CRS Reports

Department of Defense’s Use of Contractors to Support Military Operations: Background, Analysis, and Issues for Congress

Throughout its history, the Department of Defense (DOD) has relied on contractors to support a wide range of military operations. Operations over the last thirty years have highlighted the critical role that contractors play in supporting U.S. troops—both in terms of the number of contractors and the type of work being performed. Over the last decade in Iraq and Afghanistan, and before that, in the Balkans, contractors accounted for 50% or more of the total military force. Regardless of whether future operations are similar to-or significantly different from- those of the past decade most analysts and defense officials believe that contractors will continue to play a central role in overseas military operations. Consequently, these observers believe that DOD should be prepared to effectively award and manage contracts at a moment's notice, anywhere in the world, in unknown environments, and on a scale that may exceed the total contract obligations of any other federal agency. Contractors provide a wide range of services, from transportation, construction, and base support, to intelligence analysis and private security. The benefits of using contractors include freeing up uniformed personnel to conduct combat operations; providing expertise in specialized fields, such as linguistics or weapon systems maintenance; and providing a surge capability, quickly delivering critical support capabilities tailored to specific military needs. Because contractors can be hired when a particular need arises and released when their services are no longer needed, contractors can be less expensive in the long run than maintaining a permanent in-house capability. Just as the effective use of contractors can augment military capabilities, the ineffective use of contractors can prevent troops from receiving what they need, when they need it, and can lead to the wasteful spending of billions of dollars. Contractors can also compromise the credibility and effectiveness of the U.S. military and undermine operations, as many analysts believe have occurred in recent operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Improved planning for and management of contractors may not eliminate all problems, but it could mitigate the risks of relying on contractors during overseas operations. DOD’s use of contractors has been a significant oversight issue for Congress in recent years. With the help of Congress, DOD has made substantial progress to improve its use of operational contract support; however, many observers believe the military is not yet sufficiently prepared to use contractors in future operations. In their view, better planning, expanded educating and training, ensuring sufficient resources to effectively manage and oversee contractors, and providing operational commanders with more reliable data can help build the foundation for the more effective use of contractors. In light of current and future budget constraints, some observers are concerned that DOD may not be able to sufficiently fund efforts underway to effectively prepare for the use of contractors in future operations. DOD’s extensive use of contractors poses several potential policy and oversight issues for the 113th Congress, including To what extent will potential budget cuts or force structure changes impact DOD reliance on contractors? To what extent is DOD preparing for the role of contractors in future military operations? To what extent is the use of contractors being incorporated into DOD education, training, and exercises? What steps is DOD taking to ensure that sufficient resources will be dedicated to create and maintain the capabilities to ensure effective operational contract support in the future? Congress' decisions on these issues could substantially affect the extent to which DOD relies on contractors and is capable of planning for and overseeing contractors in future operations.

May 17, 2013

State and Local Restrictions on Employing Unauthorized Aliens

In May 2011, the Supreme Court ruled in Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America v. Whiting that federal immigration law did not preempt an Arizona statute that authorized or required the suspension or termination of the licenses of businesses that knowingly or intentionally hire unauthorized aliens, and also required that employers within Arizona use the federal government’s E-Verify database to check employees’ work authorization. The doctrine of preemption derives from the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which establishes that federal law, treaties, and the Constitution itself are “the supreme Law of the Land.” Thus, one essential aspect of the federal structure of government is that states can be precluded from taking actions that are otherwise within their authority if federal law is thereby thwarted. An act of Congress may preempt state or local action in a given area in any one of three ways: (1) the statute expressly states preemptive intent (express preemption); (2) a court concludes that Congress intended to occupy the regulatory field, thereby implicitly precluding state or local action in that area (field preemption); or (3) state or local action directly conflicts with or otherwise frustrates the purpose of the federal scheme (conflict preemption). When it was enacted in 1952, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) did not regulate the employment of unauthorized aliens, and several states subsequently enacted measures prohibiting the employment of individuals who were not lawful residents of the United States. In a 1976 decision declining to find one such measure preempted, the Supreme Court recognized that it was “within the mainstream of [a state’s] police power” to restrict the employment of aliens within their jurisdiction whose presence in the United States was not authorized by the federal government. However, in 1986, Congress enacted the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), which amended the INA to sanction employers of unauthorized aliens and expressly preempt states and localities from sanctioning employers other than through “licensing and similar laws.” Then, in 1996, Congress enacted the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), which authorized the creation of a pilot program for verifying work authorization that ultimately developed into the program known as E-Verify. Under federal law, use of E-Verify by private entities is generally voluntary, and the Secretary of Homeland Security may not require persons or entities not specified in IIRIRA to participate. Prior to Whiting, the federal courts of appeals had disagreed as to whether IRCA and IIRIRA preempted state and local measures like the Arizona statute. Some found that state licensing measures were within IRCA’s “savings clause” even when the state independently determined whether an employer employed unauthorized aliens, and that IIRIRA did not prohibit states from requiring E-Verify use. Others found that licensing provisions disrupted the balance struck by Congress between deterring illegal immigration, minimizing burdens on employers, and preventing discrimination, and Congress did not want use of E-Verify to be mandatory. The majority in Whiting relied primarily upon the “plain meaning” of IRCA and IIRIRA, while two dissents relied more heavily upon the legislative history and overall purpose of IRCA. The majority’s decision apparently opens the door to additional state and local restrictions upon employing unauthorized aliens. However, several lower court decisions subsequent to Whiting suggest that any state and local E-Verify measures, in particular, may need to parallel federal law to avoid being found to be preempted. Measures that would criminalize the seeking or performance of work by unauthorized aliens were not at issue in Whiting, but were later found to be preempted in the Supreme Court’s June 25, 2012, decision in Arizona v. United States.

May 16, 2013

The Child Tax Credit: Economic Analysis and Policy Options

May 14, 2013

The Student Non-Discrimination Act (SNDA): A Legal Analysis

This report discusses current laws that prohibit discrimination, in education, and continues with an analysis of the specific provisions contained in the Student Non-Discrimination Act (SNDA), including provisions relating to coverage, prohibited acts, and enforcement and remedies under the proposed legislation.

May 9, 2013

Regulation of Fertilizers: Ammonium Nitrate and Anhydrous Ammonia

This report focuses on some of the federal regulatory programs overseeing storage of ammonium nitrate and anhydrous ammonia by retailers. It discusses federal occupational safety, environmental, and security statutes and regulations applicable to each chemical. Select policy issues regarding these federal regulatory programs will be highlighted.

May 9, 2013

Sequestration at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA): Air Traffic Controller Furloughs and Congressional Response

In response to across-the-board funding reductions in federal programs through the budget sequestration process implemented in FY2013, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) began to furlough personnel, including air traffic controllers, on April 21, 2013. In conjunction with air traffic controller furloughs, FAA implemented various air traffic management initiatives to mitigate impacts of the reduced staffing on controller workload. This resulted in some delays affecting about 3%-4% of flights, with some acute delay impacts occurring in congested airspace, particularly in the New York City area. Amid concerns over the impacts of air traffic controller furloughs, Congress passed the Reducing Flight Delays Act of 2013 (P.L. 113-9). The act authorized FAA to transfer up to $253 million from funding available for airport grants or other FAA programs and accounts to the FAA operations account for necessary costs to prevent reduced operations and staffing and ensure a safe and efficient air transportation system. Following passage of this legislation in Congress, FAA suspended all employee furloughs and resumed air traffic control operations under normal procedures and full staffing levels. Prior to the April 2013 furloughs, FAA furloughed employees in the summer of 2011. However, the FAA furlough actions associated with sequestration had a different legal basis and were consequently implemented quite differently. The summer 2011 furloughs arose as a result of a lapse in authority to collect Airport and Airways Trust Fund (AATF) revenues, the sole funding source for FAA’s facilities and equipment (F&E) account, the Airport Improvement Program (AIP), and research, engineering, and development activities. Expenditure authority for AIP also expired in the summer of 2011. The expiration of these authorities resulted in immediate furloughs for most employees funded from these accounts. Some employees funded through the F&E account responsible for ensuring the safety and reliability of navigation and communications equipment were ordered to stay on the job. Employees paid through FAA’s operations account, including air traffic controllers, were not furloughed in 2011. Certain AIP grants-in-aid funds for airport development and planning are now subject to provisions of the Reducing Flight Delays Act of 2013. It appears that the transfer of the designated AIP discretionary funds to air traffic operations reduces the amount made available to airports under 49 U.S.C. 48103. This has implications for both the eventual spending of AIP discretionary funds and the calculation of the amount of AIP entitlement funding available for distribution. Unless Congress takes further action, the transferred funds will eventually lead to real reductions in AIP discretionary spending. FAA may need to stop or reduce its AIP discretionary grant making for the remainder of FY2013 to comply with the act. Individual airports’ formula “entitlements” could be reduced for the remainder of the fiscal year if FAA transfers most or all of the $253 million allowed under the act.

May 7, 2013

Tax Reform in the 113th Congress: An Overview of Proposals

This report provides background information regarding tax reform and discusses ways to make the U.S. tax system simpler, fairer, and more efficient.

May 6, 2013

Regulation of Dietary Supplements

May 6, 2013

The U.S. Science and Engineering Workforce: Recent, Current, and Projected Employment, Wages, and Unemployment

This report uses a modified version of the Standard Occupation Classification (SOC) system to categorize scientists and engineers. The report taxonomy includes six science and engineering (S&E) S&E occupational groups, each composed of closely related detailed occupations.

May 6, 2013

The DHS S&T Directorate: Selected Issues for Congress

This report provides a brief overview of the S&T Directorate's mission, organization, and budgetary structure; a discussion of selected critiques of the S&T Directorate; and an analysis of selected issues facing congressional policymakers.

May 3, 2013

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA): An Overview

This report discusses the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) that provides workers with minimum wage, overtime pay, and child labor protections.

May 3, 2013

President Obama’s First-Term U.S. Circuit and District Court Nominations: An Analysis and Comparison with Presidents Since Reagan

The process by which lower federal court judges are nominated by the President and considered by the Senate is of continuing interest to Congress. Recent Senate debates in Congress over judicial nominations have focused on issues such as the relative degree of success of President Barack Obama’s nominees in gaining Senate confirmation (compared with other recent Presidents) as well as the number and percentage of vacant judgeships in the federal judiciary and the effect of delayed judicial appointments on judicial vacancy levels. This report addresses these issues, and others, by providing a statistical analysis of nominations to U.S. circuit and district court judgeships during the first terms of President Obama and his four most recent predecessors. Some of the report’s findings include the following: During his first term, President Obama nominated 42 persons to U.S. circuit court judgeships. Of the 42, 30 (71.4%) were confirmed, 5 (11.9%) had their nominations either withdrawn by the President or returned to the President and not resubmitted to the Senate, and 7 (16.7%) had their nominations returned to the President at the end of the 112th Congress and subsequently were renominated during the 113th Congress. During the first terms of the five most recent Presidents (Reagan to Obama), the 30 confirmed Obama circuit court nominees were tied with 30 Clinton nominees as the fewest number of circuit nominees confirmed. The percentage of circuit nominees confirmed during President Obama’s first term, 71.4%, was the second-lowest, while the percentage confirmed during G.W. Bush’s first term, 67.3%, was the lowest. Of the 173 persons nominated by President Obama to U.S. district court judgeships during his first term, 143 (82.7%) were confirmed, 6 (3.5%) had their nominations withdrawn or returned and not resubmitted, and 24 (13.9%) had their nominations returned to the President and were renominated during the 113th Congress. President Obama’s first term, compared with the first terms of Presidents Reagan to G.W. Bush, had the second-fewest number of district court nominees confirmed (143 compared with 130 for President Reagan) and the second-lowest percentage of district court nominees confirmed (82.7% compared with 76.9% for President G.H.W. Bush). As it did during the first terms of Presidents Reagan, G.H.W. Bush, and Clinton, the circuit court vacancy rate during President Obama’s first term increased (from 7.3% at the beginning to 9.5% at the end). Over the five most recent presidencies, G.W. Bush’s first term was the only one during which the circuit court vacancy rate decreased (from 14.5% at the beginning to 8.4% at the end). As it did during the first terms of Presidents Reagan and G.H.W. Bush, the district court vacancy rate also increased from the beginning to the end of President Obama’s first term (rising from 6.6% to 9.5%). President Obama is the only President during this period for whom the district court vacancy rate increased unaccompanied by the creation of new district court judgeships. The average number of days elapsed from nomination to confirmation for circuit court nominees confirmed during a President’s first term ranged from 45.5 days during President Reagan’s first term to 277 days during President G.W. Bush’s. For district court nominees, the average time between nomination to confirmation ranged from 34.7 days (Reagan) to 221.8 days (Obama). The median number of days from nomination to confirmation for circuit court nominees confirmed during a President’s first term ranged from 28 days (Reagan) to 225.5 days (Obama). For district court nominees, the median time elapsed ranged from a low, again, of 28 days (Reagan) to 215 days (Obama). President Obama is the only one of the five most recent Presidents for whom, during his first term, both the average and median waiting time from nomination to confirmation for circuit and district court nominees was greater than half a calendar year (i.e., more than 182 days).

May 2, 2013

Counting Regulations: An Overview of Rulemaking, Types of Federal Regulations, and Pages in the Federal Register

This report serves to inform the congressional debate over rulemaking by analyzing different ways to measure federal rulemaking activity. The report provides data on and analysis of the total number of rules issued each year, as well as information on other types of rules, such as "major" rules, "significant" rules, and "economically significant" rules.

May 1, 2013

Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) Reform: An Overview of Proposals to Reduce the Growth in SSDI Rolls

Apr 29, 2013

U.S. International Investment Agreements: Issues for Congress

Foreign direct investment (FDI) is an increasingly important driver of the global economy. In the absence of an overarching multilateral framework on investment, bilateral investment treaties (BITs) and investment chapters in free trade agreements (FTAs), collectively referred to as “international investment agreements,” have emerged as the primary mechanism for promoting a rules-based system for international investment. These agreements contain provisions on nondiscriminatory treatment of investments by the host country, limits on expropriation of investments, and access to impartial binding procedures to settle investment-related disputes with host governments, among other things. FTA investment chapters generally contain provisions identical or similar to those in U.S. BITs. As FDI flows have expanded, the number of international investment agreements also has increased, both between developed and developing countries and between developing countries. Presently, there are over 3,000 BITs globally. The United States has concluded 47 BITs, 41 of which have entered into force. Of the 14 FTAs agreed by the United States, 12 contain investment provisions. Investment dynamics also have given rise to more investment disputes. In 2011, the number of investment disputes filed in international arbitration forums was 47, its highest level ever for a single year. Congress plays an active role in developing and implementing U.S. policy on FDI through its oversight and legislative responsibilities. Congress can set investment negotiating objectives for U.S. trade agreements in trade promotion authority (TPA). Unlike FTAs, which require a full vote of Congress on implementing legislation, BITs, as international treaties, require only Senate ratification. The United States, which remains both a major source for and a major destination of FDI, uses international investment agreements to reduce restrictions on foreign investment, provide non-discriminatory treatment for foreign investment, and reduce other market-distorting measures to maximize the benefits of such investment, while balancing other U.S. policy interests. In April 2012, the Obama Administration announced the conclusion of its review of the U.S. Model BIT, the template which the United States uses to negotiate BITs and investment chapters in FTAs. The 2012 Model BIT maintains the “core” or substantive investor protections affirmed in the 2004 Model BIT. It also clarifies that BIT obligations apply to state-owned enterprises (SOEs); limits performance requirements; strengthens labor and environmental provisions; clarifies which financial services provisions may fall under a prudential exception (such as to address balance of payments problems); expands transparency obligations; and increases requirements for stakeholder input in the standards-setting process. The conclusion of the Model BIT review may generate momentum to conclude previously launched negotiations with countries such as China and India, or to launch investment negotiations with other U.S. trading partners. Investment policy issues feature prominently in other ongoing U.S. trade negotiations, including the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) FTA, as well as the anticipated Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) negotiation. In addition to considering negotiating priorities for these and proposed BITs with major emerging economies, Members may also want to consider the effectiveness of BITs in promoting and protecting investment.

Apr 29, 2013

Prevalence of Mental Illness in the United States: Data Sources and Estimates

This report briefly describes the methodology and selected findings of three large federally funded surveys that provide national prevalence estimates of diagnosable mental illness: the National Comorbidity Survey Replication (NCS-R), the National Comorbidity Survey Replication Adolescent Supplement (NCS-A), and the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH). This report presents prevalence estimates of any mental illness and serious mental illness based on each survey and ends with a brief discussion of how these prevalence estimates might inform policy discussions.

Apr 24, 2013

Inflation-Indexing Elements in Federal Entitlement Programs

In recent years, various proposals have been discussed in the context of ways to reduce federal budget deficits. One of these proposals calls for the use of a different measure of consumer price change to index various provisions of federal programs, including cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs). For example, under current law, the Social Security COLA is based on the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W). Under the proposal, the Social Security COLA would be based instead on the Chained Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (Chained CPI-U or C-CPI-U). Because the goal of the Chained CPI-U is to better reflect how consumers alter their buying habits in response to changes in prices, supporters of the proposal argue that it is a more accurate measure for computing COLAs and making other automatic program adjustments. Opponents, however, view the proposal as a backdoor way of reducing benefits because the Chained CPI-U typically has risen more slowly than either the CPI-W or the traditional CPI-U, the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers. Some observers point out that the Chained CPI-U is published as a preliminary value that is subject to revision over a period of up to two years and that it may not accurately reflect the cost of living for certain groups, such as the elderly population. The current discussion of a potential change in the way the Social Security COLA is computed raises questions about indexing in other federal entitlement programs. The purpose of this report is to identify key indexing elements in major federal entitlement programs under current law and present the information in a summary table. As shown here, indexing affects more than benefit levels paid to individuals through COLAs. It also affects, for example, federal payments to providers and eligibility criteria for some programs. In addition, the report provides a brief description of the measures of consumer price change used to index various elements of these programs under current law, as well as the alternative measure of consumer price change (the Chained CPI-U) that has been proposed for computing Social Security COLAs and making inflation adjustments to other federal programs. This report does not evaluate the best measure of consumer price change for making automatic inflation adjustments in federal entitlement programs. In addition, broader issues, such as the technical aspects of different measures of consumer price change, potential implications of using an alternative measure of price change to index various elements of major federal entitlement programs, and the indexing of other items (for example, the federal poverty threshold and parameters of the tax code) are beyond the scope of this report. For technical information on how the Chained CPI-U is constructed and reported by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, see CRS Report RL32293, The Chained Consumer Price Index: What Is It and Would It Be Appropriate for Cost-of-Living Adjustments?, by Julie M. Whittaker. For information on how Social Security benefits could be affected by using the Chained CPI-U to compute annual COLAs, see CRS Report R43363, Alternative Inflation Measures for the Social Security Cost-of-Living Adjustment (COLA), by Noah P. Meyerson.

Apr 24, 2013

U.S. Air Force Bomber Sustainment and Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress

This report addresses potential congressional oversight and appropriations concerns for the sustainment and modernization of the U.S. Air Force's bomber force.

Apr 23, 2013

Sage Grouse and the Endangered Species Act (ESA)

Western states have seen conflicts over natural resources for more than a century, involving issues such as grazing, roads, fences, oil and gas development, urban expansion, spread of invasive species, water rights, timber harvest, and pollution. In many cases, the conflicts involve the protection of endangered and threatened species, often with one group seeing listed species as an obstacle to their development goals or property rights, and another group advocating protection in line with their environmental, scientific, or economic goals. One such controversy is developing in 11 western states over sage grouse, whose numbers can be threatened by roads, fences, power lines, urban expansion, and energy development. This report describes the state of knowledge about these birds, history of efforts to protect them, and current controversies. The sage grouse, once abundant in western sagebrush habitat in 16 states, has dropped in numbers, and is now found in 11 states. Its decline can be attributed to several factors—increased use of sage grouse habitat by ranching and energy development, decreased sagebrush due to noxious invasive species, and loss of habitat due to more frequent fires. However, the extent of the decline is not certain, and some dispute that the sage grouse is in peril. There is some discussion over how many species of grouse there are and how they may be related. Currently, two closely related species are recognized by scientists: the Gunnison grouse (Centrocercus minimus) and the sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus), sometimes referred to as the greater sage grouse. At one time, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS or Service) also recognized two subspecies—the eastern sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus urophasianus) and the western sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus phaios)—but FWS reversed that position. In addition, FWS has designated distinct population segments (DPS) of sage grouse under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Parties have filed petitions seeking to protect these birds under the ESA by having them listed as threatened or endangered, but none are listed under the act. On January 11, 2013, however, FWS proposed listing the Gunnison grouse as endangered. In July 2011, FWS reached a settlement in several lawsuits regarding delays in listing species, include the sage grouse. According to the settlement agreement, a proposed listing rule or a decision that listing is not warranted is due for the Mono Basin sage grouse DPS by the end of FY2013, and for the Columbia River Basin sage grouse DPS and the greater sage grouse by the end of FY2015. At present, those grouses’ protection under the ESA has been deemed warranted but precluded by higher protection priorities. Thus, the sage grouse is treated as a candidate species and does not have the protections that a listed species would have. One factor in making a listing decision is whether other regulations are in place to provide adequate protection of a species so that federal listing is not necessary to prevent extinction. States in primary sage grouse habitat have taken action to forestall an endangered species listing, which some believe would inhibit energy development on vast amounts of public and private property. Additionally, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service have policies to protect the grouse on their lands, although courts have found those policies lacking. These issues are at the forefront as Congress considers increased energy development on federal lands, while balancing the mission of the ESA.

Apr 22, 2013

The Reclamation Fund: A Primer

The Reclamation Fund was established in 1902 to fund the development of irrigation projects on arid and semiarid lands of the 17 western states. It originated as a revolving fund for construction projects and was supported by the proceeds of the sale of land and water in the western United States. Over time, it was amended to receive proceeds from a number of other sources. It is currently derived from repayments and revenues associated with federal water resources development as well as the sales, rentals, and leases (including natural resource leasing) of federal land in the western United States. Portions of the fund’s balance are appropriated annually by Congress for multiple purposes, including some of the operational expenditures of the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and the Power Marketing Administrations. Through FY2012, collections deposited into the Reclamation Fund totaled more than $40 billion, while total appropriations from the fund totaled more than $30 billion. The Reclamation Fund did not finance all Reclamation investments in the western United States. As a result of limited funding availability, a number of large dams and other Reclamation investments were financed by the General Fund of the U.S. Treasury. Notwithstanding advances to the Reclamation Fund by Congress in 1910 and 1931, deposits into and appropriations out of the fund have been roughly equal over time. From the 1940s until the 1990s, the fund maintained a small, relatively stable balance. Beginning in the mid-1990s, balances in the fund began to increase significantly as receipts from mineral leasing and power sales increased, while appropriations from the fund largely remained static. At the end of FY2012, the fund had a balance of more than $10.8 billion, and it is expected to continue to grow. Receipts deposited into the Reclamation Fund are made available to Reclamation by Congress through annual discretionary appropriations bills, which are subject to congressional budgetary allocations. Some have proposed that Congress appropriate some portion of the surplus balance in the Reclamation Fund to reclamation activities in western states, including new water storage projects or the rehabilitation of existing projects. These interests argue that the Reclamation Fund was set up to benefit western states and should now be used to increase investments in these areas. As the balance of the Reclamation Fund continues to increase, Congress may reevaluate the Reclamation Fund’s status, including its financing of new or ongoing activities. The Omnibus Lands Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-11) included provisions that will transfer $120 million per year from the fund from FY2020 through FY2034, without further appropriation, to a separate fund that provides for Indian Water Settlement construction projects. In the 113th Congress, a bill before the Senate (S. 715) proposes to redirect funding that would otherwise go to the Reclamation Fund for the construction of rural water projects. Major changes to the Reclamation Fund may have scoring implications in the annual budget and under congressional pay-as-you-go rules.

Apr 18, 2013

Child Welfare: Structure and Funding of the Adoption Incentives Program along with Reauthorization Issues

Apr 18, 2013

Expediting the Return to Work: Approaches in the Unemployment Compensation Program

This report examines trends in the duration of unemployment benefits and then reviews a wide range of approaches for speeding the return to work. The report emphasizes measures that have recently been considered by lawmakers or have been tried on an experimental basis, particularly if evaluations of their impacts on duration of Unemployment Compensation (UC) benefit receipt are available.

Apr 18, 2013

How Legislation Is Brought to the House Floor: A Snapshot of Parliamentary Practice in the 112th Congress (2011-2012)

House of Representatives has several different parliamentary procedures through which it can bring legislation to the chamber floor. Which of these will be used in a given situation depends on many factors, including the type of measure being considered, its cost, the amount of political or policy controversy surrounding it, and the degree to which Members want to debate it and propose amendments. This report provides a snapshot of the forms and origins of measures that, according to the Legislative Information System of the U.S. Congress (LIS), received action on the House floor in the 112th Congress (2011-2012) and the parliamentary procedures used to bring them up for initial House consideration. In the 112th Congress, 888 pieces of legislation received floor action in the House of Representatives. Of these, 602 were bills or joint resolutions and 286 were simple or concurrent resolutions, a breakdown between lawmaking and non-lawmaking legislative forms of approximately 68% to 32%. Of these 888 measures, 783 originated in the House and 105 originated in the Senate. During the same period, 53% of all measures receiving initial House floor action came before the chamber under the Suspension of the Rules procedure; 23% came to the floor as business “privileged” under House rules and precedents; 15% were raised by a special rule reported by the Committee on Rules and adopted by the House; and 7% came up by the unanimous consent of Members. Seven measures, representing approximately 1% of legislation receiving House floor action in the 112th Congress, were processed under the procedures associated with the call of the Private Calendar. When only lawmaking forms of legislation (bills and joint resolutions) are counted, 72% of such measures receiving initial House floor action in the 112th Congresses came before the chamber under the Suspension of the Rules procedure; 21% were raised by a special rule reported by the Committee on Rules and adopted by the House; and 5% came up by the unanimous consent of Members. Around 1% of lawmaking forms of legislation received House floor action via the call of the Private Calendar and an even smaller fraction of lawmaking measures were “privileged” under House rules. The party sponsorship of legislation receiving initial floor action in the 112th Congress varied based on the procedure used to raise the legislation on the chamber floor. Sixty-seven percent of the measures considered under the Suspension of the Rules procedure were sponsored by majority party Members. All but three of the 137 measures brought before the House under the terms of a special rule reported by the House Committee on Rules and adopted by the House were sponsored by majority party Members.

Apr 15, 2013

Submission of Mental Health Records to NICS and the HIPAA Privacy Rule

Apr 15, 2013

Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA)

The recent fiscal crisis and recession have accentuated debt collection issues, prompted federal regulatory and enforcement activities regarding the debt collection industry, and motivated assessments of the effectiveness of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Bureau or CFPB) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the two main agencies charged with regulating and/or enforcing the FDCPA, have identified debt buying, the use of litigation as a collection strategy, and the impact of current technology on the debt collection industry as three major developments that did not exist when the FDCPA was enacted in 1977. They have conducted analyses of consumer complaints about FDCPA violations and studies and workshops to evaluate the debt-buying industry and the impact of technological developments such as social media, email, mobile phones, etc., on how debt collectors communicate with consumers and find information about consumer debts. At present, about 30 million Americans, nearly 10% of the population, are subject to debt collection for amounts averaging $1,500 per person, according to the CFPB. The FDCPA was enacted as an amendment to the Consumer Credit Protection Act. Its purpose is to “eliminate abusive debt collection practices by debt collectors.” Debt collectors are prohibited from threatening or harassing debtors, and their contacts with debtors are restricted. The FDCPA commonly only applies to third-party debt collectors. A “debt collector” is generally defined as “any person who uses any instrumentality of interstate commerce or the mails in any business the principal purpose of which is the collection of any debts, or who regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another.” The FDCPA does not apply to creditors who are collecting their own debts, unless in the process of collecting debts, the creditor uses a name other than his own which would indicate that a third person is attempting to collect the debt on his behalf. There are certain other exceptions, such as federal or state government employees collecting debts as part of their official duties. As of the date of this report, only one bill to revise the FDCPA has been introduced in the 113th Congress. This bill would define child support as a debt. Several bills were introduced in the 112th Congress to address various consumer problems with the debt collection industry, including attempted collection of time-barred debts, arrests of debtors, inadequate information about a debt and/or inadequate verification of a debt, and threatening to withhold treatment to induce payment of delinquent medical debt. On the other hand, legislation in the 112th would also have restricted the liability of good-faith debt collectors for conduct that complies or conforms with regulations or interpretations of the CFPB.

Apr 11, 2013

Next Steps in Nuclear Arms Control with Russia: Issues for Congress

This report begins with a review of the role of nuclear arms control in the U.S.-Soviet relationship, looking at both formal, bilateral treaties and unilateral steps the United States took to alter its nuclear posture. It then turns to the role of arms control in the U.S.- Russian relationship, again reviewing the role of both formal treaties and unilateral measures. The report also describes the role of Congress in the arms control process. It then provides an analytic framework that reviews the characteristics of the different mechanisms, focusing on issues such as balance and equality, predictability, flexibility, transparency and confidence in compliance, and timeliness. Finally the report describes issues that Congress may address as the Obama Administration employs these mechanisms to pursue further reductions in U.S. nuclear weapons.

Apr 10, 2013

Hugo Chávez’s Death: Implications for Venezuela and U.S. Relations

T he death of Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez on March 5, 2013, after 14 years of populist rule, has implications not only for Venezuela’s political future, but potentially for the future of U.S.-Venezuelan relations. This report provides a brief discussion of those implications. For additional background on President Chávez’s rule and U.S. policy, see CRS Report R40938, Venezuela: Issues for Congress, by Mark P. Sullivan. Congress has had a strong interest in Venezuela and U.S. relations with Venezuela under the Chávez government. Among the concerns of U.S. policymakers has been the deterioration of human rights and democratic conditions, Venezuela’s significant military arms purchases, lack of cooperation on anti-terrorism efforts, limited bilateral anti-drug cooperation, and Venezuela’s relations with Cuba and Iran. The United States traditionally enjoyed close relations with Venezuela, but there has been considerable friction in relations under the Chávez government. U.S. policymakers have expressed hope for a new era in U.S.-Venezuelan relations in the post-Chávez era. While this might not be possible while Venezuela soon gears up for a presidential campaign, there may be an opportunity in the aftermath of the election. The Venezuelan Constitution calls for a new presidential election within 30 days; an election has now been scheduled for April 14, 2013. Acting President Nicolás Maduro, who had been serving as Vice President until Chavez’s death, is the presidential candidate for the ruling United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV), while Henrique Capriles, governor of Miranda state, who ran in the October 2012 presidential election, is the candidate for the opposition Democratic Unity Platform (MUD, Mesa de la Unidad Democrática). Many observers expect that the outpouring of sympathy for President Chávez, as well as the fact that Chávez himself called on his supporters to elect Maduro if anything were to happen to him, bode well for Maduro’s election prospects. Whoever wins the election will face enormous economic and political challenges.

Apr 9, 2013

State Legalization of Recreational Marijuana: Selected Legal Issues

This report summarizes the Washington and Colorado marijuana legalization laws and evaluates whether, or the extent to which, they may be preempted by the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) or by international agreements. It also highlights potential responses to these recent legalization initiatives by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and identifies other noncriminal consequences that marijuana users may face under federal law.

Apr 5, 2013

Water Quality Issues in the 113th Congress: An Overview

Apr 2, 2013

Federal Traffic Safety Programs: An Overview

This report discusses trends in traffic safety and federal efforts to improve overall safety on the roads including the encouragement of safer driving behavior, vehicle improvements, roadway improvements, and commercial transportation safety.

Apr 1, 2013

USDA’s “GIPSA Rule” on Livestock and Poultry Marketing Practices

Mar 29, 2013

The Recess Appointment Power After Noel Canning v. NLRB: Constitutional Implications

Under the Appointments Clause, the President is empowered to nominate and appoint principal officers of the United States, but only with the advice and consent of the Senate. In addition to this general appointment authority, the Recess Appointments Clause permits the President to make temporary appointments, without Senate approval, during periods in which the Senate is not in session. On January 4, 2012, while the Senate was holding periodic “pro forma” sessions, President Obama invoked his recess appointment power and unilaterally appointed Richard Cordray as Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and Terrence F. Flynn, Sharon Block, and Richard F. Griffin Jr. as Members of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The President’s recess appointments were ultimately challenged by parties affected by actions taken by the appointed officials, and on January 25, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) became the first court to evaluate the merits of the President’s appointments. In a broad decision entitled Noel Canning v. National Labor Relations Board, the court invalidated the appointment of all three NLRB Board Members. In reaching its decision, the D.C. Circuit concluded that under the Recess Appointments Clause, the President may only make recess appointments during a formal intersession recess (a recess between the end of one session of Congress and the start of another), and only to fill those vacancies that arose during the intersession recess in which the appointment was made. Although the D.C. Circuit’s actual order in Noel Canning directly applies only to the NLRB’s authority to undertake the single action at issue in the case, the court’s interpretation of the President’s recess appointment authority could have a substantial impact on the future division of power between the President and Congress in the filling of vacancies. If affirmed by the Supreme Court, the likely effect of the reasoning adopted in Noel Canning would be a shift toward increased Senate control over the appointment of government officials and a decrease in the frequency of presidential recess appointments. This report begins with a general legal overview of the Recess Appointments Clause and a discussion of applicable case law that existed prior to the D.C. Circuit’s decision in Noel Canning. The report then analyzes the Noel Canning opinion and evaluates the impact the case could have on the roles of the President and Congress in the appointments context. A companion report, CRS Report R43032, Practical Implications of Noel Canning on the NLRB and CFPB, by David H. Carpenter and Todd Garvey, provides a detailed discussion of the impact the Noel Canning decision may have on the functioning of the NLRB and the CFPB.

Mar 27, 2013

Proposed Cuts to Air Traffic Control Towers Under Budget Sequestration: Background and Considerations for Congress

This report discusses the Budget Control Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-25) and air traffic control tower funding, which provided for automatic reductions to most federal discretionary spending if no agreement on deficit reduction was reached by the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction.

Mar 26, 2013

The Child Tax Credit: Current Law and Legislative History

Mar 25, 2013

Social Networking and Constituent Communications: Members’ Use of Twitter and Facebook During a Two-Month Period in the 112th Congress

Communication between Members of Congress and their constituents has changed with the development of new online social networking services. Many Members now use e-mail, official websites, blogs, YouTube channels, Twitter, and Facebook pages to communicate with their constituents—technologies that were either non-existent or not widely available 20 years ago. Social networking services have arguably served to enhance the ability of Members of Congress to fulfill their representational duties by providing greater opportunities for communication between the Member and individual constituents. In addition, electronic communication technology has reduced the marginal cost of constituent communications; unlike postal letters, Members can reach large numbers of constituents for a fixed cost. This report examines Member adoption and use of two social networking services: Twitter and Facebook. The report analyzes data on Member use of Twitter and Facebook collected by an academic institution in collaboration with the Congressional Research Service during a two-month period between August and October 2011 and the adoption of both platforms as of January 2012. This report analyzes the following questions related to Member use of Twitter and Facebook: What proportion of Members use Twitter and Facebook? How often are Members using Twitter and Facebook? How widely are Member Tweets and posts being followed? What are Members Tweeting and posting about? This report provides a snapshot of a dynamic process. As with any new technology, the number of Members using Twitter and Facebook, and the patterns of use, may change rapidly in short periods of time. As a result, the conclusions drawn from these data cannot be easily generalized or used to predict future behavior. The data show that, at the time of the study, 451 (of 541) Representatives (including Delegates and the Resident Commissioner) and Senators were registered with Twitter (83.4%) and 487 (of 541) Representatives and Senators were registered with Facebook (90%). During the study period—August to October 2011—a total of 30,765 “Tweets” were sent and 16,261 Facebook posts were made. The data show that overall, registered Members sent an average of 1.24 Tweets and 0.63 Facebook posts per day; Senate Republicans sent the most Tweets per day (1.53 on average), followed by Senate Democrats (1.49), House Republicans (1.23), and House Democrats (1.09); for Facebook, Senate Republicans posted the most (0.84 on average), followed by House Republicans (0.71), Senate Democrats (0.53), and House Democrats (0.48); and the data also suggest that the top 20% of Twitter and Facebook users account for over 50% of the Tweets and posts during this study. Use of Twitter and Facebook was analyzed by coding Tweets and posts into seven categories: position taking, district or state, official congressional action, policy statement, media, personal, and other. The data suggest position taking is the most frequent type of Tweet (41%) and Facebook post (39%). This is followed by district or state (26% of Tweets and 32% of Facebook posts); official action (17% of Tweets and 21% of Facebook posts); and policy statements (16% of Tweets and 16% of Facebook posts).

Mar 22, 2013

U.S. Customs and Border Protection: Trade Facilitation, Enforcement, and Security

This report describes and analyzes U.S. Customs and Border Protection's (CBP) role in the U.S. import process. (The report does not cover CBP's role in the U.S. export control system.)

Mar 22, 2013

Clean Air Issues in the 113th Congress: An Overview

Mar 22, 2013

Cloud Computing: Constitutional and Statutory Privacy Protections

Cloud computing is fast becoming an integral part of how we communicate with one another, buy music, share photos, conduct business, pay our bills, shop, and bank. Many of the activities that once occurred solely in the physical world, including communications with one another, are increasingly moving to the digital world. What was once a letter to a friend is now a Facebook message; a call to a loved one is now a Skype chat; a private meeting with a business partner is now a video conference call. In short, the cloud is revolutionizing not only how we compute, but also how we live. Where individuals once locked personal or business papers solely in a desk drawer or filing cabinet, they now also store them on someone else’s computer. In short, cloud computing is a web-based service that allows users to access anything from e-mail to social media on a third-party computer. For instance, Gmail and Yahoo are cloud-based email services that allow users to access and store emails that are saved on each respective service’s computer, rather than on the individual’s computer. As more communications are facilitated through these cloud-based programs, it is no surprise that government and law enforcement would seek to access this stored information to conduct criminal investigations, prevent cyber threats, and thwart terrorist attacks, among other purposes. This prompts the following questions: (1) What legal protections are in place for information shared and stored in the cloud? (2) What legal process must the government follow to obtain this information? and (3) How do these rules differ from those applied in the physical world? Protections of communications in the physical world flow from the Fourth Amendment and various federal statutes such as the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA), which includes the Stored Communications Act (SCA). Under the Fourth Amendment, government officials are generally prohibited from accessing an individual’s communication, such as tapping into a telephone call or opening a postal letter, without first obtaining judicial approval. In the digital world, courts have by and large required law enforcement to acquire a warrant before accessing the contents of electronic communications, but have permitted law enforcement to access non-content information such as routing data with lesser process. These cases do not seem to distinguish between cloud-based and traditional forms of Internet services. Federal courts have applied the SCA to various electronic communications including e-mails, messages sent on social networking sites like Facebook and MySpace, and movies posted on video-sharing sites like YouTube. The process for obtaining these communications under the SCA depends on how long the information has been stored with the service provider and how the provider is classified under the SCA. The relatively few cases dealing with cloud computing have required lesser legal process for accessing electronic communications sent via cloud-based services than traditional forms of Internet computing. In light of this rapidly changing technology, there have been several legislative proposals to augment the Fourth Amendment’s protections for digital communications and update existing statutory protections like the SCA for information shared and stored in the cloud.

Mar 22, 2013

Medical Child Support: Background and Current Policy

Mar 21, 2013

Administrative Agencies and Claims of Unreasonable Delay: Analysis of Court Treatment

One common concern about federal agencies is the speed with which they are able to issue and implement regulations. Federal regulatory schemes can be quite complex, and establishing rules and completing adjudications can sometimes require substantial agency resources and significant amounts of time. However, critics point out that sometimes an agency can simply take too long to a complete task. Commentators and courts have noted that such agency delay can impact the effectiveness of a regulatory scheme. It can also impact regulated entities that must wait for final agency action. In some circumstances, a court may have to determine whether an agency has violated the law by unreasonable delay in taking action. Substantial case law has emerged for how courts will treat agency delay in a variety of circumstances. Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), agency actions must be completed “within a reasonable time.” Courts have jurisdiction under the APA to hear claims brought against an agency for unreasonable delay, and the APA provides that courts shall compel any action unreasonably delayed or unlawfully withheld. When an agency has delayed, but does not have to act by any statutorily imposed deadline, courts are more deferential to the agency’s priorities and are less willing to compel an agency to take action. However, if a delay becomes egregious, courts will compel an agency to take prompt action. Generally, courts follow the TRAC factors, from Telecommunications Research & Action Center v. FCC, to determine whether a delay is unreasonable. The court will see if Congress has established any indication for how quickly the agency should proceed; determine whether a danger to human health is implicated by the delay; consider the agency’s competing priorities; evaluate the interests prejudiced by the delay; and determine whether the agency has treated the complaining party disparately from others. A court balances these TRAC factors to reach a conclusion on a case-by-case basis. It can be difficult to predict which way a court will decide any particular case. There is no strict rule on how long is too long to wait for an agency action. Therefore, it is important to look at previous cases to see what kinds of delays are determined to be unreasonable. In addition to the APA’s general requirement to act within a reasonable time, Congress may also establish specific deadlines for agency actions by statute. When an agency fails to meet a statutory deadline, courts generally compel the agency to take prompt action. Some courts have determined that a court has no choice but to compel agency action in the face of a missed statutory deadline. For these courts, no balancing is permitted when a deadline has been violated. However, other courts note that a statutory deadline is merely one of the factors to consider when determining whether the delay is unreasonable. For these courts, the TRAC factors are still evaluated to determine whether the court should compel the agency to act after a deadline has been missed. Judicial remedies for delayed agency actions are somewhat limited. The Supreme Court has ruled that a court is permitted to compel an agency to take action, but cannot determine what conclusion the agency shall ultimately reach on the issue. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has also established that agency rules still maintain the force of law, even when they are promulgated after a statutory deadline. Therefore, a court’s only remedy for unreasonable agency delay is essentially to impose a deadline on the agency.

Mar 21, 2013

Financial Condition of Depository Banks

This report discusses the congressional interest in the financial conditions of depository banks or the commercial banking industry that has increased in the wake of the financial crisis that unfolded in 2007-2009, which resulted in a large increase in the number of distressed institutions.

Mar 18, 2013

The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)

This report provides background information regarding the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), its structure, funding, budget, effectiveness, and reform.

Mar 18, 2013

Supporting Criminal Justice System Reform in Mexico: The U.S. Role

Fostering security, stability, and democracy in neighboring Mexico is seen by analysts to be in the U.S. national security and economic interest. Reforming Mexico’s often corrupt and inefficient criminal justice system is widely regarded as crucial for combating criminality, strengthening the rule of law, and better protecting citizen security and human rights in the country. Congress has provided significant support to help Mexico reform its justice system in order to make current anticrime efforts more effective and to strengthen the system over the long term. U.S. and Mexican officials assert that fully implementing judicial reforms enacted through constitutional changes in June 2008 is a key goal. Under the reforms, Mexico has until 2016 to replace its trial procedures at the federal and state level, moving from a closed-door process based on written arguments presented to a judge to an adversarial public trial system with oral arguments and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. These changes are expected to help make the system less prone to corruption and more transparent and impartial. In addition to oral trials, judicial systems are expected to adopt means of alternative dispute resolution, which should help them be more flexible and efficient, thereby ensuring that cases that go to trial involve serious crimes. More than halfway into the reform process, judicial reform efforts in Mexico are at a critical juncture. As of December 2012, 22 of Mexico’s 32 states had enacted new criminal procedure codes (67%), but only 12 states (36%) had begun operating at least partially under the new system. Reform states have seen positive initial results as compared to non-reform states: faster case resolution times, less pre-trial detention, and tougher sentences for cases that go to trial. Daunting challenges remain, however, including counter-reform efforts and opposition from some key justice sector operators (including judges). Although reform efforts have lagged at the federal level, President Enrique Peña Nieto, inaugurated in December 2012 to a six-year term, has said that advancing judicial reform will be a top priority. U.S. policymakers are likely to follow how the Peña Nieto government moves to enact a unified penal code and code of criminal procedure to hasten reform at the federal level and to increase support to states transitioning to the new system. The United States has been supporting judicial reform efforts in Mexico since the late 1990s, with assistance accelerating since the implementation of the Mérida Initiative in FY2008, an anticrime assistance program for which Congress has provided $1.9 billion. While the Mérida Initiative initially focused on training and equipping Mexican security forces, it now emphasizes providing training and technical assistance to help reform Mexico’s justice sector institutions. Funding for “Institutionalizing the Rule of Law” now dwarfs other types of U.S. assistance to Mexico. This report provides an overview of Mexico’s historic 2008 judicial reforms and an assessment of how those reforms have been implemented thus far. It then analyzes U.S. support for judicial reform efforts in Mexico and raises issues for Congress to consider as it oversees current U.S. justice sector programs and considers future support to Mexico. Also see CRS Report R41349, U.S.-Mexican Security Cooperation: The Mérida Initiative and Beyond, by Clare Ribando Seelke and Kristin M. Finklea.

Mar 18, 2013

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP): Status and Issues

This report discusses the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), which provides payments to agricultural producers to take highly erodible and environmentally sensitive land out of production and install resource conserving practices for 10 or more years. CRP was first authorized in the Food Security Act of 1985 (P.L. 99-198, 1985 farm bill) and is administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Farm Service Agency (FSA) with technical support from other USDA agencies.

Mar 18, 2013

Public Mass Shootings in the United States: Selected Implications for Federal Public Health and Safety Policy

This report focuses on mass shootings and selected implications they have for federal policy in the areas of public health and safety. While such crimes most directly impact particular citizens in very specific communities, addressing these violent episodes involves officials at all levels of government and professionals from numerous disciplines.

Mar 18, 2013

Human Rights in China and U.S. Policy: Issues for the 113th Congress

This report examines human rights issues in the People's Republic of China (PRC), including ongoing rights abuses, legal reforms, and the development of civil society.

Mar 15, 2013

U.S. and World Coal Production, Federal Taxes, and Incentives

Even though U.S. coal production remained strong over the past decade, reaching record levels of production, coal is losing its share of overall U.S. energy production primarily to natural gas. One of the big questions for the industry is how to penetrate the overseas market, particularly in steam coal, to compensate for declining domestic demand. As U.S. energy policy and environmental regulations are constantly debated, there is ongoing congressional interest in the role of coal in meeting U.S. and global energy needs. The question may not be whether the domestic production of coal is here to stay but, rather, how much U.S. coal will be mined, what type, and under what regulatory framework. Energy Information Administration (EIA) statistics show that more than half (55%) of U.S. coal reserves are located in the West, dominated by Montana and Wyoming, which account for 43%. When including the top five producing states (three of which are in the East), 70% of U.S. coal reserves are accounted for. The United States government owns about one third, or 87 billion short tons (BST), of U.S. domestic reserves. Coal production in the United States reached an all-time high of 1,174.8 million short tons in 2008, before declining to slightly under 1,100 million short tons from 2009 to 2011. Coal production on federal lands accounts for about 43% of U.S. production, according to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). World coal production has increased by nearly 60% since 2002, most of the increase coming from China—up 130%. Overall, U.S. coal production has been very strong over the past decade and if the industry is successful in penetrating the global market, primarily for steam coal, U.S. production may continue to grow faster than consumption. If recent trends continue, the U.S. coal industry will likely become more concentrated and produce more on federal lands. Businesses in the coal industry are subject to federal income taxes, but coal producers benefit from a number of federal tax provisions, commonly referred to as tax expenditures. There are several congressional concerns related to coal production on federal lands. One concern is the potential for under-market-value coal auctions (sales), e.g., lease offers being accepted by the BLM with few competitive bids. In these cases, the federal government may not receive fair market value for the lease sale.

Mar 14, 2013

Medicare Home Health Benefit Primer: Benefit Basics and Issues

This report describes home health eligibility criteria, home health services, characteristics of Medicare beneficiaries who use home health services, and home health providers. Further, this report describes in detail the Medicare home health prospective payment system (HH PPS), provides an overview of Medicare home health payments, and discusses issues for Congress related to the Medicare home health benefit.

Mar 14, 2013

The Budget Control Act, Sequestration, and the Foreign Affairs Budget: Background and Possible Impacts

This report discusses current Office of Management and Budget (OMB) estimates of foreign affairs accounts sequestration amounts.

Mar 13, 2013

Changes to Senate Procedures in the 113th Congress Affecting the Operation of Cloture (S.Res. 15 and S.Res. 16)

The 113th Congress; S.Res. 16 made two changes to the standing rules of the Senate. This report explains the provisions of each new standing order and rule.

Mar 13, 2013