CRS Reports

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2020 Appropriations

The Agriculture appropriations bill funds the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) except for the U.S. Forest Service. It also funds the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and—in even-numbered fiscal years—the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). Agriculture appropriations include both mandatory and discretionary spending. Discretionary amounts, though, are the primary focus during the bill’s development. The largest discretionary spending items are the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC); agricultural research; rural development; FDA; foreign food assistance and trade; farm assistance loans and salaries; food safety inspection; animal and plant health programs; and technical assistance for conservation programs. In the absence of an enacted full-year appropriation, FY2020 began on October 1, 2019, under a continuing resolution (P.L. 116-59, Division A). For the regular annual appropriation, the Trump Administration requested in March 2019 $19.2 billion for discretionary-funded accounts within the jurisdiction of Agriculture appropriations subcommittees. The request would be a reduction of $4.1 billion from FY2019 (-18%). On June 4, 2019, the House Appropriations Committee reported a stand-alone Agriculture appropriations bill (H.R. 3164, H.Rept. 116-107) by a vote of 29-21. On June 25, 2019, the House passed a five-bill minibus appropriation with Agriculture as Division B (H.R. 3055). The discretionary total of the House-passed Agriculture appropriations bill is $24.3 billion. This is $1 billion more (+4%) than the comparable amount that was enacted for FY2019 and $5.1 more (+27%) than the Administration’s request. On September 19, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported its Agriculture appropriations bill (S. 2522, S.Rept. 116-110) by a vote of 31-0. The discretionary total of the Senate-reported bill is $23.1 billion. This is $58 million more than the FY2019 appropriation (+0.3%), $4.2 billion more than the Administration’s request, and $893 million less than the House-passed bill on a comparable amount without CFTC (-3.7%). The primary components of the $1 billion increase in the House-passed bill from FY2019 include increases to rural development accounts by $412 million (+14%, primarily for rural water, broadband, and housing), a rural broadband pilot program by $393 million (+314%), foreign agricultural assistance by $377 million (+19%), departmental administration by $205 million (+53%, primarily for construction to renovate USDA headquarters), agricultural research programming by $197 million (+6%), and FDA appropriations by $185 million (+6%). Reductions in budget authority include decreases to agricultural research buildings and facilities funding by -$331 million, rescinding WIC carryover balances an additional -$300 million, and eliminating temporary funding for international food assistance by -$216 million (with a larger increase to the base appropriation, as noted above in foreign agricultural assistance). The primary differences that comprise the -$893 million difference in the Senate-reported bill from the House-passed bill include providing agricultural research $193 million more than in the House bill and department administration accounts $123 million more than in the House bill. These greater allowances are more than offset by providing rural development $407 million less than in the House bill (largely from rural water and waste disposal grants), rural broadband in the General Provisions title $518 million less than in the House bill, foreign agricultural assistance $159 million less than in the House bill, and FDA $105 million less than the House bill. Discretionary Agriculture Appropriations, by Title, FY2019-FY2020 / Source: CRS, using P.L. 116-6 (Division B), House-passed H.R. 3055 (Division B), and Senate-reported S. 2522. Note: FDA = Food and Drug Administration, CFTC = Commodity Futures Trading Commission. For comparability, includes CFTC in Related Agencies in all columns regardless of jurisdiction. The appropriation also carries mandatory spending that is largely determined in separate authorizing laws. These mandatory spending amounts total nearly $131 billion in the House-passed bill and $129 billion in the Senate-reported bill. Thus, the overall total of the FY2020 Agriculture appropriation would be about $155 billion in the House-passed bill and $152 billion in the Senate-reported bill. Policy provisions may also be included that affect how the appropriation is delivered. This year, these provisions include issues such as the relocation of USDA agencies, disaster programs, rural definitions, livestock regulations, nutrition programs, and dietary guidelines. Budget sequestration continues to affect mandatory agricultural spending accounts. Sequestration refers to automatic across-the-board reductions in spending authority. In FY2020, sequestration on mandatory spending accounts is 5.9% and totals about $1.4 billion for agriculture accounts. Recent budget acts have extended sequestration through FY2029.

Oct 18, 2019

The Impact of the Federal Income Tax on Poverty: Before and After the 2017 Tax Revision (“TCJA”; P.L. 115-97)

The federal individual income tax is structured so that the poor owe little or no income tax. In addition, the federal individual income tax (hereinafter referred to simply as the income tax) increases the disposable income of many poor families via refundable tax credits—primarily the earned income tax credit (EITC) and the refundable portion of the child tax credit, referred to as the additional child tax credit, or ACTC. These credits are explicitly designed to benefit low-income families with workers and children and can significantly boost families’ disposable income, lifting many of these families above the poverty line. Using the federal government’s Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM), CRS estimates that under current law, the income tax reduced total poverty by 15% (from 14.5% in poverty to 12.3% in poverty). The impact of the income tax on the overall poverty rate was larger than the impact of many needs-tested benefits programs targeted toward the poor. In contrast, the income tax’s ability to lift the poorest Americans out of poverty—to reduce the “poverty gap”—was limited in comparison to many needs-tested programs. (The poverty gap is the difference between the poverty threshold and a family’s disposable income, aggregated over all poor families, and is a measure of the degree of poverty.) CRS estimates that under current law, the income tax reduced the poverty gap by about $13.9 billion annually (from $150.8 billion to $136.9 billion), approximately half the effect of other needs-tested programs. Virtually all of the poverty reduction from the income tax—both in terms of reducing poverty rates and the poverty gap—was concentrated among families with children and workers. For example, CRS estimates that poverty among children who lived in families with workers fell by almost 40% (from 14.7% in poverty to 8.9% in poverty) as a result of the income tax. For nonaged (i.e., nonelderly) adults in families with children and workers, poverty fell by almost a third (from 12.3% in poverty to 8.3% in poverty). (In contrast, CRS estimates that the poverty rates among individuals who lived in families with no workers were unchanged by the income tax.) Similarly, all of the estimated $13.9 billion in poverty gap reduction from the current income tax occurred among families with children and workers. The current income tax includes the effects of legislative changes made by P.L. 115-97, commonly referred to as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA). The TCJA made numerous changes to the federal income tax system, including many that affect individuals and families. A comparison of the effect of the current income tax (i.e., the post-TCJA income tax) and the pre-TCJA income tax on poverty rates and the poverty gap (assuming all else unchanged) provides one measure of the law’s impact on poverty. CRS estimates suggest that the TCJA marginally reduced poverty rates and the poverty gap, with the impact of the post-TCJA income tax similar to the impact of the pre-TCJA income tax. This suggests the law provided relatively small benefits to poor families. Insofar as policymakers are interested in expanding the antipoverty impact of the income tax, they could expand or modify the EITC or ACTC, or create new refundable tax credits targeted toward the poor. However, refundable tax credits are subject to several limitations as a poverty reduction policy: the current credits primarily benefit those who work (and have children), limiting their ability to reduce poverty among those who do not or cannot work; they are received only once a year when income tax returns are filed, limiting their ability to help the poor meet ongoing basic needs; and they are difficult for the IRS to administer, subjecting the credits and their recipients to additional scrutiny. Overview of the Estimated Antipoverty Impact of the Federal Income Tax Estimated Before-Tax and After-Tax Poverty Rates for Selected Individuals After Tax Individual by Family Type Before Tax Current Law Income Tax (Post-TCJA) Prior Law Income Tax (Pre-TCJA) All Individuals Living in Families of All Types 14.5% 12.3% 12.5% Children 17.5% 12.0% 12.3% Nonaged Adults in Families with Children 14.5% 10.6% 10.8% Individuals Living in Families with Workers 10.8% 8.1% 8.3% Children 14.7% 8.9% 9.2% Nonaged Adults in Families with Children 12.3% 8.3% 8.5% Individuals Living in Families with No Workers 34.7% 34.7% 34.7% Children 64.1% 64.1% 64.1% Nonaged Adults in Families with Children 64.3% 64.3% 64.3% Estimated Before-Tax and After-Tax Poverty Gap for Selected Poor Families After Tax Family Type Before Tax ($ in billions) Current Law Income Tax (Post-TCJA) ($ in billions) Prior Law Income Tax (Pre-TCJA) ($ in billions) All Poor Families 150.8 136.9 138.1 Poor Families with Children 52.3 38.3 39.1 With Workers 37.8 23.9 24.7 With No Workers 14.5 14.5 14.5 Poor Families with Aged Adults, but no Children 29.5 29.6 29.6 Poor Families without Children or Aged Adults 69.1 69.0 69.4 Source: CRS estimates using TRIM3 and the ASEC 2017. For methodology, see Appendix A. Note: The 2018 parameters of the current-law income tax (post-TCJA) and the prior-law income tax (pre-TCJA) are modeled. Due to data limitations, the impacts of the federal income tax in effect in 2018 (both pre- and post-TCJA) are modeled as if they were in effect in 2016. Items may not sum to totals due to rounding.

Oct 17, 2019

CFIUS: New Foreign Investment Review Regulations

Oct 16, 2019

Broadband Data and Mapping: Background and Issues for the 116th Congress

Access to high-speed internet, also known as broadband, is increasingly important in the 21st century, as more and more aspects of everyday life, such as job applications and homework assignments, become digital. Some areas of the United States—particularly rural areas—have limited or no access to broadband due to market, geographic, or demographic factors. The gap between those who have access to broadband and those who do not is referred to as the digital divide. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), and Rural Utilities Service (RUS) have developed maps to help guide resources toward closing the digital divide. Since 2018, the FCC has had the responsibility for developing a comprehensive map of broadband access in the United States. However, the data available to determine where to invest resources may be incomplete or inaccurate. For example, the FCC’s current methodology considers a census block served if at least one home or business in that census block has broadband access. In addition, the data is self-reported by broadband service providers and not independently verified outside the FCC. On August 1, 2019, the FCC adopted a Report and Order introducing a new process, called the Digital Opportunity Data Collection (DODC), for collecting fixed broadband data. The new process would require broadband service providers to provide geospatial broadband coverage maps—which provide greater granularity than census blocks—indicating where fixed broadband service is actually made available. The new process would also implement a crowdsourcing mechanism for public feedback, as individual consumers will likely know whether they have access to broadband. The FCC also adopted a Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), seeking comment on issues including the need for additional granularity and the potential sunset of the current data collection process upon complete implementation of the DODC. As the FCC implements the DODC process, Congress has a wide variety of options for oversight and legislation. For example, Congress may continue to consider issues such as the optimal level of data granularity, the process for independent validation, and costs and burdens of broadband data collection on both consumers and broadband service providers. Congress could consider providing federal funding for a broadband mapping pilot to thoroughly assess these factors and assist in determining how to strike the desired balance, as well as exploring what funding levels for ongoing broadband map maintenance would be sustainable and where the necessary funding would come from. Congress may debate whether to leave factors within the proposed DODC, such as the current delegation of broadband data collection authority to the Universal Service Administrative Company, to the discretion of the FCC, or Congress may wish to enact legislation to keep broadband data collection efforts under the purview of the FCC. To assist with future federal action, Congress may take into consideration successful state broadband mapping efforts, which could provide additional insight into models that could be replicated on a national scale. Congress may continue to debate potential short-term and long-term broadband mapping solutions, including whether federal funding for rural broadband expansion should be withheld until mapping issues are resolved. In conjunction, Congress may also contemplate whether to provide oversight over federal agency broadband activities or enact legislation regarding interagency coordination efforts on broadband deployment to reduce the potential for duplicative funding. Another consideration for Congress may be whether the FCC’s Fixed Broadband Deployment Map could be updated more frequently so that data reflects continuing network changes and, if so, whether that would impose a significant burden on broadband service providers. Bills addressing many of these broadband mapping issues have been introduced in the 116th Congress, including the Save the Internet Act of 2019 (H.R. 1644), passed by the House on April 10, 2019, and the ACCESS Broadband Act (H.R. 1328), passed by the House on May 8, 2019.

Oct 16, 2019

Comparing DHS Component Funding, FY2020: In Brief

(TO BE SUPPRESSED) Generally, the homeland security appropriations bill includes all annual appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), providing resources to every departmental component. The Tables and Figure show DHS’s new discretionary budget authority enacted for FY2019 and requested by the Administration for FY2020, as well as the House and Senate committee-reported response broken down by component. Department of Homeland Security DHS budget Appropriations FY2019, FY2020 funding analysis baseline comparison components

Oct 15, 2019

The Diversity Immigrant Visa Program

The purpose of the diversity immigrant visa program (DV program, sometimes called “the green card lottery” or “the visa lottery”) is, as the name suggests, to foster legal immigration from countries other than the major sending countries of current immigrants to the United States. Current law weights the allocation of immigrant visas primarily toward individuals with close family in the United States and, to a lesser extent, toward those who meet particular employment needs. The diversity immigrant category was added to the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) by the Immigration Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-649) to stimulate “new seed” immigration (i.e., to foster new, more varied migration from other parts of the world). The DV program currently makes 50,000 visas available annually to natives of countries from which immigrant admissions were less than 50,000 over the preceding five years combined. The formula for allocating these visas is specified in statute: visas are divided among six global geographic regions, and each region and country is identified as either high-admission or low-admission based on how many immigrant visas were given to foreign nationals from each region and country over the previous five-year period. Higher proportions of diversity visas are allocated to low-admission regions and countries. The INA limits each country to 7% (3,500, currently) of the total and provides that Northern Ireland be treated as a separate foreign state. Because demand for diversity visas greatly exceeds supply, a lottery system is used to select individuals who may apply for them. Those selected by lottery (“lottery winners”), like all other foreign nationals wishing to come to the United States, must undergo reviews performed by Department of State consular officers abroad and Department of Homeland Security immigration officers upon entry to the United States. These reviews are intended to ensure that the foreign nationals are not ineligible for visas or admission to the United States under the grounds for inadmissibility spelled out in the INA. To be eligible for a diversity visa, the INA requires that a foreign national have at least a high school education or the equivalent, or two years’ experience in an occupation that requires at least two years of training or experience. The foreign national or the foreign national’s spouse must be a native of one of the countries listed as a foreign state qualified for the diversity visa program. The distribution of diversity visas by global region of origin has shifted over time, with higher shares coming from Africa and Asia in recent years compared to earlier years when Europe accounted for a higher proportion. Of all those admitted through the program from FY1995 (the first year it was in full effect) through FY2017 (the most recent year for which data are available), individuals from Africa accounted for 40% of diversity immigrants, while Europeans accounted for 31% and Asians for 25%. Some argue that the DV program should be eliminated and its visas re-allocated for employment-based visas or backlog reduction in various visa categories. Critics of the DV program warn that it is vulnerable to fraud and misuse and is potentially an avenue for terrorists to enter the United States, citing the difficulties of performing background checks in many of the countries whose citizens are eligible for a diversity visa. Critics also argue that admitting immigrants on the basis of their nationality is discriminatory and that the reasons for establishing the DV program are no longer germane. Supporters of the program argue that it provides “new seed” immigrants for a system weighted disproportionately to family-based immigrants from a handful of countries. Supporters contend that fraud and abuse have declined following measures put in place by the State Department, and that the system relies on background checks for criminal and national security matters that are performed on all prospective immigrants seeking to come to the United States, including those applying for diversity visas. Supporters also contend that the DV program promotes equity of opportunity and serves important foreign policy goals.

Oct 15, 2019

Capital Markets: Asset Management and Related Policy Issues

The asset management industry is large and complex. Asset management companies—also known as investment management companies, or asset managers—are companies that manage money for a fee with the goal of growing it for those who invest with them. The most well-known product these companies create are investment funds. Many types of investment funds exist, including mutual funds, exchange-traded funds (ETFs), hedge funds, private equity, and venture capital. Their business practices and the types of regulatory requirements to which they are subject are far from standardized. Investment funds differ by, among other things, asset risk profile, investor access, portfolio company operations, and the ease of buying or selling their shares. In addition to investment funds, the asset management industry also consists of entities that connect funds to investors and other services, such as investment advice providers and custodians. Asset managers collectively manage trillions in assets, including investment savings, of nearly half of all U.S. households. The industry has experienced periods of high growth largely attributable to retail investors’ increased reliance on asset managers to invest their money for them rather than investing their own money themselves. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is the primary regulator overseeing the asset management industry. The industry is governed by a somewhat fragmented regulatory regime stemming from several different statutes. Most of the regulatory framework was created in the 1930s and 1940s, but the business practices and trends affecting the industry are evolving. Examples of this evolution include (1) the rapid growth of the industry; (2) the increasing dependency of American businesses on capital market financing; (3) the shift from active to passive investment style; and (4) the expansion of the private securities markets. Congress has shown interest in issues relating to the asset management industry. During the 116th Congress, lawmakers have held related hearings on asset management, financial innovation, investor protection, financial stability, and leveraged lending. Three areas that have been of particular interest to many are as follows: Whether the asset management industry has any implications for financial stability in the United States. Some financial authorities state that asset management companies did not pose much concern to financial stability during the 2007-2009 financial crisis period, with the exception of money market mutual funds. This is because asset managers are generally agents who provide investment services to clients without taking direct risk of financial loss. But some argue that structural vulnerabilities do exist and could be observed in certain financial instruments. Their implications, however, are uncertain. Whether regulation of the asset management industry provides sufficient access and protection for retail investors. The investor protection concerns center on investor access restrictions, especially for private funds. Private funds are perceived to have a higher risk and return profile relative to public funds, thus leading to discussions of investor protection and equal access to investment opportunities. The impact of financial technology on the industry, and whether the current regulatory framework is adequate to address these new technologies. Financial innovation is an integral part of the asset management industry’s development, and it creates policy and regulatory debates regarding the extent to which the new technologies are appropriately served by the existing regulatory regime. One of the common goals of policymaking in this area is to protect investors without hindering innovation.

Oct 11, 2019

U.S.-China Tariff Actions by the Numbers

Since early 2018, the United States and China have imposed a series of tariffs against one another’s products. These tariffs now affect the majority of trade between the two countries. U.S. tariffs imposed under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (which followed an investigation on China’s intellectual property rights practices) and China’s retaliatory tariffs affect the largest share of U.S.-China trade. Earlier U.S. tariffs (and Chinese retaliation) on steel and aluminum (Section 232) and solar panels and washing machines (Section 201) also affect U.S.-China trade. The Trump Administration argues that by reducing U.S. demand for Chinese exports, the tariffs are an effective tool to pressure China to change its policies. The tariffs, however, also impose costs on U.S. stakeholders—U.S. tariffs increase the price U.S. firms and consumers pay on imports from China, while China’s retaliatory tariffs disadvantage U.S. exporters by making U.S. products relatively more expensive in the Chinese market.

Oct 9, 2019

The Controlled Substances Act (CSA): A Legal Overview for the 116th Congress

The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) imposes a unified legal framework to regulate certain drugs—whether medical or recreational, legally or illicitly distributed—that are deemed to pose a risk of abuse and dependence. The CSA does not apply to all drugs. Rather, it applies to specific substances and categories of substances that have been designated for control by Congress or through administrative proceedings. The statute also applies to controlled substance analogues that are intended to mimic the effects of controlled substances and certain precursor chemicals commonly used in the manufacturing of controlled substances. Controlled substances subject to the CSA are divided into categories known as Schedules I through V based on their medical utility and their potential for abuse and dependence. Substances considered to present the greatest risk to the public health and safety are subject to the most stringent controls and sanctions. A lower schedule number corresponds to greater restrictions, so substances in Schedule I are subject to the strictest controls, while substances in Schedule V are subject to the least strict. Most substances subject to the CSA are also subject to other federal or state regulations, including the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act). The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is the federal agency primarily responsible for implementing and enforcing the CSA. DEA may designate a substance for control through notice-and-comment rulemaking if the substance satisfies the applicable statutory criteria. The agency may also place a substance under temporary control on an emergency basis if the substance poses an imminent hazard to public safety. In addition, DEA may designate a substance for control under the United States’ international treaty obligations. In the alternative, Congress may place a substance under control by statute. The CSA simultaneously aims to protect public health from the dangers of controlled substances diverted into the illicit market while also seeking to ensure that patients have access to pharmaceutical controlled substances for legitimate medical purposes. To accomplish those two goals, the statute creates two overlapping legal schemes. Registration provisions require entities working with controlled substances to register with DEA and implement various measures to prevent diversion and misuse of controlled substances. Trafficking provisions establish penalties for the production, distribution, and possession of controlled substances outside the legitimate scope of the registration system. DEA is primarily responsible for enforcing the registration provisions and works with the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice to enforce the trafficking provisions of the CSA. Violations of the registration provisions generally are not criminal offenses, but certain serious violations may result in criminal prosecutions, fines, and even short prison sentences. Violations of the trafficking provisions are criminal offenses that may result in large fines and lengthy prison sentences. Drug regulation has received significant attention from Congress in recent years, with a number of bills introduced in the 116th Congress that would amend the CSA in various ways. For example, after Congress passed several bills in recent years in response to the opioid crisis, additional proposals aimed at addressing the crisis are pending before the 116th Congress, including the John S. McCain Opioid Addiction Prevention Act (H.R. 1614, S. 724), which would limit practitioners’ ability to prescribe opioids; the LABEL Opioids Act (H.R. 2732, S. 1449), which would require prescription opioids to bear certain warning labels; and the Ending the Fentanyl Crisis Act of 2019 (S. 1724), which would increase criminal liability for illicit trafficking in the powerful opioid fentanyl. The 116th Congress has also considered measures specifically seeking to address the proliferation of synthetic drugs that mimic the effects of fentanyl, including the Stopping Overdoses of Fentanyl Analogues Act (H.R. 2935, S. 1622) and the Modernizing Drug Enforcement Act of 2019 (H.R. 2580). In addition, multiple recent proposals would seek to address the divergence between federal and state marijuana laws. For example, the Secure And Fair Enforcement Banking Act of 2019 (SAFE Banking Act) (H.R. 1595, S. 1200) would seek to protect depository institutions that provide financial services to cannabis-related businesses from regulatory sanctions, and the Strengthening the Tenth Amendment Through Entrusting States Act (STATES Act) (H.R. 2093, S. 1028) would amend the CSA so that most provisions concerning marijuana do not apply to marijuana-related activities that comply with state law. Other proposals, such as the Legitimate Use of Medicinal Marihuana Act (H.R. 171) and the Marijuana Justice Act of 2019 (H.R. 1456, S. 597) could address the gap between federal and state law in the area of marijuana regulation by moving marijuana from Schedule I to a less restrictive schedule or remove marijuana from the CSA’s schedules. Finally, recent legislative proposals would aim to facilitate clinical research involving controlled substances, particularly marijuana. These various proposals raise a number of legal questions as Congress contemplates whether to change the laws governing controlled substances.

Oct 9, 2019

The Annual Sequester of Mandatory Spending through FY2029

The Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA; P.L. 112-25) included two parts: discretionary spending caps, plus a “Joint Committee process” to achieve an additional $1.2 trillion in budgetary savings over FY2013-FY2021. For the initial tranche of savings, the BCA placed statutory limits on discretionary spending for each fiscal year from FY2012 through FY2021. At the time of enactment, the BCA discretionary spending caps were projected to save $917 billion. For the second, and larger, tranche of savings, the BCA established a bipartisan, bicameral Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (“Joint Committee”) to negotiate a broad deficit reduction package to save another $1.5 trillion through FY2021. As a fallback, the BCA provided that automatic spending reductions would be triggered if Congress did not enact at least $1.2 trillion in budget savings by January 15, 2012. The deadline was not met, which triggered the BCA’s $1.2 trillion in automatic spending reductions. The automatic reductions were designed to achieve $1.2 trillion in budgetary savings by reducing both discretionary and mandatory spending in each year through FY2021. The largest share of the $1.2 trillion in additional savings was to be achieved by reducing the discretionary spending caps and the remainder through annual across-the-board cuts (sequestration) in all nonexempt mandatory spending. The mandatory spending portion of the automatic reductions (referred to in this report as the “Joint Committee sequester”) has been fully implemented in each year since FY2013. It has been extended five times and is now, under current law, effective for each fiscal year through FY2029. This report explains the BCA provisions that established and triggered the Joint Committee sequester, the annual sequester calculations by OMB, the extension and calculation of the Joint Committee sequester through FY2029, the broad scope of the sequester across the federal budget, and sequester exemptions and special rules. The appendixes include a table summarizing each sequester since FY2013, a summary of the FY2020 sequester reductions, the text of the FY2020 sequester order, the text of the OMB sequester calculation, a list of mandatory sequester exemptions, and additional CRS resources on sequestration.

Oct 4, 2019

Brexit: Status and Outlook

After the 2016 referendum in which 52% of voters in the United Kingdom (UK) favored leaving the European Union (EU), Brexit was originally scheduled to occur on March 29, 2019. In early 2019, however, Parliament repeatedly rejected the withdrawal agreement negotiated between Prime Minister Theresa May’s government and the EU without supporting any alternative. In April 2019, the EU granted the UK an extension until October 31, 2019. Recent Developments and Possible Scenarios After becoming Prime Minister in July 2019, Boris Johnson asserted that Brexit will take place on October 31 and that he will not request another extension. Johnson declared his intention to renegotiate a new agreement with the EU that drops the Northern Ireland backstop provision, which would keep the UK in the EU customs union until the two sides agreed on their future trade relationship. The backstop provision was included in the rejected withdrawal agreement as an insurance policy to maintain an open border between Northern Ireland (part of the UK) and the Republic of Ireland (an EU member state) while safeguarding the rules of the EU single market. The backstop was a main reason many Members of Parliament voted against the deal. The UK and EU have sought to avoid a no-deal Brexit, a scenario in which the UK leaves the EU without a negotiated withdrawal agreement, due to concerns that it could cause considerable disruption with regard to the economy, trade, security, Northern Ireland, and other issues. In September 2019, Parliament passed legislation requiring the UK government to request another extension by October 19 if it has not reached a withdrawal agreement with the EU. The dynamics of Brexit are likely to evolve in relation to pivotal events and deadlines in October 2019. Possible scenarios include a new withdrawal agreement, another extension, a no-deal Brexit, and an early general election in the UK. Brexit, Trade, and Economic Impact The various Brexit scenarios have considerable implications for the UK’s trade arrangements. Outside the EU customs union, the UK would regain an independent national trade policy, a major selling point for many Brexit supporters who advocate negotiating new bilateral trade deals around the world, including with the United States. The UK likely would seek to negotiate a free trade agreement (FTA) with the EU. A Brexit in which the UK remains a member of the EU single market or customs union would provide more barrier-free access to the EU, but the UK would have to follow most EU rules without having a say in how they are made. Analysts predict that the disruption resulting from any form of Brexit likely will have at least a short-term negative economic impact on the UK. A no-deal Brexit represents the most disruptive and unpredictable scenario, and many businesses in the UK are taking steps to mitigate potential economic losses. Northern Ireland Many observers have expressed concerns that Brexit could destabilize the Northern Ireland peace process and lead to a hard border with physical infrastructure and customs checks between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Although conditions have improved considerably since the 1998 peace accord (known as the Good Friday Agreement or the Belfast Agreement), concerns about the fragility of peace and security in Northern Ireland remain. A Brexit that results in a hard border likely would have negative economic effects for Northern Ireland and constitute a pressure point in the continuing implementation of the peace agreement. U.S.-UK Relations and Congressional Interest President Trump and Administration officials have expressed support for Brexit. Members of Congress hold mixed views. The UK likely will remain a leading U.S. partner in addressing many foreign policy and security challenges, but Brexit has fueled a debate about whether the UK’s global role and influence is likely to be enhanced or diminished. In 2018, the Administration notified Congress of its intention to negotiate a bilateral FTA with the UK after Brexit. Congress would likely need to pass implementing legislation before the potential FTA could enter into force. Many in Congress also are concerned about Brexit’s possible implications for Northern Ireland’s peace process and economy.

Oct 4, 2019

U.S. Farm Support: Compliance with WTO Commitments

As a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements, the United States has committed to abide by WTO rules and disciplines, including those that govern domestic farm policy as spelled out in the Agreement on Agriculture (AoA). Since establishment of the WTO on January 1, 1995, the United States has complied with its WTO spending limits on market-distorting types of farm program outlays (referred to as amber box spending). However, the addition of large, new trade assistance payments to producers in 2018 and 2019, on top of existing farm program support, has raised concerns by some U.S. trading partners, as well as market watchers and policymakers, that U.S. domestic farm subsidy outlays might exceed the annual spending limit of $19.1 billion agreed to as part of U.S. commitments to WTO member countries. CRS analysis indicates that the United States probably did not violate its WTO spending limit in 2018 but could potentially exceed it in 2019. A farm support program can violate WTO commitments in two principal ways: first, by exceeding spending limits on certain market-distorting programs, and second, by generating distortions that spill over into the international marketplace and cause significant adverse effects. Program outlays are cumulative, and compliance with WTO commitments is based on annual aggregate spending levels. Under the WTO’s AoA, total U.S. amber box outlays (that is, those outlays deemed market distorting) are limited to $19.1 billion annually, subject to de minimis exemptions. De minimis exemptions are spending that is sufficiently small (less than 5% of the value of production)—relative to either the value of a specific product or total production—to be deemed benign. Since 1995, the United States has apparently stayed within its amber box limits. However, U.S. compliance has hinged on judicious use of the de minimis exemptions in a number of years to exclude certain amber box spending from counting against the amber box limit. These exemptions have never been challenged by another WTO member. According to CRS analysis, projected U.S. amber box spending for 2018 (inclusive of $8.7 billion in product-specific outlays under the 2018 trade assistance package) could exceed $14 billion. This would be the largest U.S. amber box notification since 2001. However, despite its magnitude, it still would fit within the U.S. spending limit of $19.1 billion. A more ambiguous result is projected for 2019. The expansion of direct payments under a second trade assistance package to $14.5 billion in 2019 and their shift to a non-product-specific WTO classification—when combined with currently projected spending under other non-product-specific programs such as the Price Loss Coverage (PLC) and Agricultural Risk Coverage (ARC) programs—could push U.S. amber box outlays above $24 billion. This would be in excess of the U.S. amber box spending limit of $19.1 billion. However, this projection hinges on several as-yet-unknown factors, including market prices, output values, and program outlays under traditional countercyclical ARC and PLC programs. If the final price and revenue values are higher than currently projected, then program payments under ARC and PLC could be smaller than those used in this analysis. This could decrease both aggregate non-product-specific outlays and the possibility of exceeding the amber box spending limit. If cumulative payments in any year were to exceed the agreed-upon spending limit, then the United States would be in violation of its commitments and could be vulnerable to a challenge under the WTO’s dispute settlement mechanism. Furthermore, to the extent that such program outlays might induce surplus production and depress market prices, they could also result in potential challenges under the WTO.

Oct 4, 2019

Inherited or “Stretch” Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) and the SECURE Act

Oct 3, 2019

Military Space Reform: FY2020 NDAA Legislative Proposals

Oct 2, 2019

Defense Primer: Defense Support of Civil Authorities

Oct 2, 2019

Water Resources Development Acts: Primer and Action in the 118th Congress

Sep 30, 2019

Ebola Virus Disease Outbreak: Democratic Republic of Congo

The Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) that began in August 2018 has eluded international containment efforts and posed significant challenges to local and international policymakers. The current outbreak is the 10th and largest on record in DRC, and the world’s second largest ever (after the 2014-2016 West Africa outbreak). On July 17, 2019, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the current DRC outbreak to be a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) and called for increased donor funding. To date, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has announced nearly $158 million to support the response to the outbreak in DRC and neighboring countries, most of which has been funded through USAID-administered International Disaster Assistance (IDA) funds appropriated by Congress in FY2015. Challenges Broad challenges in DRC—including unresolved armed conflicts, shortfalls in the local health care system, political tensions, community grievances, and criminal activities—have hindered outbreak control. The main outbreak zone is an area of eastern DRC where long-running conflicts had already caused a protracted humanitarian crisis. In addition, the outbreak has coincided with a fraught political transition process in DRC, where a former opposition figure, Felix Tshisekedi, was inaugurated president in January 2019. The electoral process and tense negotiations over a coalition government have complicated Ebola response efforts, as well as coordination between national and provincial officials. Ebola and related response efforts have also diverted or interrupted already limited local health resources in affected areas. This phenomenon, in turn, has been linked to interruptions in routine immunization campaigns. Inadequate measles vaccine supplies have limited capacity to control a measles outbreak in DRC that began in January 2019 and has claimed more than 3,000 lives. Since June 2019, a handful of Ebola-infected individuals have been identified in the large city of Goma in eastern DRC (a staging area for humanitarian operations and U.N. peacekeeping activities in the country), in the city of Bukavu (south of the main outbreak zone), and in Uganda. Suspected cases were reported, but not confirmed, in Tanzania in mid-September 2019. Transmission outside the outbreak zone has been limited to date, which may be attributable to internationally supported surveillance and prevention efforts, as well as the use of an investigational vaccine. Concerns nevertheless persist that cases could spread to new areas and/or countries. Uganda (which borders the most affected areas in DRC) has prior experience in Ebola control, but Rwanda, Tanzania, and Burundi do not. Minimal state capacity and protracted conflict in South Sudan and the Central African Republic suggest that a coordinated disease control response in either setting could be highly challenging. Issues for Congress A potential issue for Congress is the level of funding allocated for global health security and pandemic preparedness versus outbreak response, with funding for outbreak response to date outweighing support for global outbreak prevention. Separately, the State Department’s designation of DRC as a “Tier III” (worst-performing) country under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA, Division A of P.L. 106-386, as amended) triggers restrictions on certain types of U.S. aid (not including IDA-funded activities). Several bills would authorize U.S. funding for programs intended to lower community resistance and otherwise support Ebola control in DRC and neighboring states, “notwithstanding” the TVPA restrictions. These include S. 1340, the Ebola Eradication Act of 2019, which passed the Senate in September 2019; H.R. 3085, a House companion bill; and a Senate committee draft of the FY2020 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs appropriations bill circulated on September 18, 2019. Some Members of Congress have also monitored State Department security policies that have restricted U.S. government experts’ travel to and within the outbreak zone.

Sep 27, 2019

Money Market Mutual Funds: A Financial Stability Case Study

Sep 26, 2019

2018 Farm Bill Primer: Agricultural Research and Extension

Sep 24, 2019

Federal Student Loans Made Through the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program: Terms and Conditions for Borrowers

The William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan (Direct Loan) program is the single largest source of federal financial assistance to support students’ postsecondary educational pursuits. The U.S. Department of Education estimates that in FY2020, $100.2 billion in new loans will be made through the program. As of the end of the second quarter of FY2019, $1.2 trillion in principal and interest on Direct Loan program loans, borrowed by or on behalf of 34.5 million individuals, remained outstanding. For many individuals, borrowing a federal student loan through the Direct Loan program may be among their first experiences in incurring a major financial obligation. Upon obtaining a loan, a borrower assumes a contractual obligation to repay the debt over a period that may span a decade or more. Loans were first made through the Direct Loan program in 1994. Since then, Congress has periodically made changes to the program and the terms and conditions of loans. Changes have impacted program aspects such as the availability of loan types, interest rates, loan repayment, loan discharge and forgiveness, and the consequences of default. Over time, the accumulation of changes—many of which are differentially applicable to borrowers or loan types—has resulted in a set of loan terms and conditions that are voluminous and complex. Congress may contemplate making future changes to loan terms and conditions. This report has been prepared to provide Congress with a comprehensive description of the terms and conditions and borrower benefits that are applicable to loans made through the Direct Loan program. Emphasis is placed on discussing loan types, provisions related to borrower eligibility, amounts that may be borrowed, interest and fees, loan repayment, repayment relief, loan forgiveness benefits, the consequences of default, and the methods used to ensure borrowers are informed about the terms and conditions of their loans and their obligation to repay them. Direct Loan Types Four types of loans are available through the Direct Loan program. Direct Subsidized Loans are available only to undergraduate students with financial need. Direct Unsubsidized Loans are available both to undergraduate students and graduate students. Direct PLUS Loans may be borrowed by graduate students and by the parents of undergraduate students dependent upon them for financial support. Direct Consolidation Loans allow borrowers to combine debt from multiple existing federal student loans into a single new loan. Eligibility and Amounts That May Be Borrowed Whether an individual may borrow a loan and the amount he or she may borrow are determined by the interaction of many factors. Eligibility to borrow varies by loan type, borrower characteristics, program level, and class level. The amount an individual may borrow is subject to annual and aggregate borrowing limits, and federal need analysis and packaging procedures. Loans are made available in amounts constrained by program rules, but—with the exception of Direct PLUS Loans—without consideration of a borrower’s ability to repay. Eligibility to borrow a Direct PLUS Loan depends on an individual’s creditworthiness. Interest on Direct Loan Program Loans Procedures for calculating interest vary by loan type, repayment status, and the period during which a loan was made. In limited circumstances, the federal government subsidizes, or does not charge, interest that would otherwise accrue. Interest subsidies are mostly limited to Direct Subsidized Loans; however, certain interest subsidies may be provided on all loan types. Loan Repayment Plans Numerous repayment plans, each with different payment structures and maximum durations, are available. Among the various plans, income-driven repayment (IDR) plans cap monthly payments at a specific percentage of a borrower’s discretionary income. For most repayment plans, monthly payments must cover the interest that accrues; however, the IDR plans allow for negative amortization, in which case monthly payments may be for less than the interest that accrues. Deferment and Forbearance Periods of deferment and forbearance offer a borrower temporary relief from the obligation to make monthly payments. In certain instances, interest subsidies may be provided during periods of deferment; however, interest subsidies are not available during periods of forbearance. Loan Discharge and Loan Forgiveness A borrower may be relieved of the obligation to repay his or her loans in certain circumstances. Student loan debt may be discharged on the basis of borrower hardship (e.g., death, total and permanent disability, school closure) or may be forgiven following an extended period of repayment according to an IDR plan or completion of a period of public service. Loan Default, Its Consequences, and Resolution If a borrower defaults, the loan becomes due in full and the borrower loses eligibility for many benefits, as well as access to other forms of federal student aid. The government also uses numerous means to collect on defaulted student loan debt. A limited set of options is available for a borrower to bring a defaulted loan back into good standing. Loan Counseling and Disclosures Student borrowers are required to undergo financial counseling, which is designed to provide them with comprehensive information on the terms and conditions of their loans as well as their rights and the responsibilities they assume as borrowers. Loan terms and conditions are specified in a promissory note, which is a contract that establishes the borrower’s obligation to repay the loan, and in a plain language disclosure document that uses simplified terms to explain a loan’s terms and conditions and the borrower’s rights and responsibilities.

Sep 24, 2019

China’s Retaliatory Tariffs on U.S. Agriculture: In Brief

From 2010 through 2016, China was the top destination for U.S. agricultural exports based on value. In 2017, Canada became the top destination for U.S. agricultural products, and China and Mexico tied for second. However, starting in early 2018 the United States undertook several trade actions against China (and other countries) that precipitated retaliatory trade actions between the two countries. The result of this trade war was a decline in trade between the United States and China. In 2018, U.S. agricultural exports to China declined 53% in value to $9 billion from $19 billion in calendar year 2017. By mid-2019, China’s market had shrunk to become the fourth-largest destination for U.S. agricultural exports behind Canada, Mexico, and Japan. The U.S.-China trade dispute started in March 2018, when President Trump announced tariffs of 25% on steel and 10% on aluminum imports (with some flexibility on the application of tariffs by country) using presidential powers granted under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. In July 2018, citing concerns over China’s policies on intellectual property, technology, and innovation, the Trump Administration imposed tariffs of 25% on $34 billion of selected imports from China using authority delegated by Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. Since then, the United States has expanded the coverage of Section 301 tariffs to $550 billion of imports from China.

Sep 24, 2019

The Contraceptive Coverage Requirement and Legal Challenges Five Years After Hobby Lobby

When Congress enacted the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2010, it required employment-based health plans and health insurance issuers to cover certain preventive health services without cost sharing. Those services, because of agency guidelines and rules, would soon include contraception for women. The “contraceptive coverage requirement,” or “contraceptive mandate” as it came to be known, was heavily litigated in the years to follow. These challenges primarily concerned (1) what types of employers and institutions should be exempt from the requirement based on their religious or moral objections to contraception; (2) what procedures the government can require for an entity to invoke a religious-based accommodation; and (3) how much authority federal agencies have to create exceptions to the coverage requirement. As originally formulated, only houses of worship and similar entities were exempt from the requirement, but the government later added an accommodation process for certain religious nonprofit organizations. On June 30, 2014, the Supreme Court held in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. that the contraceptive coverage requirement violated federal law insofar as it did not also accommodate the religious objections of closely held, for-profit corporations. The law at issue in that case—the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA)—prohibits the federal government from “substantially burden[ing] a person’s exercise of religion” except under narrow circumstances. Since Hobby Lobby, the agencies tasked with implementing the ACA have faced numerous hurdles in their attempts to accommodate the interests of sincere objectors while minimizing disruptions to the provision of cost-free contraceptive coverage to women. The lower courts split on whether the accommodation process—which required eligible objecting entities to notify their insurers or the government that they qualified for an exemption—substantially burdened the objectors’ exercise of religion. Initially, most circuit courts rejected the view that such an accommodation triggered, facilitated, or otherwise made objectors complicit in the provision of coverage, denying their RFRA claims. After consolidating some of these cases for review, the Supreme Court ultimately vacated and remanded the decisions when the government and the objecting parties suggested that a solution might be reached so that the objectors’ insurers could provide the required coverage without notice from the objecting parties. However, following a change in presidential administration, the implementing agencies reevaluated and reversed their position on the legality of the then-existing accommodation process, concluding that it violated RFRA when applied to certain entities. The agencies opted to automatically exempt most nongovernmental entities that objected to providing coverage for some or all forms of contraception on religious or moral grounds. These expanded exemptions sparked a new round of litigation based on claims that the agencies exceeded their authority under the ACA or violated federal requirements for promulgating new rules. Federal courts have preliminarily enjoined the government from implementing the expanded exemptions. At the same time, the government is largely precluded from relying on the prior accommodation process as a result of a nationwide injunction issued by a federal district court. From a legal perspective, Congress has several options for clarifying the scope of the contraceptive coverage requirement, including through amendments to the ACA and RFRA. For now, the implementing agencies and the courts will likely continue to grapple with the extent of the mandate and its compliance with RFRA and other legal protections.

Sep 23, 2019

U.S. Payment System Policy Issues: Faster Payments and Innovation

Technological advances in digitization and data processing and storage have greatly increased the availability and convenience of electronic payments. New products and services offer faster, more convenient payment for individuals and businesses, and the numerous options on offer foster competition and innovation among end-user service providers. Currently, many new payment services are layered on top of existing electronic payment systems, which may limit their speed. Most payments flow through both retail and wholesale payment systems before they are completed. Consumers access retail payment systems to purchase goods and services, pay bills, obtain cash through withdrawals and advances, and make person-to-person transfers. Consumers’ financial institutions access wholesale systems to complete the payment. In the United States, systems accessed by consumers are operated by the private sector, whereas systems accessed by banks to complete those transactions are operated by the Federal Reserve (Fed) or the private sector. Regulation of retail payment systems is dispersed across multiple state and federal regulators. For example, payment systems are subject to federal consumer protection regulation under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (P.L. 95-630), anti-money laundering requirements under the Bank Secrecy Act (P.L. 91-508), and various state licensing, safety and soundness, anti-money laundering, and consumer protection requirements. Private wholesale payment systems are regulated by the Fed, and if they are systemically important, they can be designated as “financial market utilities” and subject to heightened oversight. Although faster and potentially less costly payment systems may benefit consumers and businesses, the use of new technology in existing and new payment systems raise a number of questions for policymakers. Some observers have argued that certain innovative financial technology, or fintech, payment companies would be more effectively regulated through the federal banking regulatory framework, whereas opponents of this idea assert it would result in the preemption of important state-level consumer protections and in an inappropriate combination of banking and commercial activities. The increased prevalence of data generation, collection, and analysis in payment systems has caused observers to question whether existing regulation adequately addresses issues related to data privacy and cybersecurity. Although the traditional high-levels of industry concentration and the recent entry by technology giants have raised concerns over market power and industry competition, competition to date has been robust and certain analysts argue that internet-based payments that do not require a large investment in infrastructure will prevent the market concentration that exists in older payment services. What effect technological innovation in payments will have on consumer access and whether consumers are adequately protected against potential problems, such as fraudulent or erroneous transactions, are also subjects of debate. In August 2019, the Fed announced plans to create an interbank real-time payments (RTP) system by 2023 or 2024. The Fed stated that the new system will be available to all banks with a reserve account at the Fed, and it will require banks using this new system to make those funds available to their customers immediately after being notified of settlement. In addition, several private-sector initiatives are also underway to implement faster payments, some of which would make funds available to the recipient in real time (with deferred settlement) and some of which would provide real-time settlement. Businesses and consumers would benefit from the ability to receive funds more quickly, particularly as a greater share of payments are made online or using mobile technology. The main policy issue regarding the Federal Reserve and RTP is whether Fed entry in this market is desirable, given similar private-sector developments are already underway. There is debate about whether competition from the Fed would be beneficial in terms of cost, efficiency, safety, innovation, ubiquity, and financial stability. In the 116th Congress, H.R. 3951 and S. 2243, among other bills, would require the Fed to create a RTP system and would require banks to make payments to account holders in real time.

Sep 23, 2019

Military Funding for Southwest Border Barriers

Sep 23, 2019

2018 Farm Bill Primer: Specialty Crops and Organic Agriculture

Sep 23, 2019

The Coast Guard’s Need for Experienced Marine Safety Personnel

For at least four decades, Congress has been concerned about the Coast Guard’s ability to maintain an adequate staff of experienced marine safety personnel to ensure that vessels meet federal safety standards. The 2015 sinking of the U.S.-flag cargo ship El Faro during a hurricane near the Bahamas with the loss of 33 lives renewed attention to the Coast Guard’s persistent difficulty with hiring and training a marine safety workforce with technical knowledge of vessel construction and accident investigation, as the safety inspections of the vessel were found to have been inadequate. In the Hamm Alert Maritime Safety Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-265), Congress directed the Coast Guard to brief congressional committees of jurisdiction on its efforts to enhance its marine inspections staff. In the Frank LoBiondo Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-282), Congress requested a report from the Coast Guard detailing the courses and other training a marine inspector must complete to be considered qualified, including any courses that have been dropped from the training curriculum in recent years. Congress’s concern about the Coast Guard’s inspection staff comes at a time when the agency’s vessel inspection workload is increasing by about 50% because towing vessels have been added to its responsibilities. Additionally, Congress has been increasing the agency’s role in fishing vessel safety. Adding to the Coast Guard’s safety responsibilities is the construction of several liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminals as well as the increasing use of LNG as ship fuel. Vessel safety inspections are especially critical for the U.S.-flag fleet, like the El Faro, because a majority of it is much older than the 15 to 20 years of age at which ships in the foreign-flag worldwide oceangoing fleet are typically scrapped. Over half of the U.S.-flag commercial fleet is over 20 years old; the El Faro had been in service for 40 years. Vessels that transport cargo or passengers domestically (from one U.S. point to another U.S. point) must be built in the United States, as required by the Jones Act. The comparatively high cost of domestic ship construction encourages ship owners to keep Jones Act vessels in service well beyond their normal retirement age. In general, older vessels are believed to have a higher risk of structural defects and to require more intensive inspection. Currently, the Coast Guard’s marine inspection staff consists of 533 military and 138 civilian personnel, while its accident investigation staff consists of 120 military staff and 38 civilians. As a military organization, the Coast Guard frequently rotates its staff among various duty stations, so personnel may not develop the knowledge and experience required of a proficient marine inspector or investigator. A common perception inside the agency that marine safety is an area that retards promotion also may be thwarting efforts to boost this mission’s workforce. The Coast Guard recently has stated its intention to improve the quality of its inspection workforce and to make marine safety an attractive long-term career path by extending promotion potential. However, its recent statements are similar to statements made 10 years ago, when some Members of Congress advocated transferring the marine safety function to a civilian agency. It is unclear what the agency has accomplished over the last decade regarding its inspection workforce. Government audits dating to 1979 have been consistently critical of the proficiency level of Coast Guard inspectors and accident investigators. Reorganizing the marine safety function under a civilian agency, perhaps as an element of a larger reorganization of navigation functions in the federal government, might improve the quality of safety inspections and investigations, but other federal agencies with transportation-related safety inspection workforces have had similar issues with retaining experienced personnel.

Sep 19, 2019

Tax Issues Relating to Charitable Contributions and Organizations

The federal government supports the charitable sector by providing charitable organizations and donors with favorable tax treatment. Individuals itemizing deductions may claim a tax deduction for charitable contributions. Estates can make charitable bequests. Corporations can deduct charitable contributions before computing income taxes. Further, earnings on funds held by charitable organizations and used for a related charitable purpose are exempt from tax. In FY2019, projected tax subsidies for charities, not including the value of the tax exemption on earnings of charities or the estate tax deduction, totaled $51.8 billion. If investment income of nonprofits were taxed at the 35% corporate tax rate in 2015, revenue collected is estimated at $26.7 billion (this amount excludes religious organizations). The cost of deducting bequests on estates is estimated at $4 billion to $5 billion. Charitable organizations include both operating charities (including religious institutions) and organizations that tend to hold assets and make grants to operating charities, most notably private foundations, but also donor-advised funds (DAFs) and supporting organizations. The tax code treats different types of organizations differently. For example, foundations and certain supporting organizations have minimum payout requirements, while DAFs do not. Limits on charitable giving also differ across gifts to different types of organizations. Changes in the tax revision enacted in late 2017, popularly known as the Tax Cut and Jobs Act (TCJA; P.L. 115-97), while not generally aimed at charitable deductions, reduced the scope of the tax benefit for charitable giving. A higher standard deduction and the limit on the deduction for state and local taxes caused more individuals to take the standard deduction, as opposed to itemizing deductions. As a result, many individuals who were able to deduct charitable contributions no longer claim this itemized deduction. Other changes exempted more estates from the estate tax, eliminating the benefit of deducting charitable contributions in these cases. Concerns have arisen that these changes are expected to lead to a reduction in charitable contributions. In 2018, charitable contributions were estimated at $427.7 billion, or 2.1% of gross domestic product (GDP). Charitable gifts come from four sources: individual contributions (accounting for 68%), foundations (accounting for 18%), bequests (accounting for 9%), and corporations (accounting for 5%). In 2018, estimates suggest approximately 54% of individual contributions are expected to have received a tax subsidy. Comparing giving levels in 2017 and 2018 provides some insight into the possible impacts of the 2017 tax revision on charitable giving and the charitable sector. Compared to 2017, 2018 contributions from individuals and bequests declined as a percentage of GDP (by 6% and 5%, respectively), while corporate contributions were virtually unchanged and foundation contributions rose by 2%. In 2017, an estimated 80% of individual contributions benefited from the tax subsidy for itemized deductions. Surveying the literature can also provide some insight regarding the effect of tax subsidies on charitable giving. Based on statistical estimates of the responsiveness of individual giving to tax subsidies, a decrease in individual giving of around 3% to 4% might be expected from the 2017 tax revision. Limitations in the data make the effect on estates difficult to estimate, but it could be a decrease of up to 8%; the small share of bequests in total giving, however, would lead even that effect to reduce overall charitable giving by less than 1%. A number of policy options could be considered with respect to the tax treatment of charitable giving or the tax treatment of charitable entities. The charitable deduction could be modified in ways that could extend charitable giving incentives to taxpayers not itemizing deductions, or with the intent of making charitable giving tax incentives more effective (inducing more giving for each dollar of lost federal tax revenue). There are also options related to the type of treatment of certain types of gifts, such as appreciated property or charitable miles driven. Some proposals have also been made to address concerns about aspects of certain charitable organizations, such as payouts by DAFs and university endowments. Some proposals would reverse certain changes made by the 2017 tax revision to the unrelated business income tax (UBIT) or impose administrative reforms.

Sep 19, 2019

Defense Primer: Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps

Sep 19, 2019

USMCA: Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)

Sep 19, 2019

U.S. Farm Income Outlook: August 2019 Forecast

This report uses the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) farm income projections (as of August 30, 2019) and agricultural trade outlook update (as of August 29, 2019) to describe the U.S. farm economic outlook. According to USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS), national net farm income—a key indicator of U.S. farm well-being—is forecast at $88 billion in 2019, up $4 billion (+4.8%) from last year. However, the forecast rise in 2019 net farm income is largely the result of a 42.5% increase in government payments to the agricultural sector valued at $19.5 billion (highest since 2005). USDA’s support outlays forecast for 2019 include nearly $11 billion in direct payments made under trade assistance programs intended to help offset foreign trade retaliation against U.S. agricultural products, as well as payments under traditional farm programs. Without this federal support, net farm income would be lower, primarily due to the outlook for continued weak prices for most major crops. Commodity prices are under pressure from large planted acreage estimates of corn and soybeans in 2019, large carry-in stocks from a record soybean and near-record corn harvest in 2018, and diminished export prospects due to the ongoing trade dispute with China. Should these conditions persist into 2020, they would signal the potential for continued dependence on federal programs to sustain the U.S. agricultural sector in 2020. Since 2008, U.S. agricultural exports have accounted for a 20% share of U.S. farm and manufactured or processed agricultural sales. In 2018, total agricultural exports were estimated up 2% at $143.4 billion. However, abundant supplies in international markets, strong competition from major foreign competitors, and the ongoing U.S.-China trade dispute are expected to shift trade patterns and lower U.S. agricultural export prospects significantly (-6%) to a projected $134.5 billion in 2019. Farm asset value in 2019 is projected up from 2018 to $3.1 trillion (+2%). Farm asset values reflect farm investors’ and lenders’ expectations about long-term profitability of farm sector investments. U.S. farmland values are projected to rise 1.8% in 2019, similar to the increases of 1.9% in 2018 and 2.3% in 2017. Because they comprise such a large portion of the U.S. farm sector’s asset base (83%), change in farmland values is a critical barometer of the farm sector’s financial performance. However, another critical measure of the farm sector’s well-being is aggregate farm debt, which is projected to be at a record $415.7 billion in 2019—up 3.4% from 2018. Both the debt-to-asset and the debt-to-equity ratios have risen for seven consecutive years, suggesting a weakening of the financial situation for the U.S. farm sector. At the farm household level, average farm household incomes have been well above average U.S. household incomes since the late 1990s. However, this advantage derives primarily from off-farm income as a share of farm household total income. Since 2014, over half of U.S. farm operations have had negative income from their agricultural operations. Furthermore, the farm household income advantage over the average U.S. household has narrowed in recent years. In 2014, the average farm household income (including off-farm income sources) was about 77% higher than the average U.S. household income. In 2017 (the last year with comparable data), that advantage was expected to decline to 30%. USDA Farm Income Projections as of August 30, 2019 This report discusses aggregate national net farm income projections for calendar year 2019 as reported by USDA’s ERS on August 30, 2019. It is an update of an initial forecast made on March 6, 2019, when USDA forecast 2019 net farm income at $69.4 billion. The initial forecast is discussed in CRS Report R45697, U.S. Farm Income Outlook: March 2019 Forecast, by Randy Schnepf.

Sep 19, 2019

The CCC Anomaly in an FY2020 Continuing Resolution

In late August 2019, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) requested a special provision for the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) among its list of appropriations issues for Congress to consider under a continuing resolution (CR). In addition to the general provisions that extend the previous year’s appropriation for a specific term, CRs often include provisions that are specific to certain agencies, accounts, or programs. These “anomalies” are departures from a CR that modify the timing, amount, or purpose for which any referenced funding is extended. OMB cites the need for additional language in the CR to address the CCC anomaly and prevent the corporation from reaching its borrowing limit of $30 billion. The anomaly in a CR would provide CCC with its appropriation immediately upon enactment of the CR, instead of upon the usual schedule (i.e., after the completion of CCC’s annual financial statement, which is typically in November). Without the anomaly in FY2020, CCC would still receive its appropriation under a CR, but it would be one to two months after enactment, which could potentially delay CCC-funded programming, including the Trump Administration’s trade assistance to farmers affected by tariffs and 2018 farm bill payments. CCC Overview CCC is a wholly owned government corporation that exists solely to finance authorized programs that support U.S. agriculture. It is federally chartered by the CCC Charter Act of 1948 (P.L. 80-806; 15 U.S.C. §714 et seq.), as amended, and subject to the supervision and direction of the Secretary of Agriculture at U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). CCC is responsible for the direct (mandatory) spending and credit guarantees used to finance the federal government’s agricultural commodity price support and related activities that are undertaken by authority of agricultural legislation (such as farm bills) or the CCC Charter Act itself. Most CCC-funded programs are classified as mandatory spending programs and, therefore, do not require annual discretionary appropriations in order to operate. CCC instead borrows from the U.S. Treasury to finance its programs. CCC has permanent, indefinite authority to borrow up to $30 billion from the Treasury. Congress replenishes the CCC’s borrowing authority through annual appropriations based on the “net realized loss” as provided in the corporation’s financial statement at the close of each fiscal year (15 U.S.C. §713a-11). Timing of Reimbursement Congress annually appropriates CCC funding to cover its net realized losses incurred during a fiscal year (e.g., conservation and farm support program payments). The total amount appropriated is based on the required financial statement and audit of the CCC at the end of the fiscal year that is typically completed in November or December. The appropriated amount for CCC varies each year based on the net realized loss of the previous year. The change in appropriation does not indicate any action by Congress to change program support. Rather, it reflects farm program payments and other CCC activities that fluctuate based on economic circumstances, weather, and Administration initiatives. Therefore, the FY2020 appropriation would provide reimbursement for the net realized losses incurred by CCC in FY2019. Many farm program payments are required to be made annually in October (e.g., farm support programs such as Agricultural Risk Coverage and Price Loss Coverage and conservation programs such as the Conservation Stewardship Program and the Conservation Reserve Program). In most years, CCC has enough room within the borrowing authority limit to make these payments before receiving its annual appropriated reimbursement. In years of high farm program expenditures, however, the CCC could reach its borrowing authority limit before receiving its appropriation. If this were to happen, all functions and operations of CCC would be suspended until the borrowing authority is restored through an appropriation, including those activities authorized in the 2018 farm bill and the trade assistance package. CCC Anomaly The requested OMB anomaly would allow for CCC to receive its reimbursement for net realized losses prior to the completion of required financial reports. Similar language was provided in Section 116 of a FY2019 CR (P.L. 115-245) and Section 118 of a FY2017 CR (P.L. 114-223). This anomaly allows CCC to receive its appropriated reimbursement in the intervening one to two months before the financial statements are complete. Because CCC has a permanent, indefinite funding authority and was funded in the FY2019 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 116-6), the reimbursement for its previous year’s net realized loss would continue under a regular CR. A CR without the anomaly does not defund the CCC or suspend payments for any one program authorized under CCC. Rather, it would allow existing financial reporting requirements to stand and allow financial statements to be submitted before the reimbursement of net realized loss occurs. This could create a temporary delay in program funding and operation if CCC activities were suspended due to reaching the borrowing authority limit. Losses Reimbursed in FY2020 The exact amount of net realized losses in FY2019 that would be reimbursed in FY2020 is unknown. The House-passed appropriation (H.R. 3055, H.Rept. 116-107 for H.R. 3164) for FY2020 estimates that the reimbursement of CCC’s net realized losses would be $25.6 billion based on the President’s FY2020 budget estimate and the Congressional Budget Office. Losses in FY2019 are high due in large part to an earlier trade assistance package created by USDA. During 2018 and 2019, USDA announced two rounds of trade assistance valued at a combined $28 billion. Both 2018 and 2019 trade aid packages are done at the discretion of USDA using the funding authority of the CCC Charter Act and provide direct and indirect assistance for farmers affected by trade damages from retaliatory tariffs. Trade aid payments in FY2019 would be reimbursed in FY2020 and are mostly from the aid package that was announced in 2018. OMB states that, without the proposed anomaly language, “CCC anticipates it will exceed the statutory limitation on borrowing authority during the period of the CR, and before the close of the fiscal year audit is completed.” This indicates that authorized program payments in October could be delayed—such as conservation and farm program payments and additional trade aid—until financial statements are complete and the annual reimbursement occurs.

Sep 17, 2019

Patent-Eligible Subject Matter Reform in the 116th Congress

The statutory definition of patent-eligible subject matter under Section 101 of the Patent Act has remained essentially unchanged for over two centuries. As a result, the scope of patentable subject matter—that is, the types of inventions that may be patented—has largely been left to the federal courts to develop through “common law”-like adjudication. In the 20th century, the U.S. Supreme Court established that three main types of discoveries are categorically patent-ineligible: laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas. Recent Supreme Court decisions have broadened the scope of these three judicial exceptions to patent-eligible subject matter. Over a five-year period, the Supreme Court rejected, as ineligible, patents on a business method for hedging price-fluctuation risk; a method for calibrating the dosage of a particular drug; isolated human DNA segments; and a method of mitigating settlement risk in financial transactions using a computer. These cases established a new two-step test, known as the Alice/Mayo framework, for determining whether a patent claims ineligible subject matter. The first step of the Alice/Mayo test addresses whether the patent claims are “directed to” a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea. If not, the invention is patentable. If the claims are directed to one of the ineligible categories, then the second step of the analysis asks whether the patent claims have an “inventive concept.” To have an inventive concept, the patent claim must contain elements that transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application of the ineligible concept, so that the claim amounts, in practice, to something “significantly more” than a patent on the ineligible concept itself. If the invention fails the second step of Alice/Mayo, then it is patent-ineligible. The Supreme Court’s decisions have been widely recognized to effect a significant change in the scope of patentable subject matter, restricting the sorts of inventions that are patentable in the United States. The Alice/Mayo test has been the subject of criticism, with some stakeholders arguing that the Alice/Mayo framework is vague and unpredictable, unduly restricts the scope of patentable subject matter, reduces incentives to invest and innovate, and harms American industry’s competitiveness. In particular, the Alice/Mayo test has created uncertainty in the computer technology and biotechnology industries as to whether innovations in medical diagnostics, personalized medicine, methods of treatment, computer software, and artificial intelligence are patent-eligible. As a result, some patent law stakeholders, including academics, bar associations, industry representatives, judges, and former Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) officials, have called for the Supreme Court or Congress to act to change the law of patentable subject matter. However, other stakeholders defend the legal status quo, arguing that the Alice/Mayo framework provides an important tool for combating unmeritorious patent litigation, or that the revitalized limits on patentable subject matter have important benefits for innovation. Recently, there have been several substantial administrative and legislative efforts to clarify or reform patent-eligible subject matter law. In January 2019, the PTO issued revised guidance to its patent examiners with the aim of clarifying and improving predictability in how PTO patent examiners make Section 101 determinations. In April and May of 2019, a bipartisan and bicameral group of Members released draft legislative proposals that would abrogate the Alice/Mayo framework and transform the law of Section 101 and related provisions of the Patent Act. Following a series of hearings in June 2019, many expect a bill to reform Section 101 to be introduced this fall. These proposed changes could have significant effects as to the types of technologies that are patentable. The availability of patent rights, in turn, affects incentives to invest and innovate in particular fields, as well as consumer costs and public access to technological innovation. Understanding the legal background and context can aid Congress as it debates the legal and practical effects that legislative Section 101 reforms would have if enacted.

Sep 17, 2019

Defense Primer: The National Technology and Industrial Base

Sep 17, 2019

Immigration Relief Options for Bahamians After Hurricane Dorian

Hurricane Dorian made landfall as a Category 5 storm over the northern Bahamas on September 1, 2019, causing extensive damage to Abaco and Grand Bahama Islands, with a combined population of almost 70,000 people (the entire country has an estimated population of almost 390,000). The U.S. government, along with international humanitarian entities, is coordinating with the Government of the Commonwealth of the Bahamas in the relief effort. As of September 12, the United States had contributed almost $10.2 million in humanitarian assistance to the Bahamas in response to the hurricane. As a result of the impact of Hurricane Dorian, some Members of Congress have expressed interest in options for Bahamians to travel to or remain in the United States. The United States enjoys close economic linkages and cooperative relations with the Bahamas. Many Bahamians have relatives in the United States, and there is a sizeable Bahamian-born population residing in Florida. According to CRS correspondence with Customs and Border Protection (CBP), as of September 13, approximately 3,500 people had arrived in Florida from the impacted islands of the Bahamas; approximately 1,500 of these individuals were U.S. citizens and 2,000 were non-U.S. citizens who had valid documents in their possession. Requirements for Travel to the United States According to CBP, based on a 1974 bilateral agreement, certain Bahamian nationals may travel to the United States without a visa if they are pre-inspected by CBP in the Bahamas and are determined admissible. (Note that this visa exemption is different from the Visa Waiver Program, in which the Bahamas does not participate.) Requirements for Bahamians’ visa-free travel to the United States include possession of a valid passport indicating Bahamian nationality and a police certificate indicating no criminal record. In addition, the purpose of travel must be business or pleasure “for a short duration” (typically no more than six months). On September 9, CBP issued a press release stating that Bahamians arriving to the United States by sea must have a visa and that all travelers must have government-issued identity documents. It further stated that “CBP Port Directors may use discretion and will consider all exigent circumstances on a case by case basis in accordance with existing laws and regulations.” At a press conference on the same day, Acting CBP Commissioner Mark Morgan stated, “We will accept anyone on humanitarian reasons that needs to come here.” He further noted that all arrivals would be vetted and processed and that those deemed inadmissible would not be returned to the Bahamas “because it’s unsafe,” but would be turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Bahamians who want or need to obtain a visa for travel to the United States may qualify for B visas, designed for temporary travel for purposes of visiting family, tourism, or business. The standards for a visitor visa—including demonstrating no intention to immigrate permanently—have not changed since the hurricane. Applicants must apply online and attend an interview at the U.S. consulate in Nassau. The consulate closed for a week due to Hurricane Dorian but continued emergency visa appointments; it is currently scheduling both regular and expedited visa appointments. Some Members of Congress have requested (see here and here) that the Trump Administration waive visa requirements in the aftermath of the hurricane. Selected Immigration Relief Options U.S. law does not provide permanent immigration relief for foreign nationals seeking admission because they have been uprooted by natural disaster. It does, however, provide temporary mechanisms by which foreign nationals may enter the United States, or, for those already in the country, may be allowed to remain for some period of time. Temporary Protected Status (TPS) provides relief from removal and work authorization to foreign nationals in the United States from countries experiencing armed conflict, natural disaster, or other extraordinary circumstances that prevent their safe return. According to statute, the Secretary of Homeland Security may designate a country, or part thereof, for TPS for periods of 6, 12, or 18 months at a time. Several countries have been designated following natural disasters, including Haiti, Honduras, Nepal, and Nicaragua. In his September 9 press conference, Acting Commissioner Morgan indicated that TPS would be an appropriate response to Hurricane Dorian, but subsequent media reports (see here and here) stated that the Trump Administration has no plans to proceed. Congress is considering legislation (H.R. 4272, H.R. 4303, S. 2478) that would designate the Bahamas for TPS. Deferred Enforced Departure (DED) is a discretionary, administrative stay of removal granted to foreign nationals from designated countries. Unlike TPS, DED is not in statute but emanates from the President’s constitutional powers to conduct foreign relations. The President designates DED for nationals of a particular country for a limited period of time. While covered by DED, foreign nationals do not accrue unlawful presence, cannot be removed, and are generally eligible for work authorization. DED has been used a total of five times; Liberia is the only country currently designated. In addition to these two “blanket” forms of relief, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) authorizes DHS to “parole” inadmissible aliens into the United States, on a case-by-case basis, “for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit,” provided that they “present neither a security risk nor a risk of absconding.” DHS typically grants parole for a fixed period but has discretion to terminate the parole whenever it determines that “neither humanitarian reasons nor public benefit warrants the continued presence of the alien in the United States.” Paroled aliens may obtain work authorization and do not accrue unlawful presence while the parole remains valid. DHS also has the discretion not to remove an inadmissible or deportable alien. Following Hurricane Mitch in 1998, for example, the Clinton Administration temporarily suspended the deportation of Central Americans. Prior to Hurricane Dorian, ICE stated that it “does not conduct immigration enforcement operations at hurricane evacuation sites or shelters.” In addition to existing mechanisms, Congress has provided case-specific immigration relief following past natural disasters. In 1958, for example, Congress passed the Azorean Refugee Act, which allowed victims of a volcanic eruption to immigrate to the United States.

Sep 16, 2019

Attacks Against Saudi Oil Rattle Markets

September 14, 2019, saw a successful attack against major oil infrastructure in Saudi Arabia (the largest oil exporter), which disrupted 5.7 million barrels of daily production (mb/d), about half of Saudi oil production and 5% of global supply. This is the largest single disruption to crude oil supplies in history, according to Bloomberg, using International Energy Agency (IEA) data. For context, U.S. crude oil production is approximately 12 mb/d. Global oil markets have responded with an initial price increase. The magnitude and duration of the price rise will depend on many factors, such as repair time, additional supplies, the potential confirmation of the perpetrator, and any related security responses. Implications for Saudi Arabia The September 14, 2019, attacks on the Abqaiq processing facility and the Khurais oil field in eastern Saudi Arabia, claimed by Yemen’s Houthi rebels, were the latest in a series of cross-border attacks on energy and transportation sites in the kingdom apparently linked to the ongoing war in Yemen and the Saudi-U.S. confrontation with Iran. The incidents have demonstrated the vulnerability of critical Saudi infrastructure to missile and drone attacks and raised complicated strategic questions for Saudi and U.S. policymakers concerning attribution and potential responses. Iran’s government denies U.S. charges of responsibility. Saudi Arabia’s military operations in Yemen have created demands on its security and defense capabilities in addition to fiscal pressures that have been amplified by oil prices, which have remained below the kingdom’s budget targets. In response, Saudi leaders may delay a planned initial public offering of shares in their state-owned oil company, Aramco, which operates facilities and infrastructure targeted in recent months. Aramco intends to use its crude oil stockpiles to compensate for reduced output and expects to restore production to pre-attack levels. However, additional attacks, or delays in restoration efforts, could extend negative short-term effects and reduce investor confidence in the security of Aramco assets. Relative export volumes, prevailing market prices, and the extent of security and reconstruction costs will determine the attacks’ fiscal effects on the kingdom, including in the event of any prolonged oil output disruptions. The Abqaiq Oil Facility The Abqaiq facility is the largest oil processing facility in the world, with a capacity of about 13 mb/d, but has been operating below its capacity. Abqaiq is a key processing facility for light and extra light Saudi oil that tend to be high in sulfur. To stabilize the crude, hydrogen sulfide and other contaminants need to be removed. An attempted terrorist attack on the facility in 2006 prompted joint Saudi-U.S. efforts to improve critical infrastructure security in the kingdom. Global Responses Crude oil markets have responded to the attacks. The price of the U.S. benchmark crude, West Texas Intermediate (WTI), on Friday before the attacks was $54.85 per barrel, while the international benchmark, known as Brent, was $60.22. At the market’s close on September 16, WTI was priced at $62.62 and Brent was $68.75, a 14% increase for both. Aramco is working to restore the disrupted supply, but full repairs could take weeks or even months, according to industry experts familiar with the matter. The timeline for the return of the remaining amount had not been officially estimated as of September 16. Saudi officials have invited international observers to investigate the attack, and state that the kingdom “will take the appropriate measures based on the results of the investigation, to ensure its security and stability.” On September 15, President Trump authorized the release of oil from the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) in response to the attack against Saudi Arabia’s oil production. The amount of the release has not been announced, but would be based on the necessary volumes to keep the market supplied and to mitigate the impact on oil prices. In the past, presidents have ordered a release in response to severe interruptions in coordination with other IEA member countries. However, the SPR alone has the capacity to replace most of the Saudi barrels. According to a recent announcement, the IEA is monitoring the situation closely and is in close contact with Saudi officials. Commercial stocks are supplying the market, and the IEA has not called for a coordinated member country release. The most recent coordinated release occurred in 2011, after political unrest in Libya led to a production capacity loss of 1.7 mb/d. Libya, at that time, was producing roughly 2% of global supply. On June 23, 2011, the IEA announced a coordinated release of 60 million barrels of crude oil and refined products into the global market. While the attack against Saudi Arabia has removed a larger volume of crude oil from the market, the context for the Libya response was much different. For example, crude oil prices were trading above $100/barrel and the Fukushima disaster had recently occurred, increasing Japanese demand. Today, prices are stabilizing under $70/bbl, and the United States is the top crude oil producer in the world. Possible Additional Oil Market Consequences As new information comes to light and questions are answered, there may be further ramifications for oil markets. For example, if Iran were determined to be the ultimate perpetrator of the attack, and if Saudi Arabia and/or the United States were to attack Iran, risk premiums could rise. Additionally, a military response may raise the risk for oil and natural gas tankers that transit the Strait of Hormuz. Depending on the response from the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) members to any need to replace Saudi exports, it could renew congressional interest in the NOPEC (No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels) Act of 2019 (H.R. 948 and S. 370). The attacks could also lead some in Congress to explore new means of improving critical infrastructure protection capabilities domestically and in partner countries. China is the largest importer of Saudi crude oil, at 1.5 mb/d, followed by Japan at 1 mb/d. These countries may have incentive to purchase U.S. crude, especially U.S. shale supplies, which tend to be similar to Saudi crude that has been removed from the market.

Sep 16, 2019

Immigration Detention: A Legal Overview

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) authorizes—and in some cases requires—the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to detain non-U.S. nationals (aliens) arrested for immigration violations that render them removable from the United States. An alien may be subject to detention pending an administrative determination as to whether the alien should be removed, and, if subject to a final order of removal, pending efforts to secure the alien’s removal from the United States. The immigration detention scheme is multifaceted, with different rules that turn on several factors, such as whether the alien is seeking admission into the United States or has been lawfully admitted into the country; whether the alien has engaged in certain proscribed conduct; and whether the alien has been issued a final order of removal. In many instances DHS maintains discretion to release an alien from custody. But in some instances, such as when an alien has committed specified crimes, the governing statutes have been understood to allow release from detention only in limited circumstances. The immigration detention scheme is mainly governed by four INA provisions that specify when an alien may be detained: INA Section 236(a) generally authorizes the detention of aliens pending removal proceedings and permits aliens who are not subject to mandatory detention to be released on bond or on their own recognizance; INA Section 236(c) generally requires the detention of aliens who are removable because of specified criminal activity or terrorist-related grounds after release from criminal incarceration; INA Section 235(b) generally requires the detention of applicants for admission, such as aliens arriving at a designated port of entry as well as certain other aliens who have not been admitted or paroled into the United States, who appear subject to removal; and INA Section 241(a) generally requires the detention of aliens during a 90-day period after the completion of removal proceedings and permits (but does not require) the detention of certain aliens after that period. These provisions confer substantial authority upon DHS to detain removable aliens, but that authority has been subject to legal challenge, particularly in cases involving the prolonged detention of aliens without bond. DHS’s detention authority is not unfettered, and due process considerations may inform the duration and conditions of aliens’ detention. In 2001, the Supreme Court in Zadvydas v. Davis construed the statute governing the detention of aliens following an order of removal as having implicit, temporal limitations. The Court reasoned that construing the statute to permit the indefinite detention of lawfully admitted aliens after their removal proceedings would raise “serious constitutional concerns.” In 2003, however, the Court in Demore v. Kim ruled that the mandatory detention of certain aliens pending their removal proceedings, at least for relatively brief periods, was constitutionally permissible. The interplay between the Zadvydas and Demore rulings has called into question whether the constitutional standards for detention prior to a final order of removal differ from those governing detention after a final order is issued. Several lower courts have interpreted Demore to mean that mandatory detention pending removal proceedings is not per se unconstitutional, but that Zadvydas cautions that if this detention becomes “prolonged” it may not comport with due process requirements. Additionally, some lower courts have recognized constraints on DHS’s detention power that the Supreme Court has not yet considered. For instance, some courts have ruled that the Due Process Clause requires aliens in removal proceedings to have bond hearings when detention becomes prolonged, where the government bears the burden of proving that the alien’s continued detention is justified. In addition, a settlement agreement known as the “Flores Settlement,” which is enforced by a federal district court, currently limits DHS’s ability to detain alien minors who are subject to removal. Further, while litigation concerning immigration detention has largely centered on the duration of detention, some courts have considered challenges to the conditions of immigration confinement, generally under the standards applicable to pretrial detention in criminal cases. Some courts have also restricted DHS’s ability to take custody of aliens detained by state or local law enforcement officials upon issuance of “immigration detainers.” In short, while DHS generally has broad authority over the detention of aliens, that authority is not without limitation. As courts continue to grapple with legal and constitutional challenges to immigration detention, Congress may consider legislative options that clarify the scope of the federal government’s detention authority.

Sep 16, 2019

The TIGER/BUILD Program at 10 Years: An Overview

The Transportation Investments Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grant program is a discretionary program providing grants to surface transportation projects on a competitive basis, with recipients selected by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). It originated in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA; P.L. 111-5), where it was called “national infrastructure investment” (as it has been in subsequent appropriations acts); in FY2018 the program was renamed the Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD) program. Although the program’s stated purpose is to fund projects of national, regional, and metropolitan area significance, in practice its funding has gone more toward projects of regional and metropolitan-area significance. In large part this is a function of congressional intent, as Congress has directed that the funds be distributed equitably across geographic areas, between rural and urban areas, and among transportation modes, and has set relatively low minimum grant thresholds (currently $5 million for urban projects, $1 million for rural projects). The average grant size has been in the $10 million to $15 million range; such sums are only a small portion of the funding requirements for projects of national significance. The TIGER/BUILD program is not a statutory program. Congress has continued the program by providing funding for it each year in the annual DOT appropriations act. It is a popular program in part because for most of its existence it has been one of a few transportation grant programs that offer regional and local governments the opportunity to apply directly to the federal government for funding, and one of a few that offer states additional funding beyond their annual highway and public transportation formula funding. The program is heavily oversubscribed; over the 10-year period FY2009-F2018, the amount of funding applied for totaled around 24 times the amount of money available for grants. The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has reported that, while DOT has selection criteria for the TIGER grant program, it has sometimes awarded grants to lower-ranked projects while bypassing higher-ranked projects without explaining why it did so, raising questions about the integrity of the selection process. DOT has responded that while its project rankings are based on transportation-related criteria, such as safety and economic impact, it must sometimes select lower-ranking projects over higher-ranking ones to comply with other selection criteria established by Congress, such as geographic balance and a balance between rural and urban awards. Although Congress established the parameters of the program, since the grantees are selected by DOT the Administration controls the grant process. The Obama Administration distributed grants relatively evenly across modes and population areas. The Trump Administration has prioritized grants to road projects in rural areas; in the FY2018 round, 69% of the grant funds went to rural areas. DOT also announced that it would favor projects that provided new nonfederal sources of revenue (“better utilizing investments to leverage development”). Congress subsequently rejected that initiative, directing DOT not to favor projects that provided additional revenue or even projects that requested a low federal share. Congress also capped the share of funding that can go to rural areas in response to the Administration’s tilt toward awarding grants to rural areas. DOT has published two reports on the topic of the performance of projects that received TIGER grants. The reports note that measuring the performance of the array of projects in several modes eligible for TIGER grants is challenging. DOT has required grantees to develop performance plans and measures for each project, beginning before the construction of the project and continuing for years. The reports themselves largely consist of case studies of several projects.

Sep 16, 2019

USMCA: Labor Provisions

Sep 12, 2019

Legal Authority to Repurpose Funds for Border Barrier Construction

President Trump has prioritized the construction of border barriers along the U.S.-Mexico border. Over the course of negotiations for FY2019 appropriations, the Administration asked Congress to appropriate $5.7 billion to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for that purpose. When Congress appropriated $1.375 billion to DHS for border fencing, the President announced that his Administration would fund the construction of border barriers by repurposing funds appropriated to the Department of Defense (DOD) and transferring funds from the Department of the Treasury. The Administration asserted that these funding transfers were authorized by a combination of the following federal laws: National Emergencies Act (NEA). The NEA establishes a framework for the President to declare national emergencies. The NEA does not itself appropriate or authorize the transfer of funds, but the declaration of a national emergency triggers other statutory provisions that allow certain executive departments to repurpose existing appropriations. 10 U.S.C. § 2808. Section 2808 becomes available upon the President’s declaration of a national emergency under the NEA. This provision authorizes the Secretary of Defense to use unobligated military construction funds for the construction of otherwise unauthorized military construction projects. Sections 8005 and 9002 of the 2019 DOD Appropriations Act. Sections 8005 and 9002 of the 2019 DOD Appropriations Act authorize the transfer of up to $6 billion appropriated in that act for “military functions” arising from “unforeseen military requirements.” Funds may be transferred under these authorities only for “unforeseen military requirements” where the item for which funds will be transferred “has [not] been denied by the Congress.” 10 U.S.C. § 284. The 2019 DOD Appropriations Act also appropriated funds to a Drug Interdiction Account. Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 284, money in this fund may be spent by DOD in support of other agencies’ counterdrug activities, including by constructing “roads and fencing . . . to block drug smuggling corridors across international borders of the United States.” The Trump Administration proposed to use Sections 8005 and 9002 of the 2019 DOD Appropriations Act to transfer additional funds into the Drug Interdiction Account, which would then be used to construct border barriers. 31 U.S.C. § 9705. This provision establishes a Treasury Forfeiture Fund (TFF) in the Department of the Treasury and authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to make payments from unobligated sums in the TFF to federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies for various law enforcement purposes. Several plaintiffs filed lawsuits in federal courts in California, the District of Columbia, and Texas to prevent the Administration from using these authorities to repurpose appropriations for border barrier construction, arguing that none of the Administration’s funding initiatives were authorized by Congress. Some of these plaintiffs also argued that the construction of border barriers was subject to the environmental assessment requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Though a federal court in California initially entered an injunction prohibiting the Trump Administration from using the funds to initiate construction of border fencing, the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately stayed that injunction. The California federal district court’s injunction would have prohibited the Administration from using Sections 8005 and 9002 to transfer funds for border barrier construction. The court did not rule on the lawfulness of the Administration’s other proposed funding sources, though it did determine that waivers issued by DHS under Section 102 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act rendered NEPA inapplicable to the proposed border projects. But following the Supreme Court’s stay of the district court’s injunction, DOD was able to use funds transferred under Sections 8005 and 9002 for barrier construction purposes while litigation in the case continues. Other lawsuits challenging the Trump Administration’s funding initiatives are ongoing in federal courts in the District of Columbia and Texas, though neither court has ruled on the merits of the Administration’s initiatives. Meanwhile, both houses of Congress have continued to move through the annual appropriations process. The House of Representatives has passed its version of the DOD Appropriations Act for FY2020 and is considering the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY2020. The House version of the FY2020 Defense Appropriations Act prohibits the use of funds for the construction of border barriers, as does the House committee version of the NDAA. The Senate has also passed its version of the NDAA for FY2020, which does not include such a prohibition.

Sep 10, 2019

Electricity Portfolio Standards: Background, Design Elements, and Policy Considerations

Electricity portfolio standards, such as renewable portfolio standards and clean energy standards, are policies aimed at changing the energy sources used to generate electricity. Supporters identify multiple policy goals, including greenhouse gas reduction, technology innovation, and job creation. Twenty-nine states, three U.S. territories, and the District of Columbia are currently implementing mandatory portfolio standards. Congress, to date, has not established a national portfolio standard, though bills that would do so have been introduced in every Congress since the 105th. Congressional interest in 2011 and 2012 prompted a variety of analyses about potential impacts of a national portfolio standard. The national electricity generation profile has changed since then in ways that might make previous analyses less relevant to any future policy debate. Between 2012 and 2018, in the U.S. generation from coal fell (from 37% to 27%), generation from natural gas increased (from 30% to 35%), and generation from renewable sources (e.g., hydropower, wind, solar) increased (from 12% to 18%). Many expect these trends to continue, regardless of any new federal policy related to the electric power sector. Portfolio standards are generally envisioned as market-based policies in the sense that they use financial incentives rather than prohibitions to achieve policy goals. Several key concepts in portfolio standards are common to other market-based policies. Credits are an accounting mechanism used for compliance and are tracked in electronic databases sometimes called registries. Lawmakers can choose the degree of flexibility around credit use in a portfolio standard, with potential impacts on overall policy costs and benefits. Procedures to monitor, report, and verify credits can help portfolio standards achieve their policy goals and reduce the risk of fraud. Other concepts are specific to portfolio standards. Choices about these design elements can strongly influence policy outcomes. Generally, choices that would tend to reduce costs would also tend to result in fewer changes in the electricity generation profile. The choice of which energy sources would be eligible for compliance, and therefore would be incentivized by the program, is often central to policy discussions about portfolio standards. Past proposals have included a range of eligible sources, including renewable sources, nuclear, fossil fuel-fired power plants equipped with carbon capture and sequestration technology (CCS), and natural gas combined cycle power plants. Some proposals have included nongenerating sources like energy storage and energy efficiency as well. Other design elements include whether all utilities should have to comply with a portfolio standard or whether some would be exempted; how much generation from eligible sources a portfolio standard is designed to achieve; by when should the desired amount of generation from those sources be achieved; to what share of a utility’s electricity sales should a portfolio standard apply; and whether any provisions should be included that delay or halt compliance under certain circumstances (e.g., undesirably high prices). If established, a national portfolio standard would likely have economic effects, though estimating these in advance is subject to some uncertainty. Any sources and associated industries excluded from the definition of eligible sources would likely experience negative economic effects. At the same time, industries associated with sources included in the standard would likely experience positive economic effects. The net effect on national economic activity would depend on the design details of any portfolio standard and the ways that consumers might respond to potentially higher electricity prices. A national portfolio standard might also have environmental effects compared to a business-as-usual scenario, depending on design choices such as source eligibility and the change from business as usual a portfolio standard is designed to achieve. Potential eligible sources vary in their GHG and air pollutant emissions, as well as other attributes such as water consumption and power density (which can affect land requirements). Implementation could affect environmental outcomes too. For example, deploying small-scale distributed eligible sources might have different effects than deploying large-scale eligible sources. Another policy consideration is potential interaction with state energy policies like existing portfolio standards, electricity infrastructure siting, and the use of competitive markets to influence electricity investment decisions. Such interactions may generate debate regarding preemption and highlight potential federalism concerns.

Sep 10, 2019

Congressional Action on FY2019 Appropriations Measures: 115th and 116th Congresses

Congress annually considers 12 regular appropriations measures to provide discretionary funding for federal government activities and operations. For FY2019, appropriations actions spanned two Congresses, between which there was a change in the majority party in the House. The process of drafting, considering, and enacting FY2019 appropriations began in early 2018 and included the House and Senate Appropriations Committees each marking up and reporting all 12 annual appropriations bills by the end of July. Five appropriations bills in the 115th Congress were enacted into law by the start of the fiscal year. An additional seven appropriations bills remained in various stages of consideration. Continuing resolutions (CRs) were enacted in order to extend funding of government operations covered in these seven bills. The first CR for FY2019 provided funding through December 7, 2018. A second CR provided funding through December 21, 2018. When the second CR expired, funding lapsed for the agencies and activities covered in the remaining seven appropriations bills, and a partial government shutdown ensued. The shutdown ended on January 25, 2019, when the 116th Congress enacted a third CR to provide funding through February 15, 2019. Appropriations actions were subsequently completed when H.J.Res. 31, an omnibus measure covering the seven remaining appropriations measures, was signed into law on February 15, 2019 (P.L. 116-6). These and other actions are detailed in this report to provide overview information and a chronology of FY2019 appropriations measures. For information on tracking appropriations and related products, congressional clients may access the CRS FY2019 Appropriations Status Table at https://www.crs.gov/AppropriationsStatusTable.

Sep 10, 2019

Retaliatory Tariffs and U.S. Agriculture

Sep 5, 2019

New U.S. Sanctions on Venezuela

In August 2019, the Trump Administration expanded Venezuela-related sanctions by blocking all assets and interests of the Nicolás Maduro government in the United States. It also authorized sanctions against those who materially support the Maduro government or others already designated for sanctions, with exemptions for humanitarian aid. Since recognizing Juan Guaidó, head of the National Assembly, as interim president of Venezuela in January 2019, the Administration has increased sanctions on the Maduro government in an effort to compel Maduro to leave office so a Guaidó-led transition government can convene free and fair elections. Sanctions have put economic pressure on the Maduro government, primarily by accelerating the decline in Venezuela’s oil production and making it difficult for the Maduro government to sell oil in international markets. Sanctions, however, have not yet led to a political transition and arguably have contributed to deteriorating humanitarian conditions. New Sanctions Executive Order (E.O.) 13884, signed by President Trump on August 5, 2019, blocks all property of the Maduro government within the United States and prohibits all transactions within the United States involving the Maduro government. Several parts of the Maduro government, including specific government officials, the central bank, and the state-owned oil company, Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PdVSA), were subject to sanctions under earlier U.S. actions. E.O. 13884 applies sanctions to all Venezuelan government entities and state-owned enterprises. According to U.S. National Security Adviser John Bolton, the new sanctions strive to “cut off Maduro financially, and accelerate a peaceful democratic transition.” E.O. 13884 also calls for sanctions against non-U.S. individuals or entities determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to have “materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods, or services to or in support of” the Maduro government. The order calls for sanctions on those determined to have “acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly” of the Maduro government. These sanctions on foreign individuals and entities include blocking U.S. assets and denying entry into the United States. Simultaneously with the signing of E.O. 13884, Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) amended 12 previously issued Venezuela-related general licenses and issued 13 new general licenses. The licenses permit transactions involving humanitarian support, the Venezuelan National Assembly and Guaidó-led interim government, and Venezuela’s mission to the United Nations, among others. Some analysts characterized the new sanctions as a U.S. embargo against Venezuela. However, an embargo refers to a complete ban on trade with a particular country; E.O. 13884 is narrower and targets the Maduro government rather than transactions with Venezuelan individuals or private companies. Potential Implications Because many parts of the Maduro government already are subject to sanctions and several licenses have been granted, there are questions about the latest sanctions’ potential impact. The sanctions could have implications for CITGO, a U.S.-based subsidiary of PdVSA; foreign companies that transact with PdVSA; and humanitarian conditions in Venezuela. CITGO. Following January 2019 sanctions on PdVSA, the National Assembly voted to appoint a new CITGO board of directors. The new board has taken over payments on bonds previously issued by PdVSA. The bonds are collateralized by a majority ownership position in CITGO, a valuable asset in the PdVSA portfolio. If the bonds enter into default, the bondholders could potentially seize CITGO. After President Trump signed E.O. 13884, Guaidó argued that the latest sanctions shield CITGO from seizure by creditors. However, the law firm Clearly Gottlieb, which represents some Venezuelan bondholders, issued a report that it does not see a basis for such statements, maintaining that bondholders are still authorized to collect on collateral in the event of default. Nevertheless, speculation remains that OFAC could provide additional guidance on the sanctions’ implications on CITGO before a $913 million bond payment comes due in late October 2019. Foreign Entities Engaged in Transactions with PdVSA. Many foreign companies conduct business with PdVSA, including joint venture oil production, petroleum trade, and oilfield services. PdVSA’s joint ventures include companies in France, Norway, Spain, China, Japan, India, and Russia. Additionally, Venezuelan crude oil is increasingly exported to foreign countries, following January 2019 sanctions prohibiting U.S.-Venezuela petroleum trade. Most Venezuelan crude oil exports are destined for China and India, and nearly all exports to India go to refineries owned by Russia’s Rosneft. Recent exports also have gone to Malaysia, Spain, Germany, and Sweden. PdVSA has been acquiring diluents—blended with Venezuelan crude oil to facilitate transportation and processing—from Russia. Should this cooperation with the Maduro government continue, these companies could be subject to E.O. 13884 sanctions. Humanitarian Conditions in Venezuela. With oil comprising 95% of Venezuela’s exports, declining oil production caused by years of corruption and mismanagement has contributed to a humanitarian crisis. The combined effects of U.S. sanctions imposed from 2017 to 2019 likely accelerated that decline. The Maduro government has retained the military’s loyalty thus far by distributing revenue from licit and illicit enterprises and repressing internal dissent. Some analysts, however, speculate that the stronger U.S. sanctions could worsen the humanitarian crisis without hastening Maduro’s departure. Others argue that the sanctions’ impact on the Venezuelan people may be somewhat minimized by OFAC’s authorizations to permit personal remittances, humanitarian-related transactions, and support from international organizations. Effects on Negotiations. Since May 2019, Guaidó and Maduro have engaged in talks, facilitated by Norway, to try to end the standoff, but prospects for a negotiated solution to the crisis remain uncertain. The most recent U.S. sanctions resulted in the Maduro government temporarily walking away from the talks. Many analysts caution that U.S. sanctions could prolong the current stalemate by not allowing Maduro a dignified way to leave power. Others assert that U.S. assurances that Maduro could go into exile without facing prosecution if he allowed free and fair elections to occur could help move negotiations forward. For recently updated information on Venezuela, see CRS In Focus IF10230, Venezuela: Political Crisis and U.S. Policy, and CRS In Focus IF10715, Venezuela: Overview of U.S. Sanctions.

Sep 5, 2019

Surface Transportation Reauthorization and the America’s Transportation Infrastructure Act (S. 2302)

Sep 3, 2019

Climate Change and the America’s Transportation Infrastructure Act of 2019 (S. 2302)

Sep 3, 2019

Recent Recommendations by the Judicial Conference for New U.S. Circuit and District Court Judgeships: Overview and Analysis

Congress determines through legislative action both the size and structure of the federal judiciary. Consequently, the creation of any new permanent or temporary U.S. circuit and district court judgeships must be authorized by Congress. A permanent judgeship, as the term suggests, permanently increases the number of judgeships in a district or circuit, while a temporary judgeship increases the number of judgeships for a limited period of time. Congress last enacted comprehensive judgeship legislation in 1990. Since then, there have been a relatively smaller number of district court judgeships created using appropriations or authorization bills. The Judicial Conference of the United States, the policymaking body of the federal courts, makes biennial recommendations to Congress that identify any circuit and district courts that, according to the Conference, require new permanent judgeships to appropriately administer civil and criminal justice in the federal court system. In evaluating whether a court might need additional judgeships, the Judicial Conference examines whether certain caseload levels have been met, as well as court-specific information that might uniquely affect a particular court. The caseload level of a court is expressed as filings per authorized judgeship, assuming all vacancies on the court are filled. The Judicial Conference’s most recent recommendation, released in March 2019, calls for the creation of five permanent judgeships for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (composed of California, eight other western states, and two U.S. territories). The Conference also recommends creating 65 permanent U.S. district court judgeships, as well as converting 8 temporary district court judgeships to permanent status. In making its recommendations to Congress, the Judicial Conference also identifies any courts that might have the most urgent need for new judgeships. These courts are considered, by the Conference, to have extraordinarily high and sustained workloads. In its most recent recommendations, the Conference identified six U.S. district courts it considers to have the most urgent need for new judgeships to be authorized by Congress.

Sep 3, 2019

The U.S. Land-Grant University System: An Overview

With the passage of the first Morrill Act in 1862, the United States began a then-novel policy of providing federal support for post-secondary education, focused on agriculture and the mechanical arts. The national system of land-grant colleges and universities that has developed since then is recognized for its breadth, reach, and excellence in teaching, research, and extension. Land-grant institutions are located in every U.S. state and many territories. These institutions educate the next generation of farmers, ranchers, and citizens, and form the backbone of a national network of agricultural extension and experiment stations. The land-grant university system has continued to evolve through federal legislation. The federal government provides funds, often with state matching requirements, to execute the system’s three-fold mission of agricultural teaching, research, and extension. The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) distributes these funds to the states as capacity grants, on a formula basis as determined by statute, or to participating institutions on a competitive basis. The Morrill Acts of 1862 (12 Stat. 503) and 1890 (26 Stat. 417), and the Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-382 §531-535), established the three institutional categories of the land-grant system, now known as the 1862, 1890, and 1994 Institutions. The 1862 Institutions are the first land-grant institutions; 1890 Institutions are historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs); and 1994 Institutions are tribal colleges and universities (TCUs). Later legislation also recognized additional institutional categories, including non-land-grant colleges of agriculture (NLGCAs) and Hispanic-serving agricultural colleges and universities (HSACUs), for specific programs. The Hatch Act of 1887 (24 Stat. 440), Evans-Allen Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-113 §1445), and provisions of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 (AREERA, P.L. 105-185) provide the framework for funding research at land-grant institutions. State Agricultural Experiment Stations (SAES) associated with 1862 Institutions receive federal research capacity funds with a one-to-one non-federal matching requirement. The 1890 Institutions also receive federal research capacity funds with this matching requirement, yet USDA can waive up to 50% of their matching requirement. The 1994 Institutions can receive federal research funds through competitive grants programs. They may also use interest distributions from the Native American Institutions Endowment Fund, allocated on a formula basis, at their discretion. The land-grant university system operates the U.S. Cooperative Extension Service (CES) in partnership with federal, state, and local governments. The CES provides non-formal education to agricultural producers and communities through its network of offices located in most of the more than 3,000 U.S. counties and territories. The Smith-Lever Act of 1914 (38 Stat. 372), National Agricultural Research, Education, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (NARETPA, P.L. 95-113 §1444-1445), and AREERA extension provisions guide agricultural extension funding in the land-grant university system. The 1862 and 1890 Institutions receive federal capacity funds, according to separate formulas with non-federal matching requirements. USDA may waive up to 50% of the matching requirement for 1890 Institutions. The 1994 Institutions may receive federal extension funding through competitive grants. Looking forward, the scheduled fall 2019 relocation of NIFA from its current location in Washington, D.C.; the decades-long shifting balance of public and private investment in agricultural research; disparities in state matching funds among the different classes of land-grant institutions; and the funding of TCU land-grant institutions may invite congressional engagement.

Aug 29, 2019

U.S.-China Relations

Aug 29, 2019

DHS Border Barrier Funding

Congress and the Administration are debating enhancing and expanding border barriers on the southwest border in the context of border security. The purpose of barriers on the U.S.-Mexico border has evolved over time. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, fencing at the border was more for demarcation, or discouraging livestock from wandering over the border, rather than deterring smugglers or illegal migration. Physical barriers to deter migrants are a relatively new part of the border landscape, first being built in the 1990s in conjunction with counterdrug efforts. This phase of construction, extending into the 2000s, was largely driven by legislative initiatives. Specific authorization for border barriers was provided in 1996 in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), and again in 2006 in the Secure Fence Act. These authorities were superseded by legislation included in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, which rewrote key provisions of IIRIRA and replaced most of the Secure Fence Act. The result of these initiatives was construction of more than 650 miles of barriers along the nearly 2,000-mile border. A second phase of construction is marked by barrier construction being an explicit part of the White House agenda. On January 25, 2017, the Trump Administration issued Executive Order 13767, “Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements.” Section 2(a) of the E.O. indicates that it is the policy of the executive branch to “secure the southern border of the United States through the immediate construction of a physical wall on the southern border, monitored and supported by adequate personnel so as to prevent illegal immigration, drug and human trafficking, and acts of terrorism.” As debate over funding for, and construction of, a “border wall system” in this phase continues, putting border barrier funding in its historical context has been of interest to some in Congress. There has not been an authoritative compilation of data over time on the level of federal investment in border barriers. This is in part due to the evolving structure of the appropriations for agencies charged with protecting the border—account structures have shifted, initiatives have come and gone, and appropriations typically have not specified a precise level of funding for barriers as opposed to other technologies that secure the border. Funding was not specifically designated for border barrier construction until FY2006. The more than $3 billion in appropriations provided by Congress for border barrier planning and construction since the signing of the EO exceeds the amount provided for those purposes from FY2007-FY2016 by more than $618 million. Almost all of this funding has been provided for improvements to the existing barriers at the border; a portion of the funds are available for new construction. CBP announced on August 8, 2019, a contract award for building 11 miles of levee wall system (steel bollard on top of a concrete wall) in areas where no barriers currently exist in the Rio Grande Valley Sector. The Administration has taken steps to secure funding beyond the levels approved by Congress for border barriers, including transferring roughly $601 million from the Treasury Forfeiture Fund to CBP; using $2.5 billion in Department of Defense funds transferred to the Department’s counterdrug programs to construct border barriers; and potentially reallocating up to $3.6 billion from other military construction projects using authorities under the declaration of a national emergency. This report provides an overview of the funding appropriated for border barriers, based on data from CBP and congressional documents, and a primer on the Trump Administration’s efforts to enhance the funding for border barriers, with a brief discussion of the legislative and historical context of construction of barriers at the U.S-Mexico border. It concludes with a number of unanswered questions Congress may wish to explore as this debate continues. An appendix tracks barrier construction mileage on the U.S.-Mexico border by year.

Aug 27, 2019

Unemployment Compensation (UC): Issues Related to Drug Testing

Recent interest in Unemployment Compensation (UC) drug testing has grown at both the federal and state levels. The policy interest in mandatory drug testing of individuals who are applying for or receiving UC benefits parallels two larger policy trends. First, some state legislatures have considered drug testing individuals receiving public assistance benefits. While UC is generally considered social insurance (rather than public assistance), the concept of drug testing UC recipients (who are receiving state-financed benefits from a program authorized under state laws) could be interpreted as a potential extension of this state-level interest. Second, over recent years, Congress has considered issues related to UC program integrity, including drug testing, which may be viewed as addressing UC program integrity concerns. Under the current interpretation of federal law, and subject to specific exceptions, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) requires states to determine entitlement to benefits under their UC programs based only on facts or causes related to the individual’s state of unemployment. Under this reasoning, individuals may be disqualified for UC benefits if they lost their previous job because of illegal drug use. Until recently, the prospective drug testing of UC applicants or beneficiaries has been generally prohibited. However, P.L. 112-96 expanded the breadth of allowable UC drug testing to include prospective drug testing based upon job searches for suitable work in an occupation that regularly conducts drug testing. DOL is expected to issue a new final rule on this type of prospective testing after a previous promulgated rule was repealed using the Congressional Review Act. Stakeholders have made a variety of arguments for and against expanded UC drug testing. Proponents of prospective drug testing cite not only program integrity concerns, but also the importance of job readiness for UC claimants as well as state discretion in matters of UC eligibility and administration. Opponents of the prospective drug testing of UC claimants argue that it would impose additional costs and undermine the fundamental goals of the UC program, which include the timely provision of income replacement to individuals who lost a job through no fault of their own. Some stakeholders also expressed concern that expanded UC drug testing could create barriers to UC benefit receipt among eligible individuals and discourage UC claims filing. Stakeholders have also raised at least two legal concerns with the 2018 reproposed UC drug testing rule: (1) some commenters have argued that the reproposed rule may violate the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and (2) some commenters have argued that the proposal improperly delegates authority to the states to identify occupations that regularly conduct drug testing. Other policy issues to consider related to expanding UC drug testing include administrative concerns, such as state establishment of a drug testing program for UC claimants as well as the potential provision of and funding for drug treatment services. For a shorter summary of recent events related to UC drug testing, see CRS Insight IN10909, Recent Legislative and Regulatory Developments in States’ Ability to Drug Test Unemployment Compensation Applicants and Beneficiaries. For additional information on the federal-state UC system generally, see CRS Report RL33362, Unemployment Insurance: Programs and Benefits.

Aug 27, 2019