CRS Reports

Membership in the United Nations and Its Specialized Agencies

Since the United Nations (U.N.) was established in 1945, the U.S. government, including many Members of Congress, has maintained an ongoing interest in the criteria and process for membership in the United Nations and its specialized agencies. The United Nations currently has 193 member states and two observer non-member states—the Holy See (Vatican) and “Palestine.” Criteria and Process The decision to admit a state into the United Nations is made by the U.N. General Assembly on the recommendation of the U.N. Security Council, including all five permanent members (P-5): the United States, China, France, United Kingdom, and Russia. Membership is open to all “peace-loving states” that accept the obligations contained in the U.N. Charter and, in the judgment of the organization, are able and willing to carry out such obligations. Given the imprecise nature of such criteria, many member states have broadly interpreted the conditions for U.N. membership. Consequently, global and domestic politics play a primary role in many membership decisions. Each of the United Nations’ 16 specialized agencies has its own constitution, rules, membership, governance, and financial resources. As such, the process and criteria for admitting new members vary depending on the organization. In 11 specialized agencies, U.N. membership gives a state access to membership in the agency without requiring its admission to be approved by the current membership. Of these 11 agencies, 3 also provide membership, without a vote, to any member of any other specialized agency. Two other specialized agencies require a separate voting process to admit new members. U.S. Role and Policy Decisions on U.N. membership are subject to veto by any of the P-5; thus, the United States plays a significant role in determining U.N. membership. The United States has a more limited role in U.N. specialized agencies because decisions to admit new members to these bodies are generally made by the entire membership and each member has one vote. U.S. membership decisions in both the United Nations and its specialized agencies lie primarily with the executive branch, which represents the United States in U.N. and other multilateral fora. Although Congress often does not play a large role in determining U.N. membership, Members have sought to influence U.S. policy on the issue through legislation advocating or opposing the membership of various countries and entities—including Israel, Montenegro, Kosovo, South Africa, China/Taiwan, and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). Notably, in the mid-1990s, Congress enacted two separate laws that prohibit funding to U.N. entities that (1) admit the PLO as a member, and (2) grant full membership as a state to any organization or group that does not have the internationally recognized attributes of statehood (see Section 410 of P.L. 103-236 and Section 414 of P.L. 101-246). The United States currently withholds its assessed and voluntary contributions to the U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), which admitted Palestine as a member in 2011. Key Issues Members of Congress may consider the following issues related to U.N. membership: Impact on other U.N. entities and international organizations. Membership in one U.N. organization can potentially affect membership in other U.N. entities. Some experts also suggest that U.N. membership could affect membership in other international organizations, such as the International Criminal Court. U.S. contributions to U.N. entities. Based on restrictions in U.S. law, Palestinian membership in U.N. bodies could have implications for U.S. funding of the United Nations and its specialized agencies. For example, when Palestine was admitted to UNESCO, it became eligible for membership, without a vote, in three specialized agencies—the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), and the U.N. Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO). To date, Palestine has not joined any of these specialized agencies. The United States is a member of IFAD and WIPO, but not UNIDO. Political considerations in membership criteria and process. Many experts agree that each U.N. member state’s decision to admit a new state is largely political. The extent to which the criteria outlined in the U.N. Charter has been applied to membership applications has often depended on geopolitical issues at the time, and member states’ national self-interests and views on the role and nature of the United Nations. This report may be updated as events warrant.

Jun 19, 2014

High-Frequency Trading: Background, Concerns, and Regulatory Developments

High-frequency trading (HFT) is a broad term without a precise legal or regulatory definition. It is used to describe what many characterize as a subset of algorithmic trading that involves very rapid placement of orders, in the realm of tiny fractions of a second. Regulators have been scrutinizing HFT practices for years, but public concern about this form of trading intensified following the April 2014 publication of a book by author Michael Lewis. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Department of Justice (DOJ), Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), Office of the New York Attorney General, and Massachusetts Secretary of Commerce have begun HFT-related probes. Critics of HFT have raised several concerns about its impact. One criticism relates to its generation of so-called phantom liquidity, in which market liquidity that appears to be provided by HFT may be fleeting and transient due to the posting and then almost immediate cancellation of trading orders. Another concern is that HFT firms may engage in manipulative strategies that involve the use of quote cancellations. In addition, some observers allege that HFT firms are often involved in front-running whereby the firms trade ahead of a large order to buy or sell stocks based on nonpublic market information about an imminent trade. Another criticism is that HFT has increased the level of potential market systemic risk whereby shocks to a small number of active HFT traders could then detrimentally affect the entire market. A related concern is whether HFT could exacerbate market volatility. These concerns have percolated since the “Flash Crash” of May 6, 2010, when the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) fell by roughly 1,000 points in intraday trading—the largest one-day decline in the history of the DJIA. The crash was analyzed in an investigative report by the SEC and CFTC which, among other factors, looked at the role HFT may have played. The report determined that HFT was not the cause but may have exacerbated the crash. Another area of criticism is that HFT often involves two-tiered markets in which HFT firms pay extra for the right to access data feeds or to collocate their servers within exchanges’ servers—all of which is designed to give some traders an advantage over others. HFT’s supporters argue that the increased trading provided by HFT adds market liquidity and reduces market volatility. They contend that HFT is a technological innovation that is the latest evolutionary stage in a long history of securities market making and assert that HFT has reduced the bid-ask spreads in stock trading, thereby lowering trading costs. Congressional interest in HFT and the Flash Crash has manifested itself in the 113th Congress both legislatively and in the congressional oversight of the SEC and CFTC. Legislatively, S. 410 (Harkin), H.R. 880 (DeFazio), and H.R. 1579 (Ellison) would levy taxes on various financial trades, including trades conducted by HFT traders. H.R. 2292 (Markey) would require the CFTC to provide a regulatory definition of HFT in the derivatives markets it oversees and require those who do HFT to register with the CFTC. In June 2014, SEC Chairman Mary Jo White announced that in response to concerns over “aggressive, destabilizing trading strategies in vulnerable market conditions,” the agency was pursuing several HFT-related reform proposals, including requiring unregistered HFT firms to register with the SEC. This report provides an overview of HFT in the equities and derivatives markets regulated by the SEC and CFTC. It also examines the Flash Crash of 2010 and the role that HFT may have played as well as recent regulatory developments.

Jun 19, 2014

Enforcement of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act: Select Legal Issues

In an increasingly interconnected country, public health concerns and crises originating from any state have the potential to impact the entire nation. A critical law to help promote national public health and prevent fraudulent activity with respect to food, drugs, and an array of other public health products that enter interstate commerce is the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 (FDCA or the Act). Indeed, the primary purpose of the Act is to “safeguard” and “protect” the consumer from being exposed to dangerous products affecting public health and safety, and the FDCA does this by regulating covered articles from the moment of their introduction into interstate commerce all the way to the moment of their delivery to the ultimate consumer. This report provides an overview of the FDCA, answers frequently asked questions about the enforcement of the Act, and concludes with an overview of the various civil and criminal enforcement provisions contained within the FDCA. The FDCA is the central federal law regulating the safety of most foods, food additives, color additives, dietary supplements, prescription and non-prescription drugs, medical devices, cosmetics, and tobacco products. While the Act regulates a host of disparate products, the FDCA, in Section 301, generally prohibits two basic acts: “adulteration” and “misbranding.” Specifically, Section 301 makes it illegal to directly or indirectly distribute a covered product in interstate commerce that is adulterated or misbranded. Many other provisions of the Act are devoted to defining what the terms “adulteration” and “misbranding” mean with respect to the specific products covered under the Act. The FDCA is centrally enforced by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), an agency whose mission is to “assure that the products it regulates are safe and truthfully labeled.” The FDA enforces the Act through a series of administrative mechanisms, such as pre-market reviews of certain products, examinations and investigations, and the dissemination of information to the public. Nonetheless, because the FDA does not have independent litigating authority, the agency must rely on the Department of Justice (DOJ) if a particular matter requires utilization of criminal or civil remedies. While private parties do not have the right to enforce the FDCA’s mandates through a lawsuit, in addition to the DOJ, a host of other federal agencies help enforce discrete parts of the Act. Still, the FDA remains the primary agency charged with enforcing the FDCA, and the FDA’s authority reaches to even purely intrastate activities that have some sort of nexus with interstate commerce, so long as the activity in question respects a product that is covered under the Act. Supreme Court case law confirms that the FDA enjoys significant discretion in choosing when to enforce most provisions of the FDCA, although certain mandates can eliminate the FDA’s discretion and impose a mandate on the agency to enforce the Act in specific circumstances. If the agency, with the help of the DOJ, considers a particular matter sufficiently serious, the FDCA provides a wide range of civil and criminal remedies to enforce the substantive provisions of the Act. For example, the FDCA provides the government with the ability to sue violators of the Act in Court to punish or prevent future violations of the FDCA. Civil actions include the imposition of civil monetary penalties, injunctions, and seizures. If someone’s conduct is extremely serious, in rare cases, the FDA and DOJ have collaborated to bring criminal charges against those who violate the Act. While a criminal violation of the FDCA does not require that the perpetrator be aware of his conduct, intentional or repeated violations of the Act can result in multiple years of imprisonment and hefty criminal fines.

Jun 19, 2014

Physical Security of the U.S. Power Grid: High-Voltage Transformer Substations

This report discusses the electric power industry which consists of electric power grid of over 200,000 miles of high-voltage transmission lines.

Jun 17, 2014

Disposal of Unneeded Federal Buildings: Legislative Proposals in the 113th Congress

Real property disposal is the process by which federal agencies identify and then transfer, donate, or sell real property they no longer need. Disposition is an important asset management function because the costs of maintaining unneeded properties can be substantial, consuming financial resources that might be applied to long-standing real property needs, such as repairing existing facilities, or other pressing policy issues, such as reducing the national debt. Despite the expense, federal agencies hold thousands of unneeded and underutilized properties. Agencies have argued that they are unable to dispose of these properties for several reasons. First, there are statutorily prescribed steps in the disposal process that can take months to complete. Second, agencies are often required to complete major repairs or environmental remediation before properties are ready for disposal—steps for which agencies lack funding. Third, key stakeholders in the disposal process—including local governments, non-profit organizations, and businesses—are often at odds over how to dispose of properties. In addition, Congress may be limited in its capacity to conduct oversight of the disposal process because it currently lacks access to reliable, comprehensive real property data. Four bills have been introduced in the 113th Congress that propose significant changes to the existing real property disposal system. The Federal Real Property Asset Management Reform Act of 2013 (S. 1398), would establish an expedited disposal program under which 200 properties would be exempt from time-consuming, statutory disposal requirements. In addition, S. 1398 would expand the role of an interagency workgroup, the Federal Real Property Council, to set disposal goals for agencies and monitor their progress in meeting those goals. The bill would also increase oversight of agency disposal activities by requiring the Administrator of the General Services Administration (GSA) to establish a real property database available to the public at no cost. The Excess Federal Building and Property Disposal Act of 2013 (H.R. 328) would establish an expedited disposal program under which the 15 unneeded federal properties with the highest fair market value would bypass statutory disposal requirements and be offered for sale immediately. H.R. 328 would also require the GSA Administrator to establish a real property database available to the public at no cost and provide a report to Congress on the progress each landholding agency has made in reducing its unneeded property. Two similar, but not identical, versions of the Civilian Property Realignment Act (H.R. 695, S. 1715) have been introduced. Both bills would have the same overarching structure. They would centralize the disposal process by establishing a Civilian Property Realignment Commission, which would work with agencies to develop a list of disposal recommendations to the President. If the President approved the recommendations, then they would be sent to Congress. If Congress passed a joint resolution of approval, then agencies would be required to implement the recommendations; if a joint resolution of approval was not passed, then the realignment process would end for the fiscal year.

Jun 16, 2014

Unaccompanied Alien Children: An Overview

This report discusses the immigration problem regarding the number of unaccompanied alien children (UAC) arriving in the United States borders. The report discusses the scope of the problem, current policy challenges, and the processing and treatment of the UAC apprehended.

Jun 13, 2014

Federal Workforce Statistics Sources: OPM and OMB

This report describes online tools, reports, and data compilations created by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) that contain statistics about federal employees and the federal workforce. The report also describes key characteristics of each resource and briefly discusses selected methodological differences, with the intention of facilitating the selection of appropriate data for specific purposes. This report is not intended to be a definitive list of all information on the federal workforce. It describes significant and recurring products that contain specific data often requested by Members or congressional staff.

Jun 10, 2014

Immigration: Visa Security Policies

The report includes an overview of visa issuance policy and explains the key provisions that guide the documentary requirements and approval/disapproval process.

Jun 9, 2014

The Veterans Health Administration and Medical Education: A Fact Sheet

Jun 6, 2014

The National Science Foundation: Background and Selected Policy Issues

This report includes background information about the National Science Foundation (NSF), providing an introduction to the foundation and its work as institutional context for ongoing congressional consideration of NSF policy and fiscal issues.

Jun 5, 2014

NASA Appropriations and Authorizations: A Fact Sheet

Jun 4, 2014

Export-Import Bank: Overview and Reauthorization Issues

This report provides: (1) a general background of Ex-Im Bank; (2) a discussion of the international context of the Bank; (3) analysis of key issues that Congress may consider in a reauthorization debate; and (4) the congressional outlook on Ex-Im Bank.

Jun 3, 2014

Estate and Gift Taxes for Nonresident Aliens

This report explains the major provisions of the federal estate and gift transfer taxes as they apply to transfers by nonresident aliens in 2014. Estate and gift taxes are two federal transfer taxes imposed on the passing of property title from one person or entity to another. The federal estate tax is levied on the transfer of property at death, while the federal gift tax is levied on the transfer of property during life by one individual to another while receiving nothing or less than full value in return. The following discussion provides basic principles regarding the computation of these two transfer taxes for this particular group of taxpayers. In determining estate and gift tax liability, the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) differentiates between the estates of citizens, resident aliens, and nonresident aliens. Under the estate tax regulations, a “resident” decedent is a decedent who, at the time of his death, had his domicile in the United States. A person acquires a domicile in a place by living there, for even a brief period of time, with no definite present intention of later leaving that place. The estates of resident aliens follow the same rules and regulations as do the estates of U.S. citizens to determine estate tax liability. However, the estates of nonresident aliens are taxed differently. The federal estate tax is measured by the size of the decedent’s estate. The tax is computed through a series of adjustments and modifications of a tax base known as the “gross estate.” Unlike the estates of U.S. citizens, the gross estates of nonresident aliens include only property “situated” in the United States. Certain allowable deductions reduce the gross estate to the “taxable estate,” to which is then added the total of all lifetime taxable gifts made by the decedent. Estates of citizens, resident aliens, and nonresident aliens share many deductions, including estate administration expenses, certain debts and losses, charitable bequests, and the amount of qualified transfers to a surviving spouse, although estates of nonresident aliens calculate some deductions differently. The tax rates are applied and, after reduction for certain allowable credits, the amount of tax owed by the estate is reached. The federal gift tax for nonresident aliens is a tax imposed on gratuitous transfers of U.S. real estate and tangible personal property situated in the United States during life. The tax seeks to account for transfers of property that would otherwise reduce the estate and accordingly estate tax liability at death. The donor’s tax liability of the gift depends upon the value of the “taxable gift.” The taxable gift is determined by reducing the gross value of the gift by the available deductions and exclusions. The major deductions and exclusions available for nonresident donors are the annual exclusion, the gift tax marital deduction, and the gift tax charitable deduction.

Jun 2, 2014

Tolling U.S. Highways

The failure of federal highway user taxes and fees to provide sufficient revenues to support even baseline surface transportation spending levels has encouraged Congress to consider expanded toll financing. Congress has cautiously encouraged increased use of tolling in recent transportation legislation, including the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21; P.L. 112-141). Recent projections of a $15 billion annual gap between revenue anticipated from taxes dedicated to surface transportation and the cost of maintaining the current federal surface transportation program have stimulated interest in changing tolling policy in conjunction with reauthorizing or replacing MAP-21. Congress could achieve an expansion of tolling in several ways. At one extreme, it could simply encourage additional tolling pilot projects and a further expansion of tolling-supported innovative finance, such as more loans for road and bridge construction through the U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT’s) Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) program, which would be repaid through user tolls. At the other extreme, Congress might authorize states to toll federal-aid highways as they see fit, or even require that Interstate Highway segments be converted to toll roads as they undergo reconstruction in the future, eventually turning all Interstates into toll roads. The amount of revenue that could be generated by tolling depends heavily on the way in which tolling is implemented. However, broader use of tolling faces a number of constraints. The costs of toll collection may exceed 10% of revenues, even if all tolls are collected electronically, not including the cost of physical infrastructure. This compares unfavorably to the cost of collecting the existing federal motor fuels taxes, estimated to be less than 1% of revenues. Many roads, even in urban areas, may not have sufficient traffic willing to pay a high enough toll to cover construction, maintenance, and toll collection costs. The availability of competing nontolled routes could lead to evasion if motorists consider tolls excessive. Efforts to make greater use of tolling are likely to draw attention to the federal role in regulating tolls. Under current law, federal approval is needed for initial implementation of tolls on roads and bridges that have received federal aid, but the federal government has no jurisdiction over toll rates. The law requires that bridge tolls “shall be just and reasonable,” but provides no mechanism for enforcing that provision. More widespread use of tolls is likely to raise significant questions about differences in states’ toll rates, preferential tolls for residents of particular jurisdictions, state attempts to collect tolls at borders rather than at internal locations where more residents would be affected, and the relationship between auto tolls and truck tolls. Congress may consider a more precise definition of the current “just and reasonable” requirement and clarify the role of DOT in enforcing tolling regulations and overseeing toll rates.

May 30, 2014

Federal Building and Facility Security: Frequently Asked Questions

This report discusses the security of federal government buildings and facilities that affect not only the daily operations of the federal government but also the health, well-being, and safety of federal employees and the public.

May 28, 2014

Corporate Expatriation, Inversions, and Mergers: Tax Issues

This report discusses relevant portions of the U.S. corporate income tax system and how inversions have commonly been structured. It also looks at how Congress and Department of the Treasury have reduced the benefits of inversions, including The American Jobs Creation Act, as well as post-2004 inversions and treasury regulations, and policy options.

May 27, 2014

Defense Acquisition Reform: Background, Analysis, and Issues for Congress

The Department of Defense (DOD) relies extensively on contractors to equip and support the U.S. military in peacetime and during military operations, obligating more than $300 billion on contracts in FY2013. Congress and the executive branch have long been frustrated with waste, mismanagement, and fraud in defense acquisitions and have spent significant resources attempting to reform and improve the process. These frustrations have led to numerous efforts to improve defense acquisitions. Since the end of World War II, every Administration and virtually every Secretary of Defense has embarked on an acquisition reform effort. Yet despite these efforts, cost overruns, schedule delays, and performance shortfalls in acquisition programs persist. A number of analysts have argued that the successive waves of acquisition reform have yielded only limited results due in large part to poor workforce management. Most reports have concluded that the key to good acquisitions is having a sufficiently sized and talented acquisition workforce and giving them the resources, incentives, and authority to do their job. Yet most of the reform efforts of the past decades have not sought to fundamentally and systematically address these workforce-related issues. Significant changes to the national security and industrial landscape in recent years, including consolidation of the defense industrial base and the increasing complexity of weapon systems, have led many analysts to call for a renewed effort to improve the acquisition process. Historically, eras of budgetary restraint have been associated with the pursuit and implementation of acquisition reform. Against the current backdrop of the Budget Control Act of 2011 and declines in defense spending, the stage may be set for a renewed effort to significantly improve defense acquisitions. Other factors contributing to a sense among analysts that the time may be ripe for reform include recent experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan and the increasing availability of data to drive decisions. In recent years, DOD has taken a number of steps to improve the process by which it buys goods and services, including rewriting the regulatory structure that governs defense acquisitions; launching the Better Buying Power and Better Buying Power II initiatives aimed at improving the productivity of the acquisition system and the industrial base; improving the use of data to support decision making; and establishing a team to develop a legislative proposal aimed at simplifying the laws and regulations governing defense acquisitions. Many analysts believe that what DOD can do on its own to improve acquisitions can only go so far—that significant, effective, and lasting acquisition reform will occur only with the active participation of Congress. Congress has been critical to advancing acquisition reform; such efforts as establishing the Federal Acquisition Regulation, creating Defense Acquisition University, streamlining acquisition regulations, and enacting the Goldwater-Nichols Act were the result of congressional action. Oversight issues for Congress include the extent to which the Weapon System Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-23) and the various DOD initiatives are having a positive effect on acquisitions, whether current reform efforts are sufficient to address concerns related to the acquisition workforce, and what additional steps, if any, Congress can take to further the effort to improve defense acquisitions.

May 23, 2014

Energy and Water Development: FY2015 Appropriations

This report discusses the Energy and Water Development appropriations bill that provides funding for civil works projects of the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), for the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), the Department of Energy (DOE), and several independent agencies.

May 23, 2014

Recently Expired Community Assistance Related Tax Provisions ("Tax Extenders"): In Brief

This report briefly summarizes four community assistance-related tax provisions included in the EXPIRE Act, which are (1) the New Markets Tax Credit, (2) Empowerment Zone Tax Incentives, (3) allocation of bond limitations for Qualified Zone Academy Bonds, and (4) the American Samoa Economic Development Credit.

May 22, 2014

Administrative Law Primer: Statutory Definitions of “Agency” and Characteristics of Agency Independence

Congress has created a variety of federal agencies to execute the law. To this end, agencies may adopt rules to implement laws and adjudicate certain disputes arising under such laws. As such, agencies enjoy considerable power to regulate different industries and affect the legal rights of people. In order to control the manner in which agencies operate, Congress has passed numerous statutes that impose procedural requirements on federal agencies. The Administrative Procedure Act, for example, dictates the procedures an agency must follow to establish a final, legally binding rule. Other statutes govern how agencies must operate internally with respect to hiring and labor practices, the maintenance of federal records, financial management, and a diverse range of other topics. However, Congress has not provided one definition of an agency. Rather, the term “agency” can mean different things in different contexts, depending on which statute is at issue. In order to understand how different statutes operate, therefore, one must know to which entities these laws actually apply. Aside from judicial and legislative branch agencies, most agencies can be broadly divided into two general categories—executive agencies and independent agencies. The former are considered to be under direct presidential control, and the latter are designed to be comparatively more independent from the President. To ensure this level of independence, Congress often provides an independent agency with structural characteristics designed to protect it from presidential interference. This report will first examine six common indicia of independence that such agencies often have in common. Next, the report will explore several important statutes that regulate agencies and these statutes’ respective definitions of “agency.” These statutes include the Administrative Procedure Act, the Freedom of Information Act, the Federal Records Act, statutes governing federal employees, and the Paperwork Reduction Act. In interpreting the reach of these statutes, courts have sometimes limited their application based on an agency’s operational proximity to the President, or how much control the executive branch has over the entity.

May 22, 2014

"Holds" in the Senate

This report discusses a wide range of proposals aimed at reforming holds (an informal practice among Senators to communicate policy views and scheduling preferences) to infuse more accountability, uniformity, and transparency in their use and to make it clear that holds are not a veto on the majority leader's prerogative of calling up measures or matters.

May 22, 2014

Prescription Drug Abuse

May 21, 2014

Navy LX(R) Amphibious Ship Program: Background and Issues for Congress

This report provides background information and issues for Congress on the LX(R) amphibious ship program, a Navy program to build a new class of 11 amphibious ships.

May 21, 2014

Fish and Wildlife Service: Compensation to Local Governments

Many counties are compensated for the presence of federal lands within their boundaries because these lands are exempt from local taxes. Counties with lands under the primary jurisdiction of the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) are compensated through the National Wildlife Refuge Fund (NWRF). Counties have argued that the program is underfunded; in some instances, counties raise lack of funding as an argument against the establishment of new refuges. At the same time, some hold that budget constraints argue for a reduction in the program. Congress has begun to examine the program for possible changes. Lands eligible for NWRF payments are largely in the National Wildlife Refuge System, but certain other FWS lands are included as well. Under the 1935 Refuge Revenue Sharing Act (16 U.S.C. §715s), NWRF was conceived as a program to share revenues from activities such as grazing or timber harvest on refuge lands, and such receipts are permanently appropriated to the fund. However, revenue-generating activities were (and are) often incompatible with refuge purposes and many refuges generate no revenue. In such situations, counties received no compensation from the federal government for the presence of the federal land. To address this perceived gap in the program, the law was amended in 1978 to add other payment criteria. Among these criteria was a payment option based on fair market value in the case of acquired lands. It became apparent almost immediately that revenues were not sufficient to meet the payment formula specified in the amended law. Congress has repeatedly appropriated additional funds to supplement the revenue stream. But the additional amounts appropriated have very rarely met the formula level, and never in the last decade. Recent Administration proposals for substantial funding reductions have intensified congressional interest. The Administration argues that the savings are justified and that refuges add few costs to counties and provide economic benefits from increased tourism. Under NWRF, payments are distributed through a complex formula to counties with FWS lands, with different formulas for lands reserved from the public domain (that is, obtained from a sovereign power) and acquired lands (that is, those purchased from or donated by any entity other than a sovereign power). In turn, public domain lands in the System are also eligible for Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT; 31 U.S.C. §6901), which provides additional payments to local governments. Acquired FWS lands are not eligible for PILT. When NWRF is not fully funded, the reluctance of some state and local governments to see lands within their boundaries acquired for addition to the System may be due in part to lost property tax revenues. As Congress debates changes in NWRF, several issues stand out as part of the debate: The NWRF payment formula is causing a rapid increase in authorized payment levels. Current NWRF receipts are sufficient to provide only a small fraction of the authorized formula, even without the increasing authorized payment levels. PILT payments, at least through FY2014, are mandatory spending, while NWRF payments are dependent on annual appropriations for the bulk of the program. PILT payments are provided only for public domain lands within the System, and not for other FWS lands.

May 21, 2014

Treatment of Noncitizens Under the Affordable Care Act

This report provides information regarding the treatment of noncitizens under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) including definitions of "lawfully present," the health insurance mandate, exchanges, and ACA changes to Medicaid. It also discusses the verification of alien status under the ACA and related legislation in the 113th Congress.

May 21, 2014

Nigeria's Boko Haram: Frequently Asked Questions

This report discusses Boko Haram, a violent Nigerian Islamist movement, that has grown increasingly active and deadly in its attacks against state and civilian targets in recent years.

May 20, 2014

Legislative Branch: FY2015 Appropriations

This report discusses the legislative branch appropriations bill that provides funding for the Senate, House of Representatives, Joint Items, Capitol Police, Office of Compliance, Congressional Budget Office (CBO), Architect of the Capitol (AOC), Library of Congress (LOC) -- including the Congressional Research Service (CRS) -- Government Printing Office (GPO), Government Accountability Office (GAO), and Open World Leadership Center.

May 20, 2014

H.R. 3080 and S. 601: Comparison of Select Provisions and Conference Developments

This report discusses the conference report H.Rept. 113-449 that would resolve differences between H.R. 3080, the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2013 (WRRDA 2013), and S. 601, the Water Resources Development Act of 2013 (WRDA 2013). Both bills represented omnibus authorization legislation for water resource activities, principally associated with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps).

May 19, 2014

Water Infrastructure Financing: Proposals to Create a Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) Program

This report discusses the "Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act," or WIFIA, program, which is one legislative option to finance water infrastructure projects.

May 16, 2014

Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Domestic Disaster Response Operations: Summary and Considerations for Congress

This report discusses deployable federal assets, which generally refers to specially-trained federal employees whose mission is to provide on-scene assistance to communities by supporting disaster response.

May 16, 2014

U.S. Foreign Trade in Services: Trends and U.S. Policy Challenges

May 15, 2014

Veterans' Medical Care: FY2015 Appropriations

This report focuses on funding for the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). The VHA is primarily a direct service provider of primary care, specialized care, and related medical and social support services to veterans through the nation's largest integrated health care system.

May 15, 2014

Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill: Recent Activities and Ongoing Developments

This report provides a summary update of selected issues related to the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

May 12, 2014

Airport Privatization: Issues and Options for Congress

This report discusses airport privatization, particularly the low participation in the Airport Privatization Pilot Program (APPP) and the policy changes that would be required to encourage more airports to privatize. It provides background on privatization in general, the APPP and reasons why it has not stimulated privatization, privatization in Europe and Canada, and related issues and options.

May 12, 2014

How Social Security Benefits Are Computed: In Brief

This report discusses how Social Security benefits are currently computed, including information about eligibility, earnings, cost-of-living adjustments, factors that can affect benefit levels, and benefits for dependents.

May 12, 2014

Reauthorization of the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act (STELA)

May 9, 2014

Afghanistan: Drug Trafficking and the 2014 Transition

Afghanistan is the world’s primary source of opium poppy cultivation and opium and heroin production, as well as a major global source of cannabis (marijuana) and cannabis resin (hashish). Drug trafficking, a long-standing feature of Afghanistan’s post-Taliban political economy, is linked to corruption and insecurity, and provides a source of illicit finance for non-state armed groups. Based on recent production and trafficking trends, the drug problem in Afghanistan appears to be worsening—just as the U.S. government finalizes plans for its future relationship with the government of Afghanistan in 2015 and beyond and reduces its counternarcotics operational presence in the country to Kabul, the national capital. As coalition combat operations in Afghanistan draw to a close in 2014, and as the full transition of security responsibilities to Afghan forces is achieved, some Members of the 113th Congress have expressed concern regarding the future direction and policy prioritization of U.S. counternarcotics efforts in Afghanistan in light of diminishing resources and an uncertain political and security environment in 2015 and beyond. According to the U.S. Counternarcotics Strategy for Afghanistan, released in late 2012, the U.S. government envisions a counternarcotics policy future that results in “two simultaneous and parallel transfers of responsibility.” Not only does it envision the transfer of security responsibility to Afghan forces, but also the transfer of counternarcotics programming responsibilities and law enforcement operational activities to the Afghan government. Assuming a reduced U.S. security presence and limited civilian mobility throughout the country, the U.S. government is also increasingly emphasizing a regional approach to combating Afghan drugs. Although some counternarcotics efforts, including eradication and alternative development programming, are already implemented by the government of Afghanistan or by local contractors, others may require a two- to five-year time horizon, or potentially longer, before a complete transition would be feasible, according to Administration officials. Some counternarcotics initiatives are only in their infancy, including the Defense Department’s plans to establish a new Regional Narcotics Analysis and Illicit Trafficking Task Force (RNAIT-TF). Other activities, particularly those that required a significant presence at the local and provincial levels, are anticipated to be reduced or limited in scope. The 113th Congress continues to monitor drug trafficking trends in Afghanistan and evaluate U.S. policy responses. Both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives held hearings on the topic in early 2014 and included provisions in FY2014 appropriations (P.L. 113-76) that limit the scope of and resources devoted to future counternarcotics efforts in Afghanistan. The Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) has also identified narcotics as a “critical issue” for policy makers. This report describes key U.S. counternarcotics programs in Afghanistan in the context of the 2014 transition and analyzes policy issues related to these programs for Congress to consider as policy makers examine the drug problem in Afghanistan. The report’s Appendix contains historical figures and tables on trends in Afghan drug cultivation, production, and trafficking.

May 9, 2014

Federal Holidays: Evolution and Current Practices

The United States has established by law the following 11 permanent federal holidays, listed in the order they appear in the calendar: New Year’s Day, Martin Luther King Jr.’s Birthday, Inauguration Day (every four years following a presidential election), George Washington’s Birthday, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Columbus Day, Veterans Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas Day. Although frequently called public or national holidays, these celebrations are only legally applicable to federal employees and the District of Columbia, as the states individually decide their own legal holidays. The first four congressionally designated federal holidays were created in 1870, when Congress granted paid time off to federal workers in the District of Columbia for New Year’s Day, Independence Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas Day. In 1880, George Washington’s Birthday was included. In 1885, Congress extended holiday coverage for some holidays to all federal employees. Although Thanksgiving Day was included in the first holiday bill of 1870, it was not until 1941 that Congress specifically designated the fourth Thursday of November as the official date. Since 1888, Congress has added six federal holidays, creating Decoration Day (now Memorial Day) in 1888, Labor Day in 1894, Armistice Day (now Veterans Day) in 1938, Inauguration Day in 1957 (quadrennially and only celebrated in the District of Columbia), Columbus Day in 1968, and Martin Luther King Jr.’s Birthday in 1983. In 1954, Armistice Day was broadened to honor Americans who fought in World War II and the Korean conflict, and the name of the holiday was changed to Veterans Day. In 1968, the Uniform Monday Holiday Act was enacted to “provide for uniform annual observances” of Washington’s Birthday, Memorial Day, and Veterans Day. Additionally, the Monday Holiday Law established Columbus Day to be celebrated on the second Monday in October. In 1975, Veterans Day celebrations were returned to November 11 by Congress.

May 9, 2014

S. 2262, Shaheen-Portman Bill 2014: Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act

This report reviews the provisions of S. 2262, highlights the most controversial bill provision, and identifies potential amendments to the bill.

May 8, 2014

Provisions in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 as an Alternative to a Traditional Budget Resolution

The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 (P.L. 113-67) included as Title I, Subtitle B, a section titled, “Establishing a Congressional Budget” designed to serve as a substitute for a traditional congressional budget resolution for FY2014 and potentially for FY2015. This report provides an explanation of such provisions, highlights how those provisions compare with a traditional budget resolution, and places them within the context of the budget process for FY2014 and FY2015.This report assumes a general understanding of the congressional budget process. For more information on the budget resolution and the congressional budget process generally, see CRS Report 98-721, Introduction to the Federal Budget Process, coordinated by Bill Heniff Jr.

May 8, 2014

Surface Transportation Program Reauthorization Issues for Congress

May 7, 2014

FEMA’s Disaster Relief Fund: Overview and Selected Issues

The Robert T. Stafford Emergency Relief and Disaster Assistance Act (P.L. 93-288, as amended) authorizes the President to issue declarations for incidents ranging from destructive, large-scale disasters to more routine, less damaging events. Declarations trigger federal assistance in the forms of various response and recovery programs under the Stafford Act to state, local, and tribal governments. The Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA’s) Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) is the primary funding source for disaster response and recovery. Funds from the DRF are used to pay for ongoing recovery projects from disasters occurring in previous fiscal years, meet current emergency requirements, and as a reserve to pay for upcoming incidents. The DRF is funded annually and is a “no-year” account, meaning that unused funds from the previous fiscal year (if available) are carried over to the next fiscal year. In general, when the balance of the DRF becomes low, Congress provides additional funding through both annual and supplemental appropriations to replenish the account. The federal government provides a significant amount of money to state and local governments each year for emergency and major disasters. For example, Congress provided roughly $120 billion for Hurricane Katrina and $60 billion for Hurricane Sandy recovery. Even in years with relatively few major disasters, it is not uncommon for the federal government to annually appropriate between $2 billion and $6 billion to help pay for recovery projects. Studies and analyses of disasters indicate that there has been an uptick in the number of major disasters declared each year. In addition, scholars of disaster policy and other experts such as climatologists expect disasters to increase in both frequency and in costs in the near future. Federal disaster assistance expenditures are influenced by both external and internal factors. External factors that increase federal spending on disaster costs include increases in the frequency and magnitude of weather related events, and increases in population size and development—especially in coastal and other flood prone areas. Internal factors also influence how much assistance is provided and include disaster assistance policies that have evolved over time that have expanded the federal role in emergency and major disaster declarations such as altering declaration criteria and adjusting the federal cost-share for response and recovery. Congressional interest in disaster assistance has always been high given the amount of money provided to states and localities, but also because of increasing disagreements over the appropriate role of the federal government in providing assistance. Other congressional concerns include the use of supplemental appropriations to pay for disaster relief, offsetting expenditures for disaster assistance, and whether some of the federal burden for disaster assistance should be shifted to states and localities. This report describes the declaration process and the types of declarations that can be issued under the Stafford Act: (1) emergency and major disaster declarations, and (2) Fire Management Assistance Grants. The report also examines how the DRF is financed. This discussion is followed by an analysis concerning the issues related to the DRF including the debate over supplemental appropriations, how the DRF is budgeted, and the influence the Budget Control Act has had on the DRF. Some argue that the current method of funding and providing federal assistance for disaster response and recovery is functioning correctly and should not be changed. Others argue that the federal government should increase the amount of funding provided to states and localities for emergency and major disaster declarations. Still others argue that policy options that reduce federal costs for emergency and major disaster declarations or reduce the number of supplemental appropriations needed (or both) should be pursued. Policy proposals that could help achieve these ends include: appropriating more funds for the DRF to reduce the need for supplemental funding, restructuring the budget procedures for disaster assistance, creating alternative funding methods such as a rainy-day fund or a contingency fund, reducing federal costs by eliminating unrelated spending in disaster funding bills, altering policies that would limit the number of declarations issued each year, and converting some or all disaster assistance to disaster loans. This report concludes with policy questions that may help frame future discussions concerning federal emergency and disaster relief. This report will be updated as events warrant.

May 7, 2014

U.S. International Broadcasting: Background and Issues for Reform

Since the beginning of modern U.S. international broadcasting during World War II, debates over the effectiveness, strategic direction, and necessity of broadcasting activities have persisted. Since the creation of the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), arguments over its structure have only added to these debates, producing a number of reform efforts. Many Members of Congress have consistently shown concerted interest in U.S. international broadcasting, conducting oversight over the BBG and its individual broadcasters, and calling for increased resources and programming for certain regions, countries, and language services. On April 28, 2014, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Edward Royce introduced the United States International Communications Reform Act of 2014 (H.R. 4490), which would change the structure of U.S. international broadcasting, suggesting that this issue might receive increased congressional attention during the second session of the 113th Congress. With the enactment of the United States International Broadcasting Act of 1994 (USIB Act), all existing U.S. international broadcasting services were consolidated under the BBG within the United States Information Agency (USIA). In 1998, Congress passed legislation establishing the BBG as an independent entity within the executive branch at the same time that it incorporated USIA’s functions into the State Department. The BBG is composed of eight presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed members, with the Secretary of State serving as ninth member ex officio and providing foreign policy information and guidance to the Board. By ensuring broadcasting independence while at the same time institutionalizing guidance from the Secretary of State, the USIB Act aims to produce U.S. international broadcasting that is both credible and supportive of U.S. foreign policy objectives. The BBG has responsibility for supervising, directing, and overseeing the operations of the International Broadcasting Bureau (IBB), the Voice of America (VOA), and the Office of Cuba Broadcasting (OCB, operating the Radio and TV Martí services to Cuba), as well as funding and oversight of the grantee broadcasters Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), Radio Free Asia (RFA), and the Middle East Broadcasting Networks (MBN). Current Issues Facing the BBG and U.S. International Broadcasting Many observers perceive the BBG as a flawed structure that is inefficient, duplicative in its activities, and ineffective. A number of issues concerning the BBG and U.S. international broadcasting continue to spark debate, including problems with Board operations and the possible need to create a new position for executive leadership; recommendations for the strategic direction and allocation of resources in U.S. international broadcasting; the effect of shifts in information communication technologies, especially the importance of the Internet and digital media, on U.S. international broadcasters; proposals for improving the efficiency of U.S. international broadcasting, including possible consolidation of the several U.S. international broadcast entities; continuing disagreements over the role of U.S. international broadcasting in advancing U.S. foreign policy goals and promoting democracy; and assessment and improvement of U.S. international broadcasting effectiveness. H.R. 4490 addresses many of these issues through a significant restructuring of the BBG and U.S. international broadcasting.

May 2, 2014

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2013 and FY2014 Appropriations

The Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill includes funding for most of the Department of the Interior (DOI) and for agencies within other departmentsincluding the Forest Service within the Department of Agriculture and the Indian Health Service within the Department of Health and Human Services. It also provides funding for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), arts and cultural agencies, and numerous other entities. For FY2014, $30.12 billion was appropriated for the approximately 30 agencies and entities typically funded in the annual Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations law. This total included appropriations in P.L. 113-76, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, and additional funding for Wildland Fire Management in P.L. 113-46, the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2014. For the 10 major DOI agencies in Title I of the bill, the appropriation was $10.47 billion, or 34.8% of the total enacted. For EPA, funded by Title II of the bill, the appropriation was $8.20 billion, or 27.2% of the total. For about 20 agencies and other entities typically funded in Title III of the bill, the appropriation was $11.44 billion, or 38.0% of the total. The FY2014 total appropriation was an increase of $431.5 million (1.5%) over the total FY2013 appropriation of $29.69 billion. This FY2013 level included full-year and supplemental appropriations, and reflected reductions from sequestration and an across-the-board rescission. Excluding supplemental appropriations for FY2013 for disaster relief (in P.L. 113-2), the FY2014 appropriation was an increase of $1.80 billion (6.4%) over the $28.32 billion FY2013 appropriation. In addition, relative to FY2012 appropriations of $29.23 billion, the FY2014 appropriation was an increase of $891.4 million (3.0%). Neither the House nor Senate Appropriations Committee reported a regular appropriations bill for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies for FY2014. However, the FY2014 appropriation was $5.78 billion (23.7%) more than the $24.34 billion in a House Interior Appropriations Subcommittee draft, but $717.0 million (2.3%) less than the $30.84 billion in a draft of the leaders of the Senate Interior Appropriations Subcommittee. Further, as compared with the Presidents request of $29.91 billion, the FY2014 appropriation was $206.3 million (0.7%) higher. Because a FY2014 appropriations bill for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies had not been enacted at the start of the fiscal year on October 1, 2013, agencies funded by the bill initially received FY2014 appropriations under a short-term continuing resolution (P.L. 113-46, extended by P.L. 113-73). The continuing resolution generally extended appropriations for continuing projects and activities at the FY2013 post-sequestration, post-rescission levels. The law provided exceptions for Wildland Fire Management. The enactment of P.L. 113-46 ended the funding gap and partial government shutdown that began on October 1, 2013.

May 1, 2014

Selected Recently Expired Business Tax Provisions ("Tax Extenders")

This report briefly summarizes and discusses the economic impact of selected business-related tax provisions that expired at the end of 2013 and that are being considered for extension.

Apr 30, 2014

House Standing Committees’ Rules on Legislative Activities: Analysis for the 113th Congress

Rule XI, clause 2(a)(1) directs each standing committee to adopt written rules governing its procedure. This paragraph continues: Such rules ... (B) may not be inconsistent with the Rules of the House or with those provisions of law having the force and effect of Rules of the House.... Rule XI, clause 1(a)(1)(A) in addition states: The Rules of the House are the rules of its committees and subcommittees so far as applicable. Finally, Rule XI, clause1(a)(1)(B) subordinates subcommittees to the committee of which they are a part: Each subcommittee is a part of its committee and is subject to the authority and direction of that committee and to its rules, so far as applicable. Many provisions of House rules applicable to committee procedures appear in Rule XI, which also includes procedures specifically applicable to the Committee on Ethics. Rule X contains the legislative and oversight jurisdiction of standing committees, several clauses on committee operations, and a clause specifically addressing the jurisdiction and operation of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Rule XII concerns the referral of legislation and related matters. In addition to calendars, Rule XIII addresses the filing and content of committee reports. Each House standing committee implements these rules, and select provisions of other House rules, in adopting its rules. Variety as well as consistency in committee rules is analyzed in this report as the rules relate to legislative activities, principally hearings, oversight, and markups. Administrative provisions in House and committee rules are not analyzed. Provisions of committee rules on legislative activities are clustered by topic, rather than by House rule number. In adopting their rules for the 113th Congress, committees in some instances adopted House rules unchanged, and in other instances adapted House rules to their own needs where they had discretion to do so. Committee rules change incrementally from one Congress to the next, with a committee typically making several amendments to its rules from the preceding Congress. Variations in key committee rules are highlighted in five tables: referring measures or matters to subcommitteeswhether the chair may or must refer legislation to a subcommittee, the time frame within which a decision must be made, and where authority to discharge a subcommittee resides; scheduling hearings and meetingscommittees regular meeting day and time, authority to schedule additional meetings, and authority to cancel meetings; hearingsquorum requirements, extending witness questioning time, and order of questioning witnesses; subpoenascommittee authority, chair authority, ranking minority Member authority, and notification to committee members of issuance of a subpoena; and record votesobtaining a record vote, and postponing further proceedings when a record vote is requested. See CRS Report RS20794, The Committee System in the U.S. Congress, by Judy Schneider, for an explanation of the types of committees. See also CRS Report R40233, House Ad Hoc Select Committees with Legislative Authority: An Analysis, by Michael L. Koempel; and CRS Report 96-708, Conference Committee and Related Procedures: An Introduction, by Elizabeth Rybicki.

Apr 30, 2014

Community Development Block Grants and Related Programs: A Primer

The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), was first authorized by Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, P.L. 93-383 (42 U.S.C. 5301, et seq.). The program is one of the largest and longest-standing federal block grants in existence, annually allocating billions of dollars in federal assistance to state and local governments in support of local neighborhood revitalization, housing rehabilitation, and community and economic development efforts. During the program’s 40-year existence, Congress has allocated approximately $145 billion in CDBG formula grants to help state and local governments undertake these activities. The block grant nature of the program provides recipient jurisdictions fairly substantial administrative discretion. Funds are awarded by formula to so-called “entitlement communities” and states, who act as pass-through agents awarding funds to small communities unable to meet the minimum population threshold for entitlement status. During FY2013, approximately 1,237 entitlement communities and states qualified for a direct allocation of funds. Grant funds may be used to undertake any of 27 categories of eligible activities, including the acquisition, demolition, and sale of real property; the construction of public facilities; the undertaking of public services; historic preservation; energy conservation; and the provision of assistance to for-profit and not-for-profit entities in support of private-sector job creation. Although communities and states are given great discretion and flexibility in the selection of activities to be funded, the program’s governing statute requires that all activities meet one of three national objectives. Eligible activities must: principally benefit low or moderate income persons; aid in preventing or eliminating slums or blight; or address an imminent threat to the health and safety of residents. In addition, the act quantifies the “principally low and moderate income persons” (LMI) benefits national objective by requiring each entitlement community and state to expend in the aggregate, over a one-, two-, or three-year period, at least 70% of its CDBG allocation on activities that principally benefit low and moderate income persons. Before undertaking program activities, a recipient of funds must develop a consolidated plan assessing its current housing and non-housing community development conditions and it must propose a plan to address the community’s housing and community development needs. Grant recipients are also required to submit to HUD an annual performance report detailing progress that has been made in achieving proposed outcomes and identifying the status of activities identified in its annual plan. In addition to the CDBG formula portion of the program, HUD administers a number of smaller grant and loan guarantee programs intended to support or augment the activities and objectives of the larger CDBG formula grant program. These programs support regional planning, the reclamation of brownfields, rural housing, and the provision of technical assistance to community development corporations and community housing development organizations. Critics have contended that many of these programs duplicate the activities of the CDBG formula grant program. This report is intended as a primer to acquaint the reader with a basic understanding of CDBG and related programs. In-depth policy discussions and funding history may be found in other CRS products, including CRS Report R43208, Community Development Block Grants: Funding Issues in the 113th Congress, and CRS Report R43394, Community Development Block Grants: Recent Funding History. This report will be updated as events warrant.

Apr 30, 2014

Genetically Engineered Salmon

This report discusses the genetically modified salmon. The term “genetic modification” refers to changes in an organism’s genetic makeup that do not occur in nature. Also, if approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Atlantic salmon would be the first genetically engineered (GE) animal to be marketed in the United States for human consumption.

Apr 30, 2014

EPA’s Proposed Wood Stove / Wood Heater Regulations: Frequently Asked Questions

On January 3, 2014, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released proposed emission standards for new residential wood heaters, the most common of which are wood stoves, pellet stoves, hydronic heaters, and forced air furnaces. The proposal, which would revise standards for wood stoves and pellet stoves and establish standards for other types of wood heaters for the first time, appeared in the Federal Register on February 3. This began a public comment period that is scheduled to run until May 5, 2014. According to EPA, smoke from wood heaters contributes hundreds of thousands of tons of fine particles to the air throughout the country each year, accounting for nearly 25% of all area source air toxics cancer risks and 15% of non-cancer respiratory effects. In many areas, in wintertime, wood heaters are the largest source of particulate air pollution; yet many heater types are not currently subject to any federal emission standard. The proposed rule would only gradually reduce this pollution, because it would apply only to new heaters (not those already in use) and it would give the industry a five-year grace period before its most stringent standards would take effect. Wood heaters can last for 40 years or more, so it will be decades before the full health benefits of the rule would be attained. Nevertheless, the rule would eliminate an estimated 210 to 470 premature deaths annually in the 2014-2022 period, according to EPA, as well as reduce hospital admissions and lost work days due to respiratory illness. EPA quantifies these benefits at $1.8 billion to $4.2 billion per year during the 2014-2022 period, more than 100 times the agencys estimate of the annualized cost to manufacturers, $15.7 million. Trade associations representing the affected industries and companies in the industry have mixed views of the proposed standards. While supporting revision of the current standards and the inclusion of additional heater types, they express concern that the standards as proposed will impose too great a cost. Facing higher costs for new units, homeowners will continue to use current, highly polluting equipment, rather than replace it, the industry maintains. Many have also expressed concerns regarding the process to be used in certifying compliance and the short period of time in which currently available units could be tested and certified. These concerns, as well as the widely acknowledged health effects, have generated substantial interest in the proposed rule in areas where wood stoves are used as heating sources, and Members of Congress from those areas have written EPA to express concerns regarding the proposed rules possible impacts. The subject has also been raised during hearings on EPAs FY2015 appropriation request, and legislation (H.R. 4407) has been introduced to place limits on EPAs authority to set the standards. This report addresses some of the most frequent questions raised concerning the proposal, in order to provide basic information about EPAs action, its potential impacts, and industry and other reactions to the rule.

Apr 29, 2014

Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards

On March 3, 2014, the Environmental Protection Agency finalized new (Tier 3) emission standards for light duty (and some larger) motor vehicles. Light duty vehicles include cars, SUVs, vans, and most pickup trucks. Phase-in of the standards will begin with Model Year 2017. By the time Tier 3 is fully implemented in Model Year 2025, the standards for light duty vehicles will require reductions of about 80% in tailpipe emissions of non-methane organic gases and nitrogen oxides (both of which contribute to the formation of ground-level ozone) and of about 70% in tailpipe emissions of particulates. Ozone and particulates are the most widespread air pollutants in the United States. Both contribute to respiratory illness and premature mortality. EPA estimates that implementation of the standards will reduce premature mortality by 770 to 2,000 persons annually, as well as providing reductions in hospital admissions, lost work days, school absences, and restricted activity days for persons with respiratory illness. Assigning monetary values to these benefits, EPA estimates the annual benefits at between $6.7 billion and $19 billion in 2030. Like the current Tier 2 standards, which were promulgated in 2000 and phased in between Model Years 2004 and 2009, the Tier 3 standards treat vehicles and fuels as a system: reductions in vehicle emissions are easier to achieve if the fuel used contains less sulfur. The Tier 3 standards will require that gasoline contain no more than 10 parts per million (ppm) sulfur on an annual average basis beginning January 1, 2017, down from 30 ppm under the Tier 2 program. The fuel standards will match limits already attained in California and in much of the world, including the European Union, Japan, and Korea, and proposed for adoption in China. Further, the rule extends the required useful life of emission control equipment from 120,000 miles to 150,000 miles, and sets standards for heavier duty gasoline-powered vehicles. The standards will also require about a 50% reduction in evaporative emissions (some of which also contribute to ozone formation and/or cause health problems directly). EPA estimates the cost of the rules at $1.1 billion annually in 2017 to $1.5 billion annually in 2030. The agency estimates that the rule will add $33 to $88 to the cost of a new vehicle, and less than one cent to the price of a gallon of gasoline. The effect on gasoline prices has been the most controversial issue: the American Petroleum Institute contends that the tighter sulfur controls will impose almost $10 billion in refinery capital expenditures and increase gasoline manufacturing costs by 6 to 9 cents per gallon. But, in addition to EPA, at least two studies by third-party consultants conclude that the costs will be far less than APIs estimate. To address refining industry concerns, the final rule will allow a three-year delay in compliance for small refiners. It also includes averaging, banking, and trading programs that will give the refining industry some flexibility in meeting the standards. The auto industry is generally supportive of the rulefive auto companies, five trade groups, and the United Auto Workers union have issued statements of support, and a GM executive joined the EPA Administrator as she announced the standards. The standards facilitate the adoption of new technologies necessary to meet greenhouse gas standards already promulgated by EPA. In addition, California and 12 other states have already adopted tailpipe standards similar to Tier 3. Proponents contend that the harmonization of national standards eliminates the threat of a patchwork of state requirements and decreases compliance costs by preserving a unified national market. Many in Congress have expressed concern about the potential impacts of the rule. As a result, Congress can be expected to continue oversight as the rule is implemented.

Apr 28, 2014