CRS Reports

GI Bills Enacted Prior to 2008 and Related Veterans' Educational Assistance Programs: A Primer

This report describes the GI Bills enacted prior to 2008. Although participation in the programs has ended or is declining, the programs' evolution and provisions inform current policy. Included is a description of the eligibility requirements, eligible programs of education, benefit availability, and benefits. The report also provides some summary statistics, comparisons between the programs, and brief discussions of related programs.

Oct 22, 2012

Maritime Territorial and Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) Disputes Involving China: Issues for Congress

This report presents policy and oversight issues for Congress arising from (1) maritime territorial disputes involving China in the South China Sea (SCS) and East China Sea (ECS) and (2) an additional dispute over whether China has a right under international law to regulate U.S. and other foreign military activities in its 200-nautical-mile maritime Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).

Oct 22, 2012

Federal Civil Aviation Programs: An Overview

This report focuses on Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Department of Transportation (DOT) civil aviation programs addressed in the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-95), enacted on February 14, 2012, which authorizes AATF taxes and revenue collections and civil aviation program expenditures through FY2015. Programs for these agencies are funded primarily through a special trust fund, the airport and airways trust fund (AATF), and, in part, through general fund contributions.

Oct 17, 2012

FDA’s Authority to Regulate Drug Compounding: A Legal Analysis

In light of the recent meningitis outbreak, believed to have been caused by a contaminated compounded steroid injection, the regulation of drug compounding has received significant attention. Compounding is traditionally defined as a process of combining, mixing, or altering ingredients in order to create a medication for a particular patient. However, as in the case of the pharmacy that produced the steroid medication, concerns have been raised about compounding pharmacies producing drugs on a larger scale, something more akin to drug manufacturing. While drug compounding has historically been regulated primarily by states through their regulation of pharmacies, recent questions have been raised about the extent to which the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) governs this practice, and what authority the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has to regulate a compounded drug as a “new drug,” subject to approval by the FDA, as well as other requirements. In 1997, Congress enacted the FDA Modernization Act of 1997 (FDAMA), which was a comprehensive revision of the FFDCA. Section 127 of FDAMA added Section 503A to the FFDCA, which excepted compounded drugs from various “new drug” requirements, conditioned upon the compounded drugs meeting a variety of restrictions. One of the restrictions in Section 503A of the FFDCA was that drug providers were prohibited from soliciting or advertising particular compounded drugs. These speech restrictions were challenged on First Amendment grounds and were struck down by the Supreme Court in Thompson v. Western States Medical Center. Following this decision, there was controversy over the current status of compounded drugs under the FFDCA and whether the remaining provisions of Section 503A remain good law, an issue that the Supreme Court did not address in Western States. The two circuits that addressed this issue took different positions. While the Ninth Circuit in Western States determined that Section 503A was struck down in its entirety, the Fifth Circuit in Medical Center Pharmacy v. Mukasey found that the lawful provisions of Section 503A are still in effect. Accordingly, these cases have created an interesting scenario of non-uniform enforcement throughout the U.S. In the Fifth Circuit, compounded drugs are specifically exempted from new-drug, adulteration, and misbranding requirements of the FFDCA if certain criteria are met; while in the Ninth Circuit (and, according to the FDA, the rest of the United States), compounded drugs are subject to these requirements, but the FDA may exercise discretion in taking action against an entity that violates these provisions. This report provides a brief historical overview of the FDA’s regulation of drug compounding and addresses these conflicting decisions. The report will also address the FDA’s current authority to regulate compounded drugs under the FFDCA in light of these decisions.

Oct 17, 2012

House Committee Funding: Process and Analysis of Disbursements

This report provides an overview of the committee funding process in the House; it analyzes funding levels since 1995, reviews House floor and committee action on committee funding in the 112th Congress, summarizes the rules and regulations that structure the use of committee funds, and analyzes actual committee funding spending patterns during five previous years.

Oct 16, 2012

America COMPETES Acts: FY2008-FY2013 Funding Tables

This report tracks historical federal funding associated with the America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science (COMEPETES) Reauthorization Act of 2010, which are set to expire in 2013.

Oct 16, 2012

The President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR): Funding Issues After a Decade of Implementation, FY2004-FY2013

The President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) is the largest bilateral health initiative in the world. The 2003 pledge of President George W. Bush to spend $15 billion over five years on fighting HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis (TB), and malaria was considered groundbreaking. The initiative challenged the international community to reject claims that large-scale HIV/AIDS treatment plans could not be carried out in low-resource settings. In December 2002, one month before PEPFAR was announced, only 50,000 people of the estimated 4 million requiring anti-retroviral (ARV) medicines in sub-Saharan Africa were receiving treatment. By the end of FY2004, 155,000 people were receiving treatment through PEPFAR. As of March 2012, PEPFAR has supported the provision of anti-retroviral therapy (ART) for more than 4.5 million people (up from 155,000 in 2005); testing and counseling for more than 40 million people, including 9.8 million pregnant women; prevention of mother-to-child HIV transmission (PMTCT) services for more than 660,000 HIV-positive pregnant women, curbing some 200,000 HIV infections among infants; and care and support for more than 13 million people, including more than 4 million orphans and vulnerable children (OVC). Congress first authorized funds in support of PEPFAR in 2003 through P.L. 108-25, the U.S. Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act (Leadership Act). The $15 billion authorization was to be spent on global HIV/AIDS, TB, and malaria programs from FY2004 through FY2008. Strong bipartisan support for PEPFAR in particular and global health in general led to annual appropriations amounts that exceeded authorized levels. During the first phase of PEPFAR (FY2004-FY2008), the Bush Administration spent $18.1 billion on global HIV/AIDS programs. As the expiration date of the Leadership Act approached, congressional support for PEPFAR remained enthusiastic. Members debated a range of issues (see CRS Report RL34569, PEPFAR Reauthorization: Key Policy Debates and Changes to U.S. International HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Programs and Funding), but ultimately authorized an extension of PEPFAR. The Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde United States Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Reauthorization Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-293, Lantos-Hyde Act) authorized $48 billion to be appropriated from FY2009 through FY2013 for combating the three diseases. From FY2009 through FY2012, the Obama Administration obligated nearly $26 billion on global HIV/AIDS programs. As the September 30, 2013, expiration date for the authorization of the Lantos-Hyde Act approaches, it is unclear whether Congress will again authorize multiyear funding for PEPFAR. Bipartisan support for PEPFAR remains strong; nonetheless, congressional debate about key elements of the program has raised some concerns. For example, some Members question the extent to which family planning programs are integrated into global HIV/AIDS activities. At the same time, growing unease about the federal budget deficit minimizes the likelihood that past trends of ever-increasing appropriations for global HIV/AIDS programs will be sustained. Fiscal pressures may have influenced funding amounts that fluctuated (but mostly remained level) throughout the Obama Administration—a departure from the steady growth in spending seen during the Bush Administration. Financial constraints in the global economy have resulted in similar outcomes during the Obama Administration. Whereas many international donors consistently increased their pledges for fighting global HIV/AIDS throughout the Bush Administration, resources made available by key contributors (such as European nations and the Global Fund) began to stagnate and in some cases declined during the past few years. While contributions by traditional donors have mostly stabilized, Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa (BRICS) are playing a greater role in international HIV/AIDS assistance and are transforming from recipient countries into donor nations. At the same time, some aid recipient countries are increasing investments in their own national HIV/AIDS plans. This report outlines U.S. spending on global HIV/AIDS programs since the inception of PEPFAR, analyzes global HIV/AIDS funding by other donors, and highlights key issues pertaining to funding that will face the 113th Congress as it considers the future of PEPFAR, including whether to reauthorize funding for PEPFAR following the expiration of the Lantos-Hyde Act in FY2013; engagement with emerging economies and other non-traditional donors who are increasing their participation in the global fight against HIV/AIDS; the impact of U.S. efforts to transition ownership of national HIV/AIDS plans to recipient countries; the appropriate funding level for the Global Fund; whether to support innovative fund-raising approaches for global HIV/AIDS programs, such as taxes on financial transactions and income; and developments that might increase HIV/AIDS treatment costs, including intellectual property rights and drug resistance. Program implementation and authorization issues will be addressed more extensively in future related reports.

Oct 10, 2012

2012-2013 Presidential Election Period: National Security Considerations and Options

A presidential election period is a unique time in America and holds the promise of opportunity, as well as a possible risk to the nation’s security interests. While possible changes in Administration during U.S. involvement in national security-related activities are not unique to the 2012-2013 election period, many observers suggest that the current security environment may portend a time of increased risk to the current presidential election period. Whether the enemies of the United States choose to undertake action that may harm the nation’s security interests during the 2012-2013 election period, or the existing or new President experiences a relatively peaceful period during the transition, many foreign policy and security challenges will await the Administration. Collaboration and coordination during the presidential election period between the current Administration and that of a potentially new one may have a long-lasting effect on the new President’s ability to effectively safeguard U.S. interests and may affect the legacy of the outgoing President. This report discusses historical national security-related presidential transition activities, provides a representative sampling of national security issues a new Administration may encounter, and offers considerations and options relevant to each of the five phases of the presidential election period. Each phase has distinct challenges and opportunities for the incoming Administration, the outgoing Administration, and Congress. This report is intended to provide a framework for national security considerations during the current election period and will be updated to reflect the election outcome.

Oct 5, 2012

U.S. Textile Manufacturing and the Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiations

This report examines the potential implications of a prospective Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) on the U.S. textile manufacturing industry. The TFP is a proposed regional free trade agreement (FTA) currently under negotiation among 11 Pacific Rim countries.

Oct 5, 2012

The Emergency Food and Shelter National Board Program and Homeless Assistance

Oct 5, 2012

Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFI) Fund: Programs and Policy Issues

This report begins by describing the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund's (Fund's) history, current appropriations, and each of its programs. The next section of the report analyzes four policy considerations of congressional interest, regarding the Fund and the effective use of federal resources to promote economic development. Lastly, this report examines the Fund's programs and management to see if they represent an effective and efficient government effort to promote economic development in low-income and distressed communities.

Oct 3, 2012

Federal Grants-in-Aid Administration: A Primer

Congressional authorization of federal assistance to state and local governments can be traced back to the Continental Congress and its approval of the granting of nationally owned land to states formed out of the Northwest Territory. Those lands were to be sold for the support of public education. Congress subsequently granted millions of acres of land to states to support various congressional priorities, including wagon road and canal construction, improvements to river navigation, and the establishment of land grant colleges. The first federal cash grant program was adopted in 1808, to provide funds to states to support the National Guard. Since that time, there has been dramatic growth in federal cash assistance programs, now commonly referred to as “federal grant programs” or “federal domestic assistance programs.” These programs transfer money, property, services, or other items of value for which the principal purpose is to accomplish a goal authorized by Congress. Currently there are 2,179 congressionally authorized federal domestic assistance programs administered by 26 federal agencies. Federal grant programs comprise 1,714, or 79%, of the domestic assistance programs. As the number of congressionally authorized grant programs has increased over time, congressional interest in these programs, in terms of their efficiency and effectiveness, both individually and collectively, has also increased. The increasing cost of federal grants-in-aid assistance has also attracted congressional interest. Federal outlays for grants to state and local governments has grown from $13.2 billion (in constant FY2005 dollars) in 1940 to $514.6 billion in 2011. The growing number, perceived fragmentation, and complexity of these programs create challenges for federal agencies interested in standardizing various financial and administrative aspects of grant program management. As a result, there is wide variation across and within federal agencies in the administration of federal grant programs. This variation in federal grant administration makes it difficult for Congress to compare program performance, both within and among federal agencies, and to exercise its oversight of federal agencies. This report is designed to assist Congress in its oversight of federal grants-in-aid programs by providing an overview of federal grants-in-aid generally; a description of the typical life cycle of a federal grant, including the processes for selecting, awarding, administering, and overseeing a federal grant award; and an analysis of the tracking of federal grants currently administered by federal agencies. Federal agencies face challenges in providing Congress and the public with timely, accurate, and detailed information about federal grant awards. Limitations on the ability to track the distribution of federal grants raises questions about the validity of the information and suggests that Congress may have a diminished capacity to engage in effective oversight of federal grants.

Oct 3, 2012

Fruits, Vegetables, and Other Specialty Crops: Selected Federal Programs

Oct 3, 2012

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF): Welfare-to-Work Revisited

Oct 2, 2012

Surface Transportation Funding and Programs Under MAP-21: Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (P.L. 112-141)

On July 6, 2012, President Barack Obama signed the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21; P.L. 112-141). The act authorized spending on federal highway and public transportation programs, surface transportation safety and research, and some rail programs and activities through September 30, 2014. MAP-21 authorized roughly $105 billion for FY2013 and FY2014 combined. It also extended FY2012 surface transportation authorizations to the end of the fiscal year, raising the total authorization to approximately $118 billion. Most of the funding for surface transportation bills has been drawn from the highway trust fund (HTF) since its creation in 1956, but the HTF, which receives revenue mainly from federal motor fuel taxes, has, due to a sluggish economy and improvements in fuel efficiency, received revenue substantially below projections. For the past several years, HTF revenue has been insufficient to finance the government’s surface transportation programs, leading Congress to delay reauthorization for 33 months following expiration of the last multi-year reauthorization. Although Congress was unable to agree on a long-term solution to the HTF revenue issue, MAP-21 did provide for the transfer of sufficient general fund revenues to the HTF to fund a two-year bill. MAP-21 made major changes in the programmatic structure for both highways and public transportation and included initiatives intended to increase program efficiency through performance-based planning and the streamlining of project development. Among its major provisions, MAP-21 included: for the federal-aid highway program, research, and education, authorizations for FY2013 of $40.96 billion and for FY2014 of $41.03 billion; for public transportation, authorizations for FY2013 of $10.58 billion and for FY2014 of $10.7 billion; for the Transportation Infrastructure Financing and Innovation Act (TIFIA), which provides credit assistance for surface transportation projects, a significant expansion that could provide credit support of up to $6.9 billion for FY2013 and $9.2 billion for FY2014; major program restructuring, which reduced the number of highway programs by two-thirds and consolidated public transportation programs as well; more distribution of funding via apportionment to the states and less discretionary funding via the Department of Transportation (DOT) to individual projects; no project earmarks; no equity program, instead basing the distribution of highway funding on the FY2012 distribution such that each state will likely receive as much federal highway funding as its highway users paid to the highway account of the HTF; and changes in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance process intended to accelerate project delivery.

Sep 27, 2012

Residential Energy Tax Credits: Overview and Analysis

This report explores one policy option for promoting residential energy efficiency: tax credits. It begins by providing an overview of the current residential energy-efficiency tax credits. The report then goes on to provide an economic rationale for residential energy-efficiency tax incentives, introducing the concept of "market failures" and "market barriers" which may lead to suboptimal or "economically inefficient" investment in energy-efficiency technologies. The final sections of this report provide an economic analysis of the primary tax incentives for residential energy efficiency and briefly review various policy options.

Sep 25, 2012

Senkaku (Diaoyu/Diaoyutai) Islands Dispute: U.S. Treaty Obligations

Sep 25, 2012

Energy Policy: Election Year Issues and Legislative Proposals

This report looks at how controversies stemming from various importance given to different aspects of United States energy policy affect the legislation on energy policy, particularly during election years.

Sep 24, 2012

Clean Water Act and Pollutant Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs)

This report discusses the total maximum daily load (TMDL) program which regulates pollutants to ensure that water quality standards can be attained; section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires states to identify waters that are impaired by pollution, even after application of pollution controls. The report focuses on new challenges facing the TMDL program, including more complex TMDLs, larger scale impairments, and nonpoint sources.

Sep 21, 2012

DHS Headquarters Consolidation Project: Issues for Congress

This report outlines the policy considerations to be evaluated in deciding whether to continue funding the consolidated Department of Homeland Security (DHS) headquarters, and to explore some of the benefits and consequences of several possible ways forward.

Sep 21, 2012

The Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2008 (Post-9/11 GI Bill): Primer and Issues

This report provides a description of the eligibility requirements, benefit availability, benefit payments, participation, and obligations of the Post-9/11 GI Bill. The report also describes a few issues that may be addressed by Congress.

Sep 21, 2012

Federal Tax Benefits for Manufacturing: Current Law, Legislative Proposals, and Issues for the 112th Congress

Sep 20, 2012

Health Care for Veterans: Answers to Frequently Asked Questions

Sep 20, 2012

Airport Body Scanners: The Role of Advanced Imaging Technology in Airline Passenger Screening

Responding to the need to reliably detect explosives, bomb-making components, and other potential security threats concealed by airline passengers, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has focused on the deployment of whole body scanners as a core element of its strategy for airport checkpoint screening. TSA has deployed about 700 of these scanners, known as whole body imagers (WBI) or advanced imaging technology (AIT), at airports throughout the United States, and plans to have 1,800 in place by the end of FY2014. AIT systems include two technologies: millimeter wave systems and X-ray backscatter systems. AIT directly addresses specific recommendations and mandates to improve the detection of explosives on passengers. However, the deployment of these systems has generated a number of concerns. Although polling data indicate that the American public generally accepts the use of body scanners for passenger screening, various stakeholders have expressed concerns over privacy, potential health risks, and delays in getting through security. Concerns have also been raised regarding screening individuals with special needs, the overall effectiveness of current technology, screener staffing requirements, and TSA’s deployment strategy. While TSA voluntarily applies a number of privacy measures (such as viewing AIT images remotely and providing alternative pat-down screenings on request), U.S. law does not specifically require these actions. Beyond these existing procedural measures to protect privacy, TSA is working toward the eventual elimination of human image viewers, replacing them with automated target recognition (ATR) technology to detect potential threats. If ATR eliminates the need for most image viewers, as expected, this could reduce TSA staffing requirements. However, this depends to an extent on the alarm rate for ATR, since TSA procedures require alarms to be resolved by labor-intensive pat-down searches. ATR is currently being deployed on all newly acquired millimeter wave systems and is being retrofitted into already deployed millimeter wave systems. It has not been announced whether a similar system will be implemented for X-ray backscatter imagers. The availability of ATR on millimeter wave units, coupled with continued public perceptions of potential health concerns associated with X-ray backscatter systems, appear to be key factors influencing TSA’s approach to focus future acquisitions and deployments on millimeter wave systems. Bills under consideration in the 112th Congress, including the Aircraft Passenger Whole-Body Imaging Limitations Act of 2011 (H.R. 1279) and the Checkpoint Images Protection Act of 2011 (H.R. 685), address privacy and health safety concerns. Additionally, the Transportation Security Administration Authorization Act of 2011 (H.R. 3011) contains a provision that would require all deployed AIT systems to have ATR capabilities and any image retention capabilities to be disabled. Lastly, the Restoring Integrity and Good-Heartedness in Traveler Screening Act, or the “RIGHTS Act” (S. 2207), would address concerns over the processing of passenger complaints regarding TSA procedures and improve assistance to passengers needing special accommodations at screening checkpoints.

Sep 20, 2012

Medigap: A Primer

Sep 19, 2012

Medical Loss Ratio Requirements Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA): Issues for Congress

Sep 18, 2012

Length of Time from Nomination to Confirmation for “Uncontroversial” U.S. Circuit and District Court Nominees: Detailed Analysis

In recent years, a recurring subject of debate in the Senate has been the length of time taken for lower court nominations to receive Senate confirmation. During the 111th and 112th Congresses, this debate has focused, in part, on President Obama’s uncontroversial nominees to U.S. circuit and district court judgeships—and on whether, or to what extent, such nominees have waited longer to receive Senate confirmation than the uncontroversial judicial nominees of other recent Presidents. To more fully inform this debate, the following report provides a statistical overview, from Presidents Reagan to Obama, of the waiting times from nomination to confirmation of uncontroversial U.S. circuit and district court nominees approved by the Senate from 1981 to September 14, 2012. For the purposes of this report, an uncontroversial judicial nominee is a nominee (1) whose nomination was reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee by voice vote or, if a roll call vote was held, the nomination was unanimously reported favorably by the committee to the full Senate, and (2) whose nomination was approved by voice vote when confirmed by the Senate or, if a roll call vote was held, received 5 or fewer nay votes. Findings in the report include the following: Average and median waiting times to confirmation increased steadily with each presidency, from Ronald Reagan’s to Barack Obama’s, for uncontroversial circuit court nominees and almost as steadily for uncontroversial district court nominees. Uncontroversial Circuit Court Nominees For uncontroversial circuit court nominees, the mean and median number of days from nomination to confirmation ranged from a low of 64.5 and 44.0 days, respectively, during the Reagan presidency to a high of 227.3 and 218.0 days, respectively, during the Obama presidency. The percentage of uncontroversial circuit court nominees waiting more than 200 days from first nomination to confirmation increased from 5.1% during the Reagan presidency to 63.6% during the Obama presidency. Uncontroversial District Court Nominees For uncontroversial district court nominees, the mean and median number of days from nomination to confirmation ranged from a low of 69.9 and 41.0 days, respectively, during the Reagan presidency to a high of 204.8 and 208.0 days, respectively, during the Obama presidency. The percentage of uncontroversial district court nominees waiting more than 200 days from first nomination to confirmation increased from 6.6% during the Reagan presidency to 54.7% during the Obama presidency. Various political and institutional factors in the Senate might help explain the increase, across presidencies, in the waiting times from nomination to confirmation experienced by uncontroversial U.S. circuit and district court nominees. These include ideological differences between the President and Senators, how quickly the Senate Judiciary Committee holds hearings on and reports a President’s nominees, how often holds are placed on nominations when they reach the Senate Executive Calendar, how readily unanimous consent agreements can be reached to bring nominees up for votes, and the role played by Senators not serving on the Judiciary Committee in vetting judicial nominees. There are several possible implications for the longer waiting times from nomination to confirmation for uncontroversial U.S. circuit and district court nominees, including an increase in the number of judicial vacancies qualifying as “judicial emergencies,” the reluctance of well-qualified nominees with bipartisan support to undergo a lengthy confirmation process, an increase in partisan or ideological tensions in the Senate, enhanced Senate consideration of nominees who are nominated to positions with lifetime tenure, and a greater opportunity for interest groups and citizens to participate in the confirmation process.

Sep 18, 2012

Carbon Tax: Deficit Reduction and Other Considerations

Sep 17, 2012

Financial Services and General Government: FY2013 Appropriations

Sep 14, 2012

Whistleblower Protections Under Federal Law: An Overview

Legal protections for employees who report illegal misconduct by their employers have increased dramatically since the late 1970s when such protections were first adopted for federal employees in the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. Since that time, with the enactment of the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, Congress has expanded such protections for federal employees. Congress has also established whistleblower protections for individuals in certain private-sector employment through the adoption of whistleblower provisions in at least 18 federal statutes. Among these statutes are the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act). In general, claims for relief under the 18 federal statutes follow a similar pattern. Complaints are typically filed with the Secretary of Labor, and an investigation is conducted. Following the investigation, an order is issued by the Secretary, and a party aggrieved by the order is generally permitted to appeal the Secretary’s order to a federal court. However, because 18 different statutes are involved in prescribing whistleblower protections, some notable differences exist. For example, under the Department of Defense Authorization Act of 1987, individuals employed by defense contractors who engage in whistleblowing activities file complaints with the Inspector General rather than the Secretary of Labor. Under some of the statutes, including the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act and the Dodd-Frank Act, the Secretary’s preliminary order will become a final order if no objections are filed within a prescribed time period. This report provides an overview of key aspects of the 18 selected federal statutes applicable to individuals in certain private-sector industries. It focuses on the protections provided to employees who believe they have been subject to retaliation, rather than on how or where alleged misconduct should be disclosed. In addition, the report also includes an overview of the Whistleblower Protection Act. While state law may also provide whistleblower protections for employees, this report focuses only on the aforementioned federal statutory provisions.

Sep 13, 2012

The Corporate Income Tax System: Overview and Options for Reform

This report (1) briefly reviews the current U.S. corporate tax system; (2) discusses economic factors that may be considered in the corporate tax reform debate; and (3) presents corporate tax reform policy options, including a brief discussion of current corporate tax reform proposals.

Sep 13, 2012

TARP Assistance for the U.S. Motor Vehicle Industry: Unwinding the Government Stake in GMAC

This report discusses government support given to Ally Financial, formerly known as General Motors Acceptance Corporation (GMAC), which provides auto financing, insurance, online banking, and mortgage and commercial financing. This report looks at how or even it GMAC will be able to pay back the government for Trouble Asset Relief Program (TARP) funding.

Sep 13, 2012

Post-Employment, "Revolving Door," Laws for Federal Personnel

This report provides a brief discussion of the post-employment restrictions, often called "revolving door" laws, that are applicable to members, officers, and employees of Congress after they leave congressional service or employment.

Sep 13, 2012

Reauthorization of the FISA Amendments Act

This report describes the changes that were made by the FISA Amendments Act within the context of the government's authority to conduct surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes.

Sep 12, 2012

Automobile and Truck Fuel Economy (CAFE) and Greenhouse Gas Standards

In recent years, as oil and gasoline prices have risen and concerns over greenhouse gas emissions and climate change have grown, there has been a resurgence of interest in the fuel economy and emissions of motor vehicles in the United States. Federal fuel economy and greenhouse gas standards have become a focal point for addressing these concerns. The debate over rising fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas standards for passenger vehicles and heavy trucks has been controversial. Proponents of higher fuel economy argue that new standards will create incentives for the development of new technologies that will help reduce oil consumption and limit greenhouse gas emissions. Critics argue that these standards will impose regulatory costs which will distort the market for new vehicles, and that other policy mechanisms would be more effective at reducing petroleum consumption and emissions (e.g., higher fuel taxes). On August 28, 2012, the Obama Administration issued new passenger vehicle fuel economy and greenhouse gas standards for vehicle model years (MY) 2017-2025. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) expect that combined new passenger car and light truck Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards will rise to as much as 41.0 miles per gallon (mpg) in MY2021 and 49.7 mpg in MY2025, up from 34.1 mpg in MY2016. To the extent possible, new CAFE standards will be integrated with federal and state greenhouse gas (GHG) standards for automobiles, because fuel economy improvements are a key strategy for reducing vehicle emissions. If all of the GHG reductions were made through fuel economy improvements, the equivalent miles-per-gallon requirement would be 54.5 mpg in MY2025. However, other strategies will also be used (for example, improved vehicle air conditioners) to reduce GHG emissions to the actual GHG standard of 163 grams of carbon dioxide per mile. The Administration expects that consumers’ fuel savings from the new standards will more than offset the additional cost of the new technology for these vehicles, which could be thousands of dollars per vehicle. EPA and NHTSA expect that the new standards will save roughly 4 billion barrels of oil and 2 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases over the life of the vehicles covered under the proposal. Critics dispute some of the Administration’s assumptions. They counter that the costs will be higher and could lead to a drop in new vehicle sales, as the higher vehicle costs may put new car financing out of reach for many consumers. In a similar process to an earlier Obama Administration agreement that led to new fuel economy and greenhouse gas standards for MY2012-MY2016, the Administration has secured commitment letters from the state of California and from 13 automakers to support the MY2017-2025 rulemaking as well. There has been concern about a potential “patchwork” of different federal and state standards if EPA, NHTSA, and California were to establish different standards on fuel economy and GHG emissions. Two key parts of the agreement are that California will treat any vehicle meeting the new federal GHG standards as meeting California standards, and that the automakers agree to not challenge the new standards in court. In August 2011, the Administration also tightened fuel economy and GHG emissions standards for MY2014-MY2018 medium- and heavy-duty trucks.

Sep 11, 2012

Arizona v. United States: A Limited Role for States in Immigration Enforcement

On June 25, 2012, the Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated decision in Arizona v. United States, ruling that some aspects of an Arizona statute intended to deter unlawfully present aliens from remaining in the state were preempted by federal law, but also holding that Arizona police were not facially preempted from running immigration status checks on persons stopped for state or local offenses. In reaching these conclusions, the Supreme Court made clear that opportunities for states to take independent action in the field of immigration enforcement are more constrained than some had previously believed. In recent years, several states and localities have adopted measures intended to deter the presence of unauthorized aliens within their jurisdiction. An Arizona measure enacted in 2010, commonly referred to as S.B. 1070, arguably represents the vanguard of these attempts to test the legal limits of greater state involvement in immigration enforcement. The major provisions of S.B. 1070 can be divided into two categories: (1) those provisions seeking to bolster direct enforcement of federal immigration law by Arizona law enforcement, including through the identification and apprehension of unlawfully present aliens; and (2) those provisions that criminalize conduct which may facilitate the presence of unauthorized aliens within the state. Before S.B. 1070 was scheduled to go into effect, the Department of Justice (DOJ) brought suit to preliminarily enjoin many (but not all) of S.B. 1070’s provisions, arguing that they were likely preempted by federal immigration law and therefore unenforceable under the Supremacy Clause. The district court granted the DOJ’s motion to preliminarily enjoin four of the Arizona law’s provisions, and the injunction was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Supreme Court thereafter granted certiorari to review the case. The eight Justices who decided the case (Justice Kagan recused herself) were asked only to consider whether the four enjoined provisions of S.B. 1070 were facially preempted by federal law. They did not consider other constitutional challenges to the validity of the Arizona law, including claims that enforcement of S.B. 1070 could lead to impermissible racial profiling. A majority of the Court found that the Arizona measure’s criminal sanctions for alien registration violations and upon unauthorized aliens who seek employment in the state were preempted by federal law. The Court also ruled invalid a provision authorizing the warrantless arrest of aliens who have criminal offenses that constitute grounds for removal under federal immigration law. However, the sitting Justices unanimously agreed that federal law did not facially preempt a provision which requires Arizona police whenever practicable, to investigate the immigration status of persons reasonably suspected of being unlawfully present when such persons are stopped, detained, or arrested pursuant to the enforcement of state or local law—at least so long as the investigation does not extend these persons’ detention by state or local law enforcement. In ruling that three provisions of S.B. 1070 were facially preempted, and suggesting that a fourth provision could be susceptible to as-applied challenges, the Court clarified that opportunities for independent state action in the field of immigration enforcement are limited. In particular, the Court’s decision would suggest that mirroring federal law when imposing criminal penalties upon conduct that could facilitate the presence of unauthorized aliens within a jurisdiction does not suffice to avoid preemption. Similarly, while finding that measures requiring or authorizing immigration status checks by state and local officers are not facially preempted, the Court suggested that the application of such measures could lead to new constitutional challenges.

Sep 10, 2012

The TRIO Programs

Sep 10, 2012

Pilotless Drones: Background and Considerations for Congress Regarding Unmanned Aircraft Operations in the National Airspace System

Report that covers the history and current status of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). Particular attention is paid to recent privacy implications and potential intrusiveness of drone operations that have emerged as a significant issue before Congress. It also looks at the current Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) timeline to establish six test ranges throughout the United States to study unmanned aircraft integration technical issues.

Sep 10, 2012

The Purple Heart: Background and Issues for Congress

Report that explores the history of the Purple Heart and changes in eligibility over time as well as several current issues facing Congress.

Sep 7, 2012

TARP Assistance for Chrysler: Restructuring and Repayment Issues

The recent recession and accompanying credit crisis posed severe challenges for all automakers, but especially for General Motors and Chrysler. Executives of both companies testified before congressional committees in the fall of 2008 requesting federal bridge loans. Legislation that would have provided such financial assistance passed the House of Representatives but did not pass the Senate. In lieu of that assistance, the Bush Administration turned to the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), a $700 billion program that was enacted in October 2008 to shore up the financial system and prevent spillover to the broader economy. The Bush Administration used TARP to provide both automakers and two auto financing companies with nearly $25 billion in loans, and told the automakers to submit viability plans if they were to seek additional aid. Chrysler submitted such a plan in February 2009, outlining how it planned to restructure its operations, including a strategic alliance with Fiat. Some questions were raised as to whether Chrysler could survive as a free-standing company, even with government assistance, because of its relatively small size. The Obama Administration rejected Chrysler’s initial viability plan as insufficient and gave the company 30 days to develop a new plan in an effort to avert bankruptcy. Working with the Administration’s Auto Task Force, Chrysler developed a restructuring plan that included a revised labor agreement, cost reductions from dealers and suppliers, reductions in creditor claims, and limitations on executive compensation. Despite agreement with most stakeholders, all creditors did not agree to the restructuring, prompting Chrysler to file for bankruptcy in April 2009. With much of the restructuring plan in place, however, the bankruptcy court was able to quickly approve the proposals, including a creditor agreement. Many of the assets of Old Chrysler were sold to a new legal entity, Chrysler Group LLC, whose largest equity owner was the United Auto Workers’ retiree medical trust fund, owning 67.7%. Fiat took a management role in the new company and a 20% equity stake, which was deemed central to the survival of New Chrysler. Under new Fiat management, New Chrysler revamped its fleet of automobiles and light trucks, and has been profitable in 2011 and 2012. Its commercial and financial success accelerated its plans for repaying federal assistance. In May 2011, New Chrysler repaid a $5.9 billion debt to the U.S. government that was not fully due until 2017. On July 21, 2011, Fiat purchased the U.S. government’s common equity interests and options in New Chrysler for $560 million. In addition, the ownership of New Chrysler significantly changed as Fiat met a series of performance benchmarks that allowed it to raise its equity stake to 58.5% at the end of 2011. Of the $10.9 billion that was loaned to Chrysler through TARP, not all of it has been, or will be, recouped by the U.S. Treasury. Following the transaction that closed on July 21, 2011, the U.S. government has no remaining financial interest in New Chrysler. While $9.6 billion of the assistance given to the company has been recouped, an approximate $1.3 billion shortfall remains. New Chrysler has no legal responsibility to make up this shortfall.

Sep 7, 2012

The Role of TARP Assistance in the Restructuring of General Motors

Sep 7, 2012

Availability of Injunctive Relief for StandardEssential Patent Holders

Sep 7, 2012

Drones in Domestic Surveillance Operations: Fourth Amendment Implications and Legislative Responses

This report first explores the potential uses of drones in the domestic sphere by federal, state, and local governments. It then surveys current Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, including cases surrounding privacy in the home, privacy in public spaces, location tracking, manned aerial surveillance, and those involving the national border. Next, it considers how existing jurisprudence may inform current and proposed drone uses. It then describes the various legislative measures introduced in the 113th Congress to address the legal and policy issues surrounding drones. Finally, it briefly identifies several alternative approaches that may constrain the potential scope of drone surveillance.

Sep 6, 2012

Federal Public Transportation Program: An Overview

Report that provides an introduction to the Federal Public Transportation Program (FPTP). Includes a brief background of public transportation as well as FPTP's funding, expenses, and structure.

Sep 6, 2012

The Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiations and Issues for Congress

Report that examines the issues related to the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the state and substance of the negotiations (to the degree that the information is publicly available), the specific areas under negotiation, the policy and economic contexts in which the TPP would fit, and the issues for Congress that the TPP presents.

Sep 5, 2012

The War Powers Resolution: After Thirty-Eight Years

Report that discusses and assesses the War Powers Resolution and its application since enactment in 1973, providing detailed background on various cases in which it was used, as well as cases in which issues of its applicability were raised.

Sep 5, 2012

SBA Veterans Assistance Programs: An Analysis of Contemporary Issues

Report that contains an examination of the current economic circumstances of veteran-owned businesses, available employment assistant programs offered by several federal agencies to assist veterans in their transition from the military to the civilian labor force, and veteran business development programs.

Sep 4, 2012

NFIB v. Sebelius: Constitutionality of the Individual Mandate

In one of the most highly anticipated decisions in recent years, the Supreme Court released its ruling regarding the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in June 2012. In NFIB v. Sebelius, the Court largely affirmed the constitutionality of ACA, including its individual mandate provision. In a move that was unexpected to many, the Court upheld the mandate as a valid exercise of Congress’s taxing power, but not its Commerce Clause power. First, Chief Justice Roberts, in a controlling opinion, found that the Commerce Clause does not provide Congress with the authority to enact the individual mandate. While the Chief Justice acknowledged that Congress’s authority to regulate interstate commerce is quite broad, he also pointed out that Congress had never attempted to use this power to make individuals buy an undesired product. The Chief Justice further noted that the language of the Clause (i.e., the power to regulate interstate commerce) reflects the idea that there must be something to regulate in the first place (i.e., some type of “activity”). The problem with the individual mandate, as indicated by the Chief Justice, is that it “does not regulate existing commercial activity. It instead compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce.” The Chief Justice also noted that if the mandate were permissible under the Commerce Clause, a mandatory purchase could be permitted to solve almost any problem, thus agreeing with those who had raised concerns about a lack of a limiting principle—the idea that if Congress could require the purchase of health insurance, it could require Americans to purchase anything. While no other Justice joined the opinion of Chief Justice Roberts with respect to the Commerce Clause analysis, four Justices issued a dissenting opinion that reached the same conclusion based on somewhat similar reasoning. The Chief Justice then found the mandate provision to be a valid exercise of Congress’s taxing power. For this portion of the opinion, Chief Justice Roberts was joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. The key question here was whether the mandate provision was a tax or penalty. The Court used a functional approach to find the provision was in fact a tax, looking at its substance and application, rather than any statutory labels (which used the term “penalty”). The Court rejected the argument that the provision was actually a regulatory penalty, and therefore outside the scope of the taxing power, because it was not prohibitory, had no scienter requirement, and would be collected just like any other tax by the IRS. The provision’s obvious regulatory purpose was not a significant factor, with the Court noting that it is common for taxes to be intended to influence behavior. Further, the Court found the provision did not have to be read as making the failure to buy health insurance unlawful. Finally, the Court found the mandate provision, while a tax, was not a “direct tax” and therefore was not subject to the Constitution’s requirement that direct taxes be apportioned among the states based on population. It should be noted that the Supreme Court also rendered a decision on the constitutionality of the ACA’s expansion of the Medicaid program. For a discussion of the Supreme Court’s decision on the Medicaid expansion, see CRS Report R42367, Medicaid and Federal Grant Conditions After NFIB v. Sebelius: Constitutional Issues and Analysis, by Kenneth R. Thomas.

Sep 3, 2012

Stafford Act Declarations 1953-2011: Trends and Analyses, and Implications for Congress

Report that describes the declaration process of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act and the types of declarations that can be made under the Stafford Act.

Aug 31, 2012

Immigration Detainers: Legal Issues

Report that surveys the various authorities governing immigration detainers, including the standard detainer form (Form I-247) sent by ICE to other law enforcement agencies. The report also discusses key legal issues raised by immigration detainers.

Aug 31, 2012