CRS Reports

Physician Supply and the Affordable Care Act

An adequate physician supply is important for the effective and efficient delivery of health care services and, therefore, for population health and the cost and quality of health care. Assessments of the adequacy of physician supply often focus on three dimensions of the physician population: its size; its composition (e.g., the mix between primary care and specialty physicians); and its geographic distribution. Policies that aim to alter physician supply generally focus on both current and future supply along these three dimensions because physician training is a lengthy process; therefore, changes implemented to alter supply do not have immediate effects. Each of the three dimensions of physician supply is important for health care spending and for population health because physician clinical decisions affect approximately 90% of each health care dollar spent. In addition, as physicians provide health care services that, with some exceptions, cannot be provided by non-physicians, the size, composition, and geographic distribution of the physician population affects the amount and type of health care services available. A number of studies have found physician shortages overall, in certain specialties, and in certain geographic areas. The federal government pays for physician services, primarily through the Medicare and Medicaid programs, and supports physician training through a number of programs in various departments and agencies. Given current investments in physician services and the physician workforce, the adequacy of the current and future physician supply may be of interest to Congress. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA, P.L. 111-148, as amended) may affect the demand for physician services, a major determinant of physician supply, because it expands insurance coverage to some of those previously uninsured. The ACA also includes provisions that may affect the size, composition, and geographic distribution of the physician population by supporting changes to physician training, compensation, and practice. Specifically, provisions targeting the number of physicians trained and their productivity may affect the size of the physician population. The composition of the physician population may be altered by provisions targeting the supply of primary care providers or specialties in shortage. Provisions addressing the diversity of the physician workforce and those incentivizing practice in rural or other underserved areas may affect the geographic distribution of the physician population. Finally, the ACA includes provisions that provide for data collection and evaluation of the adequacy of the workforce in general, and federal workforce programs specifically. Whether and how these provisions will affect physician supply is not yet known because some of these provisions have not been implemented yet, are temporary, will not have immediate effects, or rely on discretionary funding. This report examines each dimension of physician supply, separately discussing current (and, where appropriate, future) concerns and relevant changes included in the ACA that may affect each dimension. The report then discusses workforce planning activities included in the ACA that may affect all three dimensions of supply.

Jan 15, 2013

Table Egg Production and Hen Welfare: Agreement and Legislative Proposals

Jan 11, 2013

U.S. Sanctions on Burma: Issues for the 113th Congress

This report provides a brief history of U.S. policy towards Burma and the development of U.S. sanctions, a topical summary of those sanctions, and an overview of actions taken to waive or ease those sanctions by the Obama Administration. The report concludes with a discussion of actions taken by the 112th Congress and options for the 113th Congress.

Jan 11, 2013

P.L. 111-3: The Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009

Jan 10, 2013

An Overview of the Tax Provisions in the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012

This report provides an overview of the tax provisions (Titles I-IV and Title X of P.L. 112-240) included in the "fiscal cliff deal," including the permanent extension and modification of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, often referred to collectively as the "Bush-era tax cuts"; the temporary extension of certain tax provisions originally included as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA; P.L. 111-5), often referred to as the "2009 tax cuts"; the permanent extension of the alternative minimum tax (AMT) patch; the temporary extension of a variety of other temporary expiring provisions for individuals, businesses, and energy often referred to as "tax extenders" and the expansion of in-plan conversions of traditional employer-sponsored retirement accounts (like 401(k) plans) to employer-sponsored Roth accounts (like Roth 401(k) plans).

Jan 10, 2013

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP): A Primer on Eligibility and Benefits

Jan 9, 2013

Food Safety Issues for the 113th Congress

Jan 9, 2013

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Part B: Key Statutory and Regulatory Provisions

Jan 7, 2013

The Role of Patents and Regulatory Exclusivities in Pharmaceutical Innovation

Jan 7, 2013

Overview and Issues for Implementation of the Federal Cloud Computing Initiative: Implications for Federal Information Technology Reform Management

Jan 4, 2013

The “Fiscal Cliff” and the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012

The federal budget deficit has exceeded $1 trillion in each of the last four fiscal years (FY2009-FY2012). Concern over these large deficits, as well as the long-term trajectory of the federal budget, resulted in significant debate during the 112th Congress over how to achieve meaningful deficit reduction and how to implement a plan to stabilize the federal debt. Numerous expiring provisions, across-the-board spending cuts, and other short-term considerations having a major budgetary impact, were scheduled to take effect at the very end of 2012 or in early 2013. This combination of policies, estimated by CBO to reduce the deficit by $502 billion between FY2012 and FY2013, was referred to by some as the “fiscal cliff.” Had these policies taken effect, CBO projected that the economy would likely have returned to recession in FY2013. On January 2, 2013, President Obama signed into law the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (ATRA; P.L. 112-240), which addressed many of these tax and spending policies. As a result of the changes in ATRA which are set to increase spending and decrease revenue, the deficit is projected to rise relative to the current law baseline. The provisions of ATRA were estimated by CBO to increase the budget deficit by $330 billion in FY2013 and nearly $4 trillion over the FY2013-FY2022 period. ATRA addressed several revenue provisions that had been set to expire at the end of 2012. These included the “Bush-era tax cuts,” provisions related to the estate tax, certain tax provisions enacted or expanded as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), and a number of temporary tax provisions (also known as “tax extenders”). ATRA permanently extended a modified version of the “Bush-era tax cuts” and the estate tax, as well as a permanent AMT patch. The law also temporarily extended the ARRA tax provisions and a variety of “tax extenders.” ATRA did not extend the two-percentage-point reduction in the Social Security payroll tax, which expired at the end of 2012, or delay the Affordable Care Act (ACA) taxes on higher-income tax filers, which are scheduled to take effect in 2013. Combined, these provisions were estimated by CBO and JCT to increase the deficit by $280 billion in FY2013 and $3.93 trillion over the FY2013-FY2022 period. In addition to these revenue provisions, ATRA also addressed several spending policies that were scheduled to reduce spending beginning in FY2013. It extended the federal share of extended benefit payments for unemployment and postponed the expiration of the authorization for temporary emergency unemployment benefits through 2013. It delayed a reduction in payments to Medicare physicians under the Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) system through 2013. It eliminated the first two months of the automatic spending cuts enacted as part of the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA; P.L. 112-25), postponing their onset from January 2 to March 1. It extended the 2008 farm bill through 2013. These provisions, some of which were offset, were estimated by CBO to increase the deficit by $48 billion in FY2013 and $34 billion over the FY2013-FY2022 period. Despite the enactment of ATRA, many policy issues affecting the federal budget remain unresolved. Specifically, in early 2013, Congress will likely consider a debt limit increase, additional actions related to the postponed BCA automatic spending reductions, and appropriations for the final six months of FY2013. Finally, long-term fiscal sustainability issues remain unresolved.

Jan 4, 2013

Ghana: Recent Developments and U.S. Relations

Ghana: Bilateral Cooperation and Leadership Engagement Ghana is considered a model for many of the outcomes that many Members of Congress have long sought to achieve in sub-Saharan Africa in the areas of authorizations; appropriations and program guidance; and oversight. Ghana has received a large U.S. Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) Compact and may soon receive a second. It is also a recipient of substantial U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and State Department bilateral aid, much of which is channeled through three presidential development initiatives: the Global Climate Change (GCC) initiative; Feed the Future (FtF), a global food security and poverty reduction initiative; and the President’s Malaria Initiative (PMI) and the Global Health Initiative (GHI). Ghana also hosts USAID and U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) regional offices and the USAID-administered West Africa Trade Hub. The Hub focuses on expanding intra-regional and bilateral trade with countries in the region, a key area of current congressional interest and a pillar of the Obama Administration’s U.S. Strategy Toward Sub-Saharan Africa, released in June 2012. Ghana is also one of four initial Partnerships for Growth (PfG) countries. PfG, implementation of which began in 2011 in El Salvador, is intended to advance public and private bilateral cooperation with selected countries whose top leaders demonstrate commitment to good governance and sustainable development. Ghana hosts regular visits by Members of Congress, and in 2009 President Barack Obama signaled that ties remain close by traveling to Ghana, the only sub-Saharan African country that he has visited as president. Good Governance and Stability President Obama’s visit was premised on Ghana’s record of having built a relatively robust democracy and a growing economy, albeit in the face of widespread poverty and diverse development challenges, making it a stable country in an often unstable region. During his visit he lauded its democratic and economic development record and made a major policy address relating these issues to good governance in Africa and the wider developing world. Ghana’s stability is maintained, in part, by its citizens’ commitment to constitutional governance. Since undergoing a transition from single party rule in the early 1990s, it has held a series of peaceful but close elections, two involving inter-party transfers of state power. The most recent elections, held in early December 2012, were closely contested. In all cases, opposition challengers have either accepted poll results outright or contested them through the courts, rather than through the use of violence or street protests. Constitutional governance was also upheld in July 2012, when state power was rapidly and transparently transferred to the current president, John Dramani Mahama, after the death of President John Atta Mills. Ghana has also contributed to efforts to maintain stability and end conflict in the surrounding West Africa region, and regularly contributes to international peacekeeping operations elsewhere. It receives U.S. capacity-building assistance in this area, as well as aid to help counter threats posed by international narcotics trafficking. Development and Economy: Progress and Challenges Ghana’s economy has grown substantially in recent years, based both on increases in farm and mining exports and, more recently, oil production, which is likely to increase its strategic importance to the United States. Growing oil earnings may help fund development, but may also pose resource governance and fiscal management challenges. Economic growth has led to socio-economic and infrastructure construction gains, but Ghana continues to face profound development challenges and threats to the rule of law linked to corruption and trafficking in illegal drugs and persons.

Jan 4, 2013

Domestic Food Assistance: Summary of Programs

Jan 3, 2013

Education-Related Regulatory Flexibilities, Waivers, and Federal Assistance in Response to Disasters and National Emergencies

The 21st century has seen the operation of elementary, secondary, and postsecondary educational institutions and the education of the students they enroll disrupted by natural disasters, such as hurricanes and floods, and by national emergencies, such as the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. This report is intended to inform Congress of existing statutory and regulatory provisions that may aid in responding to future disasters and national emergencies that may affect the provision of or access to education and highlight the actions of previous Congresses to provide additional recovery assistance. The majority of federal aid for disaster management is made available from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act; P.L. 93-288). Under the Stafford Act, public school districts, charter schools, private nonprofit educational institutions, public institutions of higher education (IHEs), and federally recognized Indian tribal governments are eligible to receive assistance for activities such as debris removal, infrastructure and equipment repair and replacement, hazard mitigation, and temporary facilities. The Stafford Act also authorizes federal agency heads to waive administrative, but not statutory, requirements to expedite assistance. In addition to the assistance available through the Stafford Act, assistance is available through numerous provisions in education laws. At the elementary and secondary level, there are several existing provisions that may be helpful in providing assistance in response to a disaster. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) grants the Secretary of Education authority to issue waivers of any statutory or regulatory requirement of the ESEA for a state educational agency (SEA), local educational agency (LEA), Indian tribe, or school that receives funds under an ESEA program and requests a waiver. In response to recent disasters, waivers have been granted to address funding flexibility issues and accountability requirements. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) grants the Secretary of Education authority to waive state maintenance of effort (MOE) requirements and requirements to supplement, not supplant, federal funds under certain circumstances. The Secretary is not, however, able to waive all statutory and regulatory requirements with respect to the acts. For example, under the ESEA the Secretary may not waive civil rights requirements or prohibitions against the use of funds for religious worship or instruction. Under IDEA, for example, the Secretary may not grant waivers from the right to a free appropriate public education. At the postsecondary level, various provisions exist to ensure continuity of operations and continuity of federal funding following a disaster. Under the Higher Education Act (HEA), the Secretary of Education has authority to waive several of the requirements for aid recipients, IHEs, and financial institutions when a disaster has been declared. In particular, waivers have been provided from various requirements related to the disbursement, repayment, and administration of federal student aid. Under Title 38 of the U.S. Code, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) may extend payment of veterans educational assistance benefits to cover periods when enrollment is interrupted. In response to the Gulf Coast hurricanes, Congress enacted legislation that provided short-term programs or temporary allowances in order to aid recovery from 2005 to 2009. Additional funds were appropriated to help affected institutions restart, replace equipment, or renovate. Funds were appropriated to support the recruitment, retention, and compensation of elementary and secondary school staff. Funds were also appropriated to provide grants to postsecondary students and support the enrollment of students displaced or made homeless by the disaster. Congress allowed the Secretary of Education to waive or modify the statutory and regulatory requirements of some programs on a temporary basis to ensure funds were targeted to affected populations and institutions at the postsecondary level and to ease the associated financial and accountability burden at the elementary and secondary levels. As of the date of this report, Congress had not enacted legislation to specifically support education as a result of and in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, which primarily affected areas of the mid-Atlantic and northeast in October 2012.

Jan 2, 2013

Offshoring of Airline Maintenance: Implications for Domestic Jobs and Aviation Safety

Airlines outsource maintenance to countries like China and El Salvador to achieve cost savings from the comparatively lower wages and from lower costs to build and maintain repair facilities. In some cases, particularly in China, government investment and other incentives, along with backing from national airlines, have spurred rapid expansion of the foreign aircraft maintenance industry over the past decade. While airline maintenance work outsourced to foreign repair facilities has increased considerably over the past decade, there are no conclusive data indicating that this has directly resulted in the loss of U.S. jobs. Despite increased maintenance outsourcing, the United States continues to maintain a positive trade balance for airline maintenance work, a trend that likely reflects the United States’ advanced capabilities on high-value engine and aircraft component work. While investigative reports and labor union sponsored studies of airline outsourcing practices have been critical of foreign repair facilities, more detailed statistical analysis does not support conclusions that maintenance outsourcing or offshoring has had measurable negative impact on safety, quality control, or reliability. Although some experts believe that safety is being compromised and the regulation and oversight of foreign repair stations needs to be improved, analyses of recent trends do not provide obvious evidence that maintenance outsourcing has adversely affected airline safety. Specific concerns have been raised regarding the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA’s) limited resources to oversee foreign repair stations, and FAA’s extensive reliance on foreign regulators and the airlines to monitor these facilities. Additional concerns have been raised over worker training and qualifications at foreign facilities, the relatively low numbers of workers at these facilities with FAA certification, and the lack of English language skills necessary to read and comprehend maintenance manuals and instructions. Congress also has been concerned about the adequacy of drug and alcohol testing programs at foreign repair stations that work on U.S. aircraft. In the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-95), it mandated drug and alcohol testing at those locations in a manner consistent with existing bilateral aviation safety agreements and the laws of countries where the repair stations are located. Additionally, the act directed FAA to ensure that foreign repair stations are subject to appropriate inspections consistent with existing U.S. requirements and bilateral air safety agreements; inspect foreign repair stations annually; and carry out independent inspections when warranted by safety concerns. The United States has continued to maintain a positive trade balance with respect to airline maintenance work. However, future foreign investment in advanced training and technical capabilities related to high-value engine and component repair and overhaul could lead to more direct foreign competition in these areas. While available data do not indicate that offshoring of maintenance work has negatively impacted safety, specific areas for potential improvement include the allocation of FAA inspectors and resources focused on the oversight of foreign repair stations; FAA certification and qualification standards for individuals assigned to supervisory roles at foreign repair stations; and standards or guidelines for English language proficiency and comprehension of written technical materials among foreign repair station mechanics.

Dec 21, 2012

The FHA Single-Family Mortgage Insurance Program: Financial Status and Related Current Issues

Dec 21, 2012

Tax Deductions for Individuals: A Summary

Dec 20, 2012

Permanent Legal Immigration to the United States: Policy Overview

Dec 17, 2012

Inauguration Security: Operations, Appropriations, and Issues for Congress

Every four years, in January, the President-elect is sworn in as President of the United States. Presidential inauguration ceremonies are unique public events in the District of Columbia. The inauguration ceremonies are public and, like the President’s State of the Union address, they are events in which a significant proportion of the American political leadership is in attendance. Consequently, the inauguration is designated as a National Special Security Event (NSSE) by the Department of Homeland Security. NSSEs are events that require significant security, in part because of the attendance of U.S. and foreign dignitaries and the event’s public or official nature. Significant funding for inauguration security operations is provided from the U.S. Secret Service’s National Special Security Event general account. In limited circumstances, however, Congress has also provided supplemental appropriations to reimburse local jurisdictions for inauguration-related activities. Other inauguration spending is less easily identifiable because it is indirect and a part of typical annual appropriations to the relevant agencies. Because of the absence of specificity, substantive policy analysis on costs associated with inauguration security may be limited. In addition to Congress’s responsibility for funding inauguration security operations, Congress also conducts critical oversight of the security operations. Criticisms of past inauguration security operations and practices have generated congressional concern. An example of this criticism includes reports that some 2009 presidential inauguration ticket holders were unable to reach their designated seating areas due to security checkpoint contestation. Congressional, interest group, and media criticism appears to be specifically focused on 2009 inauguration security operations instead of general observations or criticism. This report provides information on inauguration security operations and inauguration security appropriations, and it discusses potential policy issues associated with inauguration security operations. It also mentions policy issues associated with inauguration security operations: past inauguration security operations criticisms and inauguration security operation appropriations. Options are provided for congressional consideration for future inauguration and inauguration security planning. Congressional interest in inauguration security may be based on various factors and determinates, including its roles in appropriating funds for inaugurations, oversight of law enforcement and first responder entities with inauguration security responsibilities, and hosting the swearing-in ceremony, as well as the heightened interest in post-9/11 security operations. Congress may wish to consider past criticisms of both inauguration security operations and appropriations.

Dec 17, 2012

Nuclear Energy: Overview of Congressional Issues

Dec 11, 2012

Value-Added Modeling for Teacher Effectiveness

Two of the major goals of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (P.L. 107-110; NCLB), are to improve the quality of K-12 teaching and raise the academic achievement of students who fail to meet grade-level proficiency standards. In setting these goals, Congress recognized that reaching the second goal depends greatly on meeting the first; that is, quality teaching is critical to student success. Thus, NCLB established new standards for teacher qualifications and required that all courses in “core academic subjects” be taught by a highly qualified teacher by the end of the 2005-2006 school year. During implementation, the NCLB highly qualified teacher requirement came to be seen as setting minimum qualifications for entry into the profession and was criticized by some for establishing standards so low that nearly every teacher met the requirement. Meanwhile, policy makers have grown increasingly interested in the output of teachers’ work; that is, their performance in the classroom and the effectiveness of their instruction. Attempts to improve teacher performance led to federal and state efforts to incentivize improved performance through alternative compensation systems. For example, through P.L. 109-149, Congress authorized the Federal Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF) program, which provides grants to support teacher performance pay efforts. In addition, there are various programs at all levels (national, state, and local) aimed at reforming teacher compensation systems. The most recent congressional action in this area came with the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA, P.L. 111-5) and, in particular, enactment of the Race to the Top (RTTT) program. In November 2009, the U.S. Department of Education released a final rule of priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria for the RTTT. The final rule established a definition of an effective teacher as one “whose students achieve acceptable rates (e.g., at least one grade level in an academic year) of student growth (as defined in this notice).” That is, to be considered effective, teachers must raise their students’ learning to a level at or above what is expected within a typical school year. States, LEAs, and schools must include additional measures to evaluate teachers; however, these evaluations must be based, “in significant part, [on] student growth.” This report addresses issues associated with the evaluation of teacher effectiveness based on student growth in achievement. It focuses specifically on a method of evaluation referred to as value-added modeling (VAM). Although there are other methods for assessing teacher effectiveness, in the last decade, VAM has garnered increasing attention in education research and policy due to its promise as a more objective method of evaluation. The first section of this report describes what constitutes a VAM approach and how it estimates the so-called “teacher effect.” The second section identifies the components necessary to conduct VAM in education settings. Third, the report discusses current applications of VAM at the state and school district levels and what the research on these applications says about this method of evaluation. The fourth section of the report explains some of the implications these applications have for large-scale implementation of VAM. Finally, the report describes some of the federal policy options that might arise as Congress considers legislative action around these or related issues.

Dec 11, 2012

Presidential Reorganization Authority: History, Recent Initiatives, and Options for Congress

On January 13, 2012, President Barack Obama announced that he would ask Congress to reinstate so-called presidential reorganization authority, and his Administration conveyed a legislative proposal that would renew this authority to Congress on February 16, 2012. Bills based on the proposed language were subsequently introduced in the Senate (S. 2129) and the House (H.R. 4409) during the 112th Congress. Should this authority be granted, the President indicated that his first submitted plan would propose consolidation of six business and trade-related agencies into one: U.S. Department of Commerce’s core business and trade functions, the Export Import Bank, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, the Small Business Administration, the U.S. Trade and Development Agency, and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. It appears that this plan would also involve the relocation of some subunits and functions that are not directly linked with business and trade. The Administration has stated, for example, that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration would be moved to the Department of the Interior. Between 1932 and 1981, Congress periodically delegated authority to the President that allowed him to develop plans for reorganization of portions of the federal government and to present those plans to Congress for consideration under special parliamentary procedures. Under these procedures, the President’s plan would go into effect unless one or both houses of Congress passed a resolution rejecting the plan, a process referred to as a “legislative veto.” This process favored the President’s plan because, absent congressional action, the default was for the plan to go into effect. In contrast to the regular legislative process, the burden of action under these versions of presidential reorganization authority rested with opponents rather than supporters of the plan. In 1984, the mechanism was amended to require Congress to act affirmatively in order for a plan to go into force. This arguably shifted the balance of power to Congress. The authority expired at the end of 1984 and therefore has not been available to the President since then. Presidents used this presidential reorganization authority regularly, submitting more than 100 plans between 1932 and 1984. Presidents used the authority for a variety of purposes, from relatively minor reorganizations within individual agencies to the creation of large new organizations, including the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; the Environmental Protection Agency; and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The terms of the authority delegated to the President varied greatly over the century. During some periods, Congress delegated relatively broad authority to the President, while during others the authority was more circumscribed. Congress might approach the question of whether, and how, to delegate this authority to the President in various ways. First, Congress could simply elect not to renew the authority, either by not acting on the President’s proposal or by actively rejecting it. In the event that Congress elects to renew presidential reorganization authority, it might do so in a number of different ways. For example, it could renew the authority without modifications, with the requested changes to the scope of the authority, with a different set of changes to the scope of the authority, with changes to the nature of the expedited congressional procedures, or with some combination of these.

Dec 11, 2012

Emergency Assistance for Agricultural Land Rehabilitation

This report discusses the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) several permanently authorized programs to help producers recover from natural disasters. Most of these programs offer financial assistance to producers for a loss in the production of crops or livestock. In addition to the production assistance programs, USDA also has several permanent disaster assistance programs that help producers repair damaged crop and forest land following natural disasters.

Dec 11, 2012

Malawi: Recent Developments and U.S. Relations

This report discusses the current political climate in Malawi and the U.S.'s relation with the country.

Dec 11, 2012

Iran’s Ballistic Missile and Space Launch Programs

Iran has long been a source of concern for the United States and other countries because its goals are at odds with core U.S. objectives in the Middle East. Although it is not certain that Iran has made the decision to develop a nuclear weapon, it is taking steps to drastically reduce the time needed to obtain nuclear weapons should a decision be made to do so. It is the prospect of an Iranian nuclear weapon mated to an effective missile delivery capability that is especially worrisome to most. Congress has long been interested in these matters. Congress has held numerous hearings on Iran, passed various resolutions regarding Iran and approved a range of sanctions against Iran over the past several decades. According to the U.S. government, Iran has the largest number of ballistic missiles in the Middle East; it is developing missiles and space launch vehicles for multiple purposes. Iran is pursuing its missile and space programs with development and testing facilities that are scattered throughout the country. Assessing Iran’s ballistic missile programs is challenging for many reasons, including the lack of specificity in official public sources, the secretive nature of Iran’s regime and the regime’s frequent exaggerations of its ballistic missile capabilities, and the overwhelming amount of and often conflicting information found in non-official sources. The vast majority of Iran’s heavy artillery rockets and ballistic missiles are short-range of less than about 500 kilometers. Most of Iran’s ballistic missiles in fact are Scud-B and Scud-Cs, with a majority likely being Scud Cs, which are 500 km range capable. Iran views its short-range ballistic missiles (SRBM) capability as necessary for battlefield and tactical military purposes. These missiles could not strike U.S. or allied bases in the region unless they were moved far from their operating base and launched from vulnerable positions along Iran’s Persian Gulf coastline. This is not likely because of logistical and operational security reasons. Although these SRBMs are not very accurate, they could be fired against economic or civilian targets. Also, any such missile attacks against U.S. bases, while not militarily decisive, could disrupt or complicate (but not halt) base operations. Iran has grown increasingly self-sufficient in the production of SRBMs, but it still probably relies on others for some key components. Gaining access to these kinds of critical components and materials has grown increasingly difficult for Iran. Stricter international enforcement of export controls and broadening sanctions have reportedly slowed down Iran’s efforts and forced Iran to find less reliable alternative sources of rocket and missile technology. Iran is developing and producing medium-range ballistic missile (MRBM) capabilities with ranges estimated up to about 2,000 kilometers (with some non-U.S. government sources citing slightly higher ranges), sufficient to strike targets throughout the Middle East. U.S. intelligence assessments state such missiles are inherently capable of carrying a nuclear warhead. Although the number of Iran’s MRBMs is thought to be relatively small by official U.S. estimates, it is expected to continue to build more capable MRBMs. Iran views these missiles as an important deterrent and retaliatory force against U.S. and other forces in the region in the event of war. Iran has also constructed an underground network of bunkers and underground silo-like missile launch facilities, and is seeking improved air defenses presumably to enhance the survivability of their MRBMs against preemptive attack. Currently Iran must rely on others for certain key missile components and materials in its MRBM program. Export controls and sanctions have made it increasingly difficult, but certainly not impossible, for Iran to acquire the best of such items. On the other hand, these export control measures and sanctions have forced Iran to try to exploit weaknesses in existing export and nonproliferation regimes, including by trying to find foreign sellers willing to circumvent those laws. Iran also has a genuine and ambitious space launch program, which seeks to enhance Iran’s national pride, and perhaps more importantly, its international reputation as a growing advanced industrial power. Iran also sees itself as a potential leader in the Middle East offering space launch and satellite services. Iran has stated it plans to use future launchers for placing intelligence gathering satellites into orbit, although such a capability is a decade or so in the future. Many believe Iran’s space launch program could mask the development of an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) – with ranges in excess of 5,500 km that could threaten targets throughout Europe, and even the United States if Iran achieved an ICBM capability of at least 10,000 km. ICBMs share many similar technologies and processes inherent in a space launch program, but it seems clear that Iran has a dedicated space launch effort and it is not simply a cover for ICBM development. Since 1999, the U.S. Intelligence Community (IC) has assessed that Iran could test an ICBM by 2015 with sufficient foreign assistance, especially from a country such as China or Russia (whose support has reportedly diminished over the past decade). It is increasingly uncertain whether Iran will be able to achieve an ICBM capability by 2015 for several reasons: Iran does not appear to be receiving the degree of foreign support many believe would be necessary, Iran has found it increasingly difficult to acquire certain critical components and materials because of sanctions, and Iran has not demonstrated the kind of flight test program many view as necessary to produce an ICBM. This report will be updated regularly.

Dec 6, 2012

Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006: Background and Performance

Dec 5, 2012

Syria's Chemical Weapons: Issues for Congress

This report discusses the history and current state of Syria's chemical and biological weapon programs and possible U.S. government programs that could be used to dismantle stockpiles if the Assad regime were to collapse.

Dec 5, 2012

IMF Reforms: Issues for Congress

Dec 4, 2012

Addressing the Long-Run Budget Deficit: A Comparison of Approaches

Report that examines alternative approaches to reducing the deficit, relating to the immediate issues arising from the Budget Control Act and the expiring tax cuts as well as to ongoing longer term decisions about how to bring the debt under control.

Nov 30, 2012

Introduction to the Legislative Process in the U.S. Congress

Report that introduces the main steps through which a bill (or other item of business) may travel in the legislative process, from introduction to committee and floor consideration to possible presidential consideration.

Nov 30, 2012

Federal Emergency Management: A Brief Introduction

The federal government plays a significant role in emergency management, which generally refers to activities associated with avoiding and responding to natural and human-caused hazards. Emergency management in the United States is highly decentralized and contextual in nature: activities often involve multiple jurisdictions as well as a vast number of agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and private sector entities. In addition, the number and type of actors involved in an incident will vary tremendously depending on the context and severity of the event. Similarly, the legal framework through which emergency management functions and activities are authorized is also decentralized and stems from multiple authorities. Congress annually appropriates funds for a wide range of activities and efforts related to emergency management. For example, between 2005 and 2011 Congress provided an average of $12 billion annually to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the lead federal agency responsible for disaster relief through regular and supplemental appropriations. Congress has also invested over $120 billion through various federal agencies to help the Gulf Coast Region recover from the hurricanes that hit the Gulf Coast in 2005 and 2008. In recent years congressional interest in emergency management has focused on funding, program administration, and program coordination—both among federal agencies and state emergency management agencies. This report provides an introduction to the principles and foundations of federal emergency management in the United States and a description of the activities of the federal agencies that provide assistance, focusing primarily on the Federal Emergency Management Agency, but also including information on the National Guard, Department of Agriculture, Department of Defense, Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Department of Transportation, Environmental Protection Agency, Forest Service, and Small Business Administration. This report is designed to provide Members of Congress and congressional staff with a general overview of principles and foundations of federal emergency management in the United States as well as the types of activities provided by various federal agencies. The report begins with a description of the four phases of emergency management: (1) mitigation, (2) preparedness, (3) response, and (4) recovery, and includes examples of some of the activities that take place in each of these phases. The report then discusses a recent movement at the federal level to carry out these phases of emergency management through a system of frameworks. The frameworks include (1) the National Prevention Framework, (2) the National Protection Framework, (3) the National Mitigation Framework, (4) the National Response Framework, and (5) the National Disaster Recovery Framework. The frameworks are used to designate roles and responsibilities and coordinate various activities. Next, this report describes the process for requesting federal assistance for major disasters, emergencies, and fire suppression. The declaration section also includes brief summaries of the types of assistance provided through each type of declaration. This discussion is followed by description of federal-to-state cost shares, how federal assistance is funded, and the process through which FEMA requests assistance from other federal entities. The section then provides a description of the close-out process—the process in which FEMA terminates its recovery efforts. The report includes a discussion of key federal laws and policies that influence federal emergency management, and concludes by highlighting some of the federal activities that take place in response to emergencies and disasters.

Nov 30, 2012

Tax Provisions to Assist with Disaster Recovery

Report that provides a basic overview of existing, permanent provisions that benefit victims of disasters, as well as past, targeted legislative responses to particular disasters. The relief is discussed without examining either the qualifications for or the limitation on claiming the provisions' benefits.

Nov 29, 2012

Army Corps Supplemental Appropriations: Recent History, Trends, and Policy Issues

Report that summarizes recent trends in supplemental funding for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, particularly related to natural disasters. It provides summary data and analysis on Corps funding over the last 10 years and includes a general discussion of how the Corps funds emergency actions at its own facilities and elsewhere.

Nov 29, 2012

Insurance Regulation: Issues, Background, and Legislation in the 112th Congress

The individual states have been acknowledged as the primary regulators of insurance since 1868. Following the 1945 McCarran-Ferguson Act, this system has operated with the explicit blessing of Congress, but has also been subject to periodic scrutiny and suggestions that the time may have come for Congress to reclaim the regulatory authority that it granted to the states. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, congressional scrutiny was largely driven by the increasing complexities of the insurance business and concern over whether the states were up to the task of ensuring consumer protections, particularly insurer solvency. Immediately prior to the recent financial crisis, congressional attention to insurance regulation focused on the inefficiencies in the state regulatory system. A major catalyst was the aftermath of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 (GLBA), which overhauled the regulatory structure for banks and securities firms, but left the insurance sector largely untouched. Many larger insurers, and their trade associations, had previously defended state regulation but considered themselves at a competitive disadvantage in the post-GLBA regulatory structure. Some advocated for an optional federal charter similar to that available to banks. Various pieces of insurance regulatory reform legislation have been introduced, including bills establishing a broad federal charter for insurance as well as narrower, more targeted bills. The states, particularly working through the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC), were not idle following congressional attention. They reacted quickly to GLBA requirements that related to insurance agent licensing and have since embarked on a wider-ranging project to modernize insurance regulation. This has included both regulatory aspects, such as streamlining the process for rate and form filing, and more basic legal aspects, such as the creation of an interstate compact to provide uniformity across states for some life insurance products. Because enactment by the state legislature is necessary before the legal changes suggested by the NAIC can take effect in that state, the process typically does not move rapidly. The recent financial crisis refocused the debate surrounding insurance regulatory reform. Unlike in many financial crises in the past, insurers played a large role in this crisis. In particular, the failure of the large insurer American International Group (AIG) spotlighted sources of risk that had gone unrecognized. The need for a risk regulator for the entire financial system was a common thread in many of the recent financial regulatory reform proposals. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (P.L. 111-203), enacted following the crisis, gave enhanced systemic risk regulatory authority to the Federal Reserve and to a new Financial Services Oversight Council (FSOC), including some oversight authority over insurers. The Dodd-Frank Act also included measures affecting the states’ oversight of surplus lines insurance and reinsurance and the creation of a new Federal Insurance Office (FIO) within the Treasury Department. The 112th Congress faces both relatively new issues arising from the Dodd-Frank Act (addressed in H.R. 3559 and H.R. 6423) and issues that predate the financial crisis, such as the licensing of insurance agents and brokers (addressed in H.R. 1112) and the expansion of the federal Liability Risk Retention Act (addressed in H.R. 2126). In addition, various international issues may be of concern to Congress, such as the European Union’s Solvency II project to overhaul the European insurance regulatory system.

Nov 27, 2012

Vulnerable Youth: Federal Policies on Summer Job Training and Employment

For decades, the federal government has played a role in helping vulnerable young people secure employment and achieve academic success through job training and employment programs, including summer youth employment opportunities. The enactment of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA, P.L. 105-220) in 1998 marked the first time since 1964 that states and localities did not receive funding specifically designated for summer employment programs for vulnerable youth. Although WIA does not authorize a stand-alone summer program, the law requires that local areas funded under its Youth Activities (Youth) program provide summer employment opportunities as one of 10 elements available to eligible low-income youth with barriers to employment. Together, these elements are intended to provide a comprehensive year-round job training and employment program for youth. Approximately one-quarter of youth in the program participate in summer employment activities, which are required to be directly linked to academic and occupational learning. Funding authorization for WIA expired in FY2003, but Congress has continued to appropriate funds for WIA, including the Youth program. The December 2007 to June 2009 economic recession increased focus on the role of the summer employment element, particularly given recent evidence that summer youth employment is at record lows. On February 17, 2009, President Obama signed into law the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5, ARRA, or Recovery Act). One of the stated purposes of ARRA was to preserve existing jobs and create new jobs. To this end, the law appropriated $1.2 billion for grants for the WIA Youth program. In the accompanying conference report, Congress specified that funds should be used for both summer youth employment and year-round employment opportunities, particularly for youth up to age 24. ARRA additionally established a role for the Inspectors General of various federal agencies and the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) in overseeing use of ARRA funding. Under ARRA, a total of 374,489 youth participated in summer employment opportunities, and approximately 40% of ARRA dollars for the Youth Activities program was used for employment during the summer months. In its guidance on funding provided for the Youth Activities program, the Department of Labor (DOL) emphasized that local areas had flexibility in carrying out certain aspects of the summer employment component as funded under ARRA. For example, local areas could determine whether follow-up was required for youth served with ARRA funds during the summer months only. This is compared to WIA’s normal requirement that all youth receive follow-up services. As part of its ARRA oversight efforts, GAO conducted reviews on the use of funds for select federal programs by selected states, including the WIA Youth program. According to GAO, localities in these states used Youth Activities funds to expand summer employment opportunities for youth, both in the public sector and private sector, and in nonprofit organizations. This report provides an overview of efforts under ARRA to secure job training and employment for youth during the summer months, and addresses issues related to these efforts. For example, some of DOL guidance on ARRA is distinct from previous guidance provided under WIA, in that it is tailored to the requirements of the Recovery Act. Further, with increased focus on the summer jobs component, policymakers may consider, as part of any efforts to reauthorize WIA, whether the law should place greater emphasis on summer employment. Past evaluations of federally funded programs have shown mixed results in the achievement of goals, although these programs are not necessarily comparable to the summer youth opportunities currently offered by states and localities.

Nov 27, 2012

Congressional Redistricting: An Overview

The decennial apportionment process determines the number of seats in the House of Representatives for which each state qualifies, based on population counts (for more on the apportionment process, see CRS Report R41357, The U.S. House of Representatives Apportionment Formula in Theory and Practice, by Royce Crocker). The redistricting process determines where those seats are geographically located within each state. Apportionment allocates the seats by state, while redistricting draws the maps. Redistricting is a state process governed by federal law. Much of this law is judicially imposed because, in 1929, Congress let lapse its standards requiring districts to be made up of “contiguous and compact territory and containing as nearly as practicable an equal number of inhabitants.” If Congress chooses to legislate again in this area, its authority will come from Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution, granting the authority to Congress to change state laws pertaining to congressional elections. The goal of redistricting is to draw boundaries around geographic areas such that each district results in “fair” representation. An effort to favor one group of interests over another by using the redistricting process to distort this fairness is often referred to as gerrymandering. Aside from distorting representation, it is believed by some that such gerrymandering diminishes electoral responsiveness by minimizing political competition among the parties. Many of the “rules” or criteria for drawing congressional boundaries are meant to enhance fairness and minimize the impact of gerrymandering. These rules, standards, or criteria include assuring population equality among districts within the same state; protecting racial and language minorities from vote dilution while at the same time not promoting racial segregation; promoting geographic compactness and contiguity when drawing districts; minimizing the number of split political subdivisions and “communities of interest” within congressional districts; and preserving historical stability in the cores of previous congressional districts. Most redistricting is currently done by state legislatures. Some believe that allowing redistricting to be the purview of state legislators promotes, at best, status quo districts protecting incumbents and, at worst, blatant partisan gerrymandering that can lead to a decade of one-party dominance. Reform efforts mostly have aimed at transferring the redistricting task from state legislatures to independent redistricting commissions. Efforts at creating these commissions have been successful at the state level; however, proposed federal legislation (for the 112th Congress, see H.R. 453, H.R. 590, H.R. 3846, and S. 694) to create such commissions within all states has not been successful.

Nov 21, 2012

Choice and Mobility in the Housing Choice Voucher Program: Review of Research Findings and Considerations for Policymakers

As is evidenced by the name of the program, “choice” is one of the key components of the nation’s largest federal housing assistance program, the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher (HCV, or voucher) program. The choice aspect of the program—that eligible families can use their federal subsidies to rent the housing they choose in the private market—differentiates it from the other major federal housing assistance programs, including public housing and project-based Section 8 rental assistance, which offer assistance tied to specific units of housing. Those programs have long been criticized for isolating and concentrating poor families, particularly minority families, in high-poverty communities with limited opportunities, particularly in urban areas. Thus, the HCV program was designed, in part, to promote “mobility,” or make more areas accessible to low-income families and encourage them to move to areas with greater opportunities. Further, courts have directed communities to use vouchers as a remedy for racial segregation in public housing. Despite these goals, most families participating in the Section 8 HCV program live in racially segregated communities that have medium or high levels of poverty. There is little consensus on why this occurs, as the housing choice a family makes may reflect the many constraints a family faces in using its voucher, the understanding the family has of the choices to be made, and/or the family’s own preferences. A number of demonstrations and studies have looked at how vouchers can be used to deconcentrate poverty and the effects of moving families out of areas of concentrated poverty. Taken together, the research to-date has not shown convincing evidence that programs designed to move low-income families to neighborhoods with low-poverty and racially/ethnically integrated neighborhoods have resulted in families successfully and permanently moving to such communities. Most studies have shown that families given vouchers with mobility goals have struggled to make initial moves to areas that would be considered “areas of opportunity” (i.e., those with very low concentrations of poverty). Further, those families that did initially relocate to low-poverty and more racially integrated neighborhoods, over time and with subsequent moves, often ended up living in neighborhoods with higher concentrations of poverty and less racial integration than the low-poverty neighborhoods to which they had initially moved. Researchers have also looked beyond families’ locational outcomes at the effects of moving on various measures of family well-being. While one of the motivating goals behind these mobility policies and demonstrations has been to improve families’ economic well-being and their children’s educational outcomes, studies have not found evidence that the tested mobility policies have had major positive impacts in these areas. Early studies found some initial employment and earnings impacts and some mixed findings regarding children’s outcomes, although later research has called those initial findings into question. Some positive impacts were found in the Moving to Opportunity (MTO) demonstration involving physical and mental health, housing satisfaction, neighborhood satisfaction, perceived safety, and overall perceived well-being. But in other areas of interest to policymakers, such as family economic well-being—employment and children’s educational outcomes—no impacts were found from MTO. The fact that many families with vouchers continue to live in high or medium-poverty, racially segregated neighborhoods, paired with the research findings to-date about the limited impacts of tested mobility programs, leads to several questions and considerations policymakers may choose to explore. One question is whether policy changes to the voucher program, or to other federal assisted housing programs, could help to better achieve the goals of poverty deconcentration and reducing racial or ethnic segregation. Another question is whether these goals are of the same, greater, or less importance than other program goals, such as promoting affordability and housing stability. The way policymakers choose to answer these questions could have implications for the direction of federal housing policy. These questions are particularly relevant now for several reasons. One reason is the current fiscal climate. In a constrained budget environment, policymakers face difficult tradeoffs in funding federal programs. In determining priorities for limited federal funding, the effectiveness and efficiency of all federal housing assistance programs, including the largest—the HCV program—may be reexamined. In fact, reforms to the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program have been considered every year for at least the last decade. While the choice and mobility aspects of the program have not been a primary driver of those reform efforts, these aspects of the program may receive more attention, especially given recently-released research findings. The results of the final evaluation of the MTO demonstration have only been published in the last couple of years and are being considered and debated by social science researchers as well as housing policy advocates. This report explores the concept of choice and mobility in federal housing policy, particularly in the Section 8 HCV program. It begins by describing the origins of choice and mobility in federal housing policy, followed by a discussion of choice and mobility in today’s Section 8 HCV program. The report then provides an overview of relevant research on the effects of choice and mobility policies. It concludes with a discussion of options and considerations for policymakers.

Nov 21, 2012

Does Foreign Aid Work? Efforts to Evaluate U.S. Foreign Assistance

Nov 19, 2012

Independent Regulatory Agencies, Cost-Benefit Analysis, and Presidential Review of Regulations

When issuing regulations that have the full force and effect of law, agencies are required to follow certain procedures. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) of 1946 set up the basic framework for rulemaking: agencies are required to publish a notice of rulemaking in the Federal Register, take comments on the proposed rule, and publish a final rule in the Federal Register. Since the passage of the APA, additional procedures have been established in various statutes, executive orders, and guidance documents. One potential change to the rulemaking process that has been discussed over the past three decades and proposed in legislation in the 112th Congress is the extension of the requirements of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 to the independent regulatory agencies, also known as independent regulatory commissions (hereafter referred to as IRCs). E.O. 12866 contains two major requirements: first, it requires that agencies complete cost-benefit analysis (CBA) of “economically significant” rules, considering the potential costs, benefits, and feasible alternatives to proposed and final rules. Second, the order requires centralized review of “significant” rules in the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB’s) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). Historically, the IRCs have been exempted from requirements for CBA and centralized review. Senator Rob Portman introduced a bill in the 112th Congress, S. 3468, that would authorize the President to extend to the IRCs, by executive order, E.O. 12866’s requirements for CBA and OIRA review. If the requirements of E.O. 12866 were extended to the IRCs, there could be significant implications for those agencies. Potential Extension of CBA Requirements. Proponents of extending the requirements argue that subjecting the IRCs to CBA requirements and OIRA review could improve the quality of regulations issued by those agencies. On the other hand, extending CBA requirements and OIRA review to the IRCs could grant OIRA (and by extension, the President) the potential authority to influence or delay rulemaking proceedings, and such a requirement could potentially decrease the independence of the IRCs. The IRCs with fewer regulatory responsibilities that issue relatively fewer “significant” rules each year may find the additional requirements of S. 3468 minimally burdensome, even if their current cost-benefit practices are not as rigorous as what would be required under E.O. 12866. Conversely, the IRCs with greater regulatory responsibilities or the IRCs with recently expanded regulatory responsibilities may find the additional CBA requirements more burdensome. It is also possible that some IRCs may not have the staff with the technical expertise necessary to conduct cost-benefit analysis that is more extensive than their current requirements. Potential Extension of OIRA Review. The second major element of E.O. 12866 is OIRA review of “significant” regulations. During the review process, OIRA examines each regulation to ensure that the agency followed the principles and procedures outlined in E.O. 12866, including the applicable requirements for conducting CBA, and that the regulation is consistent with the policy preferences of the President. Numerous individuals, including former OIRA officials and several administrative law scholars, have spoken in support of potential OIRA review of regulations issued by IRCs. Much of this support for OIRA review relies on the underlying premise that increased presidential control, through OIRA review, of rulemaking could improve both the rulemaking process within agencies and the quality of the regulations themselves. On the other hand, some have expressed hesitation or opposition to the extension of OIRA review to the IRCs, suggesting that the independence of the IRCs could be compromised and that OIRA review of IRCs’ rules could lead to delay.

Nov 16, 2012

Expiration and Possible Extension of the 2008 Farm Bill

Nov 16, 2012

U.S. Implementation of the Basel Capital Regulatory Framework

This report discusses the implementation of the Basel III international regulatory framework, which is the latest in a series of evolving agreements among central banks and bank supervisory authorities to standardize bank capital requirements, among other measures.

Nov 14, 2012

The Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA): Workers' Compensation for Federal Employees

Report concerning the Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA), its legislative history, a program overview, and issues regarding FECA's generous benefits.

Nov 7, 2012

U.S. Renewable Electricity: How Does Wind Generation Impact Competitive Power Markets?

U.S. wind power generation has experienced rapid growth in the last 20 years as total installed capacity has increased from 1,500 megawatts (MW) in 1992 to more than 50,000 MW in August of 2012. According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), wind power provided approximately 3% of total U.S. electricity generation in 2011. Two primary policies provide market and financial incentives that support the wind industry and have contributed to U.S. wind power growth: (1) production tax credit (PTC)—a federal tax incentive of 2.2 cents for each kilowatt-hour (kWh) of electricity produced by a qualified wind project (set to expire for new projects at the end of 2012), and (2) renewable portfolio standards (RPS)—state-level policies that encourage renewable power by requiring that either a certain percentage of electricity be generated by renewable energy sources or a certain amount of qualified renewable electricity capacity be installed. The concentration of wind power projects within competitive power markets managed by regional transmission operators (RTOs), the focus of this report, has resulted in several concerns expressed by power generators and other market participants. Three specific concerns explored in this report include: (1) How might wind power affect wholesale market clearing prices? (2) Does wind power contribute to negative wholesale power price events? and (3) Does wind power impact electric system reliability? These concerns might be considered during congressional debate about the future of wind PTC incentives. When considering the potential impacts of wind power on electric power markets, it is important to recognize that wholesale power markets are both complex and multi-dimensional. Wholesale power markets are influenced by a number of factors, including weather, electricity demand, natural gas prices, transmission constraints, and location. Therefore, determining the direct impact of a single variable, in this case wind power, on the financial economics of power generators can be difficult. In 2012, wholesale electric power prices were down from recent highs in 2008, and lower price trends can result in financial pressure for power generators in RTO markets. Arguably, however, the two primary contributors to this decline are low natural gas prices and low electricity demand. Wind power generation can potentially reduce wholesale electricity prices, in certain locations and during certain seasons and times of day, since wind typically bids a zero ($0.00) price into wholesale power markets. Additionally, independent market monitor reports for three different RTOs each indicate that wind generators will sometimes bid a negative wholesale price in order to ensure electricity dispatch. The ability of wind generators to bid negatively priced power is generally attributed to value associated with PTC incentives and the ability to sell renewable energy credits (REC). However, wholesale power price reductions and negative electricity prices associated with wind generation need to be considered in context with other dimensions of organized power markets. For example, other revenue sources (i.e., capacity markets) may be available to generators in certain RTO market areas. Also, generators oftentimes enter into bilateral power purchase agreements that can provide a hedge against power price volatility. Therefore, the absolute impact of wind electricity on the economics of power generators is difficult to determine due to the many variables and dimensions that influence wholesale power markets. With regard to how wind power might impact electricity system reliability, two aspects of reliability are typically discussed: (1) impacts to system operations—the ability of the power system to manage the variable and sometimes unpredictable nature of wind power production, and (2) resource adequacy and capacity margins—the potential for wind power generation to either influence power plant retirements or contribute to market conditions that do not support investment in new capacity resources. RTOs are currently implementing various initiatives (i.e., dispatchable resource programs, renewable energy transmission projects) to address the variable generation characteristics of wind power. Furthermore, each RTO market is designed to provide the economic signals necessary to stimulate capacity additions in order to ensure resource adequacy and maintain capacity margins. However, should wind power generation continue to grow, it is uncertain if current RTO market designs will provide the signals needed to encourage specific types of generation capacity (e.g., operating and spinning reserves) necessary to manage the variable nature of wind power.

Nov 7, 2012

Lebanon: Background and U.S. Policy

Report that provides an overview of Lebanon and current issues of U.S. interest. It offers background information, analyzes recent developments and key legislative debates, and tracks legislation, U.S. assistance, and recent congressional action.

Nov 6, 2012

Tax-Preferred College Savings Plans: An Introduction to 529 Plans

Nov 2, 2012

Photo ID Requirements for Voting: Background and Legal Issues

Report concerning the controversy surrounding some states' requirements that voters provide photographic identification before casting a ballot.

Nov 2, 2012

Reallocation of Water Storage at Federal Water Projects for Municipal and Industrial Water Supply

Pursuant to congressional authorization, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), the agencies with primary responsibility for federal water resources management, operate water projects for specified purposes. In the case of Corps dams and their related reservoirs, Congress generally has limited the use of such projects for municipal and industrial (M&I) water supply, but growing M&I demands have raised interest in—and concern about—changing current law and reservoir operations to give Corps facilities a greater role in M&I water storage. Reallocation of storage from a currently authorized purpose to M&I use would change the types of benefits produced by a facility and the stakeholders served, which has led to controversy over project operations at some federal projects. The Corps and Reclamation, therefore, may be authorized to operate federal water projects for M&I use under the project-specific authorization statutes. Alternatively, the generally applicable Water Supply Act of 1958 (WSA) authorizes the Corps and Reclamation to include water storage for municipal and industrial use as a project purpose for new and existing projects. The WSA requires congressional approval if adding water supply storage would seriously affect the original project purposes or involve a major operational change for the project. However, the WSA does not define the extent to which the change in water supply storage must affect existing purposes or what constitutes a major operational change. This ambiguity has become a particular issue when severe drought raises the competition for water supply, and is an especially contentious issue in eastern riparian states where all users are affected by any drought. Because of such water shortages in some riparian basins with Corps projects, the Corps’ reallocation of water storage at its discretion has been of particular interest. This issue is at the center of ongoing litigation related to the Corps’ activities in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin (ACF). The scope of the Corps’ authority under the WSA was the subject of a 2008 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (Southeastern Federal Power Customers v. Geren), as well as a 2011 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit (In re Tri-State Water Rights Litigation). The D.C. and 11th Circuits reached different results, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined a petition for its review of the issue in 2012. These cases each addressed a tri-state water dispute involving Lake Lanier, a Corps water project in the ACF basin, which includes parts of Alabama, Florida, and Georgia. Using the Corps’ reallocations of water storage for M&I use at Lake Lanier as an example, this report analyzes the legal and policy issues associated with reallocation under the WSA. Specifically, it examines Corps authority under the WSA, including limitations on modifications that constitute major operational changes. The report details data and examples regarding the Corps’ reallocations under the WSA. It also analyzes various legal challenges of water supply storage at Lake Lanier, including courts’ identification of congressionally authorized purposes, and discusses results of the litigation and options for Congress. Although the WSA provides authority to Reclamation as well, the application of the WSA to Reclamation is beyond the scope of the report.

Oct 31, 2012

Child Welfare: A Detailed Overview of Program Eligibility and Funding for Foster Care, Adoption Assistance and Kinship Guardianship Assistance under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act

Under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act, states, territories, and tribes are entitled to claim partial federal reimbursement for the cost of providing foster care, adoption assistance, and kinship guardianship assistance to children who meet federal eligibility criteria. The Title IV-E program, as it is commonly called, provides support for monthly payments on behalf of eligible children, as well as funds for related case management activities, training, data collection, and other costs of program administration. In FY2011, states (including the 50 states and the District of Columbia) spent $12.4 billion under the Title IV-E program and received federal reimbursement of $6.7 billion, or 54% of that spending. At the federal level, the Title IV-E program is administered by the Children’s Bureau, an agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). More than two-thirds of all Title IV-E spending supports provision of foster care, which is a temporary living arrangement for children who cannot remain safely in their own homes. Title IV-E foster care maintenance payments are subsidies provided to foster caregivers to support the daily living costs of eligible children. Title IV-E program administration primarily supports caseworker and agency efforts to ensure the safety and well-being of each child in foster care and to plan for, and achieve, permanency for them via family reunification, adoption, or legal guardianship. Just 29% of the $8.3 billion in total (state and federal) Title IV-E foster care spending for FY2011 was used for maintenance payments, while close to half (46%) of those Title IV-E foster care dollars supported program administration (primarily for case planning and case management). Close to one-third of all Title IV-E spending (state and federal) supports children in permanent adoption or guardianship placements. Title IV-E adoption assistance payments are monthly subsidies provided for eligible adopted children (most of whom were previously in foster care), for whom the state determined they could not be returned home and that there was a condition or factor that precluded their adoption without assistance (e.g., age, medical condition, or membership in a sibling group). Kinship guardianship assistance payments are ongoing subsidies for eligible children placed with a legal relative guardian, for whom returning home from foster care is not possible or appropriate and for whom the agency also determines adoption is not appropriate. In FY2011, more than 80% of the total spending for Title IV-E adoption assistance ($4.0 billion) and Title IV-E kinship guardianship assistance ($51 million) supported ongoing subsidies for eligible children. States receiving Title IV-E funding are required to provide foster care and adoption assistance to eligible children. They may also choose to provide kinship guardianship assistance to all eligible children. Federal eligibility for all types of Title IV-E assistance is limited by age. Additional criteria vary by the kind of assistance but often require children to have been removed from low income households. Each month during FY2011, an average of 168,400 children received a Title IV-E foster care maintenance payment and 413,800 received Title IV-E adoption assistance. On a national basis, children who received Title IV-E foster care maintenance payments comprise less than half of all children in foster care and about one-quarter of those receiving ongoing adoption subsidies. The number of children in foster care overall, as well as the number of those children receiving Title IV-E foster care support has been in decline for most of the past decade; the amount of money spent for Title IV-E foster care is also declining. During most of the same time period, however, the number of children receiving Title IV-E adoption assistance and the amount of spending for Title IV-E adoption assistance grew rapidly. Although representing a small part of the program now, both the number of children assisted via Title IV-E kinship guardianship assistance and the amount of spending for that purpose are expected to increase.

Oct 26, 2012

An Overview of the Transaction Account Guarantee (TAG) Program and the Potential Impact of Its Expiration or Extension

Oct 24, 2012

Employment for Veterans: Trends and Programs

This report discusses veterans' employment trends and programs. The first section presents data on veterans' employment outcomes, identifying recent trends, and discussing issues to consider when interpreting veterans' employment data. The following sections present brief discussions of existing programs that provide employment-related services to veterans. These services are divided into (1) general programs that are broadly available to veterans, (2) programs that target veterans with service-connected disabilities, and (3) competitive grant programs that provide additional employment-related services to veterans but may be limited in scope or availability.

Oct 23, 2012