CRS Reports

Spectrum Policy: Provisions in the 2012 Spectrum Act

Oct 18, 2013

The Mental Health Workforce: A Primer

This report begins with a working definition of the mental health workforce and a brief discussion of alternative definitions. It then describes three dimensions of the mental health workforce that may influence quality of care, access to care, and costs of care: (1) licensure requirements and scope of practice for each provider type in the mental health workforce, (2) estimated numbers of each provider type in the mental health workforce, and (3) average annual wages for each provider type in the mental health workforce. The report then briefly discusses how these dimensions of the mental health workforce might inform certain policy discussions.

Oct 18, 2013

Senate Committee Expenditures Resolutions, 113th Congress, and Funding Authorizations Since 1999

This report provides committee funding requests and authorizations for Senate committees in the 106th through 113th Congresses.

Oct 17, 2013

FY2014 Appropriations Lapse and the Department of Homeland Security: Impact and Legislation

This report examines the DHS contingency plan and the potential impacts of a lapse in annual appropriations on DHS operations, focusing primarily on the emergency furlough of personnel, and then discusses seven legislative vehicles that have mitigated or have the potential to mitigate those same impacts.

Oct 11, 2013

The Medical Device Excise Tax: A Legal Overview

On December 7, 2012, the Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service issued final regulations explaining the scope of the medical device excise tax created by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (HCERA), which modified the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010. The new regulations were issued less than a month before the 2.3% excise tax took effect on January 1, 2013. This report provides a brief overview of the recently enacted Treasury regulations, analyzes the legal implications of the regulations, and answers frequently asked questions about the medical device tax. The Treasury regulations on the medical device excise tax explain both who is subject to the excise tax and the scope of the statutory exemptions provided for the tax. Specifically, the regulations incorporate by reference the general definitions for a “manufacturer, producer, or importer” outlined in the Internal Revenue Code, meaning that the excise tax will be directly paid by manufacturers, as opposed to consumers or others that use a given medical device. Furthermore, the regulations attempt to clarify the limits to the medical device excise tax. Beyond the statutory exemptions created for eyeglasses, contact lenses, and hearing aids, the law created a “retail exemption” to the excise tax, excluding from the tax medical devices that are “generally purchased by the general public at retail for individual use.” The Treasury regulations attempt to simultaneously provide certainty to potential taxpayers as to which devices are subject to the retail exemption, while allowing the government the flexibility to properly apply the retail exemption to the variety of devices that could be exposed to the excise tax. The regulations provide a flexible two-prong test to determine whether a device should fall within the retail exemption, applying the exemption when the device is (1) regularly available for purchase by non-professional consumers and (2) not primarily intended for use by medical professionals. The regulations provide several factors to consider when applying the two-prong test. To provide some certainty to the scope of the retail exemption, the regulations also included several “safe harbor” provisions, explicitly acknowledging that certain devices, such as “over-the-counter” devices, fall within the retail exemption. The new Treasury regulations on the medical device excise tax, while providing some certainty with respect to what devices will be exempt from the tax, generally favor a more flexible approach to defining the scope of the central exemption to the tax. As a consequence, uncertainty remains as to which medical devices will be subject to the tax. Indeed, Treasury, in releasing the medical device excise tax regulations, notes that further clarification on various issues implicated by the tax is still needed. As such, the regulations constitute only the first step in defining the limits of the medical device excise tax.

Oct 11, 2013

Oil and Chemical Spills: Federal Emergency Response Framework

This report discusses the statutory authorities of the National Contingency Plan (NCP), and relevant executive orders; outlines the federal emergency response framework of the NCP to coordinate federal, state, and local roles; and identifies the funding mechanisms to carry out a federal response to a discharge of oil or a release of a hazardous substance.

Oct 10, 2013

Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the Appropriations Process: FAQs Regarding Potential Legislative Changes and Effects of a Government Shutdown

Congress has yet to complete legislative action on any of the 12 regular appropriations bills to fund the routine operations of federal agencies for FY2014, which began on October 1, 2013. Moreover, lawmakers have been unable to agree on a continuing appropriations bill, or continuing resolution (CR), to provide funding for part or all of the new fiscal year. As a result, the federal government has begun a shutdown of programs that lack budget authority to continue operations in FY2014, except in certain circumstances. Congress is deeply divided over implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), the health reform law enacted in March 2010. Some lawmakers opposed to the ACA have advocated the use of the appropriations process to eliminate funding for the law or to delay its implementation. On September 20, 2013, the House approved an FY2014 CR (H.J.Res. 59) to provide temporary funding for the federal government until December 15, 2013. H.J.Res. 59, as passed by the House, incorporated language that would prohibit the use of any federal funds to carry out the ACA. The Senate amendment to H.J.Res. 59 did not incorporate the House ACA defunding language. The House then proposed changes to the Senate amendment to delay the ACA’s implementation, but the Senate rejected those changes. With the two chambers unable to reach agreement on H.J.Res. 59 by October 1, 2013, the government commenced a partial shutdown of its operations. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has posted agency shutdown plans (also called contingency plans) on its website. These plans may be modified and re-posted. Some press outlets have reported on the contents of these plans and their potential implications for agency activities. The current legislative debate over using the FY2014 appropriations process to defund or delay implementation of the ACA has prompted a number of questions about the law’s core health reform provisions and how their implementation affects federal spending. Questions have also been raised about the legislative actions already taken by lawmakers to amend the ACA, and about the various legal and procedural considerations arising from the current efforts to use the appropriations process to defund or delay the law. Finally, there is the question of what impact a government shutdown will have on ACA implementation. This report, which will be revised and updated to reflect key legislative developments, provides brief answers to these questions.

Oct 2, 2013

Automatic Continuing Resolutions: Background and Overview of Recent Proposals

This report begins by providing background on the historic frequency of federal funding gaps. Next, four major features of automatic continuing resolution(ACR) proposals since the 1980s -- time frame, funding level, activities, and duration -- are explained. This is followed by a summary of the major arguments for and against the enactment of an ACR. Finally, the last three sections of the report review congressional action that has taken place on ACR proposals, describe ACR proposals that have been introduced but not enacted during the 112th and 113th Congresses, and provide brief analysis of H.R. 3210.

Oct 2, 2013

EPA Standards for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Power Plants: Many Questions, Some Answers

This report discusses the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) proposals for electric generating units (EGU) Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

Sep 30, 2013

The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative: Background and Issues

The Great Lakes ecosystem is recognized by many as an international natural resource that has been altered by human activities and climate variability. These alterations have led to degraded water quality, diminished habitat, lower native fish and wildlife populations, and an altered ecosystem. In response, the federal governments of the United States and Canada and the state and provincial governments in the Great Lakes basin are implementing several restoration activities. These activities range from mitigating the harmful effects of toxic substances in lake waters to restoring fish habitat. Most laws and efforts in the past addressed specific issues in the Great Lakes; a few addressed issues at the ecosystem level. This caused the Government Accountability Office and others to express the need for initiating and implementing a comprehensive approach for restoring the Great Lakes ecosystem. In 2010, the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) was proposed and implemented by the Obama Administration. The aim of GLRI is to restore the Great Lakes ecosystem under one initiative. Specifically, the GLRI is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem by directing activities to address five focus areas: (1) toxic substances and Areas of Concern (these are areas in the Great Lakes that are environmentally degraded); (2) invasive species; (3) nearshore health and nonpoint source pollution; (4) habitat and wildlife protection and restoration; and (5) accountability, monitoring, evaluation, communication, and partnerships. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the lead federal agency for implementing and administering GLRI. The EPA has received authority to distribute appropriated funds to several federal agencies, which then undertake restoration activities and projects. The EPA also administers grant programs to fund nonfederal projects and activities related to restoration. An interagency Great Lakes Task Force oversees the implementation of GLRI and created a strategy to guide restoration. The strategy (referred to as the Action Plan) provides a framework for restoring the Great Lakes ecosystem under GLRI from 2010 through 2014. For each focus area under the GLRI, the Action Plan provides a problem statement, a set of goals, interim objectives, progress measures, final targets, and principal activities for restoring the ecosystem. Restoration activities are being done under existing federal authorities. The GLRI has received approximately $1.37 billion in appropriated funds since FY2010. The scope and scale of this restoration initiative have led some to question its direction and duration. The GLRI does not specify what a restored ecosystem might look like, nor does it estimate how long restoration activities will need to be conducted, and how much restoration might cost. Some other questions surrounding this initiative include how the GLRI is governed and how federal and state restoration efforts are coordinated. Furthermore, GLRI remains an administrative initiative; there is no law that specifically authorizes GLRI, though Congress has appropriated funds to implement the program. Congress might consider these questions in oversight hearings or in legislation during the 113th Congress. Companion bills have been introduced in the 113th Congress to address GLRI. S. 1232 and H.R. 2773 would establish an administrative and management structure for restoration activities in the Great Lakes, authorize GLRI and appropriations for its implementation, specify the scope and function of GLRI, and authorize the coordinating role of the Great Lakes Interagency Task Force.

Sep 30, 2013

The President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), U.S. Global HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Programs: A Description of Permanent and Expiring Authorities

Fighting HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis (TB), and malaria globally is a priority for Congress. The 108th and 110th Congresses enacted two pieces of legislation that have shaped U.S. responses to these diseases: P.L. 108-25, the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003 (Leadership Act), and P.L. 110-293, the Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde United States Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Reauthorization Act of 2008 (Lantos-Hyde Act). The Leadership Act authorized $15 billion to be spent from FY2004 through FY2008 on fighting HIV/AIDS, TB, and malaria. The Lantos-Hyde Act amended the Leadership Act to authorize $48 billion for fighting the three diseases from FY2009 through FY2013. The Leadership Act (and the legislation that it amends) is the primary vehicle through which U.S. global assistance for fighting these diseases is authorized. The Lantos-Hyde Act mostly amends the Leadership Act, though it amends some other acts, such as the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, and includes some stand-alone authorities. The Leadership Act and the Lantos-Hyde Act (primarily through amendments to the Leadership Act) created frameworks for how the funds should be spent, established program goals and targets, and established coordinating offices for managing government-wide responses. The Leadership Act required the President to establish the Coordinator of the United States Government Activities to Combat HIV/AIDS Globally (known as the Global AIDS Coordinator) at the Department of State. Congress appropriates the bulk of global HIV/AIDS funds to the Office of the Global AIDS Coordinator, which leads the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). The Global AIDS Coordinator distributes the majority of these funds to U.S. federal agencies and departments and multilateral groups like the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. The Lantos-Hyde Act amended the Leadership Act to establish the Coordinator of the United States Government Activities to Combat Malaria Globally (known as the Malaria Coordinator) at the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to oversee implementation of related efforts by USAID and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Some authorities within these Acts are enduring, such as those that created the Global AIDS and Malaria Coordinator positions (Leadership Act, as amended) and permitted U.S. participation in advance market commitments for vaccine development (Lantos-Hyde Act). Other authorities, however, are set to expire, such as language authorizing funding for global HIV/AIDS, TB, and malaria programs. This report explains which authorities within the Leadership and Lantos-Hyde Acts are set to expire and which are permanent. Table A-1 in the Appendix A offers a side-by-side comparison of the Leadership Act in its original form and the Lantos-Hyde Act, which amends the Leadership Act and other legislation. A third column explains which sections are set to expire and summarizes language in S. 1545 and H.R. 3177 that amend the Leadership Act, as amended. The Leadership Act, as amended and Lantos-Hyde Act include comprehensive reporting requirements. Table A-2 in the Appendix A lists the reporting requirements and describes the extent to which the Administration has complied with the requirements. Rather than revisit some of the contentious issues that dominated debate when crafting the Lantos-Hyde Act, House and Senate Members introduced legislation (H.R. 3177 and S. 1545) that is narrowly aimed at key priorities: enhancing oversight of U.S. global HIV/AIDS, TB, and malaria programs; authorizing appropriations for the Global Fund through FY2018; and allocating a portion of HIV/AIDS funds for orphans and vulnerable children (OVC) and for HIV/AIDS treatment and care. Table B-1 in Appendix B summarizes key amendments in the bills, entitled the PEPFAR Stewardship and Oversight Act.

Sep 27, 2013

Current Debates over Exchange Rates: Overview and Issues for Congress

This report provides information on current debates over exchange rates in the global economy. It offers an overview of how exchange rates work; analyzes specific disagreements and debates; and examines existing frameworks for potentially addressing currency disputes. It also lays out some policy options available to Congress, should Members want to take action on exchange rate issues.

Sep 26, 2013

Health Insurance Exchanges: Health Insurance "Navigators" and In-Person Assistance

This report outlines federal and state oversight of navigators, the role of brokers and agents, and previous education and outreach efforts for federal health care programs.

Sep 25, 2013

The Army's Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV): Background and Issues for Congress

This report provides background information on the Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV) and it discusses the Army's proposed replacement to the Vietnam-era M-113 personnel carriers, which are still in service in a variety of support capacities in Armored Brigade Combat Teams (ABCTs).

Sep 24, 2013

Funding and Financing Highways and Public Transportation

This report begins with a discussion of the problems associated with the trust fund financing system (which supports both federal highway and public transportation programs) and then explores possible options for financing surface transportation infrastructure.

Sep 23, 2013

Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education (L-HHS-ED): FY2014 Appropriations

Sep 20, 2013

Across-the-Board Rescissions in Appropriations Acts: Overview and Recent Practices

This report provides information on the main components of across-the-board rescissions and recent practices between FY2008 through FY2013.

Sep 20, 2013

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA): Resources for Frequently Asked Questions

The report provides basic consumer sources, including broad overviews of the ACA law. The next sections focus on health coverage: the individual mandate, private health insurance, and exchanges, as well as public health care programs, such as Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), Medicare, Indian health care, and veterans' and military health care. The report then lists sources on employer-sponsored coverage, including sources on employer penalties, small businesses, federal workers' health plans, and union health plans. The report also provides sources on ACA's provisions on mental health, public health, workforce, quality, and taxes. Finally, the report lists sources on ACA costs and appropriations, and sources for obtaining the law's full-text.

Sep 19, 2013

Private Health Plans Under the ACA: In Brief

This report provides short descriptions of health plans that may be offered inside and outside of exchanges: qualified health plans; child-only plans; multi-state plans; health cooperatives; catastrophic and other high deductible health plans; stand-alone dental plans; nongroup, small group and large group plans; grandfathered plans; self-funded (self-insured) plans; union plans; retiree-only plans; and vision plans, ancillary insurance products, and limited-benefit plans. In addition, this report indicates the applicability of select ACA market reforms to private health plans. The following market reforms are discussed in this report: prohibition on lifetime dollar limits; coverage of preventive health services with no cost-sharing; extension of dependent coverage; minimum medical loss ratio (MLR); essential health benefits (EHBs); minimum actuarial value (AV); prohibition on annual dollar limits; non-discrimination based on health status; guaranteed issue and guaranteed renewability; coverage of preexisting health conditions; and rating restrictions.

Sep 19, 2013

The National Voter Registration Act of 1993: History, Implementation, and Effects

After the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. §1973–1973aa-6), legislation had been urged for over two decades that would create a national voter registration system designed to make registration easier and more uniform from state to state. The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA, P.L. 103-31, 107 Stat.77, [42 U.S.C. §1973gg et seq.]), the so-called “motor-voter” bill, was signed into law by President Clinton on May 20, 1993. It required states to establish voter registration procedures for federal elections so that eligible citizens might apply to register to vote (1) simultaneously while applying for a driver’s license, (2) by mail, and (3) at selected state and local offices that serve the public. The law took effect on January 1, 1995, for most states. Proponents argued that the NVRA would make it easier to register to vote, provide more-than-adequate measures to prevent voter fraud by making violations a federal offense, and cost states very little to implement, based on the experiences of states that previously used some form of “motor-voter” registration. Opponents, on the other hand, argued that there was little evidence that increasing the number of persons on voter registration rolls would lead to higher voter turnout. By making it so easy to register, they believed the act would increase the likelihood of election fraud. Furthermore, according to opponents, implementation would be costly to the states, in terms both of dollars and other administrative costs. The NVRA has been the law of the land for over 20 years and has been in effect for 18 years. Between 1992 and 2012, voter registration increased nationally by over seven percentage points. The courts have resolved many of the initial issues. A review of the required NVRA reports appears to indicate that the states have come to terms with the provisions, despite the fact that they would still like the federal government to provide funding for the implementation of aspects of the act. While amending parts of the NVRA in minor ways, the Help America Vote Act, passed in 2002, also created additional voter registration demands on the states (HAVA, P.L. 107-252 [42 U.S.C., Subchapter III, Part A., §15482(a), 15483]). However, there are still some problems with implementation at the local levels and in some selected state agencies, as well as with the training of non-election officials who are responsible under the NVRA for providing voter registration services. Some would like to curtail parts of the NVRA. Some do not think the NVRA has gone far enough. Proposed legislation introduced in the 113th Congress to deal with various aspects of the voter registration process includes, among others, H.R. 12, H.R. 97, H.R. 280, H.R. 289, and H.R. 2115. This report provides an historical background for voter registration reform and the NVRA, a description of the major aspects of the act, a discussion of the implementation and post-implementation actions, and a catalog of subsequent efforts to amend or repeal the act. It will be updated as needed.

Sep 18, 2013

Federal Climate Change Funding from FY2008 to FY2014

Direct federal funding to address global climate change totaled approximately $77 billion from FY2008 through FY2013. The large majority—more than 75%—has funded technology development and deployment, primarily through the Department of Energy (DOE). More than one-third of the identified funding was included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5). The President’s request for FY2014 contains $11.6 billion for federal expenditures on programs. In the request, 23% would be for science, 68% for energy technology development and deployment, 8% for international assistance, and 1% for adapting to climate change. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) also reports that energy tax provisions that may reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions would reduce tax revenues by $9.8 billion. At least 18 federal agencies administer climate change-related activities, according to OMB. Federal policy on climate change has been built largely from the “bottom up” from a variety of existing programs and mandates, presidential initiatives, and congressionally directed activities; funding has largely reflected departmental missions and support for each activity. Recently, the Obama Administration, in the context of its Climate Action Plan announced in June 2013, outlined an overall strategy with programs, resources, and tax incentives in a cross-agency, inter-governmental initiative. The new Climate Action Plan and a recent OMB report required by Congress on federal funding for climate change activities outline four main components of the strategy: Climate and Global Change Research and Education Reducing Emissions through Clean Energy Investments and Standards International Leadership Climate Change Adaptation Possible Funding-Related Issues for Congress Some Members of Congress have expressed interest in how federal funding may reflect and enable the Obama Administration’s overall strategy, and priorities within it, to address climate change. Legislative issues regarding the federal funding of climate change activities may include the following: the sufficiency and alignment of federal resources to support a strategy to achieve long-term climate change policy goals; the demands of climate change adaptation programming for federal agencies, their programs, and resources; whether additional and predictable foreign aid resources may be provided to support actions by low-income countries to mitigate greenhouse gases or adapt to climate change; possible legislative proposals to restructure or improve collaboration among agencies regarding climate change activities; the incorporation of recommendations from evaluations (whether internal or external) to improve climate change programs; and possible requirements for reporting to Congress of funding, budget justifications, and programmatic progress that are adequate to support congressional decision-making and oversight. Scope and Purpose of This Report This report summarizes direct federal funding identified as climate change-related from FY2008 enacted funding through FY2013 and the FY2014 request (as well as a less consistent series beginning with FY2001). It reports the Administration’s estimates of tax revenues not received due to energy tax provisions that may reduce GHG emissions. The report briefly identifies the programs and funding levels, as well as some qualifications and observations on reporting of federal funding. It further offers some issues that Members may wish to consider in deliberating on U.S. climate change strategies.

Sep 13, 2013

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: Annual Fee on Health Insurers

This report discusses the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA, P.L. 111-148) and the Reconciliation Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-152) that impose a fee on certain for-profit health insurers, starting in 2014.

Sep 13, 2013

Insurance Agent Licensing: Overview and Background on Federal "NARAB" Legislation

This report discusses the federal proposal addressing multiple state insurance producer licensing requirements through the creation of a National Association of Registered Agents and Brokers (NARAB).

Sep 12, 2013

Securing U.S. Diplomatic Facilities and Personnel Abroad: Legislative and Executive Branch Initiatives

This report briefly summarizes and tracks congressional and State Department actions in response to the attack on U. S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya, and will be updated as necessary to reflect further developments and actions on ongoing policy proposals.

Sep 12, 2013

The Framework for Foreign Workers’ Labor Protections Under Federal Law

One challenge of immigration law has been to balance the interests of the domestic workforce with employer interests in hiring foreign workers who are not already authorized to work in the United States while preventing the exploitation of foreign workers. There are three main sources of labor protections for foreign workers in the United States: (1) the conditions imposed on employers hiring foreign workers through the Department of Labor (DOL) labor certification/attestation and DHS petition process; (2) federal labor laws stipulating that employers adhere to certain requirements governing wages and other conditions; and (3) worker rights under state and local laws regarding labor, contracts, and torts. Streamlining and easing certain labor and immigration requirements that are perceived as unnecessarily onerous and insufficiently flexible may benefit certain employers with immediate labor needs. On the other hand, stronger protections for foreign workers may not only guard those workers from exploitation and abuse but may also serve to protect the interests of the domestic workforce by reducing to some employers the attractiveness of hiring foreign workers who are not already authorized to work in the United States. Legislative proposals to reform employment-based visa programs in the current Congress reflect some of these tensions. This report will discuss the DOL labor certification/attestation and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) petition process as well as aspects of the applicability of federal labor laws to foreign workers. It will also briefly address state and local laws regarding labor, contract, and torts that sometimes provide foreign workers with additional rights. Federal labor laws that apply regardless of immigration status, including those concerning health and safety and employment discrimination, as well as state occupational certification and licensing requirements are outside the scope of this report. For a comprehensive look at employment-based immigration and related federal labor policies and programs, see CRS Report RL33977, Immigration of Foreign Workers: Labor Market Tests and Protections, by Ruth Ellen Wasem; CRS Report RL32044, Immigration: Policy Considerations Related to Guest Worker Programs, by Andorra Bruno; CRS Report R42434, Immigration of Temporary Lower-Skilled Workers: Current Policy and Related Issues, by Andorra Bruno; CRS Report R43161, Agricultural Guest Workers: Legislative Activity in the 113th Congress, by Andorra Bruno; CRS Report RL34739, Temporary Farm Labor: The H-2A Program and the U.S. Department of Labor’s Proposed Changes in the Adverse Effect Wage Rate (AEWR), by Gerald Mayer; and CRS Report RS21186, Hoffman Plastic Compounds v. NLRB and Backpay Awards to Undocumented Aliens, by Jon O. Shimabukuro.

Sep 11, 2013

Harbor Maintenance Finance and Funding

This report discusses the harbor maintenance trust fund (HMTF), which receives revenue from taxes on waterborne cargo and on cruise ship passengers. The future of the HMTF is a major issue in consideration of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA), which is now pending in Congress.

Sep 11, 2013

Climate Change Science: Key Points

Though climate change science often is portrayed as controversial, broad scientific agreement exists on many points: The Earth’s climate is warming and changing. Human-related emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) and other pollutants have contributed to warming observed since the 1970s and, if continued, would tend to drive further warming, sea level rise, and other climate shifts. Volcanoes, the Earth’s relationship to the Sun, solar cycles, and land cover change may be more influential on climate shifts than rising GHG concentrations on other time and geographic scales. Human-induced changes are super-imposed on and interact with natural climate variability. The largest uncertainties in climate projections surround feedbacks in the Earth system that augment or dampen the initial influence, or affect the pattern of changes. Feedback mechanisms are apparent in clouds, vegetation, oceans, and potential emissions from soils. There is a wide range of projections of future, human-induced climate change, all pointing toward warming and associated sea level rise, with wider uncertainties regarding the nature of precipitation, storms, and other important aspects of climate. Human societies and ecosystems are sensitive to climate. Some past climate changes benefited civilizations; others contributed to the demise of some societies. Small future changes may bring benefits for some and adverse effects to others. Large climate changes would be increasingly adverse for a widening scope of populations and ecosystems. As is common and constructive in science, scientists debate finer points. For example, a large majority but not all scientists find compelling evidence that rising GHG have contributed the most influence on global warming since the 1970s, with solar radiation a smaller influence on that time scale. Most climate modelers project important impacts of unabated GHG emissions, with low likelihoods of catastrophic impacts over this century. Human influences on climate change would continue for centuries after atmospheric concentrations of GHG are stabilized, as the accumulated gases continue to exert effects and as the Earth’s systems seek to equilibrate. The U.S. government and others have invested billions of dollars in research to improve understanding of the Earth’s climate system, resulting in major improvements in understanding while major uncertainties remain. However, it is fundamental to the scientific method that science does not provide absolute proofs; all scientific theories are to some degree provisional and may be rejected or modified based on new evidence. Private and public decisions to act or not to act, to reduce the human contribution to climate change or to prepare for future changes, will be made in the context of accumulating evidence (or lack of evidence), accumulating GHG concentrations, ongoing debate about risks, and other considerations (e.g., economics and distributional effects).

Sep 10, 2013

Preemption of Drug and Medical Device Claims: A Legal Overview

The interaction between state tort laws and the federal regulation of medical devices and drugs has been a source of constant litigation in recent years. In the last two decades, the Supreme Court has issued several decisions concerning whether the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) preempts state tort law. The results have been mixed: in some cases a person injured by an allegedly defective drug or device is barred from suing a manufacturer, whereas in other cases, the Supreme Court has allowed a lawsuit to proceed. Following these decisions, ambiguities exist concerning the scope of federal preemption in these medical device and drug cases. With respect to medical devices, state-law tort claims brought against device makers are restricted by a provision of the FDCA that expressly preempts state “requirements” that are “different from, or in addition to” federal requirements applicable to a device and that “relate[] to the safety or effectiveness of the device.” The Supreme Court has generally found that under this provision, the ability of an individual to bring a state-law tort suit alleging certain defects with a medical device can hinge on, among other things, how that device received marketing approval from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In Medtronic v. Lohr, the Court found that state-law claims involving “substantially equivalent” medical devices cleared through the § 510(k) process were not barred by the FDCA’s express preemption provision. However, in Riegel v. Medtronic, the Court concluded that if the FDA grants approval to a medical device under its more rigorous premarket approval process, the device manufacturer is immune from certain suits under state tort law. The Court has also found in Buckman v. Plaintiff’s Legal Committee that state-law tort claims stemming from violations of the FDCA may be impliedly preempted by federal law. Despite these three decisions, questions remain about what state-law tort claims survive federal preemption. In contrast to its provisions on medical devices, the FDCA does not contain an express preemption clause with respect to its prescription drug mandates. Nonetheless, the elaborate premarket approval scheme for drugs created by the FDCA has the potential to clash with state tort law, raising questions as to whether these laws may be preempted. The Court has recently handed down three landmark rulings that clarify when the FDCA’s drug requirements preempt state tort law. In 2009, the Supreme Court, in Wyeth v. Levine, held that a person hurt by a brand name drug could sue the manufacturer under state tort law for a failure to properly warn about the dangers of the drug. However, in a second case, PLIVA v. Mensing, the Supreme Court ruled that a person hurt by a generic drug could not bring the same failure-to-warn claim because changing the labeling of a generic drug would conflict with federal law that requires a generic drug to be the “same” as its branded equivalent in all material respects, including its labeling. Finally, in Mutual Pharmaceutical v. Bartlett, the question for the Court was whether a person harmed by a generic drug could obtain relief on a theory other than a failure-to-warn claim. The Court held that such claims, much like the failure-to-warn claims in Mensing, by imposing heightened duties that would conflict with the “sameness” requirements of federal law regarding generic drugs, were preempted by the FDCA. This report provides background on the doctrine of preemption and the types of state-law tort claims that have been brought against medical device and prescription drug manufacturers. The report also addresses the federal regulation of medical devices and drugs under the FDCA. With that background in mind, the report discusses the major FDCA preemption cases that have been recently issued by the Supreme Court. Finally, the report covers possible judicial and legislative developments that may affect this dynamic area of law.

Sep 10, 2013

Selected Legislative Proposals to Reform the Housing Finance System

This report briefly explains the different approaches to housing finance reform proposed by the three bills, focusing on efforts to replace Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and reform FHA.

Sep 10, 2013

Noncitizen Eligibility for Public Benefits: Legal Issues

Whether and when noncitizens may receive particular types of government assistance can be difficult to ascertain because of the various federal, state, and local laws governing their eligibility for such assistance. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996 was enacted to establish “national policy with respect to welfare and immigration.” With certain exceptions, PRWORA bars aliens who are not “qualified aliens” from receiving federal, state, or local “public benefits,” and also precludes qualified aliens from receiving “federal means-tested public benefits” for five or more years after they enter the United States in a qualified status. However, there are also a number of federal, state, and local measures adopted prior to, or after, PRWORA, some of which make different provisions for noncitizens’ eligibility for particular benefits. The application of these measures can raise complicated issues of constitutional law, statutory interpretation, and administrative law. The constitutional guarantee of equal protection applies to all “persons” within the United States, including aliens. Thus, measures governing eligibility for public benefits could be subject to legal challenge if they treat aliens differently than citizens. Because of Congress’s plenary power over immigration, federal measures that distinguish between aliens and citizens will generally be upheld so long as they are rationally related to a legitimate government interest. State and local measures, in contrast, are generally subject to some type of heightened scrutiny, the degree of which can vary depending upon the benefit involved and the aliens’ status. However, state and local measures that follow a “uniform rule” established by Congress could potentially receive the same deferential review afforded to federal measures. Courts have reached differing conclusions as to whether PRWORA establishes such a uniform rule. Courts have also disagreed as to whether measures that treat lawful nonimmigrant aliens differently from citizens are subject to the same level of scrutiny as those that distinguish between lawful immigrant aliens and citizens. Questions can also arise as to whether particular state and local measures are preempted by federal law. Some states and localities, concerned about the presence of unauthorized aliens within their jurisdiction, have recently enacted measures which would define benefits or related terms more broadly than PRWORA does, and further restrict aliens’ eligibility for them. Such measures could potentially be challenged on preemption grounds because the Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate immigration. State and local measures that purport to determine the conditions upon which aliens may enter or remain in the United States are, per se, preempted. Federal statutes can also preempt state and local measures by expressly prohibiting them, containing conflicting requirements, or occupying the field. Moreover, in the application of particular measures, there have been questions about whether particular government programs, services, or types of assistance are benefits. For example, although PRWORA includes certain types of assistance within its definitions of public benefit, it also refers to “any other similar benefit.” Parties have litigated whether particular assistance constitutes a benefit “similar” to those governed by PRWORA. They have also litigated whether PRWORA bars aliens from receiving benefits whose provision entails the expenditure of appropriated funds, even if the aliens themselves must pay a fee for the benefit; as well as what it means for a state to “affirmatively provide” for eligibility. Similarly, because PRWORA does not affirmatively define “federal means-tested public benefits,” there has been debate about the degree of deference to be accorded to agency interpretations of this term as encompassing only five mandatory spending programs (e.g., Medicaid), and no discretionary spending programs.

Sep 9, 2013

Security Clearance Process: Answers to Frequently Asked Questions

This report provides a primer on some of the fundamental aspects of the security clearance process, using a “Frequently Asked Questions” format. A security clearance is a determination that an individual—whether a direct federal employee or a private contractor performing work for the government—is eligible for access to classified national security information. A security clearance alone does not grant an individual access to classified materials. Rather, a security clearance means that an individual is eligible for access. In order to gain access to specific classified materials, an individual should also have a demonstrated “need to know” the information contained in the specific classified materials. There are three levels of security clearances: Confidential, Secret, and Top Secret, which correspond to the levels of sensitivity of the information that a cleared individual will be eligible to access. In addition, there are two major categories of classified information that are commonly associated with the Top Secret level: Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI), which refers to intelligence sources and methods, and Special Access Programs (SAPs), which refers to highly sensitive policies, projects, and programs. These categories exist for classified information that has been deemed particularly vulnerable. Eligibility standards and investigative requirements for access to SCI and SAPs are higher than for access to information otherwise classified at the same level, which further restricts the number of individuals eligible for access. Federal employees and private contractors must be cleared in order to gain access to classified materials. An individual may not obtain or initiate a security clearance on his or her own. A sponsoring federal agency initiates the process and will make the final security clearance determination based on a background investigation. Although the process involves a number of stages, four key steps to obtaining and maintaining a security clearance are (1) agency sponsorship and submission of clearance application materials; (2) a background investigation, the extent of which may vary by level of clearance; (3) an adjudication to determine whether an individual will be deemed eligible for access; and (4) periodic reinvestigations. Adjudication and final clearance determinations are generally made by the sponsoring agency. To maintain a security clearance, an individual is also subject to periodic reinvestigations. The frequency of reinvestigations vary by level of clearance. The Office of Personnel Management, Federal Investigative Services (OPM-FIS) oversees approximately 90% of all background investigations. Typically, the costs of a background investigation, including background investigations of private contractors, are paid for by the requesting agency. While the final determination to grant or deny a security clearance is typically made by the requesting agency, with certain exceptions a security clearance granted by one agency may be accepted by other agencies. It is difficult, however, to determine the degree to which reciprocity occurs between agencies. This report will be updated as events warrant.

Sep 9, 2013

Remittances: Background and Issues for Congress

This report focuses on remittances, transfers of money and capital sent by migrants and foreign immigrant communities to their home country. At over $400 billion globally in 2012, up from $75 billion in 1990, remittances are the second largest resource flow to developing countries and are expected to exceed $500 billion by 2015. The United States is the largest destination for international migrants and by far the largest source of global remittances. The World Bank records $51.6 billion in official remittance outflows from the United States in 2011. As the market for remittances has ballooned, banks, traditional money transfer companies, and entrepreneurs have responded to increased demand by increasing the amount of remittance channels available to migrants, including mobile, Internet, and card-based options. The dramatic rise in the importance of remittances to global capital flows has led Congress and other policymakers to take a greater interest in these flows. Key issues for Congress include: Regulation of Remittances. Members may want to review the regulatory landscape for remittance providers. Effective and proportional regulation of remittances reduces corruption, enhances transparency, and facilitates a more robust business environment. At the same time, additional regulatory requirements, such as recent consumer protection requirements included in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Consumer Protection Act, may raise concerns about the compliance costs for remittance providers and consumers. Congress may also want to consider whether current federal and state regulation are appropriate for new and emerging payments systems such as mobile and card options, which are starting to capture part of the remittance market. Members may also want to review recent efforts to improve foreign regulatory and supervisory mechanisms. Remittances are often sent to recipients in developing countries with weak regulatory systems, increasing the risk of money laundering and possible financing of terrorism. Impact on U.S. Development Policy. Remittances represent a substantial percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) in several developing countries. Whether remittances can be leveraged to support U.S. foreign development policy is another issue of concern to some Members of Congress. Some analysts argue that since remittances are comprised of private transfers between family members and friends, U.S. efforts should be directed to reducing the transaction costs involved in remittance transactions. Others note the potential beneficial development aspects of remittances, including promoting investment and access to financial services, and encouraging government programs to help stimulate these positive effects. Remittances and U.S. Immigration Policy. Members may want to consider the interplay of U.S. remittance policy and U.S. immigration policy. A major goal of U.S. policy on remittances is increasing the attractiveness of regulated remittance systems to potential remittance customers, without regard to their legal status. Thus, U.S. Treasury officials allow remittance providers to accept certain foreign-issued means of identification to meet their customer identification requirements. Some Members argue that policies like these may undermine U.S. immigration laws and advocate restricting remittances to those with legal status under U.S. immigration laws. Others argue that more restrictive identification measures would only push remittance flows toward high-risk, unregulated and underground channels.

Sep 9, 2013

Sexual Assaults Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Selected Legislative Proposals

Recent high-profile military-related cases involving sexual assaults by U.S. servicemembers have resulted in increased public and congressional interest in military discipline and the military justice system. Questions have been raised regarding how allegations of sexual assault are addressed by the chain of command, the authority and process to convene a court-martial, and the ability of the convening authority to provide clemency to a servicemember convicted of an offense. Under Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, Congress has the power to raise and support armies; provide and maintain a navy; and provide for organizing and disciplining them. Under this authority, Congress has enacted the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), which is the code of military criminal laws applicable to all U.S. military members worldwide. The President implemented the UCMJ through the Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM). The Manual for Courts-Martial contains the Rules for Courts-Martial (RCM), the Military Rules of Evidence (MRE), and the UCMJ. Members of the Armed Forces are subjected to rules, orders, proceedings, and consequences different from the rights and obligations of their civilian counterparts, and the UCMJ establishes this unique legal framework. The UCMJ authorizes three types of courts-martial: (1) summary court-martial, (2) special court-martial, and (3) general court-martial. Depending on the severity of the alleged offense, the accused’s commanding officer enjoys great discretion with respect to the type of court-martial to convene. Generally, each of the courts-martial provides fundamental constitutional and procedural rights to the accused, including, but not limited to, the right to a personal representative or counsel, the opportunity to confront evidence and witnesses, and the right to have a decision reviewed by a lawyer or a court of appeals. In the 113th Congress, there have been no fewer than 10 separate bills introduced addressing the issue of sexual assault in the military. The bills have proposed various provisions that include, but are not limited to prohibiting enlistment in the armed forces of individuals previously convicted of sexual offenses, eliminating the statute of limitations on prosecution of sexual offenses under the UCMJ, and barring commanders from overturning convictions obtained at court-martial. In recent months, Congress has included many provisions addressing sexual assault, including those mentioned above, in the House and Senate versions of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (FY2014 NDAA). Additionally, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel recently announced that the Department of Defense would implement a series of new initiatives designed to address sexual assaults in the military. Due to the sheer breadth of the various provisions contained in the House and Senate versions of the FY2014 NDAA, this report will address selected legislative proposals including requiring special victims’ counsel, changes to disposition and clemency authorities, creation of a mandatory minimum punishment, authority to transfer the accused, and protections for recruits and trainees.

Sep 6, 2013

Environmental Requirements Addressed During Corps Civil Works Project Planning: Background and Issues for Congress

Under its civil works mission, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) undertakes water resource projects. The majority of Corps civil works projects involve commercial navigation, flood risk management, and ecosystem restoration. Before Congress will authorize the construction of or appropriate funds for most Corps civil works projects, the agency must prepare various studies, reports, and evaluations of project benefits and detriments, including adverse environmental impacts. Those impacts, in turn, may obligate the Corps to demonstrate compliance with certain environmental requirements. Environmental Requirements Addressed During Planning Some interested stakeholders have questioned the degree to which environmental requirements hamper project delivery, and debate what changes could be made to accelerate delivery. In particular, some have questioned whether compliance with federal environmental laws and regulations delays the completion of reports that Congress uses to inform legislation authorizing project construction such as Water Resources Development Acts (WRDAs). The planning process is used to develop a recommended water resource project that Congress may authorize. Among other requirements, planning must include an evaluation of project impacts on the environment and applicable federal requirements that arise from those impacts. Depending on the project, a wide array of environmental requirements may apply. There are two types of environmental requirements that may affect a water resource project: those that obligate the Corps to evaluate certain issues during planning, and those intended to protect human health or minimize harm to a protected resource from project-specific impacts. Integrating the evaluation of environmental impacts into project planning is intended, in part, to minimize the potential for unanticipated impacts from the project and mitigate the severity of unavoidable adverse impacts. Generally, the Corps identifies and considers environmental impacts, including any applicable requirements arising from federal environmental laws such as the Clean Water Act, within the framework of documenting compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Compliance with NEPA and other “environmental” laws may obligate the Corps to consult with outside agencies to determine the degree to which a protected resource (e.g., historic site, endangered species habitat, wetlands) may be affected; to develop measures to mitigate or minimize adverse impacts; and/or to identify required approvals or permits. Factors That Cause Delay The time that it takes the Corps to move from one phase of project development to another depends on a complex array of factors. When comparing individual Corps projects to each other, larger, more complex, and costly projects generally take longer. When looking at all civil works projects, Congress’s role in authorizing required studies and project construction, and in appropriating funds necessary for the required studies and construction, often significantly affects project delivery timing. Given the range of environmental issues and impacts that Congress has statutorily obligated the Corps to evaluate, the body of requirements that may be deemed environmental that apply to Corps projects can represent a significant element of project development. What is unclear is whether or which specific environmental requirements routinely delay project delivery, in general, or completion of necessary reports to Congress, in particular. Scope of This Report This report provides information about the civil works project development process, with a focus on the planning phase of development and challenges associated with determining the extent to which project delivery is affected by environmental requirements. To provide some context, the report identifies selected issues that have arisen in the past 50 years that resulted in Congress enacting various environmental requirements that affect the Corps’ project planning process and that are intended to minimize adverse impacts of Corps projects. It also provides an overview of key federal requirements that generally must be addressed before the Corps’ Chief of Engineers will issue a report (i.e., a Chief’s Report). The transmission of that report to Congress by the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works is typically the final step in the planning process and is intended to inform congressional authorization of project construction.

Sep 5, 2013

Energy Tax Policy: Issues in the 113th Congress

This report discusses the energy tax policy that may also be considered as part of comprehensive tax reform legislation in the 113th Congress. Also the report discusses a number of other energy tax incentives, including provisions to support building energy efficiency and renewable fuels, that are also scheduled to expire at the end of 2013.

Sep 4, 2013

Community Development Block Grants: Funding Issues in the 113th Congress

Sep 4, 2013

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

Aug 30, 2013

Chevron Deference: Court Treatment of Agency Interpretations of Ambiguous Statutes

An administrative agency may generally only exercise that authority which is provided to it by Congress. Often, however, congressional delegations of authority are imprecise, and, as a result, agencies must construe ambiguous terms and make interpretive decisions in order to implement Congress’s delegation. The Supreme Court, in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, outlined a limited role for courts in reviewing these types of agency interpretations. The now famous “Chevron two-step” test has been arguably the most important pillar of administrative law since the decision was handed down in 1984. When evaluating whether an agency’s interpretation of a statute is valid a court must first look to the language of the statute. If the statutory language is clear, the test stops—the agency must follow, and the court must enforce, the clear and unambiguous commands that Congress provides through statute. However, if a court determines that the statutory language is “silent or ambiguous,” then the court may proceed to step two of the Chevron test. Step two requires a reviewing court to determine whether the agency’s interpretation “is based on a permissible construction of the statute.” The Supreme Court noted that a reviewing court should not impose its own construction of a statute in place of a reasonable interpretation provided by the agency, but should grant the agency’s interpretation deference under step two of the Chevron test. Recently the Supreme Court ruled on the scope of Chevron deference in City of Arlington v. FCC. The Court established that a court must provide an agency with Chevron deference even when the agency is determining the scope of its own jurisdiction to take regulatory action under a statute. This report will discuss the Chevron decision; explain when Chevron deference applies; highlight common agency statutory interpretations that generally do not receive deference under Chevron; and review the recent Supreme Court opinion in City of Arlington v. FCC which clarified the applicability of Chevron deference to circumstances in which an agency is interpreting the scope of its own jurisdiction.

Aug 28, 2013

Federal Excise Taxes: An Introduction and General Analysis

There are four common types of excise taxes: (1) sumptuary (or “sin”) taxes, (2) regulatory or environmental taxes, (3) benefit-based taxes (or user charges), and (4) luxury taxes. Sumptuary taxes were traditionally imposed for moral reasons, but are currently rationalized, in part, to discourage a specific activity that is thought to have negative spillover effects (or “externalities”) on society. Regulatory or environmental taxes are imposed to offset external costs associated with regulating public safety or to discourage consumption of a specific commodity that is thought to have negative externalities on society. Benefit-based taxes (which include user charges) are imposed to charge users of a particular public good for financing and maintenance of that public good. Lastly, luxury taxes are primarily imposed as one way to raise revenue, particularly from higher-income households. This report provides an introduction and general analysis of excise taxes. First, a brief history of U.S. excise tax policy is provided. Second, the various forms of excise taxes and their respective administrative advantages and disadvantages are described. Third, the effect of federal excise taxes on federal, state, and local tax revenue is discussed. Fourth, the economic effects of various types of excise taxes are analyzed. The effects on consumer behavior and equity among taxpayers could be important issues for assessment of current excise tax policy or for the design of new excise taxes. Lastly, a list of references to other CRS reports on specific excise taxes is presented. Excise taxes have generally played a diminishing role in financing the federal government since the middle of the 20th century for multiple reasons. First, Congress has taken legislative action to eliminate many categories of excise taxes. Second, most excise tax rates set in statute have declined in value over time due to inflation and inaction by Congress to change tax rates set in statute. Excise taxes tend to be regressive, in that lower-income households generally pay a larger share of their income in excise taxes than higher-income households. Because excise taxes generally increase the price of the taxed commodity, they also tend to lower consumer demand. Excise taxes play a much smaller role in financing the federal government than they did in the past. In 1960, federal excise tax collections were $355.49 billion (in 2012 constant dollars, after accounting for inflation). In FY2012, federal excise tax collections were $56.17 billion (roughly one-sixth of their 1960 value in 2012 constant dollars). Federal excise taxes comprised 7.0% of all federal revenue in 1973, whereas they comprised 3.2% in 2012. Congress may be interested in revisiting the revenue and economic effects of excise taxes because these taxes could play a growing role in financing public goods. Some long-standing excise tax proposals to correct alleged social costs have resurfaced from time to time in policy discussions. Some of these proposals could be targeted towards specific products or activities (e.g., a “sugar-sweetened beverages” tax), while others could affect a broad range of economic activity and raise a significant amount of revenue (e.g., a carbon tax). On the other hand, there is also interest in reducing current excise tax rates as a means to encourage short-term growth in particular industries.

Aug 26, 2013

Financial Disclosure by Federal Officials and Publication of Disclosure Reports

High-level officials in all three branches of the federal government are required to publicly disclose detailed information concerning their financial holdings and transactions in income-producing property and assets, such as stocks, bonds, mutual funds, and real property, as well as information on income, gifts, and reimbursements from private non-governmental sources. Covered federal officials must disclose this information not only for themselves, but also must disclose much of the same required financial information with regard to their spouses and dependent children. Public financial disclosure and reporting requirements, originally adopted in the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, apply to the President, Vice President, all Members of Congress (as well as to candidates for President, Vice President, or Congress), federal judges and justices, and to employees in all three branches of the federal government who are compensated at a rate of pay over a particular amount (generally, 120% of the base salary of a GS-15) for more than 60 days in a calendar year. Covered officers and employees of the federal government must file detailed financial reports on an annual basis by May 15, setting out information for the previous year on income, gifts, reimbursements, financial holdings and assets, financial transactions, outside positions held, and any agreements or understandings for future private employment. In addition to the annual May 15 reports, all covered public filers must file more frequent public reports throughout the year concerning financial transactions of over $1,000 in assets such as stocks or bonds. Such periodic reports on financial transactions must be filed within 30 days of the receipt of notice of any such covered purchase or sale (but not later than 45 days of the actual transaction). For the highest-level officials in the executive and legislative branches of government—the President, Vice President, Members of Congress, and executive officials compensated on Level I of the Executive Schedule (Cabinet officials) and Level II of the Executive Schedule (including sub-Cabinet officials and heads of executive branch and independent agencies)—all of the public reports required to be filed, including the annual report and the periodic transaction reports, are to be posted on the Internet for public availability, searching, and downloading. For all other covered employees in the federal government, the financial disclosure reports remain publicly available to individuals and the press at the employee’s agency.

Aug 22, 2013

U.S. Coal Exports

The gap between available U.S. coal supply and demand may continue to widen as low cost natural gas becomes more attractive to electric power plants and uncertainties with emission regulations may inhibit new coal plant investments. Coal producers with excess supply will likely seek to expand their market abroad. Consequently, U.S. coal exports are forecast to continue to rise over the next decade and possibly longer. Growth potential in Asian markets seems large, but there are potential bottlenecks, such as infrastructure and potential rising costs of regulation, competition from other fuels, and transportation constraints that could slow export growth. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), in its 2013 Annual Energy Outlook Early Release reference case, projects net exports of coal to trend up through 2040, almost 50% from 2011 levels, with some fluctuations. The significance of this may have short- and long-term ramifications as well as positive and negative consequences. Increased net exports could improve the U.S. trade balance as well as add government revenue from production that may otherwise decline because of falling domestic consumption. Environmentally, exporting coal may run counter to the current Administration’s domestic environmental policies and affect U.S. efforts to address global environmental issues. Depending upon the nature of the coal exports, certain parts of the country may benefit economically. Current and projected coal exports, the associated infrastructure, and the environmental consequences have prompted interest by Congress. The United States has been exporting coal since the late 1800s. From 2003 to 2012, U.S. coal exports have risen over 200%, mainly driven by competitive production costs, global demand, and lower prices, among other factors. Coal exports comprised 12% of U.S. coal production in 2012. In 2011, U.S. coal exports broke 100 million short tons (MST) for the first time since 1992 and in 2012 surpassed their peak of almost 113 MST in 1981. The value of U.S. coal exports has increased, rising from under $10 billion in 2010 to almost $16 billion in 2011, according to U.S. Energy Information Administration data. Many factors will influence how much coal will be exported from the United States. Enough projects have been proposed that by 2016 the United States could be exporting more than double its current coal exports. Projects in the Pacific Northwest have attracted much of the attention, even though the Northeast continues to be the source for most exports. Representatives from state and local agencies, particularly in Washington and Oregon, as well as industry, community, and environmental groups, along the potential coal transport corridor, have expressed outright support for or opposition to port terminal projects that would allow for increased export of Powder River Basin coal through the Pacific Northwest. Opponents have argued that increased train and barge traffic will have significant adverse impacts to the human, natural, and cultural environment. Project supporters have argued that the projects would create or maintain jobs in the construction, mining, and transportation industries and bring increased tax revenue to the states. Broadly, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires federal agencies to consider the environmental impacts of their actions before a final decision is made regarding that action.

Aug 21, 2013

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF): Characteristics of the Cash Assistance Caseload

This report examines the TANF cash assistance caseload, focusing on how the composition and characteristics of families receiving assistance have changed over time.

Aug 21, 2013

Immigration Enforcement: Major Provisions in H.R. 2278, the Strengthen and Fortify Enforcement Act (SAFE Act)

Reforming the nation’s immigration laws has been the subject of significant legislative activity in the 113th Congress. In June, the Senate passed an omnibus immigration bill (S. 744) that addresses a broad array of issues, including immigration enforcement and border security, verification of aliens’ employment eligibility, the temporary and permanent admission of foreign nationals into the country, and the creation of mechanisms for some unauthorized aliens to acquire legal status. The House, in contrast, has focused legislative activity on a number of stand-alone bills that would reform specific aspects of immigration law. The House Judiciary Committee has ordered several of these bills to be reported, including proposals that focus on strengthening immigration control and enforcement. H.R. 2278, the Strengthen and Fortify Enforcement Act (SAFE Act), is aimed at increasing immigration control and enforcement, particularly within the interior of the United States. Many of the bill’s provisions appear intended to address and override court decisions that have narrowly construed existing statutory authorities. The bill would encourage states and localities to play a greater role in immigration enforcement; heighten penalties for violations of federal immigration laws; impose additional requirements concerning background checks and screening of aliens seeking admission, status (including naturalization), or benefits under immigration law; and clarify or establish rules to facilitate the detention and removal of aliens who lack authorization to remain in the United States, particularly when such aliens have been involved in criminal activity. During Judiciary Committee hearings, several significant amendments were made to the bill, including provisions which would generally make unlawful presence by an alien a criminal offense, require the establishment of a biometric entry/exit system within two years of the bill’s enactment, and generally constrain the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in the removal process. On June 18, 2013, the committee completed its markup of the SAFE Act, and ordered it to be reported, as amended, by a vote of 20-15. While the SAFE Act contains a few provisions which resemble those found in S. 744, there are notable differences in both the breadth of the bills’ enforcement provisions and their approach to the unauthorized alien population. The SAFE Act generally imposes more significant penalties for immigration-related violations and more stringent requirements relating to the detention and removal of aliens than the Senate-passed bill. Perhaps most significantly, the SAFE Act would make an alien’s knowing unauthorized presence a criminal offense, whereas the Senate bill would not make unlawful presence a crime. In fact, the Senate bill would establish procedures whereby some of the current unauthorized population could potentially acquire legal status, while neither the SAFE Act nor the other bills ordered to be reported by the House Judiciary Committee, to date, make similar provisions for legalization. The SAFE Act more closely resembles the last comprehensive immigration enforcement legislation passed by the House, H.R. 4437, the Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005 (109th Congress), though it differs from the earlier legislation on many specific matters. This report discusses the SAFE Act, as reported out of the House Judiciary Committee. For discussion of other immigration reform proposals in the 113th Congress and prior Congresses, see CRS Report CRS Report R43097, Comprehensive Immigration Reform in the 113th Congress: Major Provisions in Senate-Passed S. 744, by Marc R. Rosenblum and Ruth Ellen Wasem, and CRS Report R42980, Brief History of Comprehensive Immigration Reform Efforts in the 109th and 110th Congresses to Inform Policy Discussions in the 113th Congress, by Ruth Ellen Wasem.

Aug 20, 2013

FY2014 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues

Report regarding the annual defense authorization process and the interest Congress members have in the military.

Aug 19, 2013

Keystone XL: Assessing the Proposed Pipeline's Impacts on Greenhouse Gas Emissions

This report provides background information regarding the Keystone XL pipeline proposal and the process required for federal approval. The report discusses the state department's GHG emissions assessment and provides concluding observations.

Aug 15, 2013

The Affordable Care Act and Small Business: Economic Issues

This report explains how employer-sponsored insurance can be used to address concerns about health insurance coverage and cost. Then, it summarizes the three ACA provisions most relevant to small businesses. Also, it analyzes these provisions for their potential effects on small businesses. Last, this report presents several approaches that could address some concerns associated with these provisions (particularly the employer penalty).

Aug 15, 2013

Health Workforce Programs in Title VII of the Public Health Service Act

Title VII of the Public Health Service Act (PHSA) supports health professions education and training through grants to and contractual agreements with institutions, and direct assistance to individuals. Institutions may receive Title VII support for such activities as residency programs at medical and dental schools, recruitment and retention initiatives in community-based educational settings, and health workforce data collection and analysis within state health departments. Individuals typically receive direct assistance through scholarships, loans, loan repayments, or fellowships. Title VII authorizes several advisory groups to make recommendations to the Secretary of Health and Human Services and Congress on various health workforce programs and Title VII functions. The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), oversees programs authorized in Title VII. The health care workforce—the backbone of the health care delivery system—includes physicians, nurses, dentists, therapists, and others who deliver health services to individuals in physicians’ offices, health centers, clinics, and other community-based health care settings. In 2010, Congress reauthorized Title VII health workforce programs and activities in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA, P.L. 111-148, as amended). The ACA also added several new authorities that aim to build and sustain the health care workforce alongside other provisions for health reform, including health insurance expansion. The 113th Congress has held hearings and introduced legislation to address the adequacy of the health care workforce. Health policy experts anticipate that ACA provisions for health insurance expansion could lead to an increased demand for health service utilization, and they expect that this increased demand for services could prompt increased demand for health providers, including physicians and nurses. Other factors causing concern about the adequacy of the health workforce include uneven provider distribution, attrition and retirement, and demands of the aging population. Legislative interest or action may focus on the impact of Title VII programs on education and training in the health professions. This report describes and summarizes Title VII programs. It describes federal support for institutions and individuals in efforts to expand and sustain the pipeline for health professions education and training. Appendix A summarizes ACA initiatives for health workforce provisions related to Title VII.

Aug 13, 2013

National Security Strategy: Mandates, Execution to Date, and Issues for Congress

Strategy—together with decision-making, planning and execution, budgeting, and congressional oversight—is a critical component of U.S. government thinking and practice in the arena of national security. In theory, effective national security strategy-making can sharpen priorities and refine approaches; provide a single shared vision for all concerned agencies; clarify the roles and responsibilities of all concerned agencies so that they may more effectively plan and resource; offer a coherent baseline for congressional oversight; and communicate U.S. government intent to key audiences at home and abroad. While there is no single shared view of the boundaries of the concept of “national security,” many would include homeland security, and an array of economic, energy and/or environmental concerns, as well as traditional military affairs. In practice, the U.S. government—at the levels of both the White House and individual agencies—conducts a wide array of strategic reviews, and issues many forms of strategic guidance. The pinnacle of the national security strategic architecture is the national security strategy, issued by the President. That effort is supported by an array of subordinate quadrennial reviews—the Quadrennial Defense Review by the Department of Defense, the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review by the Department of State, the Quadrennial Homeland Security Review issued by the Department of Homeland Security, and the Quadrennial Intelligence Community Review issued by the Office of the Director for National Intelligence—as well as a number of subordinate strategies including national defense strategy, national military strategy, national homeland security strategy, and national intelligence strategy. Yet in practice, the strategic architecture is more complex and less coherent than this synopsis might suggest, because these core strategic efforts are joined by a number of one-off strategic reviews and documents, and because timelines, content, and relationships among the various documents have all varied a great deal over time. Congress has provided statutory mandates for many but not all U.S. government strategy-making activities. In principle, congressional oversight of Administration strategic efforts can help hold the executive branch accountable for both the content and the rigor of its thinking. To the extent that strategy actually shapes policy-making and resourcing, such strategy oversight can be a powerful tool for shaping real-world outcomes. In practice, executive branch compliance with statutory mandates—in terms of both form and content—has been mixed at best in recent history. This report offers a brief overview of the role of strategy in conducting the business of national security; and it reviews the major statutory and non-statutory mandates for national security activities, addressing both requirements and execution to date. It analyzes key issues that may be of interest to Congress in exercising oversight of executive branch strategy-making, including the frequency of strategy updates; the synchronization of timelines and content among different strategies; the prioritization of objectives; the assignment of roles and responsibilities among relevant agencies; the links between strategy and resourcing; and the value of a competition of ideas.

Aug 6, 2013

African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA): Background and Reauthorization

Aug 2, 2013

Military Sexual Assault: Chronology of Activity in Congress and Related Resources

This report focuses on activity in Congress regarding recent high profile incidents of sexual assault in the military. Included are separate sections on the official responses related to these incidents by the Department of Defense (DOD), the Administration, and Congress including legislation in the 113th Congress. The last section is a resource guide for sources in this report and related materials on sexual assault and prevention.

Jul 30, 2013