CRS Reports

FEMA DRF Major Disaster Assistance: Kansas

This report describes the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF), which is managed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and is the primary source of funding used to provide assistance following a major disaster declaration.

Jan 28, 2015

FEMA DRF Major Disaster Assistance: Kentucky

Jan 28, 2015

FEMA DRF Major Disaster Assistance: Louisiana

Jan 28, 2015

FEMA DRF Major Disaster Assistance: Maine

Jan 28, 2015

FEMA DRF Major Disaster Assistance: Maryland

Jan 28, 2015

FEMA DRF Major Disaster Assistance: Massachusetts

Jan 28, 2015

FEMA DRF Major Disaster Assistance: Michigan

Jan 28, 2015

FEMA DRF Major Disaster Assistance: Minnesota

Jan 28, 2015

FEMA DRF Major Disaster Assistance: Alabama

Jan 28, 2015

FEMA DRF Major Disaster Assistance: Alaska

Jan 28, 2015

FEMA DRF Major Disaster Assistance: Arizona

Jan 28, 2015

FEMA DRF Major Disaster Assistance: Arkansas

Jan 28, 2015

FEMA DRF Major Disaster Assistance: California

Jan 28, 2015

FEMA DRF Major Disaster Assistance: Colorado

Jan 28, 2015

FEMA DRF Major Disaster Assistance: Connecticut

Jan 28, 2015

FEMA DRF Major Disaster Assistance: South Dakota

Jan 28, 2015

FEMA DRF Major Disaster Assistance: Tennessee

Jan 28, 2015

FEMA DRF Major Disaster Assistance: Texas

Jan 28, 2015

FEMA DRF Major Disaster Assistance: Utah

Jan 28, 2015

FEMA DRF Major Disaster Assistance: Vermont

Jan 28, 2015

FEMA DRF Major Disaster Assistance: Virginia

Jan 28, 2015

FEMA DRF Major Disaster Assistance: Washington

Jan 28, 2015

FEMA DRF Major Disaster Assistance: West Virginia

Jan 28, 2015

FEMA DRF Major Disaster Assistance: Wisconsin

Jan 28, 2015

FEMA DRF Major Disaster Assistance: Wyoming

Jan 28, 2015

Latin America and the Caribbean: Key Issues for the 114th Congress

This report provides an overview of U.S. policy toward Latin America and the Caribbean. It begins with an overview of the political and economic environment that affects U.S. relations, and then examines the Obama Administration's policy priorities in the region. The report then examines congressional interests in Latin America, looking at selected regional and country issues.

Jan 28, 2015

Defense: FY2015 Authorization and Appropriations

In contrast with the debate over the FY2014 defense budget, congressional action on the FY2015 Department of Defense (DOD) “base budget” (that is, the part of the budget not associated with operations in Afghanistan or other situations designated by the President as emergencies) was not complicated by disputes over the total amount at issue. For both the FY2015 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and the FY2015 Defense Appropriations Act, President Obama’s request, and versions of the legislation that were passed by the House, approved by the relevant Senate committees, and finally enacted, varied by amounts that amounted to a small fraction of 1%. The narrow range of disagreements reflected the fact that, in each case, the request and all versions of the legislation were consistent with the binding cap on defense spending in FY2015 that had been established by the Balanced Budget Act of 2013 (P.L. 113-67). For the FY2015 NDAA, the President requested base budget authorizations for DOD totaling $495.5 billion. The version of that bill passed by the House (H.R. 4435) would have authorized $495.8 billion, the version reported by the Senate Armed Services Committee would have authorized $496.0 billion, and the enacted bill (H.R. 3979/P.L. 113-291) authorizes $495.9 billion. (See Table 11.) For base budget programs covered by the FY2015 Defense DOD Appropriations Act (which does not cover the military construction budget), the Administration requested $484.3 billion. The version of the bill (H.R. 4870) passed by the House would have added $166.3 million to that total while the version of H.R. 4870 reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee would have cut $1.1 billion. The final version of the Defense Appropriations Act (Division C of H.R. 83/P.L. 113-235) provides $$483.7 billion. (See Table 19.) Within those similar gross totals, however, the Administration’s budget request and the enacted DOD funding legislation have some significant differences. Both bills either reject outright or defers a decision on several cost reduction initiatives proposed by the Administration. At the same time, both add to the budget billions of dollars for weapons programs and “readiness” improvements that were not included in the budget request. Those added costs, are offset, in part, by reductions which, according to the congressional defense committees, will have no adverse impact on DOD programs. The cost of the congressional additions (in the base budget) is further offset by the fact that some other costs are shifted into the part of the bill that funds war costs (or Overseas Contingency Operations – OCO), and thus are exempt from the statutory cap on discretionary spending. (See “NDAA Highlights” and “DOD Appropriations Overview”, below.) The Administration amended its FY2015 budget request for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) three times in the course of 2014, each time expanding its scope to fund other emergent DOD activities in addition to combat and post-combat operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. The final version of the NDAA (H.R. 3979/P.L. 113-291) addressed an OCO request totaling $63.7 billion from which it cut $1.5 million. Additions, including $1.25 billion to fund equipment for the National Guard and reserve components and $351.0 million for the Iron Dome anti-rocket system were offset by a cut to the amended request for the Counterterrorism Partnership Fund (CTPF) for which the act authorizes $1.3 billion of the $4.0 billion requested. The final version of the FY2015 Defense Appropriations Act (H.R. 83, Division C/P.L. 113-265) adds $1.54 billion to a $63.7 billion OCO request (which included $112.0 million in emergency appropriations for DOD activities to combat the Ebola virus).

Jan 28, 2015

The Child Support Enforcement (CSE) Program

Jan 28, 2015

The America COMPETES Acts: An Overview

This report provides an overview of the COMPETES Acts for readers seeking background and legislative context. It includes a description and legislative history of the acts, a summary of the broad policy debate, and an examination of the implementation status of selected COMPETES-related programs and policies. This report also highlights major bills to reauthorize the COMPETES Acts from the 113th Congress.

Jan 27, 2015

H.R. 399, the Secure Our Borders First Act of 2015: Report in Brief

This report provides a summary of select provisions in the Secure Our Borders First Act of 2015 (H.R. 399). An amendment in the nature of a substitute to the bill was favorably marked up and reported out of the House Homeland Security Committee on January 21, 2015. This report provides a summary of select provisions in the bill that fall under two major headings—Operational Control of the Borders and Biometric Entry and Exit System—and concludes with a brief description of additional provisions collected under a third heading—CBP Agents and Officers, and Federal Land. Figures provide brief sketches of two major components discussed in the report, and an Appendix lists the reporting requirements in the bill.

Jan 27, 2015

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations

The Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill includes funding for most of the Department of the Interior (DOI) and for agencies within other departments—including the Forest Service within the Department of Agriculture and the Indian Health Service within the Department of Health and Human Services. It also provides funding for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), arts and cultural agencies, and numerous other entities. For FY2015, the President requested $30.69 billion for the approximately 30 agencies and entities typically funded in the annual Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations law. The President’s request would have been an increase of $570.9 million (1.9%) over the total FY2014 enacted appropriations of $30.12 billion. On July 23, 2014, the House Appropriations Committee reported H.R. 5171, the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2015, containing $30.28 billion for FY2015. The measure included $470.0 million in additional fire suppression funding for the Forest Service. On August 1, 2014, the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies released a draft measure and accompanying explanatory statement recommending $30.71 billion in total appropriations. The draft included $1.19 billion in emergency appropriations for Wildland Fire Management of DOI and the Forest Service. Neither measure saw subsequent legislative action. Regular appropriations for FY2015 were not enacted prior to the start of the fiscal year on October 1, 2015. Accordingly, continuing appropriations were temporarily provided under continuing appropriations laws (originally P.L. 113-164). Agencies generally received funding at the FY2014 level minus an across-the-board reduction of 0.0554%, under the authority and conditions provided for FY2014. On December 16, 2014, regular, full-year appropriations were enacted for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies as part of P.L. 113-235, the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015. The law included total appropriations of $30.48 billion for these agencies, primarily in Division F. For DOI agencies in Title I of the bill, appropriations were $11.09 billion, including $372.0 million for the Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program. This was 36.4% of the total enacted. For the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), appropriations were $8.14 billion, or 26.7% of the total. For agencies and other entities in Title III of the bill, the total was $11.25 billion, or 36.9% of the total. Appropriations enacted for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies over the prior five fiscal years (FY2010-FY2014) peaked in FY2010 at $32.32 billion. Relative to FY2010, the FY2015 enacted appropriations decreased by $1.84 billion (-5.7%). However, the FY2015 appropriations were higher than the appropriations enacted for each of the other fiscal years during the five-year period. They were $358.0 million (1.2%) higher than the most recent (FY2014) appropriations.

Jan 27, 2015

The Dietary Guidelines for Americans

Jan 26, 2015

FY2015 Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations

Jan 26, 2015

Bank Failures and the FDIC

Jan 23, 2015

Oil Sands and the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund: The Definition of "Oil" and Related Issues for Congress

This report provides background on oil sands resources, followed by a discussion of the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF), including authorized uses and revenue sources; the scope of oil subject to the per-barrel tax (that funds the OSLTF) versus the scope of oil that triggers activities under the Oil Pollution Act; and relevant legislative activities of the 113th and 114th Congresses. The final section offers concluding observations.

Jan 22, 2015

Membership of the 114th Congress: A Profile

This report presents a profile of the membership of the 114th Congress (2015-2016). Statistical information is included on selected characteristics of Members, including data on party affiliation, average age, occupation, education, length of congressional service, religious affiliation, gender, ethnicity, foreign births, and military service.

Jan 22, 2015

Congressional Roll Call Votes on the Keystone XL Pipeline

This report provides roll call vote data related to the proposed TransCanada Keystone XL Pipeline that would transport oil sands crude from Canada and shale oil produced in North Dakota and Montana to a market hub in Nebraska for further delivery to Gulf Coast refineries. Voting information is listed chronologically and broken down by chamber, Congress, and type of legislation.

Jan 22, 2015

Monuments and Memorials Authorized Under the Commemorative Works Act in the District of Columbia: Current Development of In-Progress and Lapsed Works

Jan 22, 2015

The OSH Act: A Legal Overview

Through the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (“OSH Act” or “act”), Congress sought a nationwide approach to regulating workplace accidents and injuries. The act authorizes the Secretary of Labor to create and enforce workplace safety standards. Additionally, the act contains a “General Duty Clause,” also enforced by the Secretary of Labor, which generally requires employers to provide workplaces that are free of potentially harmful hazards. The act created the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) and an Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, to whom the Secretary of Labor has delegated his enforcement rights and obligations under the act. The act also established the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (“OSHRC”), an adjudicatory agency independent of the Department of Labor, and therefore OSHA, that is tasked with reviewing enforcement actions. OSHA enforces its standards and the General Duty Clause through inspections, citations, and penalties. Employers can seek review of OSHA enforcement actions first with OSHRC and then with U.S. Courts of Appeals.

Jan 22, 2015

North Korea: Back on the State Sponsors of Terrorism List?

From 1988 until 2008, the United States designated the government of North Korea, officially known as the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), as a state sponsor of terrorism. The Reagan Administration designated the DPRK after it was implicated in the 1987 bombing of a South Korean airliner, in which more than 100 people died. The George W. Bush Administration removed the designation from the DPRK in 2008, one of the measures the United States took in exchange for North Korea’s agreement to take steps to disable its nuclear program. As of early 2015, only the governments of Cuba, Iran, Sudan, and Syria remain on the lists. The State Department can designate a government as a state sponsor of acts of international terrorism pursuant to three laws: the Export Administration Act of 1979; the Arms Export Control Act; and the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. Thus, there effectively are three state sponsors of terrorism “lists.” The State Department can use a variety of criteria when assessing whether a government should be added to and removed from the lists. In North Korea’s case, policy considerations appear to have weighed heavily in the designation of the DPRK from 1988-2007, as well as in the decision to remove the designation in 2008. In the 114th Congress, H.R. 204 expresses the sense of Congress that the State Department should redesignate the DPRK as a state sponsor of terrorism. According to the State Department, North Korea has not been conclusively linked to any terrorist acts since 1987. Some observers have questioned the Department’s claim. These observers support their contention by citing seizures of cargo ships carrying North Korean missile parts and conventional weapons, apparently to Syria and Burma (Myanmar). U.S. government agencies have stated that North Korea helped Syria build a nuclear reactor, and that North Korea and Iran cooperate closely in missile development. According to press reports, North Korea has provided support to Hamas and Hezbollah, and has targeted North Korean refugees living overseas for kidnapping and assassination. The 2010 sinking of a South Korean naval vessel also triggered calls to redesignate the DPRK. To date, cyber-related incidents such as the late 2014 attack on Sony have not been used as justification for designation as a state sponsor of terrorism. The 2009 and 2013 seizures of chemical protection equipment bound for Syria appear to be the only DPRK actions since 2008 that both (1) were recognized by official U.S. or U.N. bodies, and (2) conceivably could have met the statutory criteria for designation. Redesignating the DPRK as a terrorism sponsor appears unlikely to inflict significant direct economic punishment on North Korea, particularly in the short term. However, a decision to redesignate North Korea as a state sponsor of terrorism could have a significant impact on international diplomacy with North Korea. The Kim regime could perceive redesignation as a threat to its two-track policy of nuclear development and economic development, with the latter goal partially dependent upon influxes of foreign investment. Placing North Korea back on the lists could forestall future diplomatic initiatives between Washington and Pyongyang, particularly if North Korean leaders—as well as Chinese leaders—interpret it as a sign that the United States is not interested in dialogue. Given previous patterns of North Korean behavior, it is possible that Pyongyang would respond to a redesignation by taking additional provocative actions, such as more nuclear-weapon or long-range-missile tests. North Korea has not conducted such tests since early 2013. Returning Pyongyang to the terrorism sponsor lists also could complicate the South Korean government’s initiatives to improve relations with North Korea. Assessing the merits of these implications depends heavily on whether or not one believes the United States should adopt a harsher stance toward Pyongyang.

Jan 21, 2015

A Shift in the International Security Environment: Potential Implications for Defense--Issues for Congress

A shift in the international security environment could have significant implications for U.S. defense plans and programs. A previous shift in the international security environment--from the Cold War to the post-Cold War era--prompted a broad reassessment by the Department of Defense (DOD) and Congress of defense funding levels, strategy, and missions that led to numerous changes in DOD plans and programs. The issue for Congress is whether a shift in the international security environment has occurred, and if so, how to respond to that shift. This report briefly describes the shift in the international security environment that some observers believe has occurred, and identifies some defense-related issues for Congress that could arise from it. Congress' decisions on these issues could have significant implications for U.S. defense capabilities and funding requirements.

Jan 21, 2015

Title X Family Planning Program

Jan 21, 2015

The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA): An Overview of Programs and Funding

This report provides an overview of funding and programs of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) bureau.

Jan 21, 2015

Water Quality Issues in the 114th Congress: An Overview

Jan 21, 2015

The National Trails System: A Brief Overview

Jan 21, 2015

Mineral Royalties on Federal Lands: Issues for Congress

Three royalty debates may be revived in the 114th Congress: (1) whether to increase the statutory minimum rate for onshore federal oil and gas leases from 12.5% to 18.75%, (2) whether to enact revenue sharing laws for Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) leases to include all coastal states, and (3) whether to charge a royalty on hardrock locatable minerals produced on federal public domain lands. House and Senate bills in the 113th Congress proposed to raise the minimum rate from 12.5% to 18.75% on oil and gas produced on federal leases, provide for revenue sharing of OCS revenues, and establish a “gross proceeds” royalty on federally owned locatable mineral production. Raising the Onshore Oil and Gas Royalty Rate A mineral royalty is a payment to the resource owner for the extraction of the mineral. Typically, in the mining industry the royalty is based on production ($/ton) or income (percent of gross or net income). For federal oil and gas leases, royalties are assessed on the gross value of production minus allowable deductions. There is precedent for raising federal oil and gas lease royalty rates. Under the Bush Administration in 2008, Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne raised the deepwater rate for new leases from 12.5% to 16.67%. Then, in 2009, Secretary Ken Salazar of the Obama Administration increased the royalty rates for new offshore leases to 18.75%. The lower federal onshore royalty rate (12.5%) for oil and gas may be viewed as an incentive rate to encourage bidding on federal lands. Revenue Sharing The largely decentralized revenue sharing system for onshore federal energy and mineral resources under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 provides states generally with a 50% share of revenues collected (rents, bonuses, and royalties), less 2% for administrative costs; Alaska, however, receives 90% of all revenues collected on federal onshore leases (less administrative costs). These onshore receipts are intended to maintain or establish infrastructure, and mitigate environmental, social, and other impacts from the development of mineral resources. This is different from the much more centralized system used for offshore revenue, which has much less revenue sharing. Establish a Locatable Minerals Royalty The Mining Law continues to provide the structure for much of the western mineral development on public domain lands. Western mining, although not as extensive as it once was, is still a major economic activity. Industry officials argue that the current claim-patent system enhances a company’s ability to bring an economic deposit into production. They contend that restrictions on free access and security of tenure would curtail exploration. Mining Law critics consider the claim-patent system a giveaway of publicly owned resources because of the absence of royalties and the small charges associated with keeping a claim active and obtaining a patent.

Jan 19, 2015

Federal Benefits and Services for People with Low Income: Programs and Spending, FY2008-FY2013

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) regularly receives requests about the number, size, and programmatic details of federal benefits and services targeted toward low-income populations, and the characteristics of people who participate. This report attempts to identify and provide information about such programs, including their federal spending during FY2008-FY2013. The report does not discuss social insurance programs such as Social Security, Medicare, or Unemployment Insurance, but includes only programs with an explicit focus on low-income people or communities. Tax provisions, other than the refundable portion of two tax credits, are excluded. Key findings include the following: No single label best describes all programs with a low-income focus, and no single trait characterizes those who benefit. Programs are highly diverse in their purpose, design, and target population. Readers should use caution in making generalizations about the programs described in this report. Total federal spending on low-income programs rose sharply between FY2008 and FY2009 as the Great Recession took hold. Spending ultimately peaked in FY2011, dropped in FY2012, and edged up again in FY2013. Total low-income spending in FY2013 totaled $744 billion, significantly higher than the FY2008 level of $561 billion but below the FY2010 level of $750 billion. Peak spending over the six years was $764 billion in FY2011. Health care is the single largest category of low-income spending, accounting for nearly half of the total, and drives overall trends. The single largest program within the health category is Medicaid. Cash aid and food assistance are the next largest categories, with food assistance seeing the largest growth over the six-year period. Other categories (in descending size) are education, housing and development, social services, employment and training, and energy assistance. Most low-income spending (82% in FY2013) is classified in budgetary terms as “mandatory” (or “direct”), which means the amount spent is a function of eligibility and payment rules established by Congress in authorizing laws. Congress determines the amount spent for the remaining “discretionary” programs through the annual appropriations process. Four programs accounted for 65% of low-income spending in FY2013, and 10 programs made up 82%. Medicaid alone contributed 39% of the total. In addition to Medicaid, the top four include the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and the refundable portion of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). The disabled receive the single largest share of federal low-income spending, based on an analysis of spending for the top 10 programs in FY2011. The disabled received almost a third of such spending, primarily for health care and secondarily for cash aid. Working families with children received the next largest share of spending (including from the EITC and Additional Child Tax Credit), followed by the elderly. The bulk of spending for low-income elderly was in the health category. Less than 12% of total low-income spending in FY2011 went to families with nonelderly nondisabled adults who were not working.

Jan 15, 2015

North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)

Jan 15, 2015

Programs for Minority-Serving Institutions (MSIs) Under the Higher Education Act (HEA)

Jan 15, 2015

Introduction to Financial Services: Insurance Regulation

Jan 15, 2015