CRS Reports

Institutional Eligibility for Participation in Title IV Student Financial Aid Programs

Jan 15, 2015

The Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing (ATVM) Loan Program: Status and Issues

The Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing (ATVM) Loan Program is a Department of Energy (DOE) program designed to reduce petroleum use in vehicles and promote domestic manufacturing. It was established in 2007, when the Detroit 3 automakers—General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler—faced declining sales in a weakening economy at the same time that U.S. fuel economy standards were raised. It provides direct loans to automakers and parts suppliers to construct new U.S. factories or retrofit existing factories to produce vehicles that achieve at least 25% higher fuel economy than model year 2005 vehicles of similar size and performance. The ATVM program is authorized to award up to $25 billion in loans; there is no deadline for completing such loan commitments. Congress funded the program in 2009, when it appropriated $7.5 billion to cover the subsidy cost for the $25 billion in loans, as well as $10 million for program implementation. Since the start of the program, DOE has awarded $8.4 billion in loans to five companies (Fisker, Ford, Nissan, Tesla, and the Vehicle Production Group). As of January 2015, ATVM has $16.6 billion in remaining loan authority. No new loans have been made since 2011. Two companies—Fisker and the Vehicle Production Group—were unable to make payments on their loans, and DOE auctioned the loans off in the fall of 2013. Tesla paid off all of its loan in 2013, nine years ahead of schedule. Of the final loan agreements, DOE has estimated that the projects would create or save 38,700 jobs at facilities in nine states. DOE estimated that annually the projects would displace 282 million gallons of gasoline (roughly 18,000 barrels per day, or about 0.2% of U.S. consumption) and would avoid about 2.4 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions (about 0.04% of total U.S. emissions). In April 2014, DOE announced a number of changes that appear designed to refocus the program to assist vehicle component manufacturers, rather than the vehicle assemblers that have received prior ATVM loans. As of January 8, 2015, however, no new loans have been made. Appropriations for the program do not cover the entire value of the loans but instead cover the “subsidy cost” (i.e., the risk of default). For the original appropriation, Congress assumed a subsidy rate of 30%, meaning that $7.5 billion would be sufficient to fund $25 billion in total loan value. A report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) estimates that a total of $3.3 billion in subsidy costs has been paid to date, with approximately $4.2 billion unobligated. The unobligated funds remaining for the program have been a point of contention in recent appropriations debates. The House has voted several times to transfer some of the unused appropriation for the ATVM subsidy costs to other purposes. None of these transfers were enacted. Other legislators have sought to expand the program. Two recent federal reports call for rescinding the program’s unobligated balance: the FY2015 budget resolution reported by the House Budget Committee calls for outright rescission, and an April 2014 GAO report recommends Congress consider taking the same step unless DOE can generate new demand for the program.

Jan 15, 2015

Methane: An Introduction to Emission Sources and Reduction Strategies

Jan 14, 2015

The Oregon and California Railroad Lands (O&C Lands): Issues for Congress

The Oregon and California Railroad (O&C) lands consist of 2.6 million acres of timberland in western Oregon. The majority of these lands (2.5 million acres) were originally granted to the Oregon & California Railroad Company in 1866 for constructing approximately 300 miles of the Oregon portion of a railroad from Portland, OR, to Sacramento, CA. However, in 1915 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the railroad company violated the terms of the grant. The disposition of these lands was eventually resolved with the O&C Act of 1937, which revested the lands back into federal ownership to be managed by the Department of the Interior “for permanent forest production” with the purpose of providing a supply of timber, protecting watersheds, providing recreational opportunities, and contributing to the economic stability of the local communities. The O&C Act of 1937 established a revenue-sharing system with the 18 counties in Oregon that contain O&C lands. Currently at issue for Congress are payments to the counties that contain O&C land, and the applicability of various land management and environmental laws. The O&C lands are managed under the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP). The NWFP is a series of administrative policies and forest management directives adopted in the 1990s. The NWFP covers 24 million acres of public land, including 19 national forests managed by the Forest Service and 7 Bureau of Land Management (BLM) districts in California, Oregon, and Washington. The O&C lands make up 11% of the NWFP management area by acreage, and 37% of Oregon’s NWFP management area by acreage. The 1937 O&C Act established a revenue sharing system to compensate for the loss of property tax revenue when the O&C lands were revested back to the federal government. When timber sales and revenues began to decline in the Pacific Northwest in the 1990s, Congress established alternative compensation systems for the county payments: first, the safety net payments specifically for the Pacific Northwest, and then, the broader Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (SRS; P.L. 106-393, as amended). After several reauthorizations and extensions—including the most recent one-year reauthorization for FY2013 (P.L. 113-40)—SRS expired after the FY2013 payment was issued in early 2014. Therefore, the O&C counties will not receive an SRS payment for FY2014 (to be made in 2015), but the payments will return to 50% of receipts, unless Congress acts to extend, modify, or replace SRS. These payments would likely be significantly lower than previous years’ SRS payments. The 113th Congress considered legislation to address the management of the O&C lands and federal payment programs to the O&C counties. A House-passed bill (H.R. 1526, the Restoring Healthy Forests for Healthy Communities Act) would have transferred management authority of much of the O&C lands to a governor-appointed panel and established a trust with fiduciary responsibility to the counties, among other provisions related to the management and applicability of federal environmental laws. A Senate bill reported out of committee, S. 1784, would have retained management authority within the BLM, but would have designated portions of the O&C lands as forestry emphasis areas, and other portions as conservation emphasis areas, each with different management prescriptions. Neither proposal was enacted. Management of the O&C lands and federal payments to the O&C counties may continue to be issues for the 114th Congress. For example, The Oregon and California Land Grant Act of 2015, S. 132, was introduced on January 8, 2015, and is very similar to S. 1784 from the 113th Congress.

Jan 14, 2015

Proposals to Change the ACA’s Definition of “Full Time”

Jan 13, 2015

Reductions to Mandatory Agricultural Conservation Programs in Appropriations Law

Jan 9, 2015

The Work Opportunity Tax Credit

Jan 9, 2015

DOD Train and Equip Authorities to Counter the Islamic State

Jan 9, 2015

China's Mineral Industry and U.S. Access to Strategic and Critical Minerals: Issues for Congress

This report will examine China's position in the global mineral and metal markets; its growth in mineral reserves; the growth of supply, demand, and imports; and the role of China's state-owned enterprises (SOEs). The report takes a look at U.S. mineral import dependence, U.S. import dependence on China, and selected policy options. There are Appendices on mineral end-use applications, and selected critical minerals legislation in the 113th Congress.

Jan 9, 2015

The Reclamation Fund

Jan 8, 2015

Overview of Private Health Insurance Provisions in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA)

Jan 8, 2015

The President's Immigration Accountability Executive Action of November 20, 2014: Overview and Issues

This report discusses President Obama's Immigration Accountability Executive Action which revises some U.S. immigration policies and initiates several programs, including a revised border security policy for the Southwest border.

Jan 8, 2015

Deferred Action, Advance Parole, and Adjustment of Status

Jan 8, 2015

The Network for Manufacturing Innovation

In December 2014, Congress passed the Revitalize American Manufacturing and Innovation Act of 2014 (RAMIA), as Title VII of Division B of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (P.L. 113-235). President Obama signed the bill into law on December 16, 2014. RAMIA directs the Secretary of Commerce to establish a Network for Manufacturing Innovation (NMI) program within the Commerce Department’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The act comes about two years after President Obama first proposed the establishment of a National Network for Manufacturing Innovation in his FY2013 budget. RAMIA includes provisions authorizing NIST, the Department of Energy, and other agencies to support the establishment of centers for manufacturing innovation and establishing and providing for the operation of a Network for Manufacturing Innovation. NIST is authorized to use up to $5.0 million per year of appropriated funds for FY2015-FY2024 to carry out its responsibilities under the act. The Department of Energy is authorized to transfer to NIST up to $250.0 million of appropriated funds over the same FY2015-FY2024 period. The Secretary of Commerce is also authorized to accept funds, services, equipment, personnel, and facilities from any covered entity—federal department, federal agency, instrumentality of the United States, state, local government, tribal government, territory, or possession of the United States, or of any political subdivision thereof, or international organization, or any public or private entity or individual—to carry out the program. The act also establishes a National Office of the Network for Manufacturing Innovation Program (also referred to in this report as the National Program Office) at NIST to oversee and carry out the program. Each center receiving financial assistance under the NMI program must submit annual reports to the Secretary. The Secretary must submit annual reports to Congress on the performance of the program. And the Comptroller General of the United States is directed to perform biennial assessments of the program, with a final assessment due by December 31, 2024. Several factors could affect the implementation of the NMI program. Although the act authorizes funding for establishment of the centers and the network, the act does not appropriate any funds. Funding availability for the program will depend on congressional appropriations, priorities, and allocations. In addition, the Department of Energy is authorized, but not required, to transfer funds to NIST to carry out the program. Another program uncertainty relates to the network of centers. While the act specifies which new and existing centers are eligible to be a part of the network and designates the National Program Office as “a convener of the Network,” it does not further specify the purpose, federal role, and activities of the network.

Jan 8, 2015

Terrorism Risk Insurance Legislation in the 114th Congress: Issue Summary and Side-by- Side Analysis

This report briefly outlines the issues involved with terrorism insurance, summarizes extension legislation, and includes a side-by-side comparison of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 (TRIA) and the bills introduced in the 114th and 113th Congresses.

Jan 7, 2015

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant

Jan 6, 2015

Lower Oil Prices 2015

Jan 6, 2015

Medicaid’s Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP), FY2016

Jan 5, 2015

Air Traffic Inc.: Considerations Regarding the Corporatization of Air Traffic Control

Over the past 40 years, Congress has intermittently considered proposals to establish a government corporation or private entity to carry out air traffic functions currently provided by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). While the issue has been relatively dormant since a proposal offered by the Clinton Administration in the 1990s failed to gain the support of Congress, interest has reemerged following budget sequester-related funding cuts to FAA in FY2013. In January 2014, the FAA Management Advisory Council, a stakeholder advisory group, recommended spinning off FAA’s air traffic functions, modeling the delivery of air traffic service functions after commercialized independent air navigation service providers in other countries, creating an aviation stakeholder board to oversee this work, and funding the newly formed corporation through a transparent schedule of cost-based user fees. Many other countries have established government corporations, quasi-governmental entities, or private firms to perform air traffic services. While none of these air traffic service organizations are comparable to FAA in terms of their size or complexity, they represent a broad array of organizational models including a large number of wholly government-owned corporations, a public-private partnership model in the United Kingdom, a government-controlled joint stock company in Switzerland, and a fully private nonprofit entity controlled by aviation industry stakeholders in Canada. Direct comparisons among these models have been limited. There does not appear to be conclusive evidence that any of these models is either superior or inferior to others or to existing government-run air traffic services, including FAA, with respect to productivity, cost-effectiveness, service quality, and safety and security. Certain corporate and private air traffic service providers have improved cost-effectiveness and performance as a result of access to financial markets to fund large-scale acquisition projects, and of faster implementation of technologies. In this regard, the tax status of a potential air traffic entity’s debt could become a significant issue in the United States, as a privatized or a government-owned corporation could end up paying more to borrow in the financial market than the federal government does. The prospect of reforming FAA air traffic services raises many unique challenges for congressional consideration, including the framework and governance of a future air traffic services corporation; its organizational structure and elements; corporate financing and FAA funding mechanisms; measures to ensure a smooth transition; labor provisions to address legal rights of labor organizations while minimizing potential system disruptions; safety regulation and oversight of the corporation; measures to address corporate liability; and safeguards to assure equitable treatment to the wide array of system users.

Jan 5, 2015

Proposed Retirement of A-10 Aircraft: Background in Brief

The Administration’s fiscal 2015 budget proposed to retire the entire fleet of A-10 Thunderbolt II attack aircraft beginning in FY2016. This report covers the background to that decision and legislative action as of the end of 2014.

Jan 5, 2015

Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): Employment Discrimination

Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (together, ADA) prohibit discrimination in employment against qualified individuals on the basis of disability. The ADA defines the term disability broadly to include individuals with disabilities, individuals with a history of a disability, and individuals regarded as having disabilities whether they have one or not. The ADA protects alcoholics and drug addicts who are in recovery, but does not protect individuals who are actively abusing drugs or alcohol. The ADA requires “covered entities”—including labor unions, employment contractors, and private companies and state and local governments with 15 or more employees—to provide reasonable accommodations to qualified individuals with disabilities so that they can perform the essential functions of their jobs. Employers need not provide whatever accommodations individuals with disabilities identify. Rather, employers need to negotiate with individuals with disabilities to settle on reasonable accommodations. They do not need to provide accommodations that would impose undue burdens. The ADA limits the types of questions that employers can ask of individuals with disabilities, and governs employers’ requirement and use of medical and other tests. Individuals with disabilities who believe they have been unlawfully discriminated against can bring claims against their employers with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) or the state counterpart. In addition, the Attorney General may enforce the ADA by bringing lawsuits when there is a pattern or practice of unlawful discrimination. Under the ADA, plaintiffs may seek a variety of remedies including injunctions, damages, and even compensatory and punitive damages in cases of intentional discrimination.

Jan 5, 2015

International Trade and Finance: Key Policy Issues for the 114th Congress

This report covers policy issues in areas such as: U.S. trade negotiations; U.S. trade and economic relations with regions and countries; international trade institutions; tariff and nontariff barriers; worker dislocation from trade liberalization; trade remedy laws; import and export policies; international investment; economic sanctions; and trade policy functions of the federal government.

Jan 2, 2015

Surface Transportation Funding and Infrastructure Challenges

Jan 2, 2015

Introduction to Financial Services: Banking

Dec 31, 2014

Federal Income Taxes and Noncitizens: Frequently Asked Questions

This report answers frequently asked questions about noncitizens and federal income taxes. Noncitizens may be subject to U.S. income taxes when, for example, they work in the United States or they live abroad but have U.S. source income. Noncitizens who may be subject to U.S. income taxes include legal permanent residents (LPRs or green card holders) who are authorized to live and work in the United States permanently; aliens who are authorized to stay in the United States temporarily, and may or may not be authorized to work; aliens who are not authorized to be in the United States (called unlawfully present aliens for purposes of this report); and foreigners who are outside the United States but have U.S. tax obligations. This report groups similar questions by category: questions concerning residency status for purposes of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC); questions related to individual taxpayer identification numbers (ITINs), which are ID numbers issued to noncitizens for tax-filing purposes; and questions regarding unlawfully present aliens and federal income taxes. The report also refutes a persistent rumor that there are special tax benefits for aliens starting businesses in the United States. The report focuses on federal income taxes. Other taxes, such as payroll taxes, excise taxes, and estate and gift taxes, are outside the scope of this report. For information on aliens and the federal estate and gift taxes, see CRS Report R43576, Estate and Gift Taxes for Nonresident Aliens, by Emily M. Lanza.

Dec 31, 2014

New Era Dawns in U.S.-Mexico Sugar Trade

Dec 31, 2014

Public-Private Partnerships for Purposes of Federal Real Property Management

While public-private partnerships (PPPs) have long been used to manage real property, congressional interest in PPPs has recently increased due to the large number of underutilized and excess buildings owned by federal agencies, as well as sequestration and other spending constraints. There is no single, accepted definition of public-private partnership, and PPPs can be structured in many ways. However, for purposes of this report, a PPP is an agreement whereby a nonfederal entity acquires the right to use a real property owned or controlled by a federal agency—typically through a long-term lease—in exchange for redeveloping or renovating that property (or other property). In many cases, the agency and the nonfederal entity share the net cash flow or savings that result from the agreement. The term real property is defined by the Federal Management Regulation as any interest in land under the control of a federal agency except the public domain; lands reserved or dedicated for national forest or park purposes; minerals in lands withdrawn or reserved from the public domain; other lands withdrawn or reserved from the public domain; and crops separated from the land. The process of forming a PPP typically begins when a federal agency identifies real property that could provide greater benefits to the government if it were redeveloped or renovated. The agency then works with nonfederal partners to see if a redevelopment strategy could be devised that provides the agency with the benefits it seeks, and the nonfederal partner with financial returns sufficient to cover the risk of investing in the property. The redevelopment strategy and method of financing are closely linked. The former refers specifically to the work that the nonfederal partner agrees to undertake, while the latter is a combination of the revenue generated from the improved space and, in some cases, savings realized by reduced operating costs. Financial benefits to the government may also include a division of property cash flows. Two common redevelopment and financing structures entail (1) leasing property to a developer, which then constructs a new facility on the land and subleases the facility; and (2) giving a developer excess real property in exchange for the developer building a facility for the agency on other land that the agency owns. Federal law is generally silent as to PPPs, per se, particularly PPPs for purposes of improving or disposing of federal real property. A number of states have laws that define public-private partnership, and expressly authorize one or more state agencies (often, the Department of Transportation) to enter PPPs in general or for specific purposes (e.g., toll roads). With certain narrow exceptions (e.g., P.L. 106-407), federal law has no comparable provisions. Instead, those agencies which have, to date, entered agreements that could be characterized as PPPs have typically done so under their authority (1) to lease, otherwise convey, or permit the use of federal real property; or (2) to enter procurement contracts, particularly energy savings performance contracts (ESPCs). While the authorities as to procurement contracts often apply to all executive branch agencies, those as to leases generally apply only to specific agencies and properties, and sometimes only to agreements entered into for specific purposes. Thus, there is considerable variability in the types of PPPs that agencies may enter, and some uncertainties as to the legal requirements to which such partnerships are subject. When contemplating expanded use of PPPs, Congress may wish to consider the limited information available about existing authorities that may permit landholding agencies to enter PPPs, and whether and how these authorities are currently being utilized. Congress may also wish to consider agencies’ capabilities to enter into and oversee performance of these arguably complicated arrangements; agencies’ authority to retain and use any net proceeds from PPPs; and the interplay between PPPs and current processes for disposing of excess property.

Dec 31, 2014

State Challenges to Federal Enforcement of Immigration Law: Historical Precedents and Pending Litigation

This report provides an overview of prior and pending challenges by states to federal officials' alleged failure to enforce the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) or other provisions of immigration law. It begins by discussing the lawsuits filed by six states in the mid-1990s; Arizona's counterclaims to the federal government's suit to enjoin enforcement of S.B. 1070; and Mississippi's challenge to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) initiative. It then describes the challenge brought by over 20 states in 2014 to the recently announced expansion of DACA and the creation of a similar program for unlawfully present aliens whose children are U.S. citizens or lawful permanent resident aliens (LPRs). The report concludes by exploring how the pending litigation resembles, and differs from, the prior litigation.

Dec 31, 2014

The ACA Medicaid Expansion

Historically, Medicaid eligibility has generally been limited to certain low-income children, pregnant women, parents of dependent children, the elderly, and individuals with disabilities; however, as of January 1, 2014, states have the option to extend Medicaid coverage to most non-elderly, low-income individuals. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA; P.L. 111-148 as amended) established 133% of the federal poverty level (FPL) (effectively 138% of FPL with an income disregard of 5% of FPL) as the new mandatory minimum Medicaid income eligibility level for most non-elderly individuals. On June 28, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, finding that the enforcement mechanism for the ACA Medicaid expansion violated the Constitution, which effectively made the ACA Medicaid expansion optional for states. If a state accepts the ACA Medicaid expansion funds, it must abide by the expansion coverage rules. For instance, modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) counting rules are used for determining eligibility for the ACA Medicaid expansion population, and individuals covered under the ACA Medicaid expansion are required to receive alternative benefit plan (ABP) coverage. The ACA provides different federal Medicaid matching rates for the individuals who receive Medicaid coverage through the ACA Medicaid expansion. The federal government’s share of most Medicaid expenditures is determined according to the federal medical assistance percentage (FMAP) rate, but exceptions to the regular FMAP rate have been made for certain states, situations, populations, providers, and services. The ACA adds a few FMAP exceptions for the ACA Medicaid expansion: the “newly eligible” FMAP rate, the “expansion state” FMAP rate, and the additional FMAP increase for certain expansion states. Due to these ACA FMAP rates, the federal government pays for a vast majority of the cost of the ACA Medicaid expansion. On January 1, 2014, when the ACA Medicaid expansion went into effect, 24 states and the District of Columbia had included the ACA Medicaid expansion as part of their Medicaid programs. Michigan and New Hampshire implemented the expansion on April 1, 2014, and July 1, 2014 (respectively). Pennsylvania recently received approval to implement the ACA Medicaid expansion beginning on January 1, 2015. Most states implementing the ACA Medicaid expansion will do so through an expansion of their current Medicaid program. However, some states are implementing the expansion through an alternative method, such as the “private option” (i.e., premium assistance to purchase health insurance through the health insurance exchanges under the ACA) and health savings accounts. State decisions not to implement the ACA Medicaid expansion could have implications for low-income individuals, large employers with low-wage workers, and hospitals. For example, most uninsured individuals with incomes under 100% of FPL will likely remain uninsured, and large employers with low-wage workers might have greater exposure to employer penalties included in the ACA. Also, Medicaid disproportionate share hospital (DSH) allotments will be reduced by the same across the nation whether or not states implement the expansion.

Dec 30, 2014

Rehabilitation Act: Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants

The federal government is authorized to make grants to state agencies for vocational rehabilitation (VR) services. These grants support services to help individuals with disabilities prepare for and engage in employment. VR state grants are administered at the federal level by the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) in the Department of Education (ED). The VR state grants program is authorized by Title I of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended. The Rehabilitation Act was amended and the VR state grants program was reauthorized in July 2014 by Title IV of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act of 2014 (WIOA; P.L. 113-128). WIOA reauthorized a group of workforce programs, most of which were last authorized by the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-220). Title IV of WIOA authorizes appropriations for VR state grants through FY2020 and amends the Rehabilitation Act to make a number of changes to the VR state grants program. This report will discuss the VR state grants program as amended by WIOA. Funding for VR state grants is mandatory funding. Statute requires that each year’s appropriation must equal the prior year’s appropriation plus an increase equal to inflation. In FY2015, funding for VR state grants was approximately $3 billion. VR funds are allotted to state VR agencies via formula. Each state is required to match a portion of its federal grant. If a grantee does not provide its full match, the unmatched funds are made available to other states. To be eligible for a federal grant, each state much have an approved state plan. WIOA requires states to develop a unified state plan that describes how it will coordinate and align WIOA-authorized programs (including its VR program) to meet its local workforce development needs. Individuals’ eligibility for VR services is determined by state VR agencies. To be eligible for services, an individual must (1) have a disability that constitutes or results in a substantial impediment to employment and (2) require VR services to achieve an employment outcome. If a state is not able to serve all eligible clients, priority is given to clients with the most severe disabilities. After an individual is determined to be eligible for VR services, the client works with VR personnel to develop an individualized plan for employment (IPE). The IPE describes the client’s employment objective and how the VR agency will provide or coordinate services to achieve it. Employment objectives are determined by the client but generally must be consistent with the principle of competitive integrated employment (i.e., employment in the community, earning a wage comparable to similar workers who do not have disabilities). Services for each client are individualized to the client’s employment objective as well as the client’s strengths and interests. VR services can include (but are not limited to) counseling, job search and placement assistance, training and education, and post-employment support services. States may also use their VR funds for outreach and other services to employers. Statute requires that at least 15% of each state’s VR grant be allocated to pre-employment transition services for students with disabilities.

Dec 30, 2014

State Sponsors of Acts of International Terrorism--Legislative Parameters: In Brief

This brief report provides information on legislation that authorizes the designation of any foreign government as a state sponsor of acts of international terrorism. It addresses the statutes and how they each define acts of international terrorism; establish a list to limit or prohibit aid or trade; provide for systematic removal of a foreign government from a list, including timeline and reporting requirements; authorize the President to waive restrictions on a listed foreign government; and provide (or do not provide) Congress with a means to block a delisting. It closes with a summary of delisting in the past.

Dec 24, 2014

Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im Bank) Reauthorization

Dec 23, 2014

The Political Question Doctrine: Justiciability and the Separation of Powers

Article III of the Constitution restricts the jurisdiction of federal courts to deciding actual “Cases” and “Controversies.” The Supreme Court has articulated several “justiciability” doctrines emanating from Article III that restrict when federal courts will adjudicate disputes. One justiciability concept is the political question doctrine, according to which federal courts will not adjudicate certain controversies because their resolution is more proper within the political branches. Because of the potential implications for the separation of powers when courts decline to adjudicate certain issues, application of the political question doctrine has sparked controversy. Because there is no precise test for when a court should find a political question, however, understanding exactly when the doctrine applies can be difficult. The doctrine’s origins can be traced to Chief Justice Marshall’s opinion in Marbury v. Madison; but its modern application stems from Baker v. Carr, which provides six independent factors that can present political questions. These factors encompass both constitutional and prudential considerations, but the Court has not clearly explained how they are to be applied. Further, commentators have disagreed about the doctrine’s foundation: some see political questions as limited to constitutional grants of authority to a coordinate branch of government, while others see the doctrine as a tool for courts to avoid adjudicating an issue best resolved outside of the judicial branch. Supreme Court case law after Baker fails to resolve the matter. The Court has historically applied the doctrine in a small but disparate number of cases, without applying clear rules for lower courts to follow. Possibly as a result of the murky nature of the doctrine, it has regularly been invoked in lower federal courts in cases concerning foreign policy. However, a recent Supreme Court case, Zivotofsky v. Clinton, appears to have narrowed the scope of the political question doctrine. In a suit seeking the vindication of a statutory right in the foreign affairs context, the Court reversed a lower court’s finding that the case posed a political question. The Court explained that the proper analysis in such a situation begins not by asking whether adjudicating the case would require review of the foreign policy decisions of the political branches, but instead examining whether the plaintiff correctly interpreted the statute, followed by determining whether the statute was constitutional. The Court’s opinion appears to restrict the types of claims that can pose political questions, and seems to encourage courts to decide more statutory claims on the merits. In turn, the decision could lead to increased judicial resolution of controversies concerning the separation of powers, rather than resolutions between the political branches themselves.

Dec 23, 2014

Definitions of “Inherently Governmental Function” in Federal Procurement Law and Guidance

Functions that federal law and policy require to be performed by government personnel, not contractor employees, are known as “inherently governmental functions.” Such functions have been a topic of interest in recent Congresses, in part, because of questions about sourcing policy (i.e., whether specific functions should be performed by government personnel or contractor employees). There have also been questions about the various definitions of inherently governmental function given in federal law and policy and, particularly, whether the existence of multiple definitions of this term may have resulted in contractor employees performing functions that should be performed by government personnel. Two primary definitions of inherently governmental function currently exist in federal law and policy. One is a statutory definition, enacted as part of the Federal Activities Inventory Reform (FAIR) Act of 1998. This definition states that an inherently governmental function is “a function so intimately related to the public interest as to require performance by Federal Government employees.” The other is a policy-oriented definition contained in Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-76. This definition states that an inherently governmental activity is “an activity that is so intimately related to the public interest as to mandate performance by government personnel.” These two definitions arguably do not differ significantly in and of themselves. However, both the FAIR Act and OMB Circular A-76 include further elaboration and expansion upon the meaning of inherently governmental function that differ in certain ways. Other statutes, regulations, and guidance documents that define inherently governmental function do so either by reproducing the language of the FAIR Act or OMB Circular A-76, or by incorporating their definitions by reference. Most notably, the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) incorporates by reference or otherwise adopts the definition of OMB Circular A-76, while Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) Policy Letter 11-01, discussed below, adopts the FAIR Act’s definition. However, like the FAIR Act and OMB Circular A-76, both the FAR and Policy Letter 11-01 also include some unique elaboration and expansion upon the term. In addition to these definitions, there are numerous statutory, regulatory, and policy provisions designating specific functions as inherently governmental or, alternatively, commercial. (A commercial function is one that could be performed by contractor employees, although there is generally no requirement that contractor employees perform commercial functions.) Such designations also help establish the meaning of inherently governmental function by specifying what is—and is not—included within this category. Similarly, while not offering their own definitions of inherently governmental function, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the federal courts have developed tests that they use in identifying specific functions as inherently governmental or commercial. However, a judicial declaration that a particular function is inherently governmental under a constitutional test would not necessarily preclude the executive branch from contracting out this function. The 110th Congress tasked OMB with reviewing existing definitions of inherently governmental function and developing a “single consistent definition” of this term. Partly in response to this charge, OMB, though the OFPP, issued Policy Letter 11-01. Policy Letter 11-01 adopts the FAIR Act’s definition of inherently governmental function, rather than establishing a new definition. However, Policy Letter 11-01 does establish two tests for identifying inherently governmental functions, as well as defines a critical function as one “that is necessary to the agency being able to effectively perform and maintain control of its mission and operations.”

Dec 23, 2014

Introduction to Financial Services: The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)

Dec 22, 2014

Human-Induced Earthquakes from Deep-Well Injection: A Brief Overview

This report provides an overview of current scientific understanding of induced seismicity in the United States. The report discusses hydraulic fracturing and the potential for damaging earthquakes caused by hydraulic fracturing itself.

Dec 22, 2014

China, U.S. Leadership, and Geopolitical Challenges in Asia

Dec 22, 2014

The Internet Tax Freedom Act: In Brief

Dec 22, 2014

Introduction to Financial Services: The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)

Dec 19, 2014

The Global Health Security Agenda (2014-2019) and International Health Regulations (2005)

Dec 19, 2014

Senate Standing Committees’ Rules on Legislative Activities and Executive Business: Analysis for the 113th Congress

Senate Rule XXVI directs Senate committees to adopt rules of procedure and publish them in the Congressional Record by March 1 of the first year of a new Congress. A committee’s rules must be “not inconsistent” with the Senate’s rules. Committee rules, even if they have not been amended, must be revalidated in each Congress as provided in Rule XXVI. Committee rules cover a variety of subjects—from meeting dates to quorums to processing nominations. Some Senate rules that are reflected in committees’ rules must be followed, such as the rule that requires a majority of a committee to be physically present to report a measure or matter. Other committee rules, such as those concerning the relationship between a committee and its subcommittees, are largely within the discretion of each committee to design. From a chair’s perspective, a committee’s rules authorize the chair to act on a variety of matters. However, the rules might provide the chair with a different authority for each matter. A chair might be able to act on his or her own authority on one matter but need the concurrence of the ranking minority member on another matter. In one instance, a chair may be able to act quickly, but in another instance the chair might be required to give notice prior to taking an action. Each committee’s rules have evolved distinctively, and different degrees of discretion or limitation in each committee’s rules govern each action that a chair might take. From the minority’s perspective, a committee’s rules govern the minority’s role in agenda setting, decision making, and procedural prerogatives. Committees’ rules vary in what role they provide the minority in selecting witnesses, placing matters on the agenda, forming a quorum, bringing a matter to a vote, authorizing subpoenas, and so on. From an individual committee member’s perspective, a committee’s rules allocate authority between the chair and ranking minority member and between the chair and the committee’s members. In many rules, the chair, or the chair with the concurrence of the ranking minority member, may make decisions, such as reducing the notice of a meeting or waiving other requirements in the committee’s rules related to holding a meeting. In other rules, decisions may be made only by action of the committee. Just as in the Senate, many actions in committees are taken by unanimous consent. Unanimous consent may allow some or many committee rules to be set aside. It might also be used to create ad hoc procedures that accommodate committee members on a particular piece of legislation or for a specific meeting or to facilitate a committee’s conduct of business. Before agreeing to unanimous consent, a committee member might wish to understand the specific committee rules and committee member prerogatives being set aside. In cataloguing and comparing the breadth of 113th Congress committee rules on legislative and executive business, this report provides the reader with a guide to the variety of committee rules. This report will be updated during the 114th Congress.

Dec 19, 2014

Russian Compliance with the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty: Background and Issues for Congress

This report describes the current status of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty and highlights issues that Congress may address as the United States pursues its compliance concerns with Russia.

Dec 16, 2014

Cybersecurity Issues and Challenges: In Brief

The information and communications technology (ICT) industry has evolved greatly over the last half century. The technology is ubiquitous and increasingly integral to almost every facet of modern society. ICT devices and components are generally interdependent, and disruption of one may affect many others. Over the past several years, experts and policy makers have expressed increasing concerns about protecting ICT systems from cyberattacks, which many experts expect to increase in frequency and severity over the next several years. This report discusses the concept of cybersecurity, the management of cybersecurity risks, and the federal government's role in managing such risks.

Dec 16, 2014

Ebola: Selected Legal Issues

Several West African countries are currently grappling with an unprecedented outbreak of Ebola virus disease (EVD). Here in the United States, where Ebola is not endemic, a handful of EVD cases have been diagnosed, and domestic transmission of the virus has occurred in only two cases to date. This report provides a brief overview of selected legal issues regarding measures to prevent transmission of Ebola virus and the civil rights of individuals affected by the disease. Quarantine and isolation are restrictions on a person’s movement, imposed to prevent the spread of contagious disease. The federal government has jurisdiction over interstate and border quarantine, carried out by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). However, primary quarantine authority typically resides with state health departments and health officials. Every state has the authority to pass and enforce quarantine laws as an exercise of its police powers, but these laws may vary widely by state. State and federal quarantine or isolation orders may be subject to suits alleging inadequate due process or violations of equal protection, but modern legal challenges to quarantine and isolation orders are not extensive. In addition to the quarantine and isolation of persons within the United States, some have proposed limiting the entry of persons traveling to the United States from countries experiencing high rates of EVD transmission. Federal agencies’ authority to restrict or regulate the entry into the United States of persons who are suspected of carrying Ebola virus or other communicable diseases depends largely upon whether the person is a foreign or U.S. national. Aliens who have been determined to carry Ebola virus may be denied entry, but the health-related grounds for exclusion do not apply to most lawful permanent residents who briefly travel abroad. U.S. citizens abroad may enjoy a constitutional right to reenter the country, in which case the government would be required, at a minimum, to overcome a heavier burden to justify a reentry restriction. Proposals to restrict air travel to and from affected countries—regardless of citizenship—have also been discussed. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has acknowledged its authority to restrict the use of U.S. airspace, but has cautioned that decisions made on a public health basis would involve other federal agencies. Additionally, the Do Not Board (DNB) list provides a mechanism for U.S. and international health officials to request that specific persons be restricted from boarding commercial aircraft to the United States, on the basis that those persons present a public health risk. Independently, airlines may reserve the right to deny transportation to passengers who may pose a safety risk, but must act consistent with federal nondiscrimination laws. The use of these measures to contain the spread of Ebola may raise a classic civil rights issue: to what extent can an individual’s liberty be curtailed to advance the common good? In addition to the constitutional issues noted above, discrimination against individuals with an infectious disease may be covered by Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), or the Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA). While quarantine and isolation effectively minimize Ebola exposure, they may also raise various employment concerns, particularly for those workers who fear losing their jobs or wages if they are forced to comply with a quarantine or isolation order. Infected workers may also be protected under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) if it can be established that they have a serious health condition, and employers whose employees could face workplace exposure to Ebola virus may be obligated to comply with applicable Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements.

Dec 16, 2014

The SSCI Study of the CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program: Issues to Consider

This report briefly discusses issues pertaining to the 500-page Executive Summary of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) Study of the Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA's) Detention and Interrogation Program, which released to the public on December 9, 2014 describes the history of the CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program from late 2001 to January 2009, including a review of each of the 119 individuals known to have been held in CIA custody.

Dec 16, 2014

Cash Versus Accrual Basis of Accounting: An Introduction

This report introduces two general methods of accounting—the cash basis method and accrual basis method. The choice of accounting method determines the timing of the recognition of revenue and expenses. Under cash basis accounting, revenue and expenses are recorded when cash is actually paid or received. Under accrual basis accounting, revenue is recorded when it is earned and expenses are reported when they are incurred. Understanding the differences between these two accounting methods could be helpful to Congress as it considers reforming the tax system and changing the federal government’s financial reporting requirements. Currently with certain exceptions, the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) requires some companies with gross receipts in excess of $5 million to use accrual basis, instead of cash basis, of accounting to determine their tax liabilities. The IRC’s requirement to use the accrual method, arguably, ensures that revenue and the expenses incurred to generate that revenue are realized in the same year. Types of companies that may be excepted from using accrual basis of accounting for income taxes are sole proprietors and certain qualified personal service corporations (PSCs) in such fields as health, law, engineering, accounting, performing arts, and consulting firms, as well as farms that are not corporations or do not have a corporate partner. Some Members of Congress have put forth proposals to revise the circumstances under which certain companies are able to use cash method. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp introduced H.R. 1, the Tax Reform Act of 2014, on December 10, 2014. Among the changes proposed in the bill is the requirement that some partnerships, S corporations, and PSCs use the accrual method instead of the cash method to determine their federal taxable liability. Specifically, these business types would be required to use the accrual method if their average annual gross receipts exceeded $10 million. Former Senate Committee on Finance Chairman Max Baucus included a similar provision in his Cost Recovery and Accounting staff discussion draft, which has not been formally introduced as legislation. The Small Business Accounting and Tax Simplification Act (H.R. 947), Start-up Jobs and Innovation Act (S. 1658), and Small Business Tax Certainty and Growth Act (S. 1085), introduced in the 113th Congress, would raise the gross receipt test limit from $5 million to $10 million. The President’s budget is prepared primarily using cash basis. The Financial Report of the United States Government is prepared using both accrual and modified cash basis. For the past 17 years, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has issued a disclaimer of opinion on the Financial Report of the United States Government. One of the reasons stated by GAO for the disclaimer of opinion for the 2013 financial report was that the federal government’s process for preparing the consolidated financial statements was ineffective to determine whether the financial reports were presented fairly in accordance with U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). A number of congressional proposals would change how the U.S. government’s financial reports are prepared. In the 113th Congress, the GAAP Act (H.R. 476) and H.Res. 545 would require the federal government’s budget, financial reports, and performance evaluation reports to be prepared using both cash and accrual method. This report introduces the difference between cash and accrual methods by providing an overview of concepts and theories that underlie these accounting methods. It then explores these concepts through the business cycle of a fictitious small business and how the basis of accounting would affect the financial condition of the business.

Dec 12, 2014

An Overview of Accreditation of Higher Education in the United States

Dec 12, 2014

The National Popular Vote Initiative: Direct Election of the President by Interstate Compact

The National Popular Vote (NPV) initiative proposes an agreement among the states, an interstate compact that would effectively achieve direct popular election of the President and Vice President without a constitutional amendment. It relies on the Constitution’s grant of authority to the states in Article II, Section 1, to appoint presidential electors “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.... ” Any state that joins the NPV compact pledges to award all its electoral votes to the presidential ticket that wins the most popular votes nationwide, regardless of who wins in that particular state. The number of electoral votes won by the national popular vote winners would depend on the number of electoral votes controlled by NPV member states. The compact would, however, come into effect only if its success has been assured; that is, only if states controlling a majority of electoral votes (270 or more) join the compact. Recent action by the New York legislature to join the compact has generated renewed interest in the NPV initiative. At the time of this writing, 10 states and the District of Columbia, which jointly control 165 electoral votes, have joined the compact. The National Popular Vote initiative emerged following the presidential election of 2000, in which one ticket gained an electoral vote majority, winning the presidency, but received fewer popular votes than its opponents. NPV grew out of subsequent discussions among scholars and activists about how to avoid similar outcomes in the future and to achieve direct popular election. Proponents of NPV assert that it would guarantee the presidential candidates who win the most popular votes nationwide will always win the presidency; that it would end the inequities of the general ticket/winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes; and that candidates would extend their focus beyond winning the “battleground states,” campaigning more widely and devoting greater attention to issues of concern to other parts of the country. They further assert that NPV would accomplish this while avoiding the exacting standards set for the proposal and ratification of constitutional amendments. Opponents argue that NPV would undermine the authority of states under the Constitution and the Founders’ intention that presidential elections should be both national and federal contests; that it is an admitted “end run” around the Constitution which would circumvent the amendment process; and that it might actually lead to more disputed presidential elections characterized by politically contentious state recounts. The NPV has also been debated on constitutional and legal grounds. Some observers maintain that it must be approved by Congress, because it is an interstate compact that would affect key provisions of constitutional presidential election procedures. NPV Inc., the organization managing the initiative’s advocacy campaign, responds that congressional approval is not necessary because NPV deals with the appointment of electors, a subject that falls within state constitutional authority, and that the Supreme Court has previously rejected arguments that similar compacts would impair the rights of nonmember states. Other critics claim that NPV might violate the Voting Rights Act by diluting minority voter influence and avoiding the recently invalidated preclearance requirement for election procedures changes in covered jurisdictions. In response, NPV, Inc. has asserted that the compact is “entirely consistent with the goal of the Voting Rights Act.” This report monitors the NPV’s progress in the states and will identify and provide analysis of further developments as warranted.

Dec 12, 2014

Electoral College Reform: Contemporary Issues for Congress

The electoral college method of electing the President and Vice President was established in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, as revised by the Twelfth Amendment. It provides for election of the President and Vice President by electors who are themselves elected by the voters. A majority of 270 of 538 electoral votes is necessary to win. For further information on the electoral college system’s operations, see CRS Report RL32611, The Electoral College: How It Works in Contemporary Presidential Elections, by Thomas H. Neale. The electoral college has been the subject of reform proposals since 1800. Constitutional and structural criticisms have centered on several of its features: it is not fully democratic, providing indirect election of the President; it can lead to the election of candidates who win the electoral college but fewer popular votes than their opponents or to contingent election in Congress if no candidate wins an electoral college majority; it results in electoral vote under- and over-representation between censuses; and that “faithless” electors can vote against the people’s express choice. Legislative and political criticisms include the general ticket system, currently used in all states except Maine and Nebraska, which is said to disenfranchise voters who prefer the losing candidates in the states; various asserted “biases” that are alleged to favor different states and groups; and the electoral college “lock,” which was once claimed to provide an advantage to Republican candidates, but is now said to favor Democrats. Electoral college reform options include the following: end it, mend it, or leave it alone. Proposals to end the electoral college almost always propose direct popular election, with the candidates winning the most popular votes nationwide elected. Almost all reform proposals would eliminate electors and award electoral votes directly by one of several methods: the general ticket system; the district system that awards electoral votes on a congressional-district and statewide-vote basis; and the proportional system that awards state electoral votes in proportion to the percentage of popular votes gained by each candidate. Despite more than 30 years of legislative activity from the 1940s through the late 1970s, proposed amendments never managed to win the constitutionally required two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress. Since 2004, some of the reforms identified above have been attempted in the states. District plan initiatives have been offered in California, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Virginia, and Wisconsin. Proportional plans have been proposed in Colorado and Pennsylvania. Nebraska has considered returning to the general ticket system. None of these, however, has been enacted to date. A nongovernmental organization is currently promoting the National Popular Vote (NPV) initiative, an interstate compact that would effectively achieve direct popular election of the President and Vice President without a constitutional amendment. It relies on the Constitution’s grant of authority to the states in Article II, Section 1, to appoint presidential electors “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.... ” States that join the compact pledge to award their electoral votes to the nationwide popular vote winners, regardless of who wins in their particular states. The compact would come into effect only after states controlling a majority of electoral votes (270 or more) were to join it. In April 2014, New York joined the compact, generating renewed interest in the NPV initiative. At the time of this writing, 10 states and the District of Columbia, which jointly control 165 electoral votes, have joined the NPV compact.

Dec 12, 2014

The Congressional Review Act (CRA)

Dec 11, 2014