CRS Reports

Legislation to Facilitate Cybersecurity Information Sharing: Economic Analysis

This report analyzes the incentives for companies to share information about cybersecurity breaches with other companies and the federal government. Data breaches, such as those at Target, Home Depot, Neiman Marcus, and JPMorgan Chase, affecting financial records of tens of millions of households seem to occur regularly. Companies typically respond by trying to increase their cybersecurity by hiring consultants and purchasing new hardware and software. Policy analysts have suggested that sharing information about these breaches could be an effective and inexpensive part of improving cybersecurity. Firms share information directly on an ad hoc basis and through private-sector, nonprofit organizations such as Information Sharing and Analysis Centers (ISACs) that can analyze and disseminate information.

Dec 11, 2014

Analysis of H.R. 5781, California Emergency Drought Relief Act of 2014

California is experiencing serious water shortages due to widespread drought. Both of the state’s large water infrastructure projects, the federal Central Valley Project (CVP) and the State Water Project (SWP), have had to reduce water deliveries in 2014 to the farmers and communities they serve. Dry hydrological conditions, in combination with regulatory restrictions on water being pumped from the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers Delta confluence with the San Francisco Bay (Bay-Delta) to protect water quality and fish and wildlife, have resulted in water supply cutbacks for CVP and SWP water users throughout their respective service areas and historic cutbacks to senior water rights in some areas. The effects are widespread and are being felt by many economic sectors, including agriculture, urban areas, and fish and wildlife resources. Several bills have been introduced in the 113th Congress to address California water supply and drought in particular. The most recent of these was H.R. 5781, the California Emergency Drought Relief Act of 2014, introduced on December 2, 2014. It contains three titles that aim to increase water supplies for users through approving modifications in water conveyance operations and certain water projects. Under the bill, these actions are to be consistent with existing laws and regulations. It also would aim to protect water rights and existing water allocations for users under certain circumstances, and would aim to prohibit any “redirected adverse water supply or fiscal impacts.” The proposed legislation would expire on either September 30, 2016, or on the date that the governor of California suspends the state of drought emergency declaration, whichever is later. This report provides a description and analysis of H.R. 5781, the California Emergency Drought Relief Act of 2014, which passed the House December 9, 2014. It includes a summary of key provisions of the bill, and compares it with two other bills from the 113th Congress aiming to address different aspects of drought and water management in California: H.R. 3964, which passed the House on February 5, 2014; and S. 2198, which passed the Senate on May 22, 2014. Some of this analysis draws from a CRS report comparing the two earlier bills: CRS Report R43649, Federal Response to Drought in California: An Analysis of S. 2198 and H.R. 3964, by Pervaze A. Sheikh, Betsy A. Cody, and Charles V. Stern.

Dec 11, 2014

Federal Land Management Agencies: Appropriations and Revenues

Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R43822 Summary A perennial focus for Congress is on appropriations for management of federal lands and resources. Issues include the purposes for which appropriations are used, factors influencing their distribution among states, and the extent to which appropriations are used on nonfederal lands. Congress also continues to be interested in the revenues derived from federal lands and resources. Questions relate to the amount of revenue generated on federal lands, the sources of revenue, and factors affecting the variation among states in the amount and type of revenue generated. Approximately 95% of federal lands are managed by four agencies: the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), National Park Service (NPS), and Forest Service (FS). Their FY2013 appropriations were $2,048.1 million for BLM, $2,591.6 million for FWS, $3,305.8 million for NPS, and $5,709.8 million for FS. Of these totals, FS received the largest discretionary appropriation ($4,934.7 million) while FWS had the highest mandatory appropriation ($1,053.1 million). The largest discretionary appropriation for FS was for Wildland Fire Management; for the other three agencies, it was the main operations account. The agencies have many sources of mandatory appropriations, some of which are common among them and across states (e.g., recreation fees) while others are unique to one agency or allocated to one state. Another distinction concerns the portion of appropriations used on lands not managed by the agencies, ranging from little in the case of BLM to roughly two-thirds for FWS. Revenue collections during FY2013 differed among the agencies, with $18.9 million for FWS, $223.6 million for FS, $333.4 million for NPS, and $525.0 million for BLM. Depending on the agency and state, sources of revenue might include land sales, grazing, timber, hardrock minerals, recreation, and rights of way. Influencing the allocation of appropriations among states and the amount of revenue collected in each state were the acreage of federal land; land resources, conditions, availability, uses, and impacts; demographics; fire activity; and other factors. BLM, FWS, NPS, and FS also receive federal lands highway funds from the Federal Highway Administration. A total of $573.8 million in highway funding for federal lands was distributed in FY2013, with almost half ($280.6 million) going to NPS and another two-fifths ($227.2 million) to state Programming Decisions Committees (bodies that make some project funding decisions). The remainder went to FWS ($36.5 million), FS ($19.8 million), and BLM ($9.6 million). Distributions among states ranged from less than $0.1 million to $86.5 million. The Payments in Lieu of Taxes program and FS Payments to States program compensate local governments for the presence of federally owned land. PILT applies to many types of federal lands, and payments are calculated under a formula. The total PILT payment in FY2013 was $401.8 million, with state totals ranging from $0 to $41.4 million (for California). The FS Payments to States program—which includes Secure Rural Schools (SRS) payments—applies to counties with national forest lands and certain BLM forested lands. Payments are based on either historic or current revenue generated on the lands, and other considerations. FY2013 payments to states totaled $312.5 million, ranging from less than $0.1 million to $97.1 million (for Oregon). The Department of the Interior’s Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR) collects mineral leasing revenues from all federal onshore areas. Revenue is derived from many commodities, including coal, gas, hardrock minerals, oil, phosphate, sodium, and sulfur. For FY2013, ONRR reported $4,296.9 million from federal lands in 37 states, with revenues by state of less than $0.1 million to $1,998.9 million (for Wyoming). Contents Introduction 1 Organization of Report 2 Caveats 4 Overview 5 Bureau of Land Management 8 Appropriations 8 Discretionary Appropriations 9 Mandatory Appropriations 10 Discussion 10 Revenue 15 Fish and Wildlife Service 17 Appropriations 17 Discretionary Appropriations 18 Mandatory Appropriations 19 Discussion 19 Revenue 29 National Park Service 30 Appropriations 30 Discretionary Appropriations 31 Mandatory Appropriations 32 Discussion 33 Revenue 36 Forest Service 40 Appropriations 40 Discretionary Appropriations 41 Mandatory Appropriations 42 Discussion 42 Revenue 47 Distributions from Federal Highway Administration 52 Payment Programs 56 Payments in Lieu of Taxes 56 Forest Service Payments to States 59 Office of Natural Resources Revenue 62 Figures Figure 1. Comparison of Appropriations by Agency, FY2013 6 Figure 2. Comparison of Revenues Collected by Agency, FY2013 7 Figure 3. Bureau of Land Management Appropriations by State, FY2013 12 Figure 4. Bureau of Land Management Revenue by Type, FY2013 17 Figure 5. Fish and Wildlife Service Revenue by Type, FY2013 30 Figure 6. National Park Service Revenue by Type, FY2013 40 Figure 7. Forest Service Appropriations for 12 Western States, FY2013 44 Figure 8. Forest Service Revenue by Type, FY2013 52 Figure 9. Federal Highway Administration Distributions for Federal Lands by Agency, FY2013 56 Figure 10. PILT and Forest Service Payments to States, FY2013 62 Figure 11. Office of Natural Resources Reported Revenue by State, FY2013 66 Tables Table 1. Bureau of Land Management Appropriations by State, FY2013 11 Table 2. Bureau of Land Management Discretionary Appropriations by State, FY2013 13 Table 3. Bureau of Land Management Mandatory Appropriations by State, FY2013 14 Table 4. Bureau of Land Management Revenue by State, FY2013 16 Table 5. Fish and Wildlife Service Appropriations by State, FY2013 20 Table 6. Fish and Wildlife Service Discretionary Appropriations by State, FY2013 23 Table 7. Fish and Wildlife Service Mandatory Appropriations by State, FY2013 27 Table 8. National Park Service Discretionary Appropriations by State, FY2013 34 Table 9. National Park Service Revenue by State, FY2013 37 Table 10. National Forest System Units and Acreage in 12 Western States, 2013 40 Table 11. Forest Service Appropriations for 12 Western States, FY2013 43 Table 12. Percent of Forest Service Spending on Federal Lands and Nonfederal Lands in 12 Western States 44 Table 13. Forest Service Discretionary Appropriations for 12 Western States, FY2013 46 Table 14. Forest Service Mandatory Appropriations for 12 Western States, FY2013 47 Table 15. Forest Service Revenue by State, FY2013 49 Table 16. Federal Highway Administration Distributions for Federal Lands, by Agency and State, FY2013 54 Table 17. Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) by State, FY2013 57 Table 18. FS Revenue-Sharing and SRS Title I and Title II Payments by State, FY2013 59 Table 19. Office of Natural Resources Reported Revenues by State, FY2013 64 Appendixes Appendix. Federal Acreage in Each State Administered by the Four Major Federal Land Management Agencies, 2013 67 Contacts Author Contact Information 71 Key Policy Staff 71 Introduction Two perennial issues for Congress are appropriations for management of federal lands and resources, and the revenues derived from these lands and resources. The focus of legislative action has been on the four major federal land management agencies: the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and National Park Service (NPS) in the Department of the Interior (DOI) and the Forest Service (FS) in the Department of Agriculture. In determining discretionary appropriations for these agencies, Congress establishes the level of funds for diverse programs, projects, and activities. Congress also has enacted legislation to provide mandatory appropriations for varied programs and purposes. Further, these agencies receive distributions of funding from other agencies for specific purposes. How appropriations for federal land management are used throughout the states is of continuing interest to Congress. Questions relate to the amount of each agency’s appropriations used within a particular state, factors influencing the distribution of appropriations among states, the purposes for which appropriations are used, and the extent to which appropriations are used on federal versus nonfederal land in each state. Other questions pertain to the revenues generated from federally managed lands. They include the amount of revenue generated on federal lands, the sources of revenue, and factors influencing the variation among states in the amount and type of revenue generated on federal lands. In this context, this report provides information on appropriations and revenues related to federal lands in each state. It focuses on lands managed by the BLM, FWS, NPS, and FS, as these agencies administer approximately 95% of the roughly 640 million acres of federal land. In particular, this report provides state-by-state information in four areas: appropriations for, and revenues collected by, the four agencies, distributions of funds from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to the four agencies for their lands, payments under the Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program and the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self Determination Act of 2000 (SRS), and mineral leasing revenues for onshore federal lands, as reported by the DOI Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR). Comprehensive data covering these areas do not exist in a single source. State-by-state data for some types of information are readily available in public sources, as identified in the pertinent sections below. Where this was not the case, CRS sought to obtain the information directly from the pertinent agencies. Organization of Report The first four sections of this report pertain to appropriations for the four major land management agencies and revenues collected by those agencies. The appropriations figures represent budget authority, both discretionary and mandatory. For all four agencies, discretionary appropriations are provided primarily through the annual Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations law. The agencies have varied sources of mandatory funding under legislation originated by authorizing committees. Laws authorizing mandatory appropriations allow the agencies to spend money without further action by Congress. Appropriations figures in this report generally represent new budget authority for FY2013 and thus generally do not include appropriations carried over from prior fiscal years. Figures representing total budget authority could present a different picture of agency funding for some states. Figures showing obligations or expenditures of funds also could differ considerably in some cases from the appropriations figures used in this report. Appropriations figures in this report also reflect any supplemental funds for FY2013 and reductions under the sequester order of the President of March 1, 2013. By contrast, revenue figures throughout this report represent the actual amounts collected, because revenues are not subject to sequestration. The revenue data in the BLM, FWS, NPS, and FS sections reflect revenues collected by each agency, whether these revenues were retained by the agencies for use in the state where collected, used by the agency for other purposes, or allocated to another source (e.g., to the general fund of the Treasury). Depending on the agency, sources of revenue might include land sales, grazing, timber, recreation entrance/use, hardrock minerals, and rights of way, among others. The revenue data in these sections do not reflect the share of each agency’s revenues, if any, from onshore mineral leasing. This is because these revenues are collected by the DOI Office of Natural Resources Revenue for all federal lands, as discussed below. Distributions to the BLM, FWS, NPS, and FS from the Federal Highway Administration are shown in the fifth section of this report. The funds are from several federal lands highway programs. They are the largest allocations to the four agencies outside of the departments in which they are located (DOI and Department of Agriculture). The sixth section of this report provides information on payments under the PILT and FS Payments to States programs. These programs compensate local governments for the presence of most federally owned land. PILT applies to many types of federal land, while the FS payments apply to counties with national forest lands and certain BLM forested lands. The ONRR section of this report, presented next, reflects the mineral leasing revenues from all federal onshore areas. The revenues are derived from a variety of energy and mineral activities on federal lands, involving a wide array of commodities. Finally, the Appendix lists the federal acreage managed by each of the four agencies, by state. Caveats Several caveats about interpreting the information in this report deserve note. First, this report provides statistics for only one year. While some funding amounts might be largely consistent from year to year, others might vary by different degrees. For example, congressional and presidential priorities might change, influencing funding for particular programs, projects, and activities and the location of agency spending. Also, the appropriations to agencies for wildland fire management, and their distribution among states, vary from year to year in part depending on the severity of fires. Similarly, land acquisition may occur in some states and not others in any given year. Another factor is unplanned events, such as natural or man-made disasters, as shown by the appropriation of supplemental funds for FY2013 to address the consequences of Superstorm Sandy. Still other factors relate to the budgetary framework, with one example being the reduction of FY2013 appropriations under the President’s sequester order of March 1, 2013. Second, figures in this report should be regarded as estimates and are not aggregated across agencies or across states, for a variety of reasons. For one, the agencies receive and allocate appropriations differently. The allocation might be by state or by other geographic area, such as by national forest (which may cross state lines) or regional office. Agencies also differ as to how they define, organize, and report data. For instance, revenue data might reflect total revenue collected by an agency or only revenues collected from activities and resources on lands the agency owns. For example, BLM data include payments from federal, state, and local governments for fire work performed on non-BLM land, but the FS data reflect revenue generated exclusively on FS lands. Another difference is how agencies reflect appropriations for operations of their headquarters or regional offices. For instance, FWS and NPS reflect headquarters appropriations with the state in which the headquarters are located, while BLM does not reflect them with any state. An additional complication in making comparisons across agencies is whether to consider total appropriations or only those used on agency-owned lands. This is because agencies differ considerably in the extent to which they use appropriations in a state on lands other than those they own. As an illustration of this point, FWS uses about two-thirds of its appropriations on lands not managed by the agency, while virtually all of BLM appropriations are used on agency-managed lands. There is also overlap in some of the information provided by the agencies and reported here, such as for some mandatory appropriations included in both an agency’s appropriations and its revenue totals (e.g., for recreation). Further, some amounts are reflected in multiple sections of this report, as is the case for SRS monies reflected in the BLM, FS, and SRS sections. As a result of these overlaps, aggregation could lead to double counting of some monies. Additional challenges and issues associated with particular data in this report are discussed in the pertinent sections. Third, this report does not provide information on the broader economic dimensions related to federal lands managed by the four agencies. An analysis of economic costs and benefits and other impacts is beyond the scope of this report. Fourth, this report is not intended to make implications about these lands if they were under nonfederal ownership, such as the level of funds that might be provided for their management; the revenues that might be generated through their use; or the broader economic costs, benefits, and impacts that might occur. For example, the legal and political frameworks pertinent to management under state law may vary considerably from those that apply to the BLM, FWS, NPS, and FS. Finally, for all categories of data, figures are provided for FY2013 as the most recent fiscal year for which data were available across categories. Throughout the report, figures generally are rounded to the closest million. Due to rounding, figures of less than $50,000 are shown as <$0.1 million. Territories are not shown in a table if they did not receive the appropriations or payments, or collect the revenues, shown in the table. Also, figures may not sum to the totals provided due to rounding. Overview BLM, FWS, NPS, and FS received widely varying amounts of FY2013 appropriations for federal land management, as shown in Figure 1. Each agency dispersed its appropriations differently among the states. The lands of these agencies across states also generated widely differing amounts of revenue. Influencing the allocation of appropriations among states, and the amount of revenue collected in each state, were the acreage of federal land; land resources, conditions, availability, uses, and impacts; demographics; fire activity; and other factors. Many of these factors are common among the agencies, while others apply more particularly to one or a subset of agencies. For instance, FWS appropriations used in a state are particularly affected by the number of species listed under the Endangered Species Act, entry ports for regulated wildlife, and two major state grant programs for conservation of game and sport fish (Wildlife Restoration and Sportfish Restoration). Figure 1. Comparison of Appropriations by Agency, FY2013 (in millions of dollars) Source: Prepared by CRS with data from various sources. Figures for BLM, FWS, and NPS were derived primarily from the respective agencies. FS discretionary appropriations data are derived from detailed funding tables prepared by the House Committee on Appropriations. FS mandatory appropriations data are derived from Forest Service, Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Justification, at http://www.fs.fed.us/sites/default/files/media/2014/25/2015-BudgetJustification-030614.pdf. Notes: Figures reflect total appropriations for all agencies. For details related to a particular agency, see the pertinent appropriations sections in this report. The FY2013 appropriation to the FS ($5,709.8 million) was more than twice the appropriation to BLM ($2,048.1 million) and FWS ($2,591.6 million) and more than 40% bigger than the appropriation for NPS ($3,305.8 million). Of these totals, FS received the most in discretionary appropriations ($4,934.7 million), while FWS had the highest mandatory appropriation ($1,053.1 million). Wildland Fire Management constituted the largest portion of FS appropriations for the 12 states covered in this report (and overall). For the other three agencies, the biggest appropriation was for the main operations and management account. The agencies have many sources of mandatory appropriations, some of which are common among them and across states (e.g., recreation). Others are unique to one agency, with the contribution for annuity benefits for U.S. Park Police being one example. Still other mandatory accounts are specific to not only one agency but one state; this is the case for BLM’s appropriations for Secure Rural Schools payments, which are made to Oregon. The largest mandatory appropriations differed among the agencies: for BLM, the Helium Production Fund; for FWS, state grants for conservation of game and sport fish (Wildlife Restoration and Sportfish Restoration); for NPS, recreation fees; and for FS, payments to states generally. Another distinction is in the extent to which the four agencies use appropriations on lands other than those they manage. Very little if any of BLM appropriations for most states are used on non-BLM lands. A relatively small amount of NPS and FS appropriations are used off agency lands. By contrast, roughly two-thirds of FWS appropriations are used on lands under non-FWS ownership. Revenue collections during FY2013 were small for the FWS ($18.9 million) as compared with the other agencies. BLM’s revenue collections were the largest ($525.0 million). They were more than double the FS amount ($223.6 million) and more than one-third bigger than NPS collections ($333.4 million). Depending on the agency and state, sources of revenue might include land sales, grazing, timber, hardrock minerals, recreation, and rights of way. Sales of helium were the biggest revenue source for BLM. FWS had four revenue sources of roughly the same size (from $4.0 million to $5.0 million). On NPS lands, recreation generated the most revenue ($179.5 million). While recreation also was the single largest source of revenue on FS lands ($61.4 million), revenue/collections associated with timber or salvage timber sales collectively were a larger portion of FS revenues ($129.5 million). Figure 2 shows revenues collected by agency. Figure 2. Comparison of Revenues Collected by Agency, FY2013 Source: Prepared by CRS with data from various sources. BLM and NPS figures were derived primarily from data from the respective agencies. FWS information was derived from U.S. Department of the Interior, Budget Justifications and Performance Information, Fiscal Year 2015, Fish and Wildlife Service, at http://www.fws.gov/budget/2014/FY2015_FWS_Greenbook-DOI31014.pdf. FS information was derived from U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, All Service Receipts (ASR), Final Forest Statement of Receipts (ASR-13-2), http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprd3795423.pdf. Notes: For details related to a particular agency, see the pertinent revenue sections in this report. Supplementing the appropriations to BLM, FWS, NPS, and FS are allocations of funding from outside the agencies. A major allocation is from the Federal Highway Administration for federal lands highway programs. Of the total distributed in FY2013 ($573.8 million), the NPS received almost half ($280.6 million), and another two-fifths ($227.2 million) went to state Programming Decisions Committees. Smaller amounts were allocated to the FWS ($36.5 million), FS ($19.8 million), and BLM ($9.6 million). With a distribution of $86.5 million, California received significantly more funds than any other state; the next largest distribution was $36.1 million for Montana, and only nine states received more than $20.0 million. Two eastern states—Connecticut and Delaware—received the lowest distributions (less than $0.1 million). Factors affecting the distribution among states include the amount of federal lands, public road miles, recreational visitation, and federal public bridges as well as agency priorities. The Payments in Lieu of Taxes program and FS Payments to States program compensate local governments for the presence of federally owned land. PILT applies to many types of federal lands, with payments based on county population and several other factors. Of the total PILT payment in FY2013 ($401.8 million), 17 states (and other areas) received less than $1.0 million, while 10 states received more than $20.0 million. The FS Payments to States program provided $312.5 million in FY2013 payments to counties with national forest lands and certain BLM forested lands. Payments are based on either historic or current revenue generated on the lands and other considerations. Of the 41 states that received FY2013 payments, 21 received less than $2.0 million. Oregon received the highest payment—$97.1 million—about three times more than the next highest state. From federal onshore areas, ONRR reported collecting $4,296.9 million in mineral leasing revenues during FY2013. The revenue was from different types of payments: bonuses, rents, and royalties. It derived from many energy and mineral commodities, including coal, gas, hardrock minerals, oil, phosphate, sodium, and sulfur. The FY2013 total was from federal lands in 37 states. Wyoming and New Mexico together accounted for more than two-thirds of the total, while about half the states had revenue of less than $1.0 million (including 13 states with no onshore receipts). Revenue levels not only vary widely among states but can vary considerably from year to year. Factors affecting revenues derived in each state include the amount of federal acreage, the extent of that acreage containing recoverable energy and mineral resources, weather conditions, and other circumstances. The total funding for federal land management in a state, and total revenues derived from federal lands in a state, are difficult to ascertain with certainty for varied reasons. They include differences among agencies in how they receive and allocate appropriations and define, organize, and report data. For these and other reasons, figures in this report are not aggregated across states. Moreover, there are variations from year to year in appropriations among states and revenues derived on federal lands across states. This report provides a snapshot of one fiscal year. Bureau of Land Management Appropriations The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) estimates that appropriations for FY2013 were $2,048.1 million. The majority of this funding was discretionary. Specifically, the total includes $1,714.9 million (83.7%) in discretionary appropriations and $333.1 million (16.3%) in mandatory appropriations. According to the BLM, virtually all appropriations to the agency are used for managing agency-owned lands. Table 1 and Figure 3 provide the discretionary, mandatory, and total BLM appropriations by state. Discretionary Appropriations For FY2013, BLM received $1,714.9 million in discretionary appropriations through six accounts, as shown in Table 2. The largest account was for Management of Lands and Resources, which in FY2013 received $1,020.9 million (59.5%) of BLM’s discretionary appropriation. This account funds an array of BLM programs and activities, including land resources, wildlife and fisheries, threatened and endangered species, recreation, energy and minerals, and resource planning for agency lands. The second-largest discretionary appropriation was for Wildland Fire Management. This account funds fire preparedness and suppression, hazardous fuels reduction, and other programs. BLM’s allocation from this department-wide account comprised $478.1 million (27.9%) of the agency’s discretionary appropriations for FY2013. The FY2013 appropriations for BLM’s four other discretionary accounts were considerably smaller. Oregon and California Grant Lands received $106.0 million (6.2%) of the discretionary appropriation for managing certain timberlands in western Oregon. Another $62.4 million (3.6%) was for the Working Capital Fund, a revolving fund used for purchasing supplies, equipment, facilities, and services in support of BLM programs. Service Charges, Deposits, and Forfeitures provided $26.3 million (1.5%) of discretionary appropriations. The account funds administrative expenses and other costs of certain BLM actions for which the public has paid fees, such as for processing applications and authorizations for use of public lands and resources. The remaining $21.2 million (1.2%) of the discretionary appropriation was for Land Acquisition, for BLM to acquire lands or interests in land. Mandatory Appropriations A variety of laws provide for mandatory appropriations for BLM. Of the $333.1 million provided under these laws in FY2013, the largest amount was from the Helium Production Fund—about three-fifths ($202.2 million, 60.7%) of the FY2013 mandatory appropriation. In FY2013, receipts from BLM sales of federal crude helium were deposited in the Helium Production Fund. The second-largest mandatory appropriation, with $38.0 million (11.4%) of the total, was for Secure Rural Schools payments to western Oregon counties. The Land and Resources Management Trust Fund, with $21.8 million (6.5%) of the mandatory appropriations, reflects donations to BLM from individuals, companies, state agencies, and others for certain activities and services. Another $17.5 million (5.3%) was from receipts from recreation fees, with $16.7 million (5.0%) from onshore mineral leasing receipts deposited in the Permit Processing Improvement Fund. Land disposals in Nevada under the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act and livestock grazing on BLM lands (Range Improvements) generated another $10.5 million (3.2%) and $9.5 million (2.9%), respectively. The remaining $16.9 million (5.1%) of mandatory appropriations derived from several other sources. Table 3 contains the mandatory appropriations by account. Discussion BLM manages its lands through 12 state offices, which in some cases administer BLM lands and onshore federal minerals in more than one state. Each of these state offices received a portion of BLM’s FY2013 appropriations, as did the Office of Fire and Aviation, a national-level office. Other FY2013 appropriations were not allocated to any state office. Most of these funds, shown as “no state” in the tables, were provided to BLM headquarters in Washington, DC, for expenses that support all BLM land management and national programs. As shown in Table 1 and Figure 3, BLM state offices received widely varying amounts of FY2013 appropriations, ranging from $17.0 million for all eastern states to $299.6 million for New Mexico. The level of appropriations allocated by BLM to state offices is influenced by a number of factors. One is the amount of lands and onshore federal minerals managed by BLM, of which acreages vary widely among states. Different land resources, conditions, uses, and impacts can affect the cost of land management, as can demographics. Another variable is the extent of wildfire suppression and other fire activity, which affects the allocation of funds among states for wildland fire management. Another factor is that some programs may have no or very little activity within a state, resulting in none or a small portion of these program funds being allocated to the state. In particular, some programs are specific to one state, and some of these state-specific programs received relatively large appropriations. For example, the New Mexico state office received the largest FY2013 appropriation because BLM’s sale of helium is shown as budget authority for that state. Excluding the Helium Production Fund, the appropriation for New Mexico would have been about two-thirds lower—$97.4 million. As a second example, the Oregon state office received the second-largest appropriation among states ($283.4 million), primarily because it received the overwhelming majority of the discretionary appropriations for Oregon and California Grant Lands and the mandatory appropriation for Secure Rural Schools. Table 1. Bureau of Land Management Appropriations by State, FY2013 (in millions of dollars) Discretionary Appropriations Mandatory Appropriations Total Appropriations Alaska 111.9 1.1 113.0 Arizona 75.4 2.5 77.9 California 142.5 10.2 152.7 Colorado 89.0 3.5 92.4 Eastern states 17.0 <0.1 17.0 Idaho 120.6 2.6 123.3 Montana 85.3 4.3 89.6 New Mexico 88.0 211.5 299.6 Nevada 170.1 17.1 187.2 Oregon 237.8 45.7 283.4 Utah 114.9 6.0 120.9 Wyoming 96.1 6.6 102.7 Subtotal 1,439.8 310.9 1,750.7 Office of Fire and Aviation 91.1 0 91.1 No state 275.1 22.2 297.3 Total 1,714.9 333.1 2,048.1 Source: Data provided by the Bureau of Land Management, Budget Division, July 22, 2014. Adapted by CRS. Notes: This table shows appropriations to BLM state offices, which in some cases administer lands (and/or onshore federal minerals) in more than one state. Specifically, the eastern states office administers lands in states east of the Mississippi River; the Montana office administers lands in Montana, North Dakota, and Sout

Dec 10, 2014

Cost-Benefit and Other Analysis Requirements in the Rulemaking Process

Regulatory analytical requirements (e.g., cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analysis) have been established incrementally during the last 40 to 50 years through a series of presidential and congressional initiatives. The current set of requirements includes Executive Order 12866 and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-4, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). These requirements vary in terms of the agencies and rules they cover, and the types of analyses that are required. For example, a regulatory analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act is not required if the agency head certifies that the rule will not have a “significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” The most extensive and broadly applicable of the requirements are in Executive Order 12866 and OMB Circular A-4, but they do not apply to independent regulatory agencies. The statutes that provide rulemaking authority to independent regulatory agencies often require them to “consider” regulatory costs and benefits, and they often have less explicit requirements for cost-benefit analysis, if any. An OMB report indicated that independent regulatory agencies provided some information and costs and benefits in 76 of the 118 major rules they issued from FY2003 to FY2012. Cabinet departments and other agencies estimated monetary costs and benefits for some, but not all, of their rules. Several bills have been introduced in the 113th Congress that would codify and/or expand the current requirements for cost-benefit analysis. Congress could decide to keep the existing analytical framework in place, or could enact one or more of these reform proposals. Another more comprehensive approach could be to consolidate all of the analytical requirements in one place, and perhaps expand those requirements to include more agencies or rules, or to require different types of analysis. To do so, or to simply cover independent regulatory agencies by the executive order, the President could arguably amend Executive Order 12866 and OMB Circular A-4, or Congress could enact legislation. Any such changes must be cognizant of the state of existing law and practice in this area, and the resources and data required for agencies to carry out the analyses.

Dec 9, 2014

Argentina: Background and U.S. Relations

Argentina, a South American country with a population of around 41 million, has had a vibrant democratic tradition since its military relinquished power in 1983. Argentina has Latin America's third-largest economy and is endowed with vast natural resources. Agriculture has traditionally been a main economic driver, but the country also has a diversified industrial base and a highly educated population. U.S.-Argentine relations, as described by the Department of State, are based on such shared interests as regional peace and stability, nuclear nonproliferation, human rights, education, and cooperation on science and technology. Commercial relations are robust, with the United States running a $5.7 billion trade surplus and U.S. companies investing approximately $15 billion in the country. This report provides background on the political and economic situation in Argentina and U.S.- Argentine relations.

Dec 9, 2014

Recently Expired Housing Related Tax Provisions (“Tax Extenders”): In Brief

Dec 9, 2014

Federal Inspectors General: History, Characteristics, and Recent Congressional Actions

Federal inspectors general (IGs) are authorized to combat waste, fraud, and abuse within their affiliated federal entities. To execute their missions, offices of inspector general (OIGs) conduct and publish audits and investigations—among other duties. Two major enactments—the Inspector General Act of 1978 and its amendments of 1988 (codified at 5 U.S.C. Appendix)—established federal IGs as permanent, nonpartisan, and independent offices in more than 70 federal agencies. OIGs serve to assist Congress in overseeing executive branch—and a few legislative branch—agencies. They provide recommendations and findings to their affiliated agency head and to Congress that may save the government millions of dollars per year. As a result, Congress may have an interest in ensuring that federal OIGs have the appropriate authorities and access to information they need to perform their investigations, audits, and evaluations. Concurrently, Congress has a responsibility to protect some records and information, such as national security information or information about an ongoing criminal investigation, from improper release. This report provides background on the statutory creation of federal OIGs and provides historical context for contemporary debates about the strengths and limitations of the offices. Congress has a number of tools at its disposal to enhance OIG oversight, including through the introduction or passage of legislation, through formal letters to and from overseers, and through oversight hearings. Recent legislative initiatives have enhanced OIG oversight by creating new IGs (H.R. 302 and H.R. 3770, 113th Congress), expanding the authority of existing ones (P.L. 113-6, H.R. 314, 113th Congress), or increasing IGs’ reporting requirements to Congress (H.R. 1211, 113th Congress; H.R. 658, 112th Congress) In August 2014, 47 federal IGs wrote a letter to leadership of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform indicating difficulties in acquiring records or other information from the agencies with which they are affiliated. The letter stated that certain agencies’ unwillingness to provide requested information represents “potentially serious challenges to the authority of every Inspector General and our ability to conduct our work thoroughly, independently, and in a timely manner.” The IGs asked Congress to provide “a strong, generally applicable reaffirmation” of Congress’s intentions in the IG Act to require agencies to provide federal OIGs with access to all requested records and information. In September 2014, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform held a hearing at which the IGs from the allegedly unresponsive agencies testified, detailing difficulties in obtaining agency information. All Members at the hearing expressed concerns about the IGs’ inability to access requested information. Strengthening government oversight through IGs and ensuring proper access to agency records, among other issues, will likely continue to be of interest to Congress in the future.

Dec 8, 2014

2014 Farm Bill Provisions and WTO Compliance

Dec 8, 2014

Federal Lands and Natural Resources: Overview and Selected Issues for the 113th Congress

This report introduces some of the broad themes and issues Congress considers when addressing federal land policy and resource management. Federal land policy includes questions about the extent and location of the federal estate.

Dec 8, 2014

Colombia: Background and U.S. Relations

Dec 8, 2014

Preventing the Introduction and Spread of Ebola in the United States: Frequently Asked Questions

Throughout 2014, an outbreak of Ebola virus disease (EVD) has outpaced the efforts of health workers trying to contain it in three West African countries: Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone. (These are often referred to as “affected countries” or “countries with widespread transmission.” In mid-November, 2014, Ebola transmission also occurred for the second time in neighboring Mali. The extent of spread in Mali remains to be seen.) EVD cases have been imported to other countries, including the United States, where two nurses were infected while caring for a patient who had traveled from Liberia. Members of Congress and the public have considered ways to prevent the entry and spread of EVD in the United States. Official recommendations have seemed to conflict at times. In part this reflects the evolution of our understanding of this new threat and the scientific and technical aspects of its control. In addition, under the nation’s federalist governance structure, the federal and state governments are empowered to take measures to control communicable diseases, and have addressed some aspects of the Ebola threat in varied ways. In the United States and abroad, public concern about the spread of Ebola also may have shaped policymakers’ decisions as well. This CRS report answers common legal and policy questions about the potential introduction and spread of EVD in the United States. Questions and answers are presented in the following topical order: Barring travelers from Ebola-stricken countries from coming to the United States: Immigration law and policy provide options to prevent the entry into the United States of foreign nationals who could spread communicable diseases. U.S. citizens are generally afforded the right to repatriate. Exit procedures upon departure from affected countries in Africa: The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) have aided affected countries in West Africa in screening departing travelers to minimize the exportation of EVD to other countries. U.S. laws and procedures involving airlines and other conveyances: Several laws address the role of commercial carriers in preventing or detecting the spread of communicable diseases on their planes or vessels. Implementation of these laws involves a balance of public health and commercial considerations. Identification and screening of passengers arriving from Ebola-affected countries: The United States has routed most travelers originating from affected areas of West Africa to one of five U.S. airports, at which the travelers can be interviewed and examined to determine their risk of exposure to EVD, and referred for further monitoring. Domestic quarantine and isolation: legal authority and policies: Both the federal and state governments have authority to restrict the movement of persons who may pose a threat to others by transmitting disease. Public health officials at each level of government are involved in identifying and monitoring persons at risk of developing EVD, and developing protocols to assure that persons who develop symptoms are promptly isolated.

Dec 5, 2014

Trade Remedies: Antidumping and Countervailing Duties

Dec 5, 2014

Selected Privileges and Courtesies Extended to Former Members of Congress

After Members of the House or Senate leave office, they are afforded certain courtesies and privileges. Some are derived from law and chamber rules, but others are courtesies that have been extended as a matter of custom. Some of these privileges and courtesies include the following: access to the floor of the chamber in which a former Member served; short-term franking privileges; access to parking facilities and athletic or wellness facilities; access to House or Senate administrative services and dining facilities; and access to materials through the Congressional Research Service (CRS) and the Library of Congress.

Dec 5, 2014

Army Active Component (AC)/Reserve Component (RC) Force Mix: Considerations and Options for Congress

The Army is composed of both an Active Component (AC) and a Reserve Component (RC). The AC consists of soldiers who are in the Army as their full-time occupation. The RC is composed primarily of soldiers who serve part-time but who can be ordered to full-time duty. The Army’s RC is made up of both the Army National Guard (ARNG) and the United States Army Reserve (USAR). AC/RC force mix refers to the distribution of units between the active and reserve components of the armed forces. The congressional role in AC/RC force mix is most obvious in its authorization of end strengths for the active and reserve components of each Service. Congressional authority concerning AC/RC mix, however, is much broader than that, as the Constitution provides Congress with broad powers over the armed forces, including the power to “to raise and support Armies,” “to provide and maintain a Navy,” “to make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces” and “to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States.... ” Debates over AC/RC mix center on whether or not to shift force structure between the AC and the RC and, if so, what types of units to shift. Although specific force mix recommendations can be nuanced, policy advocates generally divide between those who favor a stronger AC emphasis and those who favor a stronger RC emphasis. In the contemporary debate, those who favor a stronger RC emphasis believe that RC units, if properly trained and equipped, are as capable as their AC counterparts while costing less. Thus, they argue that RC units can replace a portion of AC force structure while saving money. Those who favor a stronger AC emphasis believe that certain RC forces—particularly larger direct combat units and higher echelon headquarters—are not as capable as AC forces without substantial additional preparation; cannot respond to a crisis as rapidly as AC forces; and cannot be used with the same frequency and duration as AC forces due to policy limitations. Those who take this perspective believe that replacing too many or certain types of AC units with RC units could reduce the Army’s ability to respond rapidly to an overseas crisis and sustain operations over time, or could require too much additional RC funding and training time to make such an approach cost-effective. Given the nation’s current fiscal situation, the contemporary debate has shifted somewhat in favor of a higher ratio of RC forces. For example, in its FY2015 budget request, the Administration proposes that RC forces make up 54.1% of the Army by FY2017, in comparison to 53.6% just before the September 11 attacks and 49.1% when the Army was at its peak size during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars (2010). This proposal would also include a shift of the relative proportion of brigade combat teams (BCTs) towards the ARNG, although the Army’s Aviation Restructuring Initiative proposes moving attack helicopters from the USAR and ARNG to the AC. Determining the appropriate mix of AC and RC forces is complex, with many factors affecting the process. Of these, utilization, readiness, effectiveness, cost, and risk are generally considered the major elements in developing the AC/RC force mix. Each of these factors is described in some detail in this report, along with questions for further investigation. As Congress considers the future AC/RC mix for the Army, it may wish to consider several approaches, including supporting Administration proposals on AC/RC mix; gathering additional information on key factors which contribute to AC/RC mix decisions; directly altering AC/RC mix; and influencing AC/RC mix by adjusting factors that contribute to mix decisions.

Dec 5, 2014

H.R. 5781: Legislation Proposed to Maximize Water Supplies to Address Drought in California

Dec 5, 2014

FY2015 Budget Requests to Counter Ebola and the Islamic State (IS)

This report discusses the emergency request for the U.S. Ebola response and provides data on health and human services funds for Ebola and other infectious diseases.

Dec 4, 2014

“Living Wills”: The Legal Regime for Constructing Resolution Plans for Certain Financial Institutions

One of the chief objectives of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (DFA) is to promote financial stability within the United States, without the need for emergency governmental assistance to troubled firms. To achieve this goal, the DFA establishes a heightened regulatory regime for certain, generally large “covered financial institutions.” A pillar of this heightened regulatory regime is that each covered financial institution must submit “credible” plans to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (FRB) and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) detailing how the firm could be quickly resolved in an orderly fashion under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code or other applicable insolvency regime “in the event of a material financial distress or failure.” These resolution plans are commonly referred to as “living wills.” Over 130 institutions have filed at least one resolution plan with regulators. Each of the 11 largest financial firms in the United States, which each hold more than $250 billion in nonbank assets, has filed at least two resolution plans. However, all 11 of these companies’ plans, in spite of the fact that some of them span tens of thousands of pages, have fallen short of the minimum requirements of the DFA’s living wills regime in the discretionary view of the FRB and FDIC. The 11 firms’ next living wills are due July 2015. If any of these plans is determined to be insufficient, then the FRB and FDIC have expressed their intent “to use their [enforcement] authority under [DFA] section 165(d),” which eventually could include the power to require an institution “to divest certain assets or operations ... to facilitate an orderly resolution.... ” This report reviews the legal structure of the DFA’s living will requirements, pursuant to both DFA Section 165(d) and the regulations and guidance issued jointly by the FRB and FDIC, and explains the August 2014 joint announcement of the FRB and FDIC regarding the inadequacies of the 2013 living wills filed by the 11 largest, most complex financial institutions in the country. This report also examines some of the steps that these institutions might voluntarily take, which, in the view of the FRB and FDIC, would improve their resolvability, including strategic divestiture; legal reorganization; amendment of default trigger provisions of qualified financial contracts; and increasing their long-term, unsecured debt as a proportion of their assets. In addition to voluntary measures, there are bills in the 113th Congress that would change how financial institutions are regulated to promote the financial stability of the United States. For example, H.R. 46 and S. 20, the Financial Takeover Repeal Act of 2013, would repeal the DFA in its entirety, including the provisions designed to promote financial stability. H.R. 5421, the Financial Institution Bankruptcy Act of 2014, and a similar bill, S. 1861, the Taxpayer Protection and Responsible Resolution Act, would make changes to the Bankruptcy Code to facilitate the resolution of financial institutions. H.R. 1450/S. 685, the Too Big to Fail, Too Big to Exist Act, would require the Secretary of the Treasury to identify all financial institutions it considers to be “too big to fail,” and to “break up [these] entities ... so that their failure would no longer cause a catastrophic effect on the United States or global economy without taxpayer bailout.” And H.R. 613, the Systemic Risk Mitigation Act, would, among other things, require every bank holding company with $50 billion or more in consolidated assets to hold long-term, subordinated debt of the value of at least 15% of its total consolidated assets. Proponents argue that this could help promote the long-term viability of the firm and, if the firm actually fails, help absorb some of its losses.

Dec 4, 2014

The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC): An Overview

The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) is a refundable tax credit available to eligible workers earning relatively low wages. This report provides an overview of the EITC, first discussing eligibility requirements for the credit, followed by how the credit is computed and paid. The report then provides data on the growth of the EITC since it was first enacted in 1975. Finally the report concludes with data on the EITC claimed on 2012 tax returns, examining EITC claims by number of qualifying children, income level, tax filing status, and location of residence.

Dec 3, 2014

Fact Sheet: Selected Highlights of H.R. 3979, the Carl Levin and Howard “Buck” McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for FY2015

Following are selected highlights of S. 1847, the version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY2015, agreed to on December 2, 2014, by negotiators for the House and Senate Armed Services Committees. On May 22, 2014, by a vote of 325-98, the House passed H.R. 4435, a version of the FY2015 NDAA that had been reported by the House Armed Services Committee. On the same day, the Senate Armed Services Committee reported S. 2410, its version of the FY2015 NDAA. To expedite final action on the bill (since the Senate did not take up S. 2410), negotiators from the House and Senate drafted a compromise version of the FY2015 NDAA. For procedural reasons, this compromise version has been incorporated into the conference report on H.R. 3979, an unrelated bill. This CRS Fact Sheet, based on the draft explanatory statement of House and Senate negotiators, is intended as a time-urgent expedient to offer Members the best available information about the bill pending update of CRS Report R43788, Defense: FY2015 Authorization and Appropriations, by Pat Towell.

Dec 3, 2014

U.S. International Corporate Taxation: Basic Concepts and Policy Issues

Recent deficit reduction and tax reform plans have included broad proposals to reform the U.S. international corporate tax system. These proposals have raised concerns over how changing the way American multi-national corporations are taxed could impact the deficit and debt, domestic job markets, competitiveness, and the use of corporate tax havens, among other things. An informed debate about how to reform the system governing the taxation of U.S. multi-national corporations requires careful consideration of these issues, as well as a basic understanding of several features of the current system. This report provides a general introduction to the basic concepts and issues relevant to the U.S. international corporate tax system. The explanations provided in this report emphasize the underlying concepts of the international tax system and are intentionally non-technical. There are of course important and complex technical details that would need to be considered carefully if reform of the current system were to be implemented effectively and efficiently. These important technical details, however, are beyond the scope of this report. Where appropriate, references to other CRS products are provided within the report. A list of related CRS products and other suggested readings on international corporate taxation may also be found at the end of the report.

Dec 2, 2014

Medicaid Home and Community-Based Settings Final Rule: In Brief

On January 16, 2014, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) issued a final rule for Medicaid participants receiving home and community-based services (HCBS). Effective March 17, 2014, the rule establishes certain requirements for home and community-based settings. To receive federal reimbursement, states must ensure that Medicaid HCBS are delivered in such settings. CMS states that the purpose of the rule is to ensure that Medicaid participants have full access to community living and opportunities to receive Medicaid services in the most integrated setting appropriate. According to CMS, the rule also provides additional protections to Medicaid HCBS program participants, and it is intended to enhance the quality of such services. The rule supports various administrative activities over the past decade to expand Medicaid HCBS, in part, prompted by the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Olmstead v. L.C., which held that the institutionalization of people who could be cared for in community settings was a violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The Olmstead decision, also known as the “integration mandate,” affirmed the rights of individuals with disabilities to receive services in the most integrated and least restrictive setting appropriate. This report describes key provisions of the final rule as outlined.

Dec 2, 2014

The Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (NAHASDA): Background and Funding

Dec 1, 2014

Congressional Oversight and Investigations

Dec 1, 2014

Protests in Hong Kong: The “Umbrella Movement” (Update)

Nov 28, 2014

Federal Regulations and the Rulemaking Process

This report provides an overview of the federal regulations and the rulemaking process and the role of the President in rulemaking.

Nov 26, 2014

Congress Faces Calls to Address Expiring ACA Appropriations

This report discusses the Affordable Care Act (ACA), enacted in March 2010, which appropriated billions of dollars of mandatory funds to support grant programs and other activities authorized by the law.

Nov 25, 2014

The Obama Administration’s November 2014 Immigration Initiatives: Questions and Answers

On November 20, 2014, President Obama delivered a televised address wherein he broadly described the steps that his administration is taking to “fix” what he has repeatedly described as a “broken immigration system.” Following the President’s address, executive agencies made available intra-agency memoranda and fact sheets detailing specific actions that have already been taken, or will be taken in the future. These actions generally involve either border security, the current unlawfully present population, or future legal immigration. The most notable of these actions, for many commentators, are the initiatives to grant “deferred action”—one type of relief from removal—to some unlawfully present aliens who were brought to the United States as children and raised here, or who have children who are U.S. citizens or lawfully permanent resident (LPR) aliens. Previously, in June 2012, then Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano announced a program—commonly known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)—whereby unlawfully present aliens who had been brought to the United States as children and met other criteria could receive deferred action and, in many cases, employment authorization. The eligibility criteria for DACA expressly excluded unlawfully present aliens who were over 31 years of age, or who had entered the United States on or after June 15, 2007. However, aliens who are over 31 years of age, or entered between June 15, 2007, and January 1, 2010, could receive deferred action as part of the 2014 initiative. Similarly, unlawfully present aliens who have children who are U.S. citizens or LPRs could also receive deferred action and employment authorization pursuant to the November 2014 initiatives, provided they meet specified criteria. These criteria include “continuous residence” in the United States since before January 1, 2010; physical presence in the United States both on the date the initiative was announced and on the date when they request deferred action; and not being an enforcement priority (e.g., not a threat to national or border security). The announced executive actions—particularly the granting of deferred action and employment authorization to unlawfully present aliens—have revived debate about the President’s discretionary authority over immigration like that which followed the announcement of DACA in 2012. In the case of DACA, some argued that the initiative violates the Take Care Clause of the U.S. Constitution, runs afoul of specific requirements found in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), or is inconsistent with historical precedents. Others, however, asserted that DACA involves a valid exercise of the executive’s prosecutorial or enforcement discretion, is consistent with the INA, and has ample historical precedent. Similar arguments will likely be made as to the November 2014 actions, which affect a significantly larger number of aliens than DACA. Legal challenges to DACA have generally failed on standing grounds, because the plaintiffs bringing these challenges were not seen as the proper parties to seek judicial relief from a federal court. The one exception to this—the litigation in Crane v. Napolitano—resulted in the reviewing federal district court finding that DACA runs afoul of provisions in Section 235 of the INA which some assert require the executive to place unlawfully present aliens in removal proceedings. However, this same federal district court subsequently found that it lacked jurisdiction because the plaintiff immigration officers alleged that they faced discipline by their employer, DHS, if they refused to implement DACA, and such claims are within the jurisdiction of the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), not the court. The 113th Congress has also considered legislation to defund DACA (e.g., H.R. 5272, H.R. 5316).

Nov 24, 2014

Intelligence Authorization Legislation for FY2014 and FY2015: Provisions, Status, Intelligence Community Framework

This report provides background information and discusses Intelligence Authorization Act (IAA) for Fiscal Years (FY) 2014 and 2015 (H.R. 4681)

Nov 20, 2014

Food Recalls and Other FDA Administrative Enforcement Actions

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ensures 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 granted the FDA 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 courts. Additionally, administrative enforcement actions, such as inspections and warning letters, tend to precede any judicial enforcement action. The Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) expanded the FDA’s enforcement authority with new and broader measures. This report focuses on the statutory authority and legal issues relating to the following administrative enforcement actions: inspections, warning letters, recalls, suspension of registration, and administrative detention. Inspections: The FDA conducts inspections of regulated facilities in order to oversee a firm’s compliance with the FFDCA and corresponding regulations. The FFDCA grants the agency with the enforcement authority to inspect both facilities and records. However, the act narrowly tailors this authority in order to balance the protection of the facility owners’ Fourth Amendment rights and the promotion of public health. Warning Letters: Under the FFDCA, the FDA also has the ability to decline to institute formal enforcement proceedings for minor violations of the act if the agency believes that it could adequately serve public interest through written correspondence to violators. These warning letters give recipient firms an opportunity to take voluntary corrective actions before the FDA initiates a more formal enforcement action. Recalls: The recall process permits the FDA to enforce the adulteration and misbranding provisions of the FFDCA by encouraging industry participants to remove the product and correct the violation. FDA regulations outline several steps that both the firm and agency must take when issuing either a voluntary or mandatory recall. FSMA granted the FDA the authority to issue a mandatory recall. FSMA also established the opportunity for an informal hearing, at which a firm may dispute these types of recalls, in order to protect the due process rights of the recalling firms. Suspension of Registration: The FFDCA requires all food facilities to register with the FDA so that the agency may effectively oversee all areas of food production. If the FDA determines that a food manufactured, processed, packed, received, or held by a registered facility has a reasonable probability of causing serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals, the agency may suspend the registration of a facility that created, caused, or was otherwise responsible. This enforcement authority is intended to permit the agency to determine the location and source of an outbreak of food-borne illness and thus notify facilities that may be affected quickly and efficiently. Administrative Detention: Under the FFDCA, an FDA employee may order the detention of any article of food that is found during an FDA inspection if the employee has reason to believe that such article is adulterated or misbranded. Under this administrative detention authority, the FDA may prevent illegal articles from being moved or consumed until the court grants a seizure order.

Nov 20, 2014

State Minimum Wages: An Overview

This report begins with a brief discussion of Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) minimum wage coverage. It then provides a summary of state minimum wage laws, followed by an examination of rates and mechanisms of adjustments in states with minimum wage levels above the FLSA rate. The report also discusses the interaction of federal and state minimum wages over time.

Nov 18, 2014

Adult Education and Family Literacy Act: Major Statutory Provisions

The Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA) is the primary federal legislation that supports basic education for out-of-school adults. Commonly called “adult education,” the programs and activities funded by AEFLA typically support educational services at the secondary level and below, as well as English language training. Actual educational services are typically provided by local entities. AEFLA was created by Title II of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA; P.L. 105-220). The authorization of appropriations under WIA lapsed after FY2003, though the program continued to be funded through the appropriations process. In 2014, AEFLA was reauthorized by Title II of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act of 2014 (WIOA, P.L. 113-128). This report will discuss AEFLA as amended by WIOA. WIOA made a number of changes to the authorizing law but maintained the program’s primary function of authorizing federal grants to state agencies for adult education activities. State agencies may use a portion of federal funds for statewide activities, but the bulk of their grants must be subgranted to local providers. Eligible local providers include local educational agencies, institutions of higher education, community-based organizations, and other qualified entities. Under WIOA, federal AEFLA grants are allotted to states via two formula grants: 88% of state grant funds are allotted to the states based on a formula that considers each state’s relative share of adults who do not have a high school diploma or equivalent and who are not enrolled in school. These funds may support basic education services, coursework toward a secondary school diploma or equivalent, English language training or other adult education services. 12% of funds are allotted to the states based on a formula that considers each state’s relative share of immigrants who were admitted for legal permanent residence in past years. These funds support “integrated English literacy and civics education” for English language learners. WIOA requires that state agency grantees submit and have an approved unified state plan that aligns adult education with other core WIOA programs to meet local labor force needs. State grantees must also report on program performance using a set of metrics that applies across core WIOA programs, including adult education. While the large majority of annual appropriations support grants to state agencies, statute reserves 2% of annual AEFLA appropriations for National Leadership Activities. These national activities include technical support for state agencies and assistance in meeting the performance accountability requirements of WIOA. Congress appropriated $578 million for AEFLA-authorized activities in FY2014. WIOA authorizes the same appropriation level for FY2015. Between FY2015 and FY2020, WIOA authorizes annual increases in AEFLA appropriations, with an authorization level of $679 million in FY2020.

Nov 17, 2014

Child Welfare: State Plan Requirements under the Title IV-E Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Kinship Guardianship Assistance Program

Under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act, states, territories, and tribes are entitled to claim partial federal reimbursement for the cost of providing foster care, adoption assistance, and kinship guardianship assistance to children who meet federal eligibility criteria. The Title IV-E program, as it is commonly called, provides support for monthly payments on behalf of eligible children, as well as funds for related case management activities, training, data collection, and other costs of program administration. For FY2013, states spent $12.3 billion under the Title IV-E program (both federal and state dollars); at least 25% of this spending (some $3.1 billion) was expended for the types of “administrative” program costs described in this report, including case planning and pre-placement activities related to children in or entering foster care, as well as licensing, recruitment, and background checks and other costs related to foster care providers. As a condition of receiving this funding, states, territories, and tribes must have a Title IV-E plan that is approved by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration for Children and Families. That plan must ensure direct financial assistance is made available to eligible children under the Title IV-E program. Further, it must ensure that the state, territory, or tribe will adhere to federal plan requirements primarily intended to ensure children’s safety, permanence, and well-being. The focus of this report is Title IV-E plan requirements other than those related to provision of direct financial assistance to eligible children. Those requirements are intended to (1) enable children to be reunited with their families or prevent their entry to foster care; (2) promote children’s placement with relatives and maintain sibling connections; (3) ensure children’s living arrangements are safe and appropriate and permit “normalcy”; (4) provide for regular oversight and review of each child’s status in foster care and timely development and implementation of a permanency plan; (5) ensure timely efforts to find a permanent home for children or youth who cannot be reunited with their families; (6) ensure the health care and education needs of children in foster care are addressed; (7) help youth make a successful transition from foster care to adulthood; (8) identify, document, and determine services necessary for child welfare-involved children or youth who are victims (or at risk of) of sex trafficking and locate and respond to children or youth who run away or are missing from foster care; and (9) ensure program coordination and collaboration and meet certain administrative standards.

Nov 17, 2014

Keystone XL Pipeline: Overview and Recent Developments

This report describes the Keystone XL Pipeline Project and the process that the State Department must complete to decide whether it will approve or deny TransCanada's permit application. The report also discusses key energy security, economic, and environmental issues relevant to the State Department's national interest determination. Some of these issues include perspectives among various stakeholders both in favor of and opposed to the construction of the pipeline. Finally, the report discusses the constitutional basis for the State Department's authority to issue a Presidential Permit, and opponents' possible challenges to this authority.

Nov 13, 2014

FEMA’s Disaster Declaration Process: A Primer

The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (referred to as the Stafford Act—42 U.S.C. 5721 et seq.) authorizes the President to issue “major disaster” or “emergency” declarations before or after catastrophes occur. Emergency declarations trigger aid that protects property, public health, and safety and lessens or averts the threat of an incident becoming a catastrophic event. Given their purpose, the emergency declarations may precede an event. A major disaster declaration is generally issued after catastrophes occur, and constitutes broader authority for federal agencies to provide supplemental assistance to help state and local governments, families and individuals, and certain nonprofit organizations recover from the incident. The end result of a presidential disaster declaration is well known, if not entirely understood. Various forms of assistance are provided, including aid to families and individuals for uninsured needs; and assistance to state and local governments, and to certain non-profits for rebuilding or replacing damaged infrastructure. Over the last quarter century, the amount of federal assistance provided through presidential disaster declarations has exceeded $150 billion. Often, in recent years, Congress has enacted supplemental appropriations legislation to cover unanticipated costs. While the amounts spent by the federal government on different programs may be reported, and the progress of the recovery can be observed, much less is known about the process that initiates all of this activity. Yet, it is a process that has resulted in an average of more than one disaster declaration a week over the last decade. The disaster declaration procedure is foremost a process that preserves the discretion of the governor or tribal leader to request assistance and the President to decide to grant, or not to grant, supplemental help. The process employs some measurable criteria for evaluating disaster damage in two broad areas: Individual Assistance that aids families and individuals and Public Assistance that is mainly for emergency work such as debris removal and permanent repairs to infrastructure. The criteria, however, also consider many other factors, in each category of assistance, that help decision makers assess the impact of an event on communities and states. Under current law while a governor or a tribal leader may make a request, the decision to issue a declaration rests solely with the President. Congress has no formal role, but has taken actions to adjust the terms of the process. For example, the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006, P.L. 109-295, established an advocate to help small states with the declaration process. More recently, Congress passed the Hurricane Sandy Recovery Improvement Act, P.L. 113-2, which had two potentially major impacts on the declaration process. First, the act authorized Native American tribal groups to directly request disaster assistance from the President rather than only requesting through a state governor. The second potential major impact in the act was that FEMA was directed to update its criteria for considering whether to make a recommendation to the President for Individual Assistance declarations. Since the decision for a declaration is at the discretion of the President, there has been some speculation regarding the influence of political favor in these decisions. Some have posited various connections between the political party of the governor requesting or the prominence of some state’s congressional delegation on committee’s important to FEMA. While of interest, those theories are usually not connected to, or at least fail to consider, the natural events that were the impetus for both the request and the decision. Given the importance of the decision, and the size of the overall spending involved, hearings have been held to review the declaration process so as to ensure fairness and equity in the process and its results. Congress continues to examine the process and several pieces of legislation have been introduced during the 113th Congress to adjust the factors considered for a major disaster declaration. This report discusses the evolution of this process, how it is administered and recent changes enacted in law as well as amending legislation that has been introduced. This report will be updated as warranted by events.

Nov 12, 2014

School Meals Programs and Other USDA Child Nutrition Programs: A Primer

Nov 10, 2014

Executive Discretion as to Immigration: Legal Overview

This report provides an overview of the three broad types of discretion that the Executive can be seen to have as to immigration: (1) express delegations of discretionary authority; (2) discretion in enforcement (commonly known as prosecutorial or enforcement discretion); and (3) discretion in interpreting and applying statutes.

Nov 10, 2014

Medicaid Prescription Drug Pricing and Policy

Medicaid is a federal-state entitlement program that pays for health care and related services on behalf of certain low-income individuals. Prescription drugs are an optional Medicaid benefit and all states cover outpatient drugs. States can create formularies, or lists of preferred drugs, but federal rules tend to result in comprehensive coverage, even for beneficiaries enrolled in Medicaid managed care plans. Pharmaceutical manufacturers that voluntarily participate in Medicaid are required to pay rebates to states on covered outpatient drugs, which help Medicaid receive manufacturers’ lowest or best price. States then share the rebate they receive from pharmaceutical manufacturers with the federal government. In determining the amount of rebate, Medicaid law distinguishes between the following two drug types: (1) single source drugs (brand-name drugs) and innovator multiple source drugs (brand-name drugs that now have generic competition); and (2) all other, non-innovator, multiple source (generic) drugs. Rebates for the first category of drugs—drugs still under patent or those once covered by patents—have two components: a basic rebate and an additional rebate. In addition to basic and additional rebates, most states negotiate supplemental rebates with drug manufacturers, by offering to encourage use of a manufacturer’s product in exchange for a price concession (rebate). States, through retail pharmacies, purchase drugs on behalf of Medicaid beneficiaries. Medicaid pharmacy reimbursement has two components: a payment to cover the cost of the pharmacy buying the drug (ingredient cost) and a payment for the pharmacist’s services in filling a prescription (dispensing fee). States set reimbursement for both ingredient costs and dispensing fees. In FY2005, Medicaid fee-for-service (FFS) drug expenditures were approximately $43.1 billion, but by FY2013 had decreased to $19.8 billion. Over the same period, Medicaid FFS drug rebate collections were at about the same level ($12.4 billion), but managed care rebate collections increased substantially to about $4.8 billion in FY2013. The decreases in Medicaid FFS drug expenditures and the increases in rebate collections were mostly offset by at least the following other factors or trends: (1) Beginning January 1, 2006, prescription drug coverage of individuals eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid (dual eligibles) was moved from Medicaid to Medicare Part D, which resulted in substantially reduced Medicaid FFS drug spending. Due to maintenance of effort requirements, state Medicaid programs continue to pay the vast majority of dual eligible drug costs, even though those expenditures are not counted as drug spending. (2) Statutory changes helped to increased rebate collections by extending rebates to Medicaid enrollees covered by managed care plans and increasing the amount of rebates owed by drug companies. (3) The loss of patent protection for a number of commonly prescribed drugs further contributed to decreasing Medicaid drug expenditures. And (4) the rapid shift in enrollment of beneficiaries to managed care plans that cover prescription drugs. In December 2013, Sovaldi®, a new brand-name drug, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treatment of hepatitis virus C (HVC) infections. Sovaldi is estimated to cost $1,000 per pill, and total treatment cost estimates range from $84,000 to more than $168,000. The rebates states and the federal government receive will help reduce Medicaid’s Sovaldi expenditures, but until other equivalent drugs are available to increase competition, states may have limited leverage to negotiate additional manufacturer price concessions. Medicaid rebates, however, while buffering the cost of prescription drugs, might also contribute to drug manufacturers setting increasingly higher launch prices. The current Medicaid drug pricing and policy infrastructure was designed for FFS, and may not work as well with significant managed care enrollment. Under managed care contracts, states generally delegate some or all of drug utilization review and individual drug claim oversight to plans, including program integrity. With managed care and pharmaceutical benefit managers (PBMs) responsible for these activities, states have responsibility for ensuring plans uphold their contract obligations. States’ prescription drug monitoring is tailored to FFS drug claims. It is unclear how much oversight of managed care claims states will be able to provide. If states and the federal government currently procure drugs for Medicaid beneficiaries at some of the lowest prices, will it be possible for managed care plans to further reduce costs without imposing barriers to Medicaid beneficiaries in obtaining covered drugs?

Nov 7, 2014

Contracting with Inverted Domestic Corporations: Answers to Frequently Asked Questions

Recent reports that certain entities continued to receive federal government contracts after reincorporating overseas have prompted questions about current and proposed restrictions on contracting with “inverted domestic corporations.” These questions are shaped, in part, by the broader debate over whether such corporations are to be seen as “deserters,” who change their corporate citizenship to avoid paying U.S. taxes, or as evidencing systemic problems in the U.S. tax code. This report provides the answers to 14 frequently asked questions regarding the current restrictions on contracting with inverted domestic corporations, proposed amendments thereto, and the relationship between prohibitions upon contracting with inverted domestic corporations and other provisions of law that restrict dealings with “foreign” contractors.

Nov 7, 2014

The Tibetan Policy Act of 2002: Background and Implementation

Nov 5, 2014

U.S. Geological Survey: Background, Appropriations, and Issues for Congress

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) aims to provide unbiased scientific information to describe and understand the geological processes of the Earth; minimize loss of life and property from natural disasters; manage water, biological, energy, and mineral resources; and enhance and protect the nation’s quality of life. The USGS is a scientific agency that is housed within the Department of the Interior. Its primary mission is conducting science; it has no regulatory authority, nor does it manage any significant federal lands. The USGS also collects and stores scientific information that is compiled into long-term continuous data sets. These data sets range from satellite imagery of land and ecosystem features to streamflow data on major rivers and streams. The USGS conducts scientific activities under seven interdisciplinary mission areas: (1) water resources; (2) climate and land use change; (3) energy and minerals; (4) natural hazards; (5) core science systems; (6) ecosystems; and (7) environmental health. The agency is funded through Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations laws. The FY2015 budget request for the USGS was $1.07 billion, which is $41.3 million more than the FY2014 enacted level of $1.03 billion. Congressional interest in the USGS is high because many USGS activities have nationwide and regional policy implications. USGS partners with several stakeholders in its monitoring and scientific endeavors and contributes scientific knowledge to seminal policy decisions such as the listing of species under the Endangered Species Act, the management of water supplies, and the placement of emergency response resources following major storm events or hurricanes. Some potential congressional concerns about the USGS involve the scope of its mission. For example, some in Congress contend that the mission of the USGS has expanded beyond the scope of its Organic Act, to the detriment of its work on geological issues. In contrast, some others note that the USGS has expanded its scope in response to congressional authorizations and that its mission has changed over time to reflect the needs of the country. Some specific USGS programs—for example, the agency’s role in assessing the nation’s mineral, oil, and natural gas resources—have also been of interest to Congress. Often, the results of these studies and assessments have led to congressional decision-making regarding resource development and federal land use. Other USGS activities that have generated congressional interest and debate include the National Streamflow Information Program, which deploys streamgages across the country to measure water flows and quality; the Landsat Program, which collects remotely sensed data from satellites and distributes it to stakeholders; and the Natural Hazards Program, which is involved in evaluating, observing, studying, and contributing to the mitigation of natural hazards such as earthquakes, volcanoes, landslides, and coastal storms, among others.

Nov 5, 2014

Congressional Action on FY2015 Appropriations Measures

The congressional appropriations process, which provides discretionary spending for federal government agencies, assumes the annual enactment of 12 regular appropriations bills prior to the beginning of the fiscal year (October 1). One or more continuing resolutions (CRs) may be enacted if all regular appropriations bills are not completed by that time. This report provides information on the budget enforcement framework for the consideration of FY2015 appropriations measures, the status of the FY2015 regular appropriations bills as of the beginning of the fiscal year, and the enactment of FY2015 continuing appropriations.

Nov 5, 2014

U.S. Dairy Programs After the 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79)

Oct 30, 2014

QRM: Risk Retention and the Mortgage Market

Oct 30, 2014

Zivotofsky v. Kerry: The Jerusalem Passport Case

This report briefly describes legislative efforts to modify U.S. policy with respect to Jerusalem, in particular multiple enactments of the passport provision. The report summarizes the appellate court's opinion finding the passport measure unconstitutional and presents brief synopses of the petitioner's argument before the Supreme Court, the Secretary of State's brief in response, and briefs of amici curiae submitted by the Senate (pursuant to S.Res. 504) and by some Members of the House of Representatives. Finally, the report concludes by suggesting some factors that may affect the outcome.

Oct 30, 2014

The WTO Brazil-U.S. Cotton Case

Oct 28, 2014

Aiding, Abetting, and the Like: An Abbreviated Overview of 18 U.S.C. 2

Virtually every federal criminal statute has a hidden feature; primary offenders and even their most casual accomplices face equal punishment. This results from 18 U.S.C. 2, which visits the same consequences on anyone who orders or assists in the commission of a federal crime. Aiding and abetting means assisting in the commission of someone else’s crime. Section 2(a) demands that the defendant embrace the crime of another and consciously do something to contribute to its success. An accomplice must know the offense is afoot if he is to intentionally contribute to its success. While a completed offense is a prerequisite to conviction for aiding and abetting, the hands-on offender need be neither named nor convicted. On occasion, an accomplice will escape liability, either by judicial construction or administrative grace. This happens most often when there is a perceived culpability gap between accomplice and primary offender. Such accomplices are usually victims, customers, or subordinates of a primary offender. Section 2(b) (willfully causing a crime) applies to defendants who work through either witting or unwitting intermediaries, through the guilty or the innocent. Whether the intermediary is a subordinate or an undercover government agent, he may be well aware that his conduct constitutes an element of the underlying offense. On the other hand, whether the intermediary is a dupe or a facilitating governmental official, §2(b) applies even if the intermediary is unaware of the nature of his conduct. Section 2(a) requires two guilty parties, a primary offender and an accomplice. Section 2(b) permits prosecution when there is only one guilty party, a “causing” individual and an innocent agent. Both subsections, however, require a completed offense. Federal courts sometimes mention, but rarely apply, a withdrawal defense comparable to one available in conspiracy cases. Proponents of a general withdrawal defense in §2 cases may find support in recent Supreme Court dicta. In Rosemond, the Court explained that an accomplice must know of the pending substantive offense in order to be shown to have embraced its commission. It did so in a manner suggesting that an accomplice might be able to withdraw and escape liability prior to the commission of the substantive offense, even if he had contributed to the crime’s ultimate success. There is no general civil aiding and abetting statute. Aiding and abetting a violation of a federal criminal law does not trigger civil liability unless Congress has said so in so many words. This report is an abridged version of CRS Report R43769, Aiding, Abetting, and the Like: An Overview of 18 U.S.C. 2, by Charles Doyle, without the footnotes, attribution for quotations, and citations to authority found there.

Oct 24, 2014

Aiding, Abetting, and the Like: An Overview of 18 U.S.C. 2

Virtually every federal criminal statute has a hidden feature; primary offenders and even their most casual accomplices face equal punishment. This results from 18 U.S.C. 2, which visits the same consequences on anyone who orders or assists in the commission of a federal crime. Aiding and abetting means assisting in the commission of someone else’s crime. Section 2(a) demands that the defendant embrace the crime of another and consciously do something to contribute to its success. An accomplice must know the offense is afoot if he is to intentionally contribute to its success. While a completed offense is a prerequisite to conviction for aiding and abetting, the hands-on offender need be neither named nor convicted. On occasion, an accomplice will escape liability, either by judicial construction or administrative grace. This happens most often when there is a perceived culpability gap between accomplice and primary offender. Such accomplices are usually victims, customers, or subordinates of a primary offender. Section 2(b)(willfully causing a crime) applies to defendants who work through either witting or unwitting intermediaries, through the guilty or the innocent. Whether the intermediary is a subordinate or an undercover government agent, he may be well aware that his conduct constitutes an element of the underlying offense. On the other hand, whether the intermediary is a dupe or a facilitating governmental official, §2(b) applies even if the intermediary is unaware of the nature of his conduct. Section 2(a) requires two guilty parties, a primary offender and an accomplice. Section 2(b) permits prosecution when there is only one guilty party, a “causing” individual and an innocent agent. Both subsections, however, require a completed offense. Federal courts sometimes mention, but rarely apply, a withdrawal defense comparable to one available in conspiracy cases. Proponents of a general withdrawal defense in §2 cases may find support in recent Supreme Court dicta. In Rosemond, the Court explained that an accomplice must know of the pending substantive offense in order to be shown to have embraced its commission. It did so in a manner suggesting that an accomplice might be able to withdraw and escape liability prior to the commission of the substantive offense, even if he had contributed to the crime’s ultimate success. There is no general civil aiding and abetting statute. Aiding and abetting a violation of a federal criminal law does not trigger civil liability unless Congress has said so in so many words. This report is available in an abridged version as CRS Report R43770, Aiding, Abetting, and the Like: An Abbreviated Overview of 18 U.S.C. 2, by Charles Doyle.

Oct 24, 2014

The Defense Production Act of 1950: History, Authorities, and Considerations for Congress

The Defense Production Act (DPA) of 1950 (P.L. 81-774, 50 U.S.C. Appx §2061 et seq.), as amended, confers upon the President a broad set of authorities to influence domestic industry in the interest of national defense. The authorities can be used across the federal government to shape the domestic industrial base so that, when called upon, it is capable of providing essential materials and goods needed for the national defense. Though initially passed in response to the Korean War, the DPA is historically based on the War Powers Acts of World War II. Gradually, Congress has expanded the term national defense, as defined in the DPA, so that it now includes activities related to homeland security and domestic emergency management. The scope of DPA authorities extends beyond shaping U.S. military preparedness and capabilities, as the authorities may also be used to enhance and support domestic preparedness, response, and recovery from natural hazards, terrorist attacks, and other national emergencies. The current authorities of the DPA include, but are not limited to: Title I: Priorities and Allocations, which allows the President to require persons (including businesses and corporations) to prioritize and accept contracts for materials and services as necessary to promote the national defense. Title III: Expansion of Productive Capacity and Supply, which allows the President to incentivize the domestic industrial base to expand the production and supply of critical materials and goods. Authorized incentives include loans, loan guarantees, direct purchases and purchase commitments, and the authority to procure and install equipment in private industrial facilities. Title VII: General Provisions, which includes key definitions for the DPA and several distinct authorities, including the authority to establish voluntary agreements with private industry; the authority to block proposed or pending foreign corporate mergers, acquisitions, or takeovers that threaten national security; and the authority to employ persons of outstanding experience and ability and to establish a volunteer pool of industry executives who could be called to government service in the interest of the national defense. The authorities of the DPA are generally afforded to the President in statute. The President, in turn, has delegated these authorities to department and agency heads in Executive Order 13603, National Defense Resource Preparedness, issued in 2012. While the authorities are most frequently used by, and commonly associated with, the Department of Defense, they can be, and have been, used by numerous other executive departments and agencies. Since 1950, the DPA has been reauthorized over 50 times, though significant authorities were terminated from the original law in 1953. Congress last reauthorized the DPA in 2014 (P.L. 113-172). This reauthorization amended some of the current DPA authorities and extended the termination of the act by five years, until September 30, 2019, when nearly all DPA authorities will terminate. A few authorities of the DPA, such as the Exon-Florio Amendment (which established government review of the acquisition of U.S. companies by foreigners) and anti-trust protections for certain voluntary industry agreements, have been made permanent by Congress. The DPA lies within the legislative jurisdiction of the House Committee on Financial Services and the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Congress may consider enhancing its oversight of executive branch activities related to the DPA in a number of ways. To enhance oversight, Congress could expand executive branch reporting requirements, track and enforce rulemaking requirements, review the activities of the Defense Production Act Committee, and broaden the committee oversight jurisdiction of the DPA in Congress. Congress may also consider amending the DPA, either by creating new authorities or repealing existing ones. In addition, Congress may consider amending the definitions of the DPA to expand or restrict the DPA’s scope, amending the statute to supersede the President’s delegation of DPA authorities made in E.O. 13603, or consider adjusting future appropriations to the DPA Fund in order to manage the scope of Title III projects initiated by the President.

Oct 23, 2014

Sexual Violence at Institutions of Higher Education

In recent years, a number of high-profile incidents of sexual violence at institutions of higher education (IHEs) have heightened congressional and administration scrutiny of the policies and procedures that IHEs currently have in place to address campus sexual violence and how these policies and procedures can be improved. Campus sexual violence is widely acknowledged to be a problem. However, reported data on the extent of sexual violence at IHEs varies considerably across studies for a variety of methodological and other reasons. Victims of sexual violence may suffer from a range of physical and mental health conditions including injuries, pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, suicidality, and substance abuse. College students who are the victims of sexual violence may experience a decline in academic performance, and they may drop out, leave school, or transfer. Currently, there are two federal laws that address sexual violence on college campuses: the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (Clery Act, P.L. 101-542) and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX, P.L. 92-318). These two statutes differ in significant respects, including in their purpose, coverage, enforcement, and remedies. The Clery Act requires all public and private IHEs that participate in the student financial assistance programs under Title IV of the Higher Education Act (HEA, P.L. 89-329) of 1965 to track crimes in and around their campuses and to report these data to their campus community and to the Department of Education (ED). ED’s Federal Student Aid (FSA) Office oversees educational institutions’ compliance with Title IV student financial aid requirements, including requirements related to the Clery Act. In this role, FSA conducts program reviews of IHEs’ compliance with student aid and Clery provisions. Title IX is a civil rights law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex under any education program or activity that receives federal funding. Under Title IX, sexual harassment, which includes sexual violence, is a form of unlawful sex discrimination. Unlike the Clery Act, whose coverage is limited to IHEs that receive student financial aid funds under the HEA, Title IX is applicable to recipients of any type of federal education funding, including any public or private elementary, secondary, and postsecondary school that receives such funds. Although each federal agency enforces Title IX compliance among its own recipients, ED, which administers the vast majority of federal education programs, is the primary agency conducting administrative enforcement of Title IX. Such enforcement by ED’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) may occur as part of a routine compliance audit or in response to a complaint filed by an individual. Members of Congress have been actively involved in seeking ways to improve how IHEs respond to, investigate, and adjudicate incidents of campus sexual violence. Several bills that would strengthen existing laws pertaining to campus sexual violence have been introduced during the 113th Congress. In January 2014, the Obama Administration established a White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault. In April 2014, the Task Force issued its first report—Not Alone— and created a website that addresses campus sexual violence. Among other things, the report included an extensive list of actions that the Administration will take (or has already taken) to address campus sexual violence.

Oct 23, 2014

Intelligence Whistleblower Protections: In Brief

Intelligence whistleblowers are generally Intelligence Community (IC) employees or contractors who bring to light allegations of agency wrongdoings by, for example, disclosing information on such wrongdoings to congressional intelligence committees. Such disclosures can aid oversight of, or help curb misconduct within, intelligence agencies. However, intelligence whistleblowers could face retaliation from their employers for their disclosures, and the fear of such retaliation may deter whistleblowing. Congress and President Obama have taken measures to protect certain intelligence whistleblowers from retaliation, and thereby seemingly encourage these whistleblowers to disclose information on agency wrongdoing. These measures are the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998 (ICWPA), Presidential Policy Directive 19 (PPD-19), and Title VI of the Intelligence Authorization Act of 2014 (Title VI). Each of these measures details what disclosures fall within the scope of its protections, which generally include certain disclosures through government channels (e.g., disclosures to agency inspectors general or congressional intelligence committees). None of these measures protect against retaliation or potential criminal liability arising from disclosures to media sources. The ICWPA applies to both IC employees and contractors, whereas PPD-19 and Title VI appear to apply only to IC employees. The ICWPA is the oldest of the three intelligence whistleblower protections and, of the three, provides the least amount of protection to those falling within its scope. The ICWPA does not explicitly prohibit retaliation against IC whistleblowers. Rather, it outlines procedures through which whistleblowers can disclose to the congressional intelligence committees information on “urgent concerns,” such as violations of law or false statements to Congress. The ICWPA further contains no explicit mechanism for obtaining a remedy for retaliation stemming from disclosure of an urgent concern to Congress. It merely allows an IC whistleblower who has faced an adverse personnel action because he disclosed an urgent concern to the congressional intelligence committees to then use the ICWPA’s disclosure procedures to inform the committees of the retaliation. PPD-19, unlike the ICWPA, expressly prohibits an IC employee from taking an adverse personnel action or security clearance determination against another employee because of a protected disclosure. It additionally requires intelligence agencies to develop procedures for internally investigating, through agency Inspectors General, allegations of impermissible retaliation. After finding that impermissible retaliation has occurred, Inspectors General can recommend that agency heads take corrective action. When an employee has exhausted the internal review procedures that must be established under PPD-19, he can appeal to the Director of National Intelligence, who then has the discretion to convene a review panel. If it finds that improper retaliation occurred, the review panel can recommend that the agency head take remedial action. Title VI seemingly codifies, and expands upon, some of the protections of PPD-19. Its protections, and modes of enforcement, differ depending on the type of retaliation alleged. More specifically, Title VI’s protected disclosures and enforcement methods in the context of allegations of adverse personnel action are distinct from its protected disclosures and enforcement methods for allegations of adverse security clearance or information access determinations.

Oct 23, 2014