CRS Reports

Cyber Operations in DOD Policy and Plans: Issues for Congress

This report presents an overview of the threat landscape in cyberspace, including the types of offensive weapons available, the targets they are designed to attack, and the types of actors carrying out the attacks. It presents a picture of what kinds of offensive and defensive tools exist and a brief overview of recent attacks. The report then describes the current status of U.S. capabilities, and the national and international authorities under which the U.S. Department of Defense carries out cyber operations.

Jan 5, 2014

Introduction to Public Housing

This report serves as an introduction to the federal public housing program. It provides information on the history of the program, how it is administered and funded, and the characteristics of public housing properties and the households they serve. While it introduces current policy issues, a full analysis of those issues and discussion of current legislation is not included in this report.

Jan 3, 2014

Moving to Work (MTW): Housing Assistance Demonstration Program

The Moving to Work (MTW) demonstration program was created by Congress in 1996 to give the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and local Public Housing Authorities (PHAs) the flexibility to test alternative policies for providing housing assistance through the nation’s two largest housing assistance programs: the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program and the public housing program. The alternative policies are meant to increase the cost-effectiveness of assisted housing programs, promote the self-sufficiency of assisted families, and increase housing choices for low-income families. The more than 30 PHAs currently participating in the demonstration have adopted a wide range of new policies that would not have been possible under the traditional rules governing assisted housing programs. Participating PHAs have merged their various federal funding streams and used their merged, “block grant” funding to undertake new activities, including supportive services for residents, development of new affordable housing, and the restructuring of traditional public housing. MTW PHAs have also changed their rent policies in ways that may raise rents for some tenants, but may also improve incentives for families to increase earnings. Some PHAs have adopted policies that place new conditions on assistance, such as time limits and work requirements. And PHAs have undertaken changes to streamline administration of the program, such as modifying their quality inspection procedures. The way the demonstration program was designed—allowing for a wide variety of activities—and issues with data collection have meant that no systematic evaluation of the outcome of the policies adopted by MTW agencies has been undertaken. However, HUD has made efforts to increase and standardize data collection within the MTW demonstration program, which may make such an evaluation more feasible in the future. Both supporters and critics of the program have made observations about how the flexibility provided under MTW has been used, and those observations have influenced the policy debate about the future of the demonstration. Critics of the demonstration have argued that MTW agencies have been given unprecedented flexibilities, yet there is little understanding of the impacts those flexibilities have had on the lives of low-income families. Supporters of the demonstration have argued that the flexibility of MTW has allowed participating PHAs to serve more families in unique, improved, and cost-effective ways. These competing perceptions of MTW have translated to conflicting calls to end the program, change the program, or expand the program. To some extent, these conflicting visions of the future of the program reflect different ideas about the program’s purpose. Should MTW be used as a testing ground for evaluating innovative policies for the delivery of assisted housing? Or, should something like MTW replace the major housing assistance programs? Regardless of whether Congress chooses to make changes to the MTW program, the policies adopted by participating PHAs appear to be influencing debates about assisted housing programs. Several of the policies adopted by MTW agencies are under consideration as permanent reforms for the public housing and Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher programs. As Congress considers the reform of federal housing assistance programs, policymakers may continue to look to lessons from the MTW demonstration program for insight.

Jan 3, 2014

Energy-Water Nexus: The Water Sector's Energy Use

This report provides background on energy for facilities that treat and deliver water to end users and also dispose of and discharge wastewater. This report first discusses water-related energy use broadly and then energy for facilities that treat and deliver water to end users and also dispose of and discharge wastewater.

Jan 3, 2014

The Indian Health Care Improvement Act Reauthorization and Extension as Enacted by the ACA: Detailed Summary and Timeline

On March 23, 2010, President Obama signed into law a comprehensive health care reform bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA; P.L. 111-148). Among its provisions, the ACA reenacts, amends, and permanently reauthorizes the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (IHCIA). IHCIA authorizes many specific Indian Health Service (IHS) activities, sets out the national policy for health services administered to Indians, and sets health condition goals for the IHS service population to reduce “the prevalence and incidence of preventable illnesses among, and unnecessary and premature deaths of, Indians.” The reauthorization of IHCIA in the ACA amends the IHCIA to, among other changes, expand programs that seek to augment the IHS health care workforce, increase the amount and type of services available at facilities funded by the IHS, and increase the number and type of programs that provide behavioral health and substance abuse treatment to American Indians and Alaska Natives. This report provides a brief overview of IHCIA and summarizes the provisions of the Indian Health Care Improvement Reauthorization and Extension Act of 2009 as enacted and amended by Section 10221 of the ACA. Appendix A presents a timeline of the deadlines included in the act. Another report, CRS Report R41152, Indian Health Care: Impact of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), by Elayne J. Heisler, more briefly summarizes the major changes made by the ACA to IHCIA and includes a discussion of other provisions in the ACA that may affect IHS and American Indian and Alaska Native health and their access to health care. This report is primarily for reference purposes. The material in it is intended to provide context to help the reader better understand the intent of ACA’s individual provisions at the time of enactment. The report does not track or discuss ongoing ACA-related regulatory and other implementation activities.

Jan 3, 2014

The Higher Education Act (HEA): A Primer

This report discusses the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA; P.L. 89-329) that authorizes numerous federal aid programs that provide support to both individuals pursuing a postsecondary education and institutions of higher education (IHEs).

Jan 2, 2014

U.S. Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits and Pension Funding Issues

Jan 2, 2014

Shadow Banking: Background and Policy Issues

Shadow banking refers to financial firms and activities that perform similar functions to those of depository banks. Although the term is used to describe dissimilar firms and activities, a general policy concern is that a component of shadow banking could be a source of financial instability, even though that component might not be subject to regulations designed to prevent a crisis, or be eligible for emergency facilities designed to mitigate financial turmoil once it has begun. This concern is magnified by the experience of 2007-2009, during which financial problems among nonbank lenders, and disruption to securitization (in which both banks and nonbanks participated), contributed to the magnitude of the financial crisis. This report provides a framework for understanding shadow banking, discusses several fundamental problems of financial intermediation, and describes the experiences of several specific sectors of shadow banking during the financial crisis and related policy concerns. Shadow banking is contrasted with luminated banking, a term which the report uses to describe chartered banks that gather funds from depositors in order to offer loans that the chartered bank holds itself. Luminated banking, like all forms of financial intermediation, is subject to well-known risks, including credit risk, interest rate risk, maturity mismatch, and the potential for runs. Each sector of shadow banking is generally subject to the same problem of financial intermediation to which the sector is analogous. For example, if a sector of shadow banking such as money market funds (MMF) has investors that are analogous to depositors in luminated banking, then the potential for runs may be similar. Or, if the sector relies on collateralized loans, such as asset-backed commercial paper (ABCP), then disruptions in the market for the underlying collateral can cause fire sales that may reinforce and magnify price declines. The regulatory regime and eligibility for emergency financial assistance for shadow banking varies from sector to sector and type of firm to type of firm. For example, the Dodd-Frank Act subjects certain large nonbank firms funded by repurchase agreements (repos) to safety and soundness regulation similar to banks. The Dodd-Frank Act prohibits emergency assistance to individual firms as was done in 2008 for Bear Stearns or AIG, but preserves the ability of the Federal Reserve to provide more generally eligible assistance to shadow banking sectors such as ABCP through the Term Asset Backed Liquidity Facility (TALF). Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act allows the FDIC to resolve the failure of any firm, including shadow banking firms, whose failure may pose a threat to financial stability. Several components of shadow banking rely on securities markets to fund debt. These securities regulations are typically activity based, applying to all securities market participants if there is no explicit exemption. Securities regulation requires disclosure of material risks, but often does not attempt to limit the risks of firms funded through securities markets. In contrast, banking regulation sometimes applies only to firms with specific charters. Furthermore, banking regulators oversee linkages between banks, such as the payment system. Thus, debt funded through securities markets is likely to be subject to regulation no matter who does it, but that regulation is unlikely to be risk-based or to incorporate linkages between firms. Banking regulation is likely to be risk based, but to miss debt funded through securities markets. Some policy options for shadow banking firms and markets are often analogous to policy options for depository banking or securities markets. Firms that engage in shadow banking could be subjected to safety and soundness regulation and capital requirements in order to limit risk and encourage resilience. Providers of short-term credit to shadow banks could be offered guarantees analogous to deposit insurance in order to minimize runs. Non-bank firms that rely on short-term credit to fund lending (or the holding of debt) can be made eligible for emergency lending facilities from a lender of last resort in order to address liquidity problems. There are alternatives to the banking approach. Banks and other firms that fund themselves with substitute for deposits could be assessed higher fees to account for potential systemic costs that current market prices might not incorporate. More financial regulation could be made activity based, rather than charter based, in order to lessen regulatory arbitrage. Differences in banking regulation and securities regulation for the funding of debt could be preserved, but each separate category of regulation could be addressed where it applies. The report analyzes five sectors of shadow banking. These sectors include (1) repos, (2) non-bank intermediaries, (3) ABCP, (4) securitization, and (5) MMFs. For each of these sectors, the report briefly defines the sector, recounts the sector’s experience during the financial crisis, and outlines some related policy concerns. Each policy problem is described in the context of the general problems of financial intermediation introduced earlier in the report.

Dec 31, 2013

The Crisis in South Sudan

This report provides an overview of the recent humanitarian situation in South Sudan. The United States is the largest provider of bilateral foreign assistance to South Sudan and a major financial contributor to international peacekeeping efforts there.

Dec 27, 2013

Brief History of NIH Funding: Fact Sheet

This report provides a brief history of National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding and figures on NIH appropriations for FY1994-FY2014.

Dec 23, 2013

The Medical Device Excise Tax: Economic Analysis

This report reviews the issues surrounding the medical devices tax within the framework of basic principles surrounding the choice of commodities to tax under excise taxes. The next section describes the tax and its legislative origins. After that, the report analyzes the arguments for retaining and repealing the tax.

Dec 23, 2013

Increasing the Efficiency of Existing Coal-Fired Power Plants

Coal has long been the major fossil fuel used to produce electricity. However, coal-fired electric power plants are one of the largest sources of air pollution in the United States, with greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from burning of fossil fuels believed to be the major contributor to global climate change. Regulations under development at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would impose new requirements on fossil-fueled (mostly coal-fired) power plants (CFPPs) to control GHG emissions. The first of these requirements was issued in September 2013 with proposed standards for the control of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from new electric generating units burning fossil fuels. EPA’s proposals for control of GHG emissions from existing power plants are expected by June 2014, with many options under consideration. EPA may target emissions on a state or plant-by-plant basis, with companies likely given choices for compliance. Within such a system, efficiency improvements can be an important contributor. The overall efficiency of a power plant encompasses the efficiency of the various components of a generating unit. Minimizing heat losses is the greatest factor affecting the loss of CFPP efficiency, and there are many areas of potential heat losses in a power plant. Efficiency of older CFPPs becomes degraded over time, and lower power plant efficiency results in more CO2 being emitted per unit of electricity generated. The options most often considered for increasing the efficiency of CFPPs include equipment refurbishment, plant upgrades, and improved operations and maintenance schedules. Cost of the improvements is often compared to the expected return in increased efficiency as a primary determinant of whether to go forward with a program. A study by the Asia-Pacific Working Group (APWG) found that at the low to medium end of cost expenditures are combustion, steam cycle, and operations and maintenance improvements. Replacing the older CFPPs with new power plants was not generally seen as being practical because the expenditure for a new plant could not be justified by the improved performance. Instead, efficiency and operational improvements were seen as a possible alternative considering a range of equipment upgrades and refurbishment options to various CFPP systems. The National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) took APWG’s analysis a step further, finding that while the average efficiency of U.S. plants was 32% in 2007, the efficiency of the top 10% was five points higher at 37.4%. NETL suggested that if GHG emissions reduction was a goal, then heat rate efficiency improvements could enable a power plant to generate the same amount of electricity from less fuel and decrease CO2 emissions. In 2010, NETL completed a new study of U.S. CFPP efficiency, concluding that if generation levels were held constant at 2008 levels, overall fleet efficiency could be raised from 32% to 36%, resulting in an overall reduction in U.S. GHG emissions of 175 million metric tonnes per year, or 2.5% of total U.S. GHG emissions in 2008. According to subsequent analyses, NETL concluded that retirements of lower efficiency units combined with increased generation from higher efficiency refurbished units, and advanced refurbishments with improved operation and maintenance, would be necessary to achieve this goal. These improvements would generally be considered low to medium cost upgrades. However, at the higher cost end are major plant retrofits and upgrades (i.e., conversion of subcritical CFPP units to super- or ultra-supercritical CFPP units), which would raise efficiencies more substantially. One possible approach to achieve fleet-wide efficiency improvement might be to follow NETL’s suggestion of using the top decile of CFPP efficiency as a benchmark for the U.S. fleet, and establish an “efficiency frontier” that would be revisited periodically to reset the benchmark. This could be combined with possible incentives to improve efficiency or retire less efficient power plants. Other federal approaches could use tax incentives to encourage greater efficiency, or employ energy efficiency standards focused on improving efficiency of CFPPs. The overall cost of these or other programs to increase CFPP efficiency has yet to be determined.

Dec 20, 2013

Bitcoin: Questions, Answers, and Analysis of Legal Issues

This report has three major sections. The first section answers some basic questions about Bitcoin and the operation of the Bitcoin network and its interaction with the current dollar-based monetary system. The second section summarizes likely reasons for and against widespread Bitcoin adoption. The third section discusses legal and regulatory matters that have been raised by Bitcoin and other digital currencies.

Dec 20, 2013

Congressional Action on FY2014 Appropriations Measures

This report provides background and analysis with regard to the FY2014 appropriations process. The first section discusses the status of discretionary budget enforcement for FY2014, including the statutory spending limits and allocations under the congressional budget resolution. The second section provides information on the consideration of regular appropriations measures and an overview of their funding levels.

Dec 18, 2013

Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations

Dec 16, 2013

Campaign Contribution Limits: Selected Questions About McCutcheon and Policy Issues for Congress

This report offers a preliminary analysis of major policy issues and potential implications that appear to be most relevant as the House and Senate prepare for the ruling and decide whether or how to respond.

Dec 12, 2013

Status of the WTO Brazil-U.S. Cotton Case

Dec 12, 2013

SBA Surety Bond Guarantee Program

This report examines the program's origin and development, including the decision to (1) supplement the original Prior Approval Program with the Preferred Surety Bond Guarantee Program that provides a lower guarantee rate (70%) than the Prior Approval Program (80% or 90%) in exchange for allowing preferred sureties to issue SBA-guaranteed surety bonds without the SBA's prior approval; and (2) increase the program's bond limit.

Dec 11, 2013

Interim Agreement on Iran's Nuclear Program

This report discusses the recent development regarding the negotiations with Iran about its nuclear program. The report provides background information on Iranian nuclear program and debates the November 24 Joint Plan of Action Elements.

Dec 11, 2013

Unauthorized Alien Students: Legislation in the 109th and 110th Congresses

Legalization of unauthorized immigrants living in the United States is a key issue in immigration reform. Recent discussions of this issue have focused mainly on controversial legislative proposals to create a pathway to legal status for a large majority of today’s unauthorized aliens. For many years, however, narrower bills were regularly introduced in Congress that sought to provide both legal immigration status and education-related relief to a subgroup of the larger unauthorized population: individuals who were brought, as children, to live in the United States by their parents or other adults. Historically, these bills, commonly referred to as the “DREAM Act,” have been less controversial than broader legalization proposals. The name DREAM Act derives from a bill title, Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act, but refers more broadly to measures to provide immigration relief to unauthorized childhood arrivals, whether or not particular bills carry that name. Unauthorized alien children in the United States may face various obstacles as they get older. They receive free public primary and secondary education, but may find it difficult to attend college for financial reasons. A provision enacted as part of a 1996 immigration law prohibits states from granting unauthorized aliens certain postsecondary educational benefits on the basis of state residence, unless equal benefits are made available to all U.S. citizens. This prohibition is commonly understood to apply to the granting of “in-state” residency status for tuition purposes. In addition, unauthorized immigrants are not eligible for federal student financial aid. More generally, they are not legally allowed to work in the United States and are subject to being removed from the country at any time. Multiple DREAM Act measures were introduced in the 109th and 110th Congresses both as stand-alone measures and as parts of larger immigration reform bills. Most of these bills had two key components. They would have repealed the 1996 provision, thereby eliminating a restriction on state provision of postsecondary educational benefits to unauthorized aliens. They also would have provided immigration relief to certain unauthorized alien students by establishing a process for them to become legal permanent residents of the United States. DREAM Act bills introduced and considered in the 109th and 110th Congresses are the focus of this report. While none of these measures were enacted, they serve as a bridge between older and newer versions of the DREAM Act and provide useful background information for analysis of more recent DREAM Act proposals. For discussion of these more recent proposals, see CRS Report RL33863, Unauthorized Alien Students: Issues and “DREAM Act” Legislation, by Andorra Bruno.

Dec 11, 2013

Reauthorization of SNAP and Other Nutrition Programs in the Next Farm Bill: Issues for the 113th Congress

This report discusses the Nutrition Title (Title IV) of the pending farm bills and elaborates on the most controversial issues and differences between Senate and House proposals. Policies that are not necessarily controversial but are complex are also included in this report.

Dec 10, 2013

School Construction and Renovation: A Review of Federal Programs

Dec 6, 2013

Majority Cloture for Nominations: Implications and the “Nuclear” Proceedings

On November 21, 2013, by overturning a ruling of the chair on appeal, the Senate set a precedent that lowered the vote threshold required by Senate Standing Rule XXII for invoking cloture on most presidential nominations. The precedent did not change the text of Rule XXII of the Standing Rules; rather, the Senate established a precedent reinterpreting the provisions of Rule XXII to require only a simple majority of those voting, rather than three-fifths of the full Senate, to invoke cloture on all presidential nominations except those to the U.S. Supreme Court. The precedent does not eliminate the potential need for a cloture process for the Senate to reach a vote on a contested nomination. The time required to invoke cloture on a pending nomination remains as it was before the precedent. Specifically, nominations are still subject to Rule XXII’s requirement that (1) a cloture motion filed on a pending nomination lie over for two days of Senate session prior to the cloture vote, and (2) the nomination be subject to an additional 30 hours of post-cloture consideration prior to a vote on confirmation. For the 113th Congress only (pursuant to S.Res. 15), this post-cloture time limit is eight hours for most nominations and two hours for U.S. District Court judges; the limit is still 30 hours for high level executive nominations and the top judicial positions (see Table 1). The only direct effect of the new precedent is to change the vote threshold by which the Senate can invoke cloture (and thereby eventually reach a vote) on these nominations from three-fifths of the Senate to a numerical majority of Senators voting (with a quorum present). However, to the extent that the change may effectively limit the floor leverage of Senators opposing a nomination, there may be implications for the pre-floor stages during which nominations are vetted. In addition, the parliamentary circumstances under which the November 21 precedent was set will likely be examined for their implications for future attempts to change Senate procedures. A key element of the feasibility of such action is whether a Senate majority in favor of change can reach a vote to establish new procedures in the face of opposition. Reaching a vote to reinterpret existing rules, in a contested situation, might rely on steps that are novel or potentially are in contravention of existing rules and precedents; in addition, the effects of such actions could also undermine the existing procedural prerogatives available to Senators. Such proceedings have sometimes been called the “nuclear option.” In this context, an important feature of the proceedings of November 21 was the inability of opponents to extend debate on the appeal of the chair’s ruling. This report explains the procedural context within which the precedent was set and addresses the precedent’s effects on floor consideration of nominations (as well as noting other potential effects on the nominations process). In addition, since the parliamentary circumstances under which the precedent was set fall within proceedings often called the “nuclear option,” the report concludes by briefly noting the precedent’s relevance for future proposals to alter or reinterpret Senate rules through the establishment of new precedent. An Appendix details the key procedural steps by which the precedent was set. This report will be updated if events warrant, or to add citations to additional CRS reports that address related issues.

Dec 6, 2013

Medicaid Coverage of Long-Term Services and Supports

This report provides a description of the various statutory authorities that either require or otherwise allow states to cover LTSS under Medicaid. The Appendix provides a brief legislative history of Medicaid LTSS from Medicaid’s enactment and initial coverage requirements for institutional care through the evolution of HCBS options available to states.

Dec 5, 2013

The Renewable Fuel Standard: In Brief

This report provides a basic description of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), including some of the widely discussed issues.

Nov 27, 2013

Patent Infringement Pleadings: An Analysis of Recent Proposals for Patent Reform

Patent infringement is the unauthorized making, using, offering for sale, selling, and importing of a patented invention. The patent provides the patent holder with the right to protect against such infringement by suing for relief in the appropriate federal court. Litigation of a patent infringement claim begins with the filing of a complaint in federal court. Form 18 in the appendix of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides a model for a patent infringement complaint. This form requires four statements asserting jurisdiction, patent ownership, patent infringement by the defendant, and demand for relief. Commentators, legal practitioners, and patent holders disagree as to whether Form 18 requires a sufficient level of detail in the patent infringement complaint to meet the standards outlined in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and by the U.S. Supreme Court. Despite two recent Supreme Court rulings concerning the appropriate pleading standard, the level of particularity regarding information in the patent complaint, specifically Form 18, is a frequent issue before the courts. Patent infringement litigation has increased over the last decade. Commentators have linked the current patent pleading requirements and the minimal level of information required to patent assertion entities (PAE), colloquially known as “patent trolls.” According to “patent troll” critics, the minimal information required in a patent infringement complaint encourages PAEs to initiate frivolous lawsuits that otherwise would not survive the initial pleading stage under a more stringent standard. Congress has recently proposed several bills offering patent reform in this area. The recently introduced Innovation Act, H.R. 3309, and the Patent Abuse Reduction Act, S. 1013, both offer changes to the patent pleading system. These bills would provide for, among other things, heightened initial pleading requirements demanding more specific information in the complaint than required by Form 18 alone. Sponsors of the bills intend these more rigorous pleading requirements to deter “patent trolls” from filing what they deem as frivolous lawsuits. However, some commentators believe that the heightened pleading requirements would render patent enforcement impractical. Additionally, some members of the judicial branch have commented that these proposed changes trigger constitutional issues by potentially violating the separation of powers doctrine.

Nov 22, 2013

Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 113th Congress

Nov 20, 2013

Davis-Bacon Prevailing Wages and State Revolving Loan Programs Under the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act

The Davis-Bacon Act requires employers to pay workers on federal construction projects at least locally prevailing wages and fringe benefits. These wages and benefits are the minimum hourly wages and benefits that employers must pay workers. In order to hire and retain workers, employers may pay more than locally prevailing wages or benefits. Supporters of the Davis-Bacon Act maintain that it creates stability in local construction and labor markets and ensures that projects are built by the most skilled and experienced workers. Critics of the act argue that it impedes competition, raises construction costs, and imposes additional administrative requirements on contractors. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, commonly called the Clean Water Act (CWA), authorizes appropriations to states to operate state revolving loan funds (SRFs) that finance the construction of wastewater treatment plants. The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) authorizes appropriations for SRFs to finance the construction of public drinking water systems. An issue for Congress is whether to apply Davis-Bacon prevailing wages to projects financed by the state revolving loan programs under the CWA and SDWA. The SDWA has a Davis-Bacon provision, but the provision predates, and does not apply to, the state revolving loan program. The CWA states that Davis-Bacon prevailing wages apply to projects that are “constructed in whole or in part before fiscal year 1995” with funds from the revolving loan program. Authorization for appropriations expired at the end of FY1994 for the CWA and the end of FY2003 for the SDWA. Nevertheless, Congress has continued to appropriate funds for the SRFs under both statutes. After the authorization of appropriations for the SRFs under the CWA expired at the end of FY1994, Davis-Bacon coverage was the subject of considerable debate. In 1995, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a memorandum stating that projects that began construction after the end of FY1994 did not have to comply with the Davis-Bacon requirements. However, the Building and Construction Trades Department (BCTD) of the AFL-CIO disagreed with EPA’s interpretation of the law. The BCTD argued that Davis-Bacon coverage applied to projects funded by the SRFs as long as Congress continued to appropriate funds for the program. In June 2000, EPA and the BCTD proposed a settlement agreement that would require states to ensure that prevailing wages are paid for work performed on projects funded through the SRF program “for as long as grants are awarded to the states.” The agreement was to take effect in July 2001. Later, the implementation date was moved to September 2001, and then to October 2001. It does not appear that the settlement agreement was ever implemented. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) provided FY2009 supplemental appropriations funds to the CWA and SDWA SRFs, and required Davis-Bacon prevailing wages on projects funded in whole or in part by the act. Regular appropriations for EPA for FY2010 and FY2012 included provisions that applied Davis-Bacon prevailing wages to projects financed by the state revolving loan programs under both the CWA and SDWA. As interpreted by the EPA, regular appropriations for the EPA for FY2010 required Davis-Bacon prevailing wages on any project funded with FY2010 appropriations or any agreement executed in FY2010, even if the funds were appropriated in a prior year. Appropriations for FY2012 required Davis-Bacon prevailing wages for projects funded under both revolving loan programs for FY2012 and future fiscal years.

Nov 20, 2013

U.S.-Mexico Water Sharing: Background and Recent Developments

This report is a primer on U.S. and Mexican water-sharing topics. It focuses on surface water quantity sharing and recent developments, including drought conditions. Due to Mexico's recent below-target deliveries of Rio Grande water to the United States, particular attention is given to the status, underlying causes, and responses to the Rio Grande water debt. This report describes: legal obligations and processes under the 1944 Water Treaty; drought conditions from 2010 to 2013; water sharing and developments in the Colorado River Basin; water sharing in the Rio Grande Basin and Mexico's water debt; and stakeholder, diplomatic, and legislative responses to Mexico's Rio Grande water debt.

Nov 19, 2013

Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines: Process and Timing of FERC Permit Application Review

This report provides an overview of the federal certification process for interstate natural gas pipelines. It discusses the length of the review for recent interstate gas pipeline applications--a topic of specific interest to Congress and industry. In this context, the report discusses the key provisions in H.R. 1900 and their implications for gas pipeline certificate approval.

Nov 19, 2013

Infrastructure Banks and Debt Finance to Support Surface Transportation Investment

Investment in surface transportation infrastructure is funded mainly with current receipts from taxes, tolls, and fares, but it is financed by public-sector borrowing and, in some cases, private borrowing and private equity investment. This report discusses current federal programs that support the use of debt finance and private investment to build and rebuild highways and public transportation. It also considers legislative options intended to encourage greater infrastructure financing in the future. The federal government’s largest source of support for surface transportation infrastructure is the highway trust fund (HTF), which is funded principally by taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel. Funds from the HTF are distributed to state governments and local transit agencies for projects meeting federal standards. State governments, local governments, and transit agencies must also contribute their own resources because grants from the HTF do not meet states’ entire surface transportation capital needs. The federal government supports additional infrastructure spending by providing a tax exclusion for owners of municipal bonds, or “munis,” issued by state and local governments. The federal government also supports project finance through loan programs, such as the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) program, which can help leverage private investment via public-private partnerships (P3s), and through federally authorized state infrastructure banks (SIBs). All of these financing mechanisms impact the federal budget, although none are as costly as federal grant funding. With less federal support, financing places a greater burden on state and local governments to identify revenue sources to repay loans or to provide a return to private investors. In many cases, nonfederal revenue to finance a project is provided by a highway or bridge toll, but it could be a pledge of future sales tax or real estate tax revenue. There are many legislative options that Congress might consider in modifying the federal role in surface transportation financing. This report considers five: Creation of a new type of tax credit bond, such as the American Fast Forward Bonds. More funding for the TIFIA program, which already has received enough applications to almost exhaust the budget authority made available for FY2013 and FY2014. Greater encouragement for P3s, including creation of a federal office that could provide technical advice and consulting services and help develop the P3 market. Creation of a national infrastructure bank (I-bank), an independent federal agency with financing and project expertise that would provide low-cost long-term loans on flexible terms. Enhancement of SIBs that already exist in many states, possibly with dedicated federal funding.

Nov 18, 2013

Mexico’s Oil and Gas Sector: Background, Reform Efforts, and Implications for the United States

Nov 18, 2013

Public Health Service Agencies: Overview and Funding

Within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), eight agencies are designated components of the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS): (1) the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), (2) the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), (3) the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), (4) the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), (5) the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), (6) the Indian Health Service (IHS), (7) the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and (8) the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). This report gives a brief overview of each agency and summarizes its funding for FY2010 through FY2013, as well as its FY2014 budget request.

Nov 12, 2013

China’s Political Institutions and Leaders in Charts

This report provides a snapshot of China’s leading political institutions and current leaders in the form of nine organization charts and three tables. The report is a companion to CRS Report R41007, Understanding China’s Political System, by Susan V. Lawrence and Michael F. Martin, which provides a detailed explanation of China’s political system. This chart-based report is intended to assist Members and their staffs seeking to understand where political institutions and individuals fit within the broader Chinese political system and to identify which Chinese officials are responsible for specific portfolios. The information may be useful for Members and staff visiting China, hosting visitors from China, preparing for China-related hearings, or drafting China-related legislation. Figures 1 and 2 depict China’s political power structure as it was envisioned in Chapter 3 of the 1982 state constitution, and as actually implemented. The key difference is that while Chapter 3 of the state constitution identifies the National People’s Congress as the highest organ of state power, the Communist Party of China exercises leadership over the entire political system. Figures 3, 4, and 5 provide information about the Communist Party’s leadership. Figure 3 presents the Party’s hierarchy. Figure 4 lists the members of the Party’s most senior decision-making body, the Politburo Standing Committee, and their portfolios. Figure 5 lists all 25 members of the full Politburo and their principal areas of responsibility. Figure 6 lists the members of the Central Military Commission, a Party body that exercises unified command over the armed forces, known collectively as the People’s Liberation Army. Figure 7 shows where the largely honorary office of the State President sits within the state hierarchy, according to the state constitution. The president’s authority actually derives from his concurrent post as General Secretary of the Communist Party. Figure 8 presents the hierarchy of the State Council, a cabinet-like entity which is tasked with implementing Party policies and managing the state bureaucracy. China conducts its relations with most of the world through the State Council. Table 1 introduces the 10 members of the State Council Executive Committee, listed by rank, with information about each official’s portfolio. Figure 9 depicts the organizational structure of China’s unicameral legislature, the National People’s Congress. Table 2 lists leading Party, military, and State officials with portfolios that include foreign affairs. Table 3 lists the top officials of China’s Foreign Ministry, with information about each official’s portfolio.

Nov 12, 2013

Postsecondary Education Issues in the 113th Congress

The 113th Congress may face an array of policy issues affecting postsecondary education. Many of these postsecondary education issues may be considered as part of efforts to reauthorize the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA). However, postsecondary education issues also may emerge as part of other legislative efforts such as comprehensive immigration reform (CIR), reform of the federal tax code, or the annual appropriations process. This report identifies and briefly examines several postsecondary education policy issue areas that may be of general interest. For each of these broader issue areas, the report provides a brief background summary and an introduction to and discussion of various aspects of the issue. Varied policy options are also identified for further consideration. The following postsecondary education issue areas are examined in this report. College costs and prices. What policy approaches are available that may help address concerns about ongoing increases in postsecondary education costs and the escalating prices colleges charge for tuition and fees? The Federal Pell Grant program. What options might be considered to help ensure sustained funding for the Pell Grant program at current or other levels deemed to be adequate? Should changes be made to Pell Grant eligibility or award criteria to contain costs or otherwise adjust the targeting of aid? Federal student loans. Are student loan terms and conditions and loan subsidy rates well aligned with program aims? Should policy options be considered that would affect the availability of loans, borrowing limits, interest rates, repayment relief, or the role of institutions of higher education in student borrowing? Student loans and personal bankruptcy. Should all student loans continue to be excepted from discharge in bankruptcy, except in cases of undue hardship? What should constitute “undue hardship”? Noncitizens and federal student aid. Should beneficiaries of comprehensive immigration reform legislation be granted eligibility to participate in HEA federal student aid programs? Postsecondary education tax benefits. Are federal postsecondary education tax benefits appropriately targeted and effective in achieving their intended purposes? How do these benefits interact with traditional federal student aid? Institutional quality. Should new institutional or programmatic eligibility requirements be considered to help ensure that recipients of federal student aid are obtaining a quality education from the institutions they attend? What would be appropriate standards for measuring or assessing institutional accountability for educational or student outcomes? College completion. Are students completing college at desirable rates? Should new approaches be considered to further the aim of increasing college completion? Campus safety. How might efforts to promote safety on college campuses be best supported while balancing the reporting and disclosure of campus safety information with the protection of student privacy?

Nov 7, 2013

Health Benefits for Members of Congress and Certain Congressional Staff

This report summarizes the provisions of the final rule and describes how it affects current and retired Members and congressional staff. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has indicated that Members and congressional staff will be eligible for other health benefits related to federal employment, including: FSAFEDS, the Federal Employees Dental and Vision Insurance Program (FEDVIP), the Federal Long Term Care Insurance Program (FLTCIP), the Office of the Attending Physician, and treatment in military facilities. This report also discusses Members' and staff's eligibility for Medicare, which does not appear to be affected by the final rule.

Nov 4, 2013

The FY2014 Government Shutdown: Economic Effects

This report discusses the effects of the FY2014 government shutdown on the economy. It also reviews third-party estimates of the effects of the shutdown on the economy, which predicted a reduction in gross domestic product (GDP) growth of at least 0.1 percentage points for each week of the shutdown, with a cumulative effect of up to 0.6 percentage points in the fourth quarter of 2013.

Nov 1, 2013

The Proposed Drug Quality and Security Act (H.R. 3204)

The proposed Drug Quality and Security Act, H.R. 3204, is the current focus of congressional efforts to protect the public from unsafe, ineffective, or otherwise subquality compounded drugs and from the risks of counterfeit and subquality drugs entering the supply chain between the manufacturer and the dispenser. Majority and minority leadership of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions announced an agreement on September 25, 2013, following years of bicameral and bipartisan efforts. On September 27, 2013, Representative Fred Upton, the chair of the House committee, introduced the text, which would amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as H.R. 3204. The House passed it by voice vote on September 28, 2013, sending it to the Senate on September 30, 2013. The bill now awaits Senate action. Title I, the Compounding Quality Act, would create the term outsourcing facility to apply to an entity that compounds sterile drugs in circumstances that go beyond activities that the FFDCA allows pharmacies to do under state regulation. As such, the proposed category could be conceptualized somewhere between a state-regulated pharmacy and a federally regulated drug manufacturer. The bill would direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to consult with the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy regarding submissions from states that concern a compounding pharmacy that may be acting outside what the FFDCA allows. The bill would also maintain the FFDCA section that addresses what is referred to as traditional compounding—wherein a pharmacist or physician compounds a drug to fill a prescription written for an individual patient. It would remove the provision, which has been challenged in court, that forbids a compounder from advertising or promoting a compounded drug. An entity that compounds sterile drugs and that may not obtain prescriptions for identified individual patients would be able to voluntarily register as an outsourcing facility. If it also complies with a set of listed requirements, an outsourcing facility would be exempt from certain FFDCA requirements on drug manufacturers: adequate directions for use labeling, sale only after FDA approval of a new drug application, and compliance with supply chain activities (that would be added by Title II of H.R. 3204). An outsourcing facility would have to label the product to include the statement “This is a compounded drug,” list active and inactive ingredients, report annually to the HHS Secretary on drugs compounded, be subject to inspection, submit adverse event reports, and pay annual fees (that would be established by this bill) to cover the cost of overseeing outsourcing facilities. Title II, the Drug Supply Chain Security Act, would add FFDCA requirements to be implemented over the next few years. These include that manufacturers and repackagers put a product identifier, including a standardized numerical identifier, on each package or homogenous case. With certain exceptions, exchange of transaction information, histories, and statements would be required when a manufacturer, wholesale distributor, dispenser, or repackager transfers or accepts a drug. Also required would be a system of verification and notification when the Secretary or a trading partner within the supply chain suspects that a product may be illegitimate. The bill would require national standards for the licensing of wholesale distributors and third-party logistics providers. Requirements for the Secretary would include guidance documents, regulations, public meetings, and pilot projects. The act also would include a timetable and tasks involving the development of an interoperable, electronic, package-level tracking system to begin 10 years after enactment.

Oct 31, 2013

Pharmaceutical Supply Chain Security

The drug package that a community pharmacist hands to a patient, or a hospital pharmacist sends to a patient’s bedside, or a physician administers in the medical office has reached the end of a complicated path. That path is called a supply or distribution chain. The upstream portion of the chain includes the journey of each active and inactive ingredient and their chemical components to the manufacturer that creates the finished drug product. The downstream chain, which this report addresses, includes the repackagers, wholesale distributors, associated storage and transport companies, and, finally, the dispenser. Dispensers include independent community or chain pharmacies, hospitals or other health care facilities, and physicians’ offices. Usually the supply chain provides consumers with unadulterated prescription drugs. However, the chain is potentially vulnerable, and when it breaks, a dispenser might provide a counterfeit product containing no active ingredient, less-than-labeled dosage, or a dangerous substitution. The dispenser might also provide a mishandled or diverted drug that has become sub- or superpotent or has gone past its expiration date. In addition to the potential harm to patients, these security breaches can affect a manufacturer’s reputation and financial bottom line. Congress has addressed pharmaceutical supply chain security several times over the past 107 years. The 1906 Food and Drugs Act focused on labeling; the 1938 Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act (FFDCA) addressed adulteration, misbranding, and the registration and inspection of manufacturing establishments; and the Prescription Drug Marketing Act (PDMA, P.L. 100-293) required that wholesale distributors be licensed by the states and required that a wholesale distributor, except one in a specified ongoing relationship with the manufacturer, provide to the purchasing distributor or dispenser a statement—called a pedigree—“identifying each prior sale, purchase, or trade of such drug.” More recently, the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 (FDAAA, P.L. 110-85) required the Secretary to “develop standards and identify and validate effective technologies for the purpose of securing the drug supply chain against counterfeit, diverted, subpotent, substandard, adulterated, misbranded, or expired drugs”; and, in 2012, the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA, P.L. 112-144) expanded registration and reporting requirements. Despite current federal law and actions by state legislatures, opportunities for breaches of the supply chain continue to exist. The 112th and 113th Congresses have worked to craft a set of national requirements that would protect both patient and manufacturer, and allow the assignment of accountability for identified problems, while attempting to manage cost and avoiding a confusing patchwork of state legislation. In their work, House and Senate policymakers have been considering many decisions. These include, for example, definitions; pedigrees; track-and-trace technologies; serialization; lot- and unit-level requirements; authentication; interoperable data collection and systems; data confidentiality and access; requirements for transaction reporting and notification regarding suspect deliveries; implementation timing; licensure, registration, and accreditation standards for entities in the supply chain; accountability; cost; and the relationship between federal and state laws. After passing individual bills (H.R. 1919 and S. 959), majority and minority leadership of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions announced an agreement on September 25, 2013. The House passed the text of the agreement, H.R. 3204, on September 28, 2013, and the bill awaits Senate action.

Oct 31, 2013

Corporate Criminal Liability: An Overview of Federal Law

A corporation is criminally liable for the federal crimes its employees or agents commit in its interest. Corporate officers, employees, and agents are individually liable for the crimes they commit, for the crimes they conspire to commit, for the foreseeable crimes their coconspirators commit, for the crimes whose commission they aid and abet, and for the crimes whose perpetrators they assist after the fact. The decision whether to prosecute a corporation rests with the Justice Department. Internal guidelines identify the factors that are to be weighed: the strength of the case against the corporation; the extent and history of misconduct; the existence of a compliance program; the corporation’s cooperation with the investigation; the collateral consequences; whether the corporation has made restitution or taken other remedial measures; and the alternatives to federal prosecution. As in the case of individual defendants, corporation prosecutions rarely result in a criminal trial. More often, the corporation pleads guilty or enters into a deferred or delayed prosecution agreement. During a criminal investigation and throughout the course of criminal proceedings, corporations enjoy many, but not all, of the constitutional rights implicated in the criminal investigation or prosecution of an individual. Corporations have no Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. On the other hand, the courts have recognized or have assumed that corporations have a First Amendment right to free speech; a Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures; a Fifth Amendment right to due process and protection against double jeopardy; Sixth Amendment rights to counsel, jury trial, speedy trial, and to confront accusers, and to subpoena witnesses; and Eighth Amendment protection against excessive fines. Corporations cannot be jailed. Otherwise, corporations and individuals face many of the same consequences following conviction. The federal Sentencing Guidelines influence the sentencing consequences of conviction in many instances. Corporations can be fined. They can be placed on probation. They can be ordered to pay restitution. Their property can be confiscated. They can be barred from engaging in various types of commercial activity. The Guidelines speak to all of these. For example, the corporate fine Guidelines begin with the premise that a totally corrupt corporation should be fined out of existence, if the statutory maximum permits. A corporation operated for criminal purposes or by criminal means should be fined at a level sufficient to strip it of all of its assets. In other cases, the Guidelines recommend fines and other sentencing features that reflect the nature and seriousness of the crime of conviction and the level of corporate culpability. This report is available in an abbreviated form without the footnotes or citations and attributions to authorities that appear here. The abridged report is entitled CRS Report R43294, Corporate Criminal Liability: An Abbreviated Overview of Federal Law.

Oct 30, 2013

Legislative Actions to Repeal, Defund, or Delay the Affordable Care Act

This report summarizes legislative and other actions taken to repeal, defund, or delay the Affordable Care Act (ACA), since the law's enactment. The information is presented in four appendixes.

Oct 30, 2013

Presidential Permits for Border Crossing Energy Facilities

Controversy over the proposed Keystone XL pipeline project has focused attention on the existing U.S. requirements for authorization to construct and operate pipelines and other energy infrastructure at international borders. For the most part, developers are required to obtain a Presidential Permit for border crossing facilities. The agency responsible for reviewing applications and issuing Presidential Permits varies depending on the type of facility. Oil and other hazardous liquids pipelines that cross borders are authorized by the U.S. Department of State. Natural gas pipeline border crossings are authorized by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Electricity transmission facilities are authorized by the Department of Energy. CRS has identified over 100 operating or proposed oil, natural gas, and electric transmission facilities crossing the U.S.-Mexico or U.S.-Canada border. The authority for federal agencies to review applications and issue Presidential Permits for oil pipelines comes from a series of executive orders. These executive orders have been upheld by the courts as legitimate exercises of the President’s constitutional authority over foreign affairs as well as his authority as Commander in Chief. It is worth noting, however, that Congress has enacted statutes applying to cross-border natural gas and electric transmission facilities that require developers of such projects to apply for authorization from executive branch agencies. In recent years, in the context of the Presidential Permit application for the proposed Keystone XL crude oil pipeline project, Congress has acted to modify the State Department permitting process. Legislation proposed in the 112th and 113th Congresses has been, for the most part, directed at Presidential Permit authority only with respect to the Keystone XL project—although such legislation could set a precedent for Congress to assert authority over cross border energy infrastructure permits more broadly. However, the North American Energy Infrastructure Act (H.R. 3301) would change presidential permitting for all border crossing energy infrastructure. What practical effects any of these legislative proposals would have on the review and approval of future border crossing energy infrastructure projects is the subject of ongoing debate.

Oct 29, 2013

The “Pay Ratio Provision” in the Dodd-Frank Act: Legislation to Repeal It in the 113th Congress

Section 953(b) of the Dodd-Frank Consumer Protection and Wall Street Reform Act (Dodd-Frank Act; P.L. 111-203), known as the “pay ratio provision,” requires the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to write rules to implement a requirement that public companies disclose the ratio between the total compensation of a company’s chief executive officer (CEO) and the median compensation of all other employees. On September 18, 2013, the agency released proposals to implement the pay ratio provision. A firm will be able to choose its own methodology to calculate worker median pay, including statistical sampling. Supporters of the provision, including its sponsor Senator Robert Menendez, argue that the public company data on CEO-worker pay disparity that will result from the provision will pressure corporate boards to be more restrained in pay packages to CEOs. The strategy can be seen as a measure to address what some describe as a board/CEO dynamic that can result in perceived excessive compensation for CEOs: board members may feel beholden to the CEO, who may also serve as board chair. Research consistent with this notion of insufficiently independent boards exists. Other research, however, appears to be consistent with the view that public company CEOs operate in a generally competitive marketplace in which the value that they give to shareholders is fairly compensated. Other supporters of the pay ratio provision, including consumer groups, labor groups, and pension funds, also claim that disclosures that will result from the provision will help to inform investor decision making, including on whether a CEO’s compensation is reasonable given a firm’s overall worker compensation picture. If a corporate disclosure adds value to the investing process, it is said to provide material information. Materiality is central to the SEC’s adoption of disclosure regulations, including the compensation disclosure rules that it has issued over the years. The SEC has observed that the usefulness to investors of the company-specific pay ratio data in the pay ratio provision cannot be quantified. Critics of the pay ratio provision, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, human resources groups, and other business-related groups, counter that the value of corporate disclosure data is linked to the ability of investors to use it to compare various firms. A principal concern is that this comparative value of the ratios will be undermined. An additional concern is that the provision will mislead investors who try to compare the CEO-worker pay ratios from domestic firms in industries with differing levels of worker pay and from domestic firms without a global workforce relative to domestic firms with global workers who are paid at varying wage levels in different currencies. There is also some concern that the pay ratio provision is likely to result in substantial compliance challenges and costs, especially for large multinational or multi-segmented firms with decentralized payroll systems. Some estimates are that implementation costs for some companies could be in the millions of dollars. The SEC acknowledged that such firms would be likely to face greater compliance challenges and costs. In the aggregate, the proposal estimated that firms would spend about $72 million over a three-year period to comply with the pay ratio provision with large, multinational firms likely facing the greatest costs. H.R. 1135 (Huizenga) would repeal the pay ratio provision, Section 953(b) of the Dodd-Frank Act. H.R. 1135 was ordered to be reported by the House Financial Services Committee on June 19, 2013. This report will be updated as events warrant.

Oct 28, 2013

Budget Reconciliation Process: Timing of Committee Responses to Reconciliation Directives

This report examines the timing of certain stages of the reconciliation process and the extent to which the submission due date included in a reconciliation instruction is a predictor for the timing of committee response.

Oct 24, 2013

Invasive Species: Major Laws and the Role of Selected Federal Agencies

An “invasive” species (alternatively known as an alien, exotic, injurious, introduced or naturalized, non-native, nonindigenous, nuisance, or noxious species) refers to an animal or plant that is introduced into an environment where it is not native. The introduction of invasive species to the United States—whether deliberate or unintentional—from around the globe can pose a significant threat to native animal and plant communities, and may result in extinctions of native animals and plants, species disruptions as native and non-native species compete for limited resources, reduced biodiversity, and altered terrestrial or aquatic habitats. This can result in a range of economic, ecologic, and cultural losses, including reduced agricultural output from U.S. farms and ranches; degradation of U.S. waterways, coastal areas, national parks, and forests; and altered urban, suburban, and rural landscapes. It is estimated that 50,000 non-native species have been introduced to the United States. The potential economic costs associated with nonindigenous plant and animal species are estimated at $129 billion annually in the United States. A few examples of the types of damages attributed to non-native invasive species in the United States are as follows. Burmese pythons are multiplying in south Florida, becoming a top carnivore and killing large numbers of native species of reptiles, birds, and mammals. Zebra and quagga mussels from Eastern Europe are clogging intakes for urban water supplies and nuclear power plants in the Great Lakes and the Mississippi basin. The light brown apple moth, a native pest of Australia, has been detected in California and is causing damage to a wide range of plant species and commercial fruit and vegetable crops. Leafy spurge is lowering the forage value of western grazing land, and reducing overall land values. In the United States, numerous federal and interagency efforts share responsibilities regarding invasive species. Among the federal agencies involved are the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Homeland Security, Interior, Transportation, and others, including the Environmental Protection Agency and the Executive Office of the President. Of these, three Departments—Agriculture, Commerce, and Interior—play a major role by co-chairing the National Invasive Species Council (NISC). Created by Executive Order 13112 in 1999, NISC provides high-level interdepartmental coordination of federal invasive species actions and works with other federal and nonfederal groups to address invasive species issues at the national level. In FY2012, the U.S. government spent an estimated $2.2 billion across a range of federal agencies and activities in an effort to prevent, control, and eradicate invasive species domestically. Activities at the Department of Agriculture accounted for the bulk of available federal funding, nearly $1.3 billion (58% of total available funds). Activities at the Department of Homeland Security, comprised of mostly border protection and security activities, accounted for about $0.7 billion (31% of total funding). The remainder of federal funding, about $0.2 billion (about 11% of total funding) covers activities across a range of agencies at the Departments of Interior, Commerce, and Defense, and also other independent agencies. Despite efforts to achieve high-level interdepartmental coordination, comprehensive legislation on the treatment of invasive species has never been enacted, and no single law provides coordination among federal agencies. Instead, the current legal framework is largely governed by a patchwork of laws, regulations, policies, and programs. Some laws are tailored to individual species or narrowly focused on what is affected by the species. Other laws have a broader intended purpose and may only peripherally address invasive species. Some laws, although they do not directly address invasive species control or prevention, may limit such introductions.

Oct 24, 2013

Background on the Scheduled Reduction to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Benefits

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA; P.L. 111-5) included an across-the-board increase in benefits provided under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly the Food Stamp program), effective in April 2009. ARRA substantially raised maximum monthly benefits, by 13.6% in FY2009. For a one-person household, the added benefit was $24 a month; for two persons, $44 a month; for three persons (the most typical household), $63 a month; for four persons, $80 a month; and for larger households, higher amounts. As a result, average household SNAP benefits (typically less than the maximum) were boosted by more than 15%. (Note: A household’s SNAP benefit is calculated by subtracting the household-specific countable (or “net”) income from the maximum benefit; percentage increases varied on a case-by-case basis.) Originally, the ARRA increase was to be effective until regular SNAP cost-of-living adjustments “caught up” with the 13.6% increase (as compared to FY2009) to the maximum benefit, but Congress amended the law so that the increase is now scheduled to sunset after October 31, 2013. (Under “regular” SNAP law, maximum SNAP benefits are adjusted annually for changes in food prices on October 1.) To help meet congressional pay-as-you-go rules, the 111th Congress made two changes to this effective date, which resulted in savings to offset other new spending. First, P.L. 111-226 (a law providing funding for Medicaid and education jobs) added a March 31, 2014, sunset date to the ARRA benefit increase. Second, in the child nutrition reauthorization legislation (the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010; P.L. 111-296), the sunset date was moved to October 31, 2013. The sunset date in current law means that maximum SNAP benefits will decrease by about 5.5% on November 1, 2013. For a one-person household, the benefits will decrease by $11 a month; for two persons, $20 a month; for three persons, $29 a month; for four persons, $36 a month; and for larger households, higher amounts. President Obama’s FY2014 budget proposed to delay the sunset of the ARRA benefit increase to March 31, 2014. This is the date the benefit increase was to sunset before the enactment of the child nutrition legislation (P.L. 111-296). The Administration estimates that this extension of the increase for five months would cost approximately $2.26 billion. Neither the House (H.R. 2642) nor the Senate (S. 954) 2013 farm bill proposals would delay the sunset date.

Oct 23, 2013

In Brief: CRS Resources on the FY2014 Funding Gap, Shutdown, and Status of Appropriations

This report provides an annotated list of Congressional Research Service (CRS) resources and analyses relevant tothe funding gap that commenced on October 1, 2013, and terminated on October 17, 2013, with the enactment of P.L. 113-46, a continuing appropriations measure providing appropriations through January 15, 2014; historical funding gaps; and continuing appropriations measures.

Oct 23, 2013

Federal Mandatory Minimum Sentencing: The 18 U.S.C. 924(c) Tack-On in Cases Involving Drugs or Violence

This report discusses the federal mandatory minimum sentencing, that is imposed in addition to the sentence imposed for the underlying crime of violence or drug trafficking, vary depending upon the circumstances:

Oct 21, 2013

Federal Mandatory Minimum Sentences: The Safety Valve and Substantial Assistance Exceptions

This report discusses the federal law that requires a sentencing judge to impose a minimum sentence of imprisonment following conviction for any of a number of federal offenses.

Oct 21, 2013

Improper Payments and Recovery Audits: Legislation, Implementation, and Analysis

As Congress searches for ways to generate savings, reduce the deficit, and fund federal programs, it has held hearings and passed legislation to prevent and recover improper payments. Improper payments—which exceeded $115 billion in FY2011—are payments made in an incorrect amount, payments that should not have been made at all, or payments made to an ineligible recipient or for an ineligible purpose. The total amount of improper payments may be even higher than reported because several agencies have yet to determine improper payment amounts for many programs, including some with billions of dollars in annual expenditures. In 2002, Congress passed the Improper Payments Information Act (IPIA; P.L. 107-300; 116 Stat. 2350), which established an initial framework for identifying, measuring, preventing, and reporting on improper payments at each agency. That same year, Congress also passed legislation, the Recovery Audit Act (P.L. 107-107; Section 831; 115 Stat. 1186), which required agencies that awarded more than $500 million annually in contracts to establish programs to recover overpayments to contractors. After five years of reporting, the data indicated that while many individual programs reduced their improper payment rates, the total amount of improper payments and the government-wide improper payment rate both increased. Since the IPIA reporting requirements took effect, agencies have expanded the number of programs reported each year. One potential consequence of this expansion is that the annual dollar amount of improper payments reported has more than doubled over time from $45 billion in FY2004 to $108 billion in FY2012. In response, Congress passed new legislation, the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act of 2010 (IPERA, P.L. 111-204; 124 Stat. 2224), which replaced and consolidated the requirements of both IPIA and the Recovery Audit Act. IPERA retained the core provisions of the IPIA while requiring improvements in agency improper payment estimation methodologies and improper payment reduction plans. It also significantly expanded the scope and reporting requirements of recovery audit programs. A subsequent statute, the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Improvement Act of 2012 (IPERIA; P.L. 112-248), signed into law on January 10, 2013, addresses some of the weaknesses in agency improper payment prevention controls and recovery audit programs. In particular, IPERIA requires agencies to improve the quality of oversight for high-dollar and high-risk programs, and it mandates that agencies share data regarding recipient eligibility and payment amounts. In addition, IPERIA requires the Office of Management and Budget to examine the rates and amounts of improper payments that agencies have recovered and establish targets for increasing those amounts. This report will be updated to reflect significant developments.

Oct 18, 2013