CRS Reports

Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Provisions in PPACA

Apr 28, 2010

Unauthorized Aliens in the United States

This report discusses the unauthorized immigrant (illegal alien) population in the United States, which is a key and controversial immigration issue.

Apr 27, 2010

Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs

Apr 22, 2010

Medicare Provisions in PPACA (P.L. 111-148)

Apr 21, 2010

Electricity Transmission Cost Allocation

The report makes several observations concerning current cost allocation policy for electricity transmission at the federal and state levels. The report also reviews several recent developments in the cost allocation area.

Apr 19, 2010

Reconciliation Directives: Components and Enforcement

This report discusses the purpose of the reconciliation process, which is to enhance Congress's ability to bring existing spending, revenue, and debt-limit laws into compliance with current fiscal priorities established in the annual budget resolution.

Apr 15, 2010

Preservation of HUD-Assisted Housing

Apr 13, 2010

Permissible Securities Activities of Commercial Banks Under the Glass-Steagall Act (GSA) and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA)

In the wake of the recession of 2008, there have been calls to reexamine 1999’s landmark financial services legislation, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA; P.L. 106-102), which repealed certain provisions of the Banking Act of 1933, commonly referred to as the Glass-Steagall Act (GSA; 48 Stat. 162 §§ 16, 20, 21, and 32), which separated, to a certain degree, commercial banking (i.e., the activities engaged in by depository institutions with a bank charter, which this report generally will refer to as “banks” or “commercial banks”) from investment banking (i.e., activities engaged in by securities firms). This report explains the extent to which commercial banks, their subsidiaries, and affiliates were able to engage in securities activities, including securities underwriting, dealing, and brokerage, under the authorities of the GSA and other pre-GLBA banking laws, most notably the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (BHCA; 70 Stat. 133); how the volume and scope of these securities activities expanded over time, especially in the 1980s and 1990s; and how the GLBA changed the GSA construct by facilitating affiliations among commercial banks and securities firms, which paved the way for full-service financial companies like CitiGroup to offer deposit taking and full-scale securities dealing, securities underwriting, investment advising, and brokerage activities within a single holding company structure. To do this, the report first examines the historical differences between the regulatory structure of commercial and investment banks. It then provides a legal overview of the GSA’s restrictions on securities activities and the evolution of how the federal agencies regulating commercial banks interpreted those restrictions over the course of approximately seven decades prior to enactment of the GLBA. The report then analyzes how the GLBA modified the GSA and the BHCA’s securities restrictions and the resulting effect on the structure and activities of commercial banking companies. The GLBA transformed the financial services regulatory system and structure by repealing certain provisions of the GSA and the BHCA and by establishing the financial holding company structure, which permits commercial banks and full-service investment banks (as well as insurance companies) to coexist under common control. However, GLBA’s changes came after two decades of agency and judicial interpretations of the GSA and the BHCA, which significantly broadened the activities and presence of banks in the securities arena.

Apr 12, 2010

Poverty Measurement in the United States: History, Current Practice, and Proposed Changes

Nearly a half-century has passed since poverty emerged as a major policy issue in the United States, taking form as a “War on Poverty.” As precursors, statistical studies sought to define the scope, depth, and breadth of the poverty problem in the United States, as well as the composition of the population affected, and poverty’s social and economic causes and effects. Ultimately, the federal government adopted an “official” U.S. statistical poverty measure, which was to serve as the official benchmark for evaluating progress towards eliminating poverty in the United States. Many experts consider the “official” poverty measure currently in use as flawed and outmoded. A National Academy of Sciences (NAS) expert panel provided a wide range of specific recommendations to revamp the statistical measure of poverty in its congressionally commissioned 1995 study—Measuring Poverty: A New Approach. Now, after some 15 years of study, efforts are being undertaken to incorporate NAS panel recommendations into a new statistical poverty measure to accompany the current “official” measure. House and Senate legislative proposals introduced in both the 110th and 111th Congress (H.R. 2909, S. 1625), if adopted, would instruct the Census Bureau to create a new “modern” poverty measure, following many of the NAS panel’s recommendations. More recent developments initiated by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) propose that the Census Bureau, in coordination with the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), develop a new Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM), using NAS panel recommendations as a starting point. A NAS-based poverty measure, like the current “official” measure, would count families’ and unrelated individuals’ incomes against poverty income cutoffs (i.e., poverty income thresholds) in determining whether they, and their members, are considered poor. Under a NAS-based poverty measure, poverty income thresholds would be higher than under the current measure, and more sources of income (e.g., nutrition assistance and refundable tax credits) would be counted against the thresholds than under the current measure; and, unlike the current measure, work-related expenses, taxes, and out-of-pocket medical expenses would be subtracted from income. NAS-based poverty thresholds, unlike the current “official” thresholds, would adjust for changes in the overall basic standard of living in the society over time. In addition, the NAS panel recommended that adjusting poverty thresholds for area cost-of-living differences should be considered. All in all, a NAS-based poverty measure would be more sensitive than the current poverty measure in assessing the effects of government policy on poverty. Estimates of the number and composition of the population that would be counted as poor under a NAS-based poverty measure, compared to the current “official” measure, in part depend upon the specific details and methodologies used to construct the alternative measure. However, a NAS-based poverty measure generally results in a greater number of persons being counted as poor than under the current “official” measure. Additionally, persons in working families are more likely to be counted as poor than under the current measure (largely due to the subtraction of taxes and work-related expenses from income), as are older persons (largely due to subtraction of medical expenses from income). Whereas under the current “official” poverty measure, the poverty rate of children is about twice that of persons age 65 and older (19.0% compared to 9.7%, respectively, in 2008), under a NAS-based measure, the age 65 and older poverty rate exceeds the child poverty rate (21.0% compared to 20.2%, respectively). Based on current methodologies, geographic adjustments for area cost-of-living differences result in markedly different poverty rates for some states.

Apr 12, 2010

Foreign Aid Reform, National Strategy, and the Quadrennial Review

This report addresses foreign aid reform through early 2010. Several development proponents, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and policymakers have pressed Congress to reform U.S. foreign aid capabilities to better address 21st century development needs and national security challenges.

Apr 12, 2010

Multilateral Development Banks: Overview and Issues for Congress

This report provides an overview of the Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) and highlights major current issues for Congress. The first section discusses the history of the MDBs, their operations, major donor contributions, their organization, and debates about the effectiveness of MDB financial assistance. The second section discusses issues of particular interest to Congress, including congressional legislation authorizing and appropriating U.S. contributions to the MDBs, congressional oversight of the MDBs, and U.S. commercial interests in the MDBs. It also discusses recent proposals for increasing the voting power of emerging-markets at the World Bank.

Apr 9, 2010

Credit Rating Agencies and Their Regulation

Credit rating agencies (CRAs) are expected to provide investors with an informed and unbiased view on securities’ debt risk (also referred to as credit risk), the risk that issuers will fail to make promised interest or principal payments when they are due. The agencies provide judgments (“opinions”) on the creditworthiness of bonds issued by a wide spectrum of entities, including corporations, nonprofit firms, special purpose entities, sovereign nations, and state and municipal governments. They take the form of ratings that are usually displayed in a letter hierarchical format: AAA being the highest and safest, with lower grades representing an increasing scale of risk to the investor. The three dominant CRAs are Moody’s, Standard & Poor’s, and Fitch. CRAs have been a fixture of securities markets since the 19th century; they predate federal regulation of the markets. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issues a designation of Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organization (NRSRO), which is important because a variety of laws and regulations reference their use. (For example, the amount of risk-based capital that banks must hold against a portfolio of securities is linked to ratings; and thrift institutions are not allowed to own bonds rated below investment grade.) In recent years, many assert that the performance of the dominant rating agencies has been marked by a number of spectacular failures. Companies like Enron and WorldCom retained their high credit ratings until a few days before they filed for bankruptcy. More recently, many mortgage-backed securities initially rated AAA have defaulted or have been sharply downgraded. In both situations, investors who relied on the ratings suffered heavy losses. The SEC and other observers have criticized the three dominant CRA’s ratings of mortgage-backed securities. Between December 2008 and September 2009, the SEC adopted several reforms aimed at enhancing NRSRO disclosures, and mitigating NRSRO conflicts of interest, including a prohibition on NRSRO personnel involved in rating determination participating in fee discussions, negotiations, or arrangements; a requirement that each NRSRO and NRSRO applicant provide rating change statistics for each asset class of credit ratings for which it is registered or is seeking registration; an authorization for competing NRSROs to offer unsolicited ratings for structured finance products by granting them access to the necessary underlying data for structured products; and an elimination from federal securities regulations and laws certain references to credit ratings by NRSROs. On December 11, 2009, the House passed H.R. 4173. On March 22, 2010, the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee ordered reported out an amended version of the Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010, which had been released on March 15, 2010. The bill also contains rating agency reform provisions. Both H.R. 4173 and the Senate committee bill would require NRSROs to have established internal controls over the processes used to determine credit ratings, enhance the rights of entities to bring private actions against rating agencies for certain knowing or reckless failures in research with respect to rating determinations, and disclose the primary assumptions used in constructing the procedures and methodologies for arriving at credit ratings. Separately, H.R. 4173 would strike references to “not investment grade” or to “ratings” or similar language in a number of federal statutes, including the Federal Deposit Insurance Act; replace the term ‘‘nationally recognized statistical rating’’ with ‘‘nationally registered statistical rating’’ in the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and require the removal of references by federal financial regulators and in certain federal laws. Other bills that would also provide for rating agency reforms include S. 927 (Pryor), S. 1073 (Reed), H.R. 1181 (Ackerman), H.R. 1445 (McHenry), and H.R. 2253 (Delahunt). This report will be updated as events dictate.

Apr 9, 2010

The Role of the Senate in Judicial Impeachment Proceedings: Procedure, Practice, and Data

This report examines the history, practice, and procedures of the Senate in fulfilling its constitutional obligation to try and to vote whether to convict and impose judgment upon judges impeached by the House of Representatives. It includes an overview of the process, and sections that discuss rules governing Senate impeachment proceedings, organizing the Senate for trial, the role of the Presiding Officer, the use of an impeachment trial committee, deliberation and judgment by the full senate, length of Senate impeachment trials, and concluding observations.

Apr 9, 2010

Greece's Debt Crisis: Overview, Policy Responses, and Implications

This report provides an overview of the Greek debt crisis; outlines the major causes of the crisis, focusing on both domestic and international factors; examines how Greece, the Eurozone members, and the IMF have responded to the crisis; and highlights the broader implications of Greece's debt crisis, including for the United States.

Apr 7, 2010

Macroprudential Oversight: Monitoring Systemic Risk in the Financial System

Recent innovations in finance, while increasing the capacity to borrow and lend, resulted in a large volume of banking transactions occurring outside of traditional banking institutions. Also, even though existing regulators supervise individual banks for safety and soundness, there are risks that do not reside with those institutions but may still adversely affect the banking system as a whole. Macroprudential policy refers to a variety of tasks designed to defend the broad financial system against threats to its stability. Responsibilities include monitoring the system for systemic risk vulnerabilities; developing early warning systems of financial distress; conducting stress-testing exercises; and advising other regulatory agencies on matters related to financial stability. H.R. 4173, the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009 (Representative Barney Frank), establishes a Financial Services Oversight Council with macroprudential regulatory responsibilities. On March 22, 2010, the Senate Banking Committee ordered reported the Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010 (Senator Christopher Dodd), which also would establish a Financial Services Oversight Council with similar responsibilities. This report provides background and discusses the potential benefits and limitations of macroprudential policy efforts. This report will be updated as events warrant.

Apr 7, 2010

Grandfathered Health Plans Under PPACA (P.L. 111-148)

Apr 7, 2010

Health Insurance Premium Credits Under PPACA (P.L. 111-148)

Apr 6, 2010

Summary of Small Business Health Insurance Tax Credit Under PPACA (P.L. 111-148)

Apr 5, 2010

North Korea's 2009 Nuclear Test: Containment, Monitoring, Implications

This report discusses the implications of North Korea's May 25, 2009, underground nuclear test, related issues such as the the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), containment of radioactive materials, and other concerns for Congress, such as improving nuclear monitoring capability.

Apr 2, 2010

The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010: Summary and Legislative History

Apr 2, 2010

The SAFRA Act: Education Programs in the FY2010 Budget Reconciliation

Apr 2, 2010

Judicial Activity Concerning Enemy Combatant Detainees: Major Court Rulings

This report discusses major judicial opinions concerning suspected enemy belligerents detained in the conflict with Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

Apr 1, 2010

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

This report provides an overview of Arctic-related issues for Congress, and refers readers to more in-depth CRS reports on specific Arctic-related issues.

Mar 30, 2010

Indian Health Care Improvement Act Provisions in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (P.L. 111-148)

Mar 30, 2010

Agricultural Conservation: A Guide to Programs

Mar 25, 2010

How Agencies Monetize “Statistical Lives” Expected to Be Saved By Regulations

Federal health, safety, and environmental regulations are often designed to reduce the risk of death, illness, or injury from exposure to a particular hazard (e.g., arsenic in drinking water or rollover car crashes). As part of an economic analysis required by Executive Order 12866, the issuing agencies often place a monetary value on these expected health benefits by determining the number of “statistical lives” that the rules are expected to extend or save, and then multiplying that number by an estimated “value of a statistical life” (VSL). For example, if 100,000 people are each willing to pay an average of $50 to reduce a 1 in 100,000 risk of dying from a particular risk, then the VSL for the population relative to that risk is $5 million ($50 times 100,000). The monetization of regulatory health benefits is often controversial, and the process by which federal agencies do so is not widely understood. This report summarizes current government-wide requirements for benefit-cost analysis and the monetization of health benefits, and describes agency-specific policies in selected health, safety, and environmental agencies. Also, the report provides examples of final rules published by the selected agencies from 2007 through 2009 that monetized expected health benefits and describes how those values were used in the economic analyses for the rules. Finally, the report offers some concluding observations. OMB Circular A-4, which was issued in September 2003, delineates what is expected in a good regulatory analysis while giving the agencies substantial flexibility. The circular notes that academic studies have identified VSLs from $1 million to $10 million, but it does not recommend that agencies use a particular VSL. Circular A-4 says that VSLs should not vary by age, but recommends that agencies consider providing estimates in terms of both VSLs and the value of statistical life years (VSLY) extended. The circular says that agencies should use larger VSLYs for senior citizens, but does not specify how much larger or what constitutes a “senior citizen.” When the benefits and costs of a rule are expected to occur at different times, the circular says agencies should compare them in “present values” using both a 3% and a 7% discount rate. Some federal agencies have written policies on the monetization of expected health benefits, and those policies differ in some respects. For example, in 2009, the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) VSL was $6.0 million while the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) VSL was nearly $7.9 million. Other agencies tended to use the DOT or EPA VSLs, or used VSLs that they or other agencies have used in previous rules. DOT’s policy established the value of injuries prevented as percentages of the VSL, whereas EPA’s policy does not recommend particular values for injuries or illnesses. In more than 20 final rules that were issued between 2007 and 2009, federal agencies used somewhat different VSLs, and used VSL information in different ways. The agencies often compared monetized health benefits with costs to determine whether to regulate, but in some cases the agencies used VSL estimates in “break-even” analyses (showing at what point the value of the health benefits equals the cost), or to rule out a regulatory option. The agencies sometimes used lower and higher VSLs, and sometimes used multiple discount rates, in sensitivity analyses. Some of the rules illustrated that the size of the VSL used can affect whether a rule is expected to produce positive net benefits. Some of the apparent variations in the agencies’ economic analyses may be due to differences in the degree to which the agencies disclosed their procedures. This report will not be updated.

Mar 24, 2010

Federal Building and Facility Security

This report discusses the security of federal government buildings and facilities that affect not only the daily operations of the federal government but also the health, well-being, and safety of federal employees and the public.

Mar 24, 2010

Deforestation and Climate Change

Efforts to mitigate climate change have focused on reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions into the atmosphere. Some of these efforts center on reducing CO2 emissions from deforestation, since deforestation releases about 17% of all annual anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and is seen as a relatively low-cost target for emissions reduction. Policies aimed at reducing deforestation are central points of a strategy to decrease carbon emissions, reflected in pending legislation in Congress (e.g., H.R. 2454 and S. 1733) as well as in international discussions, such as the December 2009 negotiations in Copenhagen. Forests exist at many latitudes. Many are concerned about the possible impacts of losing boreal and temperate forests, but existing data show little, if any, net deforestation, and their loss has relatively modest carbon consequences. In contrast, tropical deforestation is substantial and continuing, and releases large amounts of CO2, because of the carbon stored in the vegetation and released when tropical forests are cut down. There are many causes of tropical deforestation—commercial logging, large-scale agriculture (e.g., cattle ranching, soybean production, oil palm plantations), small-scale permanent or shifting (slash-and-burn) agriculture, fuelwood removal, and more. Often, these causes combine to exacerbate deforestation; for example, commercial logging often includes road construction, which in turn opens the forest for subsistence farmers. At times, tropical deforestation results from weak land tenure and/or weak or corrupt governance to protect the forests. Congress and international bodies are discussing various policies to reduce carbon emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD). Reducing deforestation in the tropics is likely to have additional benefits as well, such as preserving biological diversity and sustaining livelihoods for the rural poor and for indigenous communities and cultures. Proposals may be adapted to address local and regional causes of deforestation. Various forestry practices can reduce the impacts of deforestation, and several market approaches are evolving to compensate landowners for preserving their forests. Many challenges remain for implementing REDD programs, particularly internationally, including monitoring REDD projects and improving developing-country capacity to ensure compliance. Existing evidence on forests and deforestation suggest the difficulties might be significant. Measuring forests is complicated, with multiple definitions, inaccessible sites, and expensive, complicated, and imperfect measurement technologies. This report provides basic information on forests and climate change. The first section discusses the linkages between forests and climate. The next three describe the characteristics of the three major forest biomes, with an overview of deforestation causes and impacts. This is followed by an overview of approaches to reducing deforestation. The final section examines issues related to forest and deforestation data.

Mar 24, 2010

Cyprus: Reunification Proving Elusive

This report discusses attempts to resolve the Cyprus problem and reunify the island which have undergone various levels of negotiation for almost 40 years. Prospects for a settlement that would end the political division of Cyprus appear to have reached a stalemate and may now enter a period of retrenchment possibly dominated by harder-line views by both sides and more difficult negotiations.

Mar 23, 2010

Navy SSBN(X) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program: Background and Issues for Congress

This report discusses the Navy's plan to develop and design a class of 12 next-generation ballistic missile submarines, or SSBN(X)s, as replacements for the 14 Ohio class SSBNs currently in operation. The report explores certain related issues for Congress, including the affordability of the project and its potential impact on other Navy shipbuilding programs, alternatives to the program, and which shipyard or shipyards will build the proposed ships.

Mar 19, 2010

Health-Related Revenue Provisions: Changes Made by the Reconciliation Act of 2010 to Senate-Passed H.R. 3590

Mar 19, 2010

Medicare: Changes Made by the Reconciliation Act of 2010 to Senate-Passed H.R. 3590

Mar 19, 2010

Medicare Coverage of Clinical Preventive Services

Congress established the Medicare program in 1965 in response to concerns that many seniors did not have health insurance, or had insurance that only covered hospital inpatient services. Historically, Medicare covered only diagnostic and treatment services, not preventive services provided in the absence of illness. Generally, adding coverage of a preventive service required statutory authority. Since 1980, Congress has established Medicare coverage for several preventive services in law. Recently, Congress gave the Secretary of HHS limited authority to cover new Medicare preventive services administratively. While many view preventive services as a means to improve the quality of health care by preventing illness, disability, and death, some have also touted prevention as a means to contain health care costs. However, whether expanding coverage or utilization of preventive services would actually save money for Medicare is a matter of debate. While these screenings may be effective in preventing premature death or other unwanted outcomes in some beneficiaries, their broad use may incur a net cost for the Medicare program, rather than savings. Efforts have also been made to determine whether specific preventive services are effective, and whether their use would be likely to benefit the patient without posing potential risks from the procedure itself. Congress has in the past sought the advice of expert panels to make these assessments. However, none of these panels is explicitly charged with evaluating preventive services for the purposes of Medicare coverage. For example, current Medicare coverage of preventive services does not always comport with evidence-based recommendations of a prominent expert panel, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). A recent USPSTF recommendation regarding screening mammography has refocused congressional attention on the appropriate role of advisory panels with respect to Medicare coverage decisions. In November 2009, the House passed the Affordable Health Care for America Act (H.R. 3962). In December 2009, the Senate passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (an amendment to H.R. 3590). Each bill would, in general, expand Medicare coverage of preventive services, and reduce or eliminate most cost-sharing for these services. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has scored most of these proposals as incurring a net cost for Medicare. The House is preparing to vote on Senate-passed H.R. 3590 and on an accompanying reconciliation bill (H.R. 4872) that would change several controversial elements in the Senate-passed bill and otherwise amend it so that its budgetary impact meets the reconciliation instructions in last year’s budget resolution. If the House approves H.R. 3590, it will be sent to the President to be signed into law. The reconciliation measure, if approved by the House, would then be taken up by the Senate. This report first discusses the legislative and administrative history of Medicare coverage of preventive services. Then it discusses several advisory panels that have evaluated the effectiveness of preventive services, Medicare coverage of these services, or utilization of these services. Next, it discusses whether or not the use of preventive services would be cost-saving or cost-effective for Medicare, and whether utilization of preventive services can be improved. The report then presents relevant proposals in pending health reform legislation. Finally, the Appendix compares current Medicare coverage of preventive services with current USPSTF recommendations. This report will be updated to reflect legislative and other activity.

Mar 18, 2010

The “8(a) Program” for Small Businesses Owned and Controlled by the Socially and Economically Disadvantaged: Legal Requirements and Issues

Mar 18, 2010

General Education Provisions Act (GEPA): Overview and Issues

The General Education Provisions Act (GEPA) contains a broad array of statutory provisions that are applicable to the majority of federal education programs administered by the U.S. Department of Education (ED), as well as provisions related to the powers and responsibilities of ED. While these provisions cover topics as varied as appropriations and evaluations to privacy and enforcement, several provisions are particularly worth noting, especially with respect to the development of new programs or the appropriation of funds for existing programs. These provisions include an extension of the period available for the obligation and expenditure of appropriation funds; an automatic extension of the authorization of an applicable program for one additional fiscal year; a prohibition on using funds for transportation of students or teachers to overcome a racial imbalance or to carry out a desegregation plan; a prohibition on federal control of education; privacy provisions that require educational agencies that receive federal funds to provide parents with access to children’s educational records and that prohibit such agencies from releasing such records without written consent; and a general prohibition on the use of funds provided to ED or to an applicable program to support a national test unless it is explicitly authorized in statutory language. The first part of this report highlights some of the key provisions contained in GEPA. This is followed by a section-by-section overview of the act. The report concludes with an analysis of some of the policy issues that have arisen in the past or that may arise in the future with respect to GEPA.

Mar 18, 2010

Charitable Contributions: The Itemized Deduction Cap and Other FY2011 Budget Options

The Administration’s 2010 and 2011 budget outlines contain a proposal to cap the value of itemized deductions at 28%, for high-income taxpayers. In the 2010 proposal, the expected revenue was dedicated to addressing health care issues; as other sources are expected to finance health care, the proposal is now part of the increased taxes on upper income taxpayers. This proposal has generated considerable concern about its potential negative effect on charitable contributions. This concern has been heightened because charities are having difficulties in the current economic climate. The proposed tax change, however, would not go into effect until 2011 and thus the change could actually increase near-term contributions. Thus, it is the longer-term, or permanent, effect on giving that is the effect considered in this analysis. The analysis also considers the effects of other income tax changes and of the estate tax. The estimated effects of the cap and other elements of the budget package depend on whether the proposals are compared with the current tax rates of 33% and 35% or the rates scheduled for 2011, 36% and 39.6%. Compared with current rules, estimated effects are between one-half a percent and 1% decline in charitable giving, depending on whether the effects of capital gains tax rates on gifts of appreciated property are included. When compared with tax rate provisions in 2011, charitable deductions are estimated to fall by about 1.5% if only the cap is considered, but if income effects from the entire budget package are included contributions actually rise 2.5%. The relatively modest effects of the proposal arise because (1) the effect of caps on the subsidy value is limited, (2) only a fraction (about 16%) of charitable giving is affected, and (3) because evidence suggests that behavioral responses to changes in subsidies are relatively small. Different charities will be affected differently because the giving patterns of higher-income individuals differ from the average. Estimates show smaller reductions or larger increases for religious or combined charities, or charities directed at meeting basic needs, whereas the proposal is more likely to have negative effects for charities serving the health sector, and to a lesser extent art and education charities. Overall, contributions that benefit the poor will be less likely to fall or more likely to rise than the average contribution because the charitable purposes more favored by higher-income contributors are less likely to direct benefits to low-income recipients. Estate tax changes would also affect charitable giving. The budget outlines hold the current 2009 estate tax rules constant. Allowing the estate tax to lapse in 2010, as would the current rules, could lead to reductions in charitable giving of around 4%. Returning to the higher estate tax rates currently scheduled for 2011 could increase charitable giving, by about 1%, while adopting the FY2010 Senate Budget Resolution provision could reduce charitable contributions by about 1%. Although a smaller share of charitable contributions are affected by the estate tax, the changes in subsidy value are much larger if the estate tax is repealed, and the estimated behavioral response is greater. The immediate effects on contributions and the distributional effects of changes are, however, uncertain. Over half of bequests involve gifts to foundations, which finance a variety of charitable objectives and provide benefits with a considerable delay. Revenue from the cap on itemized deductions is currently directed at increasing revenues to finance other programs. If the cap is rejected either overall, or for charitable contributions, other revenue sources found, or the debt increased. Alternative revenue options include, among others, implementing a floor under charitable deductions and increases in tax rates on high-income taxpayers.

Mar 18, 2010

U.S.-China Relations: Policy Issues

This report provides an overview of the U.S.-China relationship, recent developments in the relationship, Obama Administration policy toward China, and a summary of legislation related to China in the 113th and 112th Congresses.

Mar 12, 2010

Economic Effects of a Budget Deficit Exceeding $1 Trillion

This report evaluates questions regarding whether the current deficit is manageable and what effects it will have on the economy.

Mar 12, 2010

Immigration Visa Issuances and Grounds for Exclusion: Policy and Trends

The conventional wisdom is that the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, prompted a substantive change in U.S. immigration policy on visa issuances and the grounds for excluding foreign nationals from the United States. A series of laws enacted in the 1990s, however, may have done as much or more to set current U.S. visa policy and the legal grounds for exclusion. This report’s review of the legislative developments in visa policy over the past 20 years and analysis of the statistical trends in visa issuances and denials provide a nuanced study of U.S. visa policy and the grounds for exclusion. Foreign nationals not already legally residing in the United States who wish to come to the United States generally must obtain a visa to be admitted. Those admitted on a permanent basis are known as immigrants or legal permanent residents (LPRs), while those admitted on a temporary basis are known as nonimmigrants (such as tourists, foreign students, diplomats, temporary agricultural workers, and exchange visitors). They must first meet a set of criteria specified in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) that determine whether they are eligible for admission. The burden of proof is on the foreign national to establish eligibility for a visa. Conversely, foreign nationals also must not be deemed inadmissible according to other specified grounds in §212(a) of the INA. These §212(a) inadmissibility criteria are health-related grounds; criminal history; security and terrorist concerns; public charge (e.g., indigence); seeking to work without proper labor certification; illegal entrants and immigration law violations; ineligible for citizenship; and aliens illegally present or previously removed. The number of aliens excluded on the basis of §212(a) of the INA has fluctuated over the years. In FY2008, §212(a) exclusions of prospective nonimmigrants hit 35,403 and surpassed the prior high point of 34,750 in FY1998. For prospective LPRs, §212(a) exclusions peaked in FY1998 and FY1999, reaching over 89,000 in both years. The §212(a) exclusions of prospective LPRs fell from FY2000 through FY2003, then began climbing to reach 77,080 in FY2008. Most LPR petitioners who were excluded on §212(a) grounds from FY1994 through FY2004 were rejected because the Department of State (DOS) determined that the aliens were inadmissible as likely public charges. By FY2004, the proportion of public charge exclusions had fallen but remained the top basis for denial. The lack of proper labor certification was another leading ground for exclusion from FY1994 through FY2004. By FY2008, however, illegal presence and previous orders of removal from the United States was the leading ground. Exclusions of nonimmigrant petitions have a somewhat different pattern than that of immigrant petitions. Violations of immigration law were the leading category from FY1994 through FY2006, but fell to the second ranking by FY2008. Illegal presence and prior removal became the leading ground in FY2008. Over time, criminal activity has become a more common ground for refusal, and has represented a larger portion of exclusions among nonimmigrant petitioners than it was for immigrant petitioners. Legislation aimed at comprehensive immigration reform may take a fresh look at the grounds for excluding foreign nationals enacted over the past two decades. Expanding the grounds for inadmissibility, conversely, might be part of the legislative agenda among those who support more restrictive immigration reform policies. More specifically, the case of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who allegedly attempted to ignite an explosive device on Northwest Airlines Flight 253 on December 25, 2009, has heightened scrutiny of the visa process and grounds for exclusion. This report will be updated as warranted.

Mar 10, 2010

FEMA Disaster Cost-Shares: Evolution and Analysis

This report discusses cost-share waivers by program area, historical cost-share thresholds, hurricanes Katrina, Wilma, Dennis, and Rita, as well as hurricanes Gustav, Ike and other disasters.

Mar 9, 2010

Visa Security Policy: Roles of the Departments of State and Homeland Security

This report discusses the visa security and visa policy questions debated in Congress. The policy questions center on whether immigration law needs to be strengthened, whether funding should be increased, and which agency should take the lead.

Mar 8, 2010

Small Business: Access to Capital and Job Creation

Mar 4, 2010

Limiting McCarran-Ferguson Act’s Antitrust Exemption for the “Business of Insurance”: Impact on Health Insurers and Issuers of Medical Malpractice Insurance

Narrowing or eliminating the 1945 McCarran-Ferguson Act’s antitrust exemption for the “business of insurance” has been pursued for many years in many Congresses, and in the 111th Congress, there have been at least four measures—three stand-alone bills, and a provision in the House health care reform bill. Unlike prior legislation to eliminate the entire exemption—currently applicable generally to the extent such business is regulated by state law—however, three of the current measures (H.R. 3596, S. 1681, and section 262 of H.R. 3962 (the House-passed health care reform bill)) are applicable only to the provision of health and medical malpractice insurance; H.R. 4626, as introduced, and as passed by the House on February 24, 2010, is applicable only to health insurance. Two of the stand-alone bills, H.R. 3596 and S. 1681, would prohibit issuers of such insurance from engaging in “price fixing, bid rigging, or market allocations in connection with the conduct of the business of providing” health or medical malpractice insurance. H.R. 4626, like Section 262 of H.R. 3962, does not specify particular, prohibited activities, mandating instead that nothing in McCarran-Ferguson shall prevent the application of the antitrust laws to the business of health [or medical malpractice] insurance. H.R. 3596 as voted out of the House Judiciary Committee on October 21, 2009, was amended to permit the sharing of historical loss data or the “perform[ance of] actuarial services” if doing so “does not involve a restraint of trade.” H.R. 4626 contains no information-sharing provisions. Hearings have been held on S. 1681, but the bill remains in the Senate Judiciary Committee; whether it will ultimately be amended to contain a provision concerning information sharing is unknown, as is the likelihood that its substance will be inserted in a final health care reform bill. Section 262 of H.R. 3962 contains language similar to the information-sharing provision in H.R. 3596, including a section to define several of the terms used. There is not currently any provision addressing McCarran-Ferguson in the Senate health care reform bill (H.R. 3590), passed on December 24, 2009. Due largely to the importance of information sharing to insurers, the insurance industry has cooperated in the past in a variety of ways, including sharing loss information, jointly developing policy forms and rates, operating residual market mechanisms, and participating in state guaranty funds. Some forms of cooperation, including publication of mandatory advisory rates, have already been curtailed because of antitrust concerns. Passage of any of the measures is likely to precipitate litigation to define the scope of the prohibition and/or any remaining exemption. The precise impact on the affected portion of the insurance industry will depend critically, therefore, on future court decisions. Notwithstanding any limitation imposed at the federal level on the McCarran-Ferguson antitrust exemption available to health and medical malpractice insurers, however, any activity that the subject insurance companies currently (or might in the future) undertake—including joint ratemaking or certain information sharing—may nevertheless remain legally permissible. The “state action” doctrine in antitrust law immunizes from the federal antitrust laws: (1) all actions of state (but not necessarily, municipal) public entities and (2) those of private entities that are “clearly articulated” and legislatively (or otherwise) mandated or authorized and are “actively supervised” by the states. Currently, all states regulate the insurance industry. The “state action” issue, then, is whether and to what extent existing state mandates or authorizations, while adequate to meet the requirements of the McCarran-Ferguson exemption, would be adequate to meet the requirements of the antitrust “state action” doctrine, which dictates both that there be a “clear articulation” of state policy, and that a state engage in “active supervision” of the private activity that occurs in response to that articulation. This report will be updated as necessary.

Mar 2, 2010

Asian Carp and the Great Lakes Region

Feb 26, 2010

House Committee Markups: Manual of Procedures and Procedural Strategies

A principal responsibility of House committees is to conduct markups—to select legislation to consider, debate and vote on amendments to it (to mark up), and report their recommendations to the House. This manual examines procedures and strategy related to committee markups and provides sample procedural scripts. It will next be updated in the 112th Congress. Once a committee decides to consider a policy matter in a markup, it faces many decisions. It must select what legislation to mark up; decide whether to mark up only in committee or in subcommittee and committee; consider the effect of referral on the markup; choose how to report to the House; and take into account congressional and Administration sentiments. With policy and political considerations in mind, the committee plans its procedural strategy. The first element of a markup strategy is selection of a markup vehicle. A committee might mark up a measure as introduced, a version of the measure previously marked up in subcommittee, a draft prepared before, after, or without subcommittee markup, or an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Procedural and political consequences attach to each markup vehicle. Two parts of the manual deal with this element: Procedural Strategy and the Choice of a Markup Vehicle, and Beginning a Markup. The second element of a markup strategy is conduct of the amendment process. A committee may mark up a measure by section or by paragraph or by another subdivision, such as title; open to amendment at any point or with an amendment roster; or with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Specific procedural and political consequences attach to each choice. One part of the manual deals with this element: Reading a Measure for Amendment. The third element of a markup strategy is the decision of what to report. If a committee marked up legislation as introduced, it may report that with recommended amendments. If a committee marked up a draft or an amendment in the nature of a substitute, it must convert that vehicle into legislation that can be reported. A committee may also choose to report a “clean” measure. Two parts of the manual deal with this element: Reporting a Measure, and Committee Report. The final element of a markup strategy cuts through the other elements—anticipating the motions and requests that the majority and minority might make at each stage of the markup. Four parts of the manual deal with this element: Parliamentary Inquiries, Points of Order, Motions, and Voting. Six parts of this manual supplement these elements of markup strategy by providing background and context: Introduction to House Committee Markup Procedures, Committee Rules, Procedural Restrictions in Law on Certain Markups, Referral of Legislation in the House, Considerations Prior to a Markup, and Role of Committee and Personal Staff. Two parts of the manual deal with Options for House Consideration and A Two-House Strategy. Although House floor consideration follows committee action, and Senate action may precede or follow House committee action, plans for a markup must anticipate the larger arenas in which reported legislation will be considered. This context is examined in these two parts. An Overview of Manual explains the relationship between the elements and the parts of the manual.

Feb 25, 2010

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA): Protections, Federal Water Rights, and Development Restrictions

Feb 23, 2010

Congressional Oversight: An Overview

A fundamental objective of congressional oversight is to hold executive officials accountable for the implementation of delegated authority. This objective is especially important given the huge expansion of executive influence in the modern era. If the Founding Fathers returned to observe their handiwork, they would likely be surprised by such developments as the creation of a “presidential branch” of government (the Office of Management and Budget, the National Security Council, and the like) and the establishment of so many federal departments and agencies. From three departments in 1789 (State, Treasury, and War, renamed Defense in 1947), a dozen more have been added to the cabinet. The newest creation in 2002, is the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Formed from the merger of 22 separate executive branch units, it employs roughly 180,000 people. Clearly, given the role and scope of the federal establishment, the importance of Congress’s review function looms large in checking and monitoring the delegated authority that it grants to federal departments and agencies. The goals of this report, then, are essentially six-fold: (1) highlight several reasons for the expansion of the federal government; (2) discuss a few definitions of oversight; (3) spotlight three essential purposes of oversight; (4) comment upon a few oversight laws and rules; (5) review several important oversight techniques; and (6) identify several incentives and disincentives to the conduct of congressional oversight. The report concludes with summary observations.

Feb 22, 2010

Credit Union Member Business Loans

Feb 17, 2010

Southwest Border Violence: Issues in Identifying and Measuring Spillover Violence

This report focuses on how policy makers would identify any spillover of drug trafficking-related violence into the United States. It provides an overview of Mexican drug trafficking organization structures, how they conduct business, and the relationship between the drug trafficking organizations in Mexico and their partnerships operating here in the United States; a discussion of the illicit drug trade between Mexico and the United States; and other related issues.

Feb 16, 2010

Vulnerable Youth: Employment and Job Training Programs

Feb 5, 2010