CRS Reports

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act: Standards of Conduct of Brokers, Dealers, and Investment Advisers

Aug 19, 2010

Responsibility Determinations Under the Federal Acquisition Regulation: Legal Standards and Procedures

This report discusses the standards and procedures that federal agencies use in making responsibility determinations under the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). As a general rule, government agencies contract with the lowest qualified responsible bidder or offeror. Responsibility is an attribute of the contractor, while price and qualifications are attributes of the bid or offer. Under the FAR, "[n]o purchase or award shall be made unless the contracting officer makes an affirmative determination of responsibility."

Aug 18, 2010

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act: Insurance Provisions

In the aftermath of the recent financial crisis, broad financial regulatory reform legislation was advanced by the Obama Administration and by various Members of Congress. Ultimately Congress passed, and the President signed, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (P.L. 111-203). The Dodd-Frank Act largely responded to the financial crisis that peaked in September 2008, but other efforts at revising the state-based system of insurance regulation also pre-date this crisis. Members of Congress previously introduced both broad legislation to federalize insurance regulation along the lines of the regulation of the banking sector, as well as more narrowly tailored bills addressing specific perceived flaws in the state-based system. The financial crisis, particularly the role of insurance giant American International Group (AIG) and the smaller bond insurers, changed the tenor of the existing debate around insurance regulation, with increased emphasis on the systemic importance of some insurance companies. Although it could be argued that insurer involvement in the financial crisis suggested a need for full-scale federal regulation of insurance, the Dodd-Frank Act did not implement such a federal regulatory system for insurance. Title V of the Dodd-Frank Act addressed specifically insurance, with a subtitle creating a Federal Insurance Office (similar to language originally contained in H.R. 2609) and a subtitle streamlining the existing state regulation of surplus lines and reinsurance (similar to language originally contained in H.R. 2572/S. 1363). The Federal Insurance Office is to monitor all aspects of the insurance industry and coordinate and develop policy relating to international agreements. It also has limited authority to preempt state laws and regulations when these conflict with international agreements. The act harmonizes, and in some cases reduces, regulation and taxation of surplus lines insurance by vesting the “home state” of the insured with the sole authority to regulate and collect the taxes on a surplus lines transaction. For reinsurance transactions, the act vests the home state of the insurer purchasing the reinsurance with the authority over the transaction while vesting the home state of the reinsurer with the sole authority to regulate the solvency of the reinsurer. In addition to Title V’s specific insurance provisions, various other parts of the act may affect insurers and the insurance industry, including provisions addressing systemic risk, consumer protection, investor protection, and securities regulation. This report explains how insurance markets were affected by the financial crisis and summarizes the provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act that pertain to insurance. It will not be updated.

Aug 17, 2010

Geoengineering: Governance and Technology Policy

This report is intended as a primer on the policy issues, science, and governance of geoengineering technologies. The report will first set the policy parameters under which geoengineering technologies may be considered. It will then describe selected technologies in detail and discuss their status. The third section provides a discussion of possible approaches to governmental involvement in, and oversight of, geoengineering, including a summary of domestic and international instruments and institutions that may affect geoengineering projects.

Aug 16, 2010

Turkey: Politics of Identity and Power

This report provides an overview of economic situation, demographics, historical context and political situation in Turkey. The report discusses the role of the military in Turkey, the Kurdish issue, press freedom, and future political possibilities.

Aug 13, 2010

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act: History, Impact, and Issues

This report examines debates over what constitutes an unfunded federal mandate and Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA's) implementation. It focuses on UMRA's requirement that Congressional Budget Office (CBO) issue written cost estimate statements for federal mandates in legislation, its procedures for raising points of order in the House and Senate concerning unfunded federal mandates in legislation, and its requirement that federal agencies prepare written cost estimate statements for federal mandates in rules. It also assesses UMRA's impact on federal mandates and arguments concerning UMRA's future, focusing on UMRA's definitions, exclusions, and exceptions which currently exempt many federal actions with potentially significant financial impacts on nonfederal entities.

Aug 13, 2010

Capital Gains Tax Options: Behavioral Responses and Revenues

Among the expiring Bush tax cut provisions is a lower 15% rate for long-term capital gains and dividends, with a 0% rate for taxpayers with ordinary tax rates of 15% or less. With no change, capital gains tax rates will revert to a top rate of 20% (10% for those with a 0% rate). Dividends will be taxed at ordinary rates. For FY2010 (for example), Treasury has projected revenue gains from these provisions to be $16 billion for capital gains and $30 billion for dividends. President Obama has proposed to retain the 15% and 0% rates for lower- and middle-income taxpayers, but to tax both dividends and capital gains at 20% for married couples with income of $250,000 or more and single taxpayers with income of $200,000 or more. Because the increase in dividend tax rates was limited, about 80% of the projected $15 billion gain from this revision (for FY2019) is estimated to be from capital gains tax increases. Compared with most other tax provisions, the potential revenue gain scored for an increase in capital gains taxes is strongly affected by behavioral responses assumed by the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) and the Treasury Department. The analysis in this study suggests that the Administration’s projections and those of the JCT, absent a change in their realizations response, may likely understate revenue gains from allowing lower capital gains tax rates to expire. Realizations response in revenue projections by the revenue estimating agencies (Joint Committee on Taxation and the Treasury) were publicly discussed at the end of the 1980s, in the midst of a contentious debate. The larger the absolute value of the elasticity (the percentage change in realizations divided by the percentage change in taxes) the smaller the revenue gain, and with elasticities larger than one in absolute value, a loss would occur. Estimated elasticities in the literature prior to 1990 ranged from 0.3 to almost 3.8, leaving limited guidance for revenue estimating agencies. JCT used an elasticity of 0.76, whereas Treasury used an elasticity of one. Concerns were raised at that time that there were serious problems with this evidence. Perhaps the most significant concern was that the larger results from studies of individuals reflected a timing or transitory response (high income taxpayers with variable income chose to realize gains during times that tax rates were temporarily low). This transitory response is not appropriate for assessing a permanent change. Evidence and studies since that time suggest that the permanent elasticity is considerably lower than what appeared to be the case in 1990. The surge in realizations in 1986 as a capital gains tax rate increase was pre-announced provided compelling evidence of the importance of a transitory response. A study of the limits of realizations (which cannot exceed accruals in the long run) suggested the elasticity could be no more than 0.5. And a number of new econometric studies, using new techniques to isolate the permanent response, suggested elasticities of around 0.5 or less. The JCT appears to maintain their original assumption, while the Treasury response has been reduced to be similar to JCT’s. Although projected revenues for FY2019 would be smaller than that estimated in January 2010 by the Administration, due to the Medicare tax, the revenue gain from allowing the capital gains tax to rise could be up to twice as much as that projected by the JCT for FY2019 if the smaller responses estimated in more recent studies were applied. It is reasonable to expect revenue gains of $28 billion, rather than the $13 billion likely to be projected by JCT if they maintain their current realizations response assumptions, and the gain is unlikely to be less than $18 billion.

Aug 10, 2010

Federal Trust Funds and the Budget

Aug 6, 2010

Abortion and Family Planning-Related Provisions in U.S. Foreign Assistance Legislation and Policy

This report details legislation and policies that restrict or place requirements on U.S. funding of abortion or family planning activities abroad. The level and extent of federal funding for these activities is an ongoing and controversial issue in U.S. foreign assistance and will likely continue to be a point of contention during the 111th Congress.

Aug 6, 2010

The TANF Emergency Contingency Fund

This report describes the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Emergency Contingency Fund (ECF) as well as proposals to extend and modify TANF emergency funding.

Aug 4, 2010

The U.S. House of Representatives Apportionment Formula in Theory and Practice

Aug 4, 2010

Small Business Management and Technical Assistance Training Programs

Aug 2, 2010

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act: Background and Summary

Beginning in 2007, U.S. financial conditions deteriorated, leading to the near collapse of the U.S. financial system in September 2008. Major banks, insurers, government-sponsored enterprises, and investment banks either failed or required hundreds of billions in federal support to continue functioning. Households were hit hard by drops in the prices of real estate and financial assets, and by a sharp rise in unemployment. Congress responded to the crisis by enacting the most comprehensive financial reform legislation since the 1930s. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner issued a reform plan in the summer of 2009, which served as a template for legislation in both the House and Senate. House committees reported a number of bills on an issue-by-issue basis, which were then consolidated into a comprehensive bill, the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009 (H.R. 4173). H.R. 4173, as passed by the House on December 11, 2009, contained elements of H.R. 1728, H.R. 2571, H.R. 2609, H.R. 3126, H.R. 3269, H.R. 3817, H.R. 3818, H.R. 3890, and H.R. 3996. On May 20, 2010, the Senate passed H.R. 4173, after substituting the text of Senator Christopher Dodd’s bill, the Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010 (S. 3217), as amended. Following a conference committee, the House accepted changes to H.R. 4173, now titled the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, on June 30, 2010, and the Senate followed suit on July 15, 2010. President Obama signed the bill, now P.L. 111-203, on July 21, 2010. Perhaps the major issue in financial reform has been how to address the systemic fragility that was revealed by the crisis. The Dodd-Frank Act creates a new regulatory umbrella group chaired by the Treasury Secretary—the Financial Stability Oversight Council—with authority to designate certain financial firms as “systemically significant” and subjecting them to increased prudential regulation, including limits on leverage, heightened capital standards, and restrictions on certain forms of risky trading. These firms will also be subject to a special resolution process similar to that used in the past to address failing depository institutions. Other aspects of financial reform address particular sectors of the financial system or selected classes of market participants. The Dodd-Frank Act consolidates consumer protection responsibilities in a new Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection within the Federal Reserve. The act consolidates bank regulation by merging the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) into the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). It requires more derivatives to be cleared and traded through regulated exchanges, and it mandates reporting for derivatives that remain in the over-the-counter market. Hedge funds have new reporting and registration requirements. Credit rating agencies are subject to greater disclosure and legal liability provisions, and references to credit ratings will be removed from statute and regulation. A federal office is created to collect insurance information. Executive compensation and securitization reforms attempt to reduce incentives to take excessive risks. Intermediaries who provide investment advice to retail investors and municipalities may be subject to a fiduciary duty. The Federal Reserve’s emergency authority is amended and its activities are subject to greater public disclosure and oversight by the Government Accountability Office (GAO). This report reviews issues related to financial regulation and provides brief descriptions of major provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act. This report will not be updated.

Jul 29, 2010

U.S.-Mexican Security Cooperation: the Mérida Initiative and Beyond

This report provides a framework for examining the current status and future prospects for U.S.- Mexican security cooperation. It begins with a brief discussion of the threat that drug trafficking and related crime and violence pose to both nations, followed by an analysis of the evolution of the Mérida Initiative. The report then provides an overview of the Peña Nieto government's security strategy and how it is affecting the Mérida Initiative. The report then examines key aspects of the current U.S.-Mexican security strategy and concludes by raising policy issues that may affect bilateral efforts.

Jul 29, 2010

The Home Star Energy Retrofit Act of 2010: Operational and Market Considerations

The Home Star Energy Retrofit program as proposed is intended to promote both greater residential energy-efficiency and increased employment in the home remodeling, energy services, and related manufacturing industries. Two very similar Home Star programs are detailed in legislation proposed in the House and Senate. The House of Representatives version, the Home Star Energy Retrofit Act of 2010 (H.R. 5019), was introduced on April 14, 2010, by Representative Peter Welch and 44 cosponsors. H.R. 5019 passed with amendments on May 7, 2010, and was referred to the Senate Finance Committee. The latest Senate proposal was included as Division C Title XXX of the Clean Energy Jobs and Oil Company Accountability Act of 2010 (S. 3663) introduced by Senator Harry Reid on July 28, 2010. Home Star would employ a two-tiered structure for energy-efficiency rebates. Its Silver Star program tier would provide up to $3,000 per home in prescriptive rebates for straightforward home upgrades, including insulation; efficient heating, ventilation, and air conditioning units; new windows; and other measures. The Gold Star program tier would offer $3,000 rebates for more comprehensive energy retrofits achieving at least 20% energy savings, with rebates increasing up to $8,000 per home for retrofits achieving 45% energy savings. The Senate version would also offer up to $1,200 per home for comprehensive water efficiency retrofits. Quality assurance inspectors would visit 10% to 20% of participating homes to ensure measures are properly installed. H.R. 5019 authorizes $6 billion in funding for the program. S. 3663 authorizes $5 billion. In both the House and Senate versions, the proposed Home Star program may present an opportunity for both energy-efficiency and employment in the United States. The program targets the residential sector, which numerous studies have shown to be among the largest sources of cost-effective energy-efficiency opportunity in the United States. It also targets a wide base of currently unemployed or under-employed residential contractors. Structurally, the Home Star program seeks speedy implementation by building upon prior experience with both federal and state energy-efficiency programs to provide operating models that might be replicated nationwide. Nonetheless, several operational aspects new to such a federal program, or not previously tried for a program of Home Star’s scale, may warrant further attention from Congress. These include the use of rebate aggregators, a two-tiered rebate structure, technical standards, and the general availability of rebates to all who may want them. Key market issues include the inclusion of a “Do-it-Yourself” rebate option, high expectations for program participation, and promoting the growth of a self-sustaining home weatherization industry. Given that it would be a new federal program, the level of homeowner participation implied by the rebate funding provisions in the Home Star proposal would far exceed that achieved by comparable programs in their initial years. Taken together, Home Star’s key operational requirements may present greater challenges than some proponents suggest, and may present unanticipated obstacles to speedy and consistent program implementation across the country. As Congress examines details of the Home Star proposal, focusing on tradeoffs between rapid implementation, operational complexity, and energy-efficiency impacts may be important. Balancing the twin goals of short-term job creation and long-term investment in cost-effective energy savings could also be an ongoing challenge.

Jul 29, 2010

Meeting the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) Mandate for Cellulosic Biofuels: Questions and Answers

Jul 28, 2010

Rare Earth Elements: The Global Supply Chain

This report provides a discussion on the major issues and concerns of the global supply chain for rare earth elements, their major end uses, and legislative and other policy proposals that Congress may consider to improve the U.S. rare earth position.

Jul 28, 2010

Proposals to Change the Operation of Cloture in the Senate

This report provides a brief history of the Senate cloture rule, explains its main features and the arguments made by supporters and opponents of these features, outlines a range of proposals to change its operation, and briefly explains the methods by which the Senate might change its rules or practices.

Jul 27, 2010

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act: Titles III and VI, Regulation of Depository Institutions and Depository Institution Holding Companies

This report discusses Titles III and VI of the Dodd-Frank Act, which effectuate changes in the regulatory structure governing depository institutions and their holding companies and, thus, constitute a substantial component of the reform effort.

Jul 23, 2010

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act: Title X, The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

In the wake of what many believe is the worst U.S. financial crisis since the Great Depression, the Obama Administration proposed sweeping reforms of the financial services regulatory system—including the creation of an executive agency with authority over consumer financial issues, the broad outline of which has been encompassed in a document called the Administration’s White Paper (the White Paper). The House of Representatives began consideration of bills seeking similar reform, which in large part were shepherded by Representative Barney Frank, Chairman of the Committee on Financial Services. On December 11, 2009, the House approved H.R. 4173, the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009. On May 20, 2010, the Senate approved its own financial reform measure, H.R. 4173, the Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010. (For an analysis of the consumer protection provisions of these proposals and how they varied, see CRS Report R40696, Financial Regulatory Reform: Consumer Financial Protection Proposals, by David H. Carpenter and Mark Jickling; for an overview of the overall financial reform proposals, see CRS Report R40975, Financial Regulatory Reform and the 111th Congress, coordinated by Baird Webel.) A conference committee, chaired by Representative Frank and Senator Christopher Dodd, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, was formed to reconcile the two bills. On June 25, 2010, the conference committee agreed to file a conference report for H.R. 4173, renamed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act). On June 30, 2010, the House approved the conference report. The Senate approved the measure on July 15, 2010. The bill was signed into law on July 21, 2010, by President Obama as P.L. 111-203. Title X of the Dodd-Frank Act is entitled the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (CFP Act). The CFP Act establishes a Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (CFPB or Bureau) within the Federal Reserve System with rulemaking, enforcement, and supervisory powers over many consumer financial products and services and the entities that sell them. The law also transfers to the Bureau the primary rulemaking and enforcement authority over many federal consumer protection laws enacted prior to the Dodd-Frank Act (the “enumerated consumer laws”), such as the Truth in Lending Act and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. This report provides a legal overview of the regulatory structure of consumer finance under existing federal law, which is followed by an analysis of how the CFP Act will change this legal structure, with a focus on the Bureau’s organization and funding; the entities and activities that fall (and do not fall) under the Bureau’s supervisory, enforcement, and rulemaking authority; the Bureau’s general and specific rulemaking powers and procedures; and an analysis of the act’s preemption standards over state consumer protection laws as they apply to national banks and thrifts.

Jul 21, 2010

National Monuments and the Antiquities Act

Jul 20, 2010

Terrorist Material Support: A Sketch of 18 U.S.C. 2339A and 2339B

The material support statutes, 18 U.S.C. 2339A and 2339B, have been among the most frequently prosecuted federal anti-terrorism statutes. Section 2339A outlaws: (1)(a) attempting to, (b) conspiring to, or (c) actually (2)(a) providing material support or resources, or (b) concealing or disguising (i) the nature, (ii) location, (iii) source, or (iv) ownership of material support or resources (3) knowing or intending that they be used (a) in preparation for, (b) in carrying out, (c) in preparation for concealment of an escape from, or (d) in carrying out the concealment of an escape from (4) an offense identified as a federal crime of terrorism. Section 2339B outlaws: (1)(a) attempting to provide, (b) conspiring to provide, or (c) actually providing (2) material support or resources (3) to a foreign terrorist organization (4) knowing that the organization (a) has been designated a foreign terrorist organization, or (b) engages, or has engaged, in “terrorism” or “terrorist activity.” The sections use a common definition for the term “material support or resources:” any service or tangible or intangible property. The Supreme Court recently held that the forms of material support in the challenge before it were not unconstitutionally vague nor was their proscription inconsistent with the First Amendment’s freedom of speech and freedom of association requirements. Violations of either section are punishable by imprisonment for not more than 15 years. Although neither section creates a civil cause of action for victims, treble damages and attorneys fees may be available for some victims under 18 U.S.C. 2333. Section 2339B has two extraterritorial jurisdiction provisions. One is general (there is extraterritorial jurisdiction over an offense under this section) and the other descriptive (there is extraterritorial jurisdiction over an offender under this section if the offender is a U.S. national, etc.). Section 2339A has no such provisions, but is likely applicable at a minimum when an offender or victim is a U.S. national; the offense has an impact in the United States; the offense is committed against U.S. national interests; or the offense is universally condemned. This an abridged version of CRS Report R41333, Terrorist Material Support: An Overview of 18 U.S.C. 2339A and 2339B, without the footnotes, citations to authority, and appendixes found in the longer report.

Jul 19, 2010

Terrorist Material Support: An Overview of 18 U.S.C. 2339A and 2339B

The material support statutes, 18 U.S.C. 2339A and 2339B, have been among the most frequently prosecuted federal anti-terrorism statutes. Section 2339A outlaws: (1)(a) attempting to, (b) conspiring to, or (c) actually (2)(a) providing material support or resources, or (b) concealing or disguising (i) the nature, (ii) location, (iii) source, or (iv) ownership of material support or resources (3) knowing or intending that they be used (a) in preparation for, (b) in carrying out, (c) in preparation for concealment of an escape from, or (d) in carrying out the concealment of an escape from (4) an offense identified as a federal crime of terrorism. Section 2339B outlaws: (1)(a) attempting to provide, (b) conspiring to provide, or (c) actually providing (2) material support or resources (3) to a foreign terrorist organization (4) knowing that the organization (a) has been designated a foreign terrorist organization, or (b) engages, or has engaged, in “terrorism” or “terrorist activity.” The sections use a common definition for the term “material support or resources:” any service or tangible or intangible property. The Supreme Court recently held that the forms of material support in the challenge before it were not unconstitutionally vague nor was their proscription inconsistent with the First Amendment’s freedom of speech and freedom of association requirements. Violations of either section are punishable by imprisonment for not more than 15 years. Although neither section creates a civil cause of action for victims, treble damages and attorneys fees may be available for some victims under 18 U.S.C. 2333. Section 2339B has two extraterritorial jurisdiction provisions. One is general (there is extraterritorial jurisdiction over an offense under this section) and the other descriptive (there is extraterritorial jurisdiction over an offender under this section if the offender is a U.S. national, etc.). Section 2339A has no such provisions, but is likely applicable at a minimum when an offender or victim is a U.S. national; the offense has an impact in the United States; the offense is committed against U.S. national interests; or the offense is universally condemned. This report is available in an abridged version as CRS Report R41334, Terrorist Material Support: A Sketch of 18 U.S.C. 2339A and 2339B.

Jul 19, 2010

Carbon Capture: A Technology Assessment

Jul 19, 2010

U.S. Sanctions on Burma

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 examination of additional sanctions that have been considered, but not enacted, by Congress, or that could be imposed under existing law or executive orders. The report concludes with a discussion of options for Congress.

Jul 16, 2010

Small Business Administration 7(a) Loan Guaranty Program

Jul 8, 2010

Trade Law: An Introduction to Selected International Agreements and U.S. Laws

This report is an introductory overview of the legal framework governing trade-related measures. The agreements and laws selected for discussion are those most commonly implicated by U.S. trade interests, but there are U.S. trade obligations beyond those reviewed in this report.

Jun 29, 2010

The SBA Disaster Loan Program: Overview and Possible Issues for Congress

Jun 29, 2010

Appropriations and Fund Transfers in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA)

Jun 28, 2010

The "Volcker": Proposals to Limit "Speculative" Proprietary Trading by Banks

This report briefly discusses the permissible proprietary trading activities of commercial banks and their subsidiaries under current law. It then analyzes the Volcker Rule proposals under both the House- and Senate-passed financial reform bills.

Jun 22, 2010

Biomass Crop Assistance Program (BCAP): Status and Issues

Jun 22, 2010

The Nunn-McCurdy Act: Background, Analysis, and Issues for Congress

This report discusses the debate regarding the effectiveness of the Nunn-McCurdy Act, which requires DOD to report to Congress whenever a major defense acquisition program experiences cost overruns that exceed certain thresholds. The purpose of the act was to help control cost growth in major defense systems by holding the appropriate Pentagon officials and defense contractors publicly accountable and responsible for managing costs.

Jun 21, 2010

Disability Benefits Available Under the Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Veterans Disability Compensation (VDC) Programs

This report seeks to clarify why one group of individuals with disabilities may be eligible for benefits under Veteran's Disability Compensation (VDC), but ineligible for benefits under Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) (and vice versa), through a description and comparison of several distinguishing characteristics of the SSDI and VDC programs. This report concludes with a discussion of the challenges facing the administration of both programs, including processing delays for pending claims and appeals.

Jun 17, 2010

Securing America's Borders: The Role of the Military

This report provides background information regarding military assistance in securing America's borders. The report discusses the role of Armed Forces that provide support to law enforcement and immigration authorities.

Jun 16, 2010

EPA Regulation of Greenhouse Gases: Congressional Responses and Options

This report discusses elements of the greenhouse gas (GHG) controversy, providing background on stationary sources of GHG pollution and identifying options Congress has at its disposal to address GHG issues, including: (1) resolutions of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act; (2) freestanding legislation; (3) the use of appropriations bills as a vehicle to influence EPA activity; and (4) amendments to the Clean Air Act, including legislation to establish a new GHG control regime.

Jun 8, 2010

Public Health, Workforce, Quality, and Related Provisions in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA)

Jun 7, 2010

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2011

May 28, 2010

Army Corps of Engineers Water Resource Projects: Authorization and Appropriations

This report summarizes congressional authorization and appropriations processes for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. It also discusses agency activities under general authorities.

May 26, 2010

North Korea: U.S. Relations, Nuclear Diplomacy, and Internal Situation

This report provides background information on the nuclear negotiations over North Korea's nuclear weapons program that began in the early 1990s under the Clinton Administration. It also provides information on other concerns that the U.S. has with North Korea, and discusses U.S. engagement activities with North Korea.

May 26, 2010

Reductions in Mandatory Agriculture Program Spending

Many agricultural programs receive mandatory funding through the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC). Mandatory funding is made available by multiyear authorizing legislation and does not require annual appropriations or subsequent action by Congress. However, mandatory funding can be reduced in the appropriations process or by the authorizing committees themselves. In contrast to mandatory funding, discretionary funding is made available by annual appropriations acts on a year-by-year basis through a different process originating in the appropriations committees. While mandatory spending in agriculture historically was reserved for the farm commodity programs, the authorizing Agriculture Committees have expanded its use to conservation, rural development, and energy programs in the recent farm bills passed by Congress. Mandatory spending creates funding stability and consistency compared to that of the appropriations process. Some argue, however, that this use of mandatory spending has moved beyond the statutory purpose of the CCC. This has created tension between authorizers and appropriators, leading to actions by appropriators that are called “changes in mandatory program spending” (CHIMPS). CHIMPS usually reduce or block mandatory outlays, but sometimes appropriators replace some of the blocked funding with discretionary appropriations. Nonetheless, CHIMPS generate savings that appropriators can use to offset increases in discretionary spending. Between FY2003 and FY2010, CHIMPS by appropriators to mandatory agricultural programs have totaled $7.5 billion. CHIMPS to eight conservation programs are among the most notable, accounting for $3 billion of this total. Among individual programs, the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) has the highest multiyear total of CHIMPS, at $1.2 billion. Authorizing committees also have reduced mandatory program spending to generate savings after a farm bill has been enacted. The reason may be to offset spending increases for other programs within their jurisdiction or to comply with budget reconciliation directives. Notable among changes to authorizing laws (not CHIMPS), the Conservation Security Program was reduced in FY2003 and again in FY2005 to offset agricultural disaster assistance ($3.1 billion and $2.9 billion, respectively). Authorizers also received credit for $2.7 billion in budget reconciliation savings (over five years) across 12 programs in 2005, many of which had been reduced by appropriators in prior years through CHIMPS. More recently, the Senate Agriculture Committee’s current funding plan for the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (S. 3307) proposes to use $2.2 billion of reductions from EQIP over 10 years to offset the cost of increases for child nutrition. A proposed alternative to use an offset from the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) would have similar budgetary effects, and would likewise affect a mandatory program. The Administration also can take actions that reduce mandatory outlays. In renegotiating the Standard Reinsurance Agreement for the crop insurance program, the Administration has proposed changes that would reduce the baseline available for crop insurance by about $7-8 billion over 10 years. This has raised a debate over whether such reductions should wait so that Congress can get credit for any reduction, especially for future farm bills or possible budget reconciliation.

May 19, 2010

Economic Development Administration: A Review of Elements of Its Statutory History

This report discusses the Economic Development Administration, which was created with the enactment of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 and has a 45-year history of supporting job creation and long-term economic recovery efforts in the nation's economically distressed areas.

May 19, 2010

Frequently Asked Questions about IMF Involvement in the Eurozone Debt Crisis

On May 2, 2010, the Eurozone member states and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) announced an unprecedented €110 billion (about $145 billion) financial assistance package for Greece. The following week, on May 9, 2010, EU leaders announced that they would make an additional €500 billion (about $636 billion) in financial assistance available to vulnerable European countries, and suggested that the IMF could contribute up to an additional €220 billion to €250 billion (about $280 billion to $318 billion). This report answers frequently asked questions about IMF involvement in the Eurozone debt crisis.

May 17, 2010

Social Security Retirement Earnings Test: How Earnings Affect Benefits

Social Security benefits received before a person attains full retirement age (FRA) are subject to an actuarial reduction for early retirement and also may be reduced by the Social Security Retirement Earnings Test (RET) if the beneficiary has earnings that exceed an annual threshold. This report explains how the RET is applied under current law and provides detailed benefit examples to show how the RET affects both the worker beneficiary and any family members (auxiliary beneficiaries) who receive benefits based on the worker beneficiary’s record. The report points out features of the RET that are not widely known or understood, such as the recomputation of benefits when a beneficiary attains FRA to adjust (increase) benefits to take into account months for which no benefit or a partial benefit was paid as a result of the RET. Finally, the report discusses policy issues related to the RET, including recent research on the effect of the RET on work effort and the decision to claim Social Security benefits.

May 17, 2010

FY2010 Supplemental for Wars, Disaster Assistance, Haiti Relief, and Other Programs

This report discusses the $64 billion in requested supplemental appropriations for FY2010, which includes $2.8 billion for Haiti earthquake-related reconstruction and foreign aid and $243 million for activities related to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and more.

May 12, 2010

Energy Tax Policy: Historical Perspectives on and Current Status of Energy Tax Expenditures

This report examines how current revenue losses resulting from energy tax provisions compare to historical losses and provides a foundation for understanding how current energy tax policy evolved by providing a longitudinal perspective on energy tax policy and expenditures.

May 7, 2010

The New START Treaty: Central Limits and Key Provisions

This report provides an overview of the New Strategic Arms Reductions Treaty (START), including a comparison to the original START Treaty, the belief of the Obama Administration and outside analysts that New START will enhance U.S. national security, and the criticisms of those who say that New START is a distraction from more important items on the nonproliferation agenda.

May 3, 2010

Federal Conspiracy Law: A Sketch

Apr 30, 2010

Legislative Approaches to Defining "Waters of the United States"

This report seeks to clarify the scope of the Clean Water Act (CWA) in the wake of Supreme Court decisions in 2001 and 2006 that interpreted the law's jurisdiction more narrowly than prior case law.

Apr 30, 2010

Federal Conspiracy Law: A Brief Overview

Apr 30, 2010

Forestry in the Next Farm Bill

Apr 29, 2010