedures through which it can bring legislation to the chamber floor. Which of these will be used in a given situation depends on many factors, including the type of measure being considered, its cost, the amount of political or policy controversy surrounding it, and the degree to which Members want to debate it and propose amendments. This report provides a snapshot of the forms and origins of measures that, according to the Legislative Information System of the U.S. Congress, received action on the House floor in the 113th Congress (2013-2014) and the parliamentary procedures used to bring them up for initial House consideration. In the 113th Congress, 943 pieces of legislation received floor action in the House of Representatives. Of these, 692 were bills or joint resolutions, and 251 were simple or concurrent resolutions, a breakdown between lawmaking and non-lawmaking legislative forms of approximately 73% to 27%. Of these 943 measures, 846 originated in the House, and 97 originated in the Senate. During the same period, 59% of all measures receiving initial House floor action came before the chamber under the Suspension of the Rules procedure, 18% came to the floor as business “privileged” under House rules and precedents, 16% were raised by a special rule reported by the Committee on Rules and adopted by the House, and 7% came up by the unanimous consent of Members. One measure, representing less than 1% of legislation receiving House floor action in the 113th Congress, was processed under the procedures associated with the call of the Private Calendar. When only lawmaking forms of legislation (bills and joint resolutions) are counted, 75% of such measures receiving initial House floor action in the 113th Congresses came before the chamber under the Suspension of the Rules procedure, 20% were raised by a special rule reported by the Committee on Rules and adopted by the House, and 5% came up by the unanimous consent of Members. Less than 1% of lawmaking forms of legislation received House floor action via the call of the Private Calendar or by virtue of being “privileged” under House rules. The party sponsorship of legislation receiving initial floor action in the 113th Congress varied based on the procedure used to raise the legislation on the chamber floor. Sixty-eight percent of the measures considered under the Suspension of the Rules procedure were sponsored by majority party Members. All but four of the 148 measures brought before the House under the terms of a special rule reported by the House Committee on Rules and adopted by the House were sponsored by majority party Members.

Feb 13, 2015

The Community Health Center Fund: In Brief

This report provides information on the Community Health Center Fund (CHCF) that may be useful for discussions about the fund's future. Specifically, it includes information on: the types of grants awarded, total funds disbursed, and the amount of CHCF funds that facilities in each state and territory received.

Feb 12, 2015

U.S. Secret Service Protection

Feb 12, 2015

CHIP and the ACA Maintenance of Effort (MOE) Requirement: In Brief

This report discusses the Affordable Care Act (ACA) child maintenance of effort (MOE) requirement for children if federal CHIP funding expires. It begins with a brief background about CHIP, including information regarding program design and financing. The report then describes the ACA child MOE requirements for CHIP Medicaid expansion programs and for separate CHIP programs and discusses potential coverage implications.

Feb 11, 2015

Department of Housing and Urban Development: FY2015 Appropriations

In FY2015, the Department of Housing and Urban Development was funded as part of the FY2015 Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act (P.L. 113-235), enacted on December 16, 2014, following funding through three short-term continuing resolutions. The bill provides $45.4 billion in gross discretionary appropriations, not accounting for savings from offsets and other sources, about $90 million less than in FY2014 ($45.5 billion). However, net budget authority is higher than in FY2014, approximately $35.6 billion in FY2015 compared to $32.8 billion in FY2014. Net budget authority takes into account rescissions and offsets from receipts and collections. The primary difference between FY2015 and FY2014 is that estimated receipts from the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) loan insurance program dropped by about $3 billion. For the most part, P.L. 113-235 funds HUD programs at approximately the same levels as FY2014. Exceptions include increased funding for Research and Technology (by nearly 57%), Housing for the Elderly and Housing for Persons with Disabilities (by 9% and 7%, respectively), Housing Counseling (by 4%), and the Homeless Assistance Grants (by not quite 1%). However, in most cases any increases would largely support renewals of existing assistance. Decreased funding includes Choice Neighborhoods (by 11%), HOME Investment Partnerships (by 10%), Project-Based Section 8 Rental Assistance (by 2%), and the Community Development Fund and Fair Housing activities (by 1% each). Prior to enactment of P.L. 113-235, the President requested $46.7 billion in gross discretionary appropriations for HUD, about $1.2 billion more than the amount provided in FY2014. Net budget authority requested was $36.9 billion. While the President requested increased funding for some programs (for example, the Homeless Assistance Grants, Housing for the Elderly, and Housing for Persons with Disabilities), in most cases, funding for these programs would largely have supported renewals of existing rental assistance contracts. Programs proposed for decreased funding included the Community Development Block Grant program (more than 7%), and the HOME Investment Partnerships Program (5%). The House Appropriations Committee approved H.R. 4745, its version of the Departments of Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies (THUD) appropriations bill, on May 27, 2014. Two weeks later, on June 10, 2014, the full House approved the bill, with amendments, though none changed the total amount of funding the bill would have provided for HUD. The bill would have provided approximately $44.7 billion in gross appropriations, a decrease of about $800 million compared to FY2014 and about $2 billion compared to the President’s budget request. After accounting for offsetting collections and receipts, H.R. 4745 would have provided $35.0 billion in net budget authority. The Senate Appropriations Committee reported its version of the THUD appropriations bill, S. 2438, on June 5, 2014. The bill would have provided about $1 billion more than the House-passed bill for both gross and net budget authority—$45.8 billion and $36.0 billion, respectively. For FY2014 and FY2015 funding levels, see Table 2.

Feb 11, 2015

Water Resource Issues in the 114th Congress

The 114th Congress faces many water resource development, management, and protection issues. Congressional actions shape reinvestment in aging federal infrastructure (e.g., dams, locks, and levees) and federal and nonfederal investment in new infrastructure, such as water supply augmentation, hydropower projects, navigation improvements, and efforts to restore aquatic ecosystems. These issues often arise at the regional or local levels but frequently have a federal connection. Ongoing issues include competition over water, drought and flood responses and policies, competitiveness and efficiency of U.S. harbors and waterways, and innovative and alternative financing approaches. The 114th Congress also may continue oversight of operations of federal infrastructure during drought and low-flow conditions, past large-scale flooding issues (e.g., Hurricane Sandy, Hurricane Katrina, Missouri and Mississippi River floods), and balancing hydropower generation, recreational use, and protection of threatened and endangered species. In addition to oversight, each Congress also provides appropriations for major federal water resource agencies, such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). The issues before the 114th Congress are shaped in part by what earlier Congresses chose to enact and consider. Measures considered but not enacted by the 113th Congress include California drought legislation, various drought policy and water efficiency and conservation measures, regional restoration legislation (e.g., Klamath Basin, Great Lakes, Chesapeake Bay), actions to expedite water storage projects and permits, settlement of Indian water rights claims, and a lifting of restrictions on firearms at Army Corps projects. Because of recent water conditions, disasters, or legal or agency developments, certain river basin issues are particularly likely to receive congressional attention during the 114th Congress. The Columbia River, Missouri River, and Sacramento and San Joaquin River (Central Valley Project) basins fall into this category. Other potential topics of congressional interest include emergency drought or flood legislation, private and public hydropower, water research and science investment and coordination, aging infrastructure, and environmental policy. The 113th Congress enacted an omnibus Corps authorization bill, the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (WRRDA 2014, P.L. 113-121). In addition to authorizing new programs (e.g., Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act) and Corps construction projects, the legislation also established new processes that may shape how subsequent Corps project authorizations are identified. A Corps authorization bill often is considered by each Congress; enactment, however, has been less regular, with the most recent bills enacted in 2014, 2007, and 2000. The 113th Congress also enacted legislation to facilitate small conduit hydropower development (P.L. 113-23 and P.L. 113-24). This report discusses recent congressional activity and possible topics for the 114th Congress. It provides an overview of the federal role in water resources development, management, and protection, with a focus on projects of the two major federal water resources agencies—Reclamation and the U.S. Army Corps—and related legislation. It also discusses overarching policy issues, such as drought and flood management and response, project funding and authorization priorities, and aquatic ecosystem restoration.

Feb 11, 2015

Introduction to Financial Services: International Supervision

This report discusses the financial crisis of 2007-2008 and subsequent global economic turmoil that underscored the interconnectedness of the global financial system as well as its weaknesses. In the wake of the crisis, leaders from the United States and other countries have pursued a wide range of reforms to the international financial regulatory system.

Feb 10, 2015

Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014 (H.R. 3230; P.L. 113-146)

Feb 10, 2015

Major Agricultural Trade Issues in the 114th Congress

Trade, particularly exports, is critical to the vitality of American agriculture. On average, foreign markets absorb about one-fifth of U.S. agricultural production, thus contributing significantly to the health of the farm economy. The positive economic effects of trade in farm products are felt well beyond the farm gate. Farm product exports make up about 10% of total U.S. exports and contribute positively to the U.S. balance of trade. The economic benefits of agricultural exports also extend across rural communities, while overseas farm sales help to buoy a wide array of industries linked to agriculture, including transportation, processing, and farm input suppliers. Moreover, most of the future growth in food demand is expected to occur in developing countries. Trade, including agricultural trade, is clearly on the national agenda in the 114th Congress. The United States is engaged in negotiating two large regional trade agreements—the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) among 12 Pacific-facing nations, and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP) with the European Union. These agreements hold the potential to expand foreign markets for U.S. farmers and food processors by eliminating, or substantially lowering, tariffs and restrictive quotas around certain commodities, such as rice and pork in Japan, or by dismantling supply management programs that protect poultry, eggs, and dairy in Canada. Also on the negotiating agenda are non-tariff trade barriers, including certain sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures that governments employ to safeguard human, animal, and plant health, but which may also be used to deter imports. Geographic Indications (GI) that restrict the use of common names for certain agricultural products and can thereby impede trade in U.S. farm products are on the agenda of U.S. negotiators in both TPP and T-TIP. At the global level, further liberalization of agricultural trade is an objective of the Doha Round of multilateral trade negotiations under the World Trade Organization (WTO), but those talks have effectively stalled. Numerous other trade issues of importance to U.S. agriculture are currently in play. Among these, U.S. producers are often subject to import bans that are not supported by internationally recognized animal health and food safety standards, including bans on U.S. poultry products due to avian influenza, and on beef and pork owing to the use of ractopamine to boost weight gain and meat yield. At the same time, the United States currently is appealing a WTO decision that determined its country-of-origin labeling (COOL) regulations on marketing of meat violate its WTO obligations. President Obama’s overture in December 2014 to engage Cuba and normalize relations has drawn the support of many in the agricultural community who see the potential to markedly expand exports of U.S. agricultural products to Cuba if Congress were to further ease, or remove entirely, existing restrictions on trade with that country. Agreements the United States struck with Mexico late in 2014 have recast the terms of bilateral trade in sugar, but the two suspension agreements currently are being challenged by some U.S. sugar refiners. Congress traditionally has displayed a keen interest in agricultural trade issues given their importance to agriculture and to the economy at large. Congress has a consequential role to play in many of these trade matters—from providing direction to U.S. trade negotiators within the context of TPP or T-TIP to considering whether to provide the Administration with Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) to facilitate the negotiation and congressional consideration of any trade agreements. Also of potential interest if Congress considers trade legislation are trade-related programs for which authorization has expired. Two such are Trade Adjustment Assistance for Farmers (TAAF), which provides technical and financial assistance to producers who are adversely affected by import surges, and the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP), which provides duty-free tariff treatment for certain products from designated developing countries.

Feb 10, 2015

Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI)

Feb 9, 2015

SBA Office of Advocacy: Overview, History, and Current Issues

Feb 9, 2015

Public Trust and Law Enforcement--A Brief Discussion for Policy Makers

This report provides a brief overview of police-community relations and how the federal government might be able to promote more accountability and better relationships between citizens and law enforcement.

Feb 9, 2015

State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2016 Budget Overview

This report provides an overview of the FY2016 State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs (SFOPS) request and account-by-account funding comparisons with FY2014 actuals and FY2015 estimates.

Feb 9, 2015

Energy and Mineral Development on Federal Land

Feb 6, 2015

Tax Provisions that Expired in 2014 ("Tax Extenders")

This report provides a broad overview of the tax extenders that retroactively extend expired tax provisions, including the Tax Increase Prevention Act of 2014, which made tax provisions that had expired at the end of 2013 available to taxpayers for the 2014 tax year.

Feb 6, 2015

Global Health System Strengthening: Issues for Congress

Feb 6, 2015

The National Institute of Standards and Technology: An Appropriations Overview

Feb 5, 2015