CRS Reports

The Role of Federal Gasoline Excise Taxes in Public Policy

This report examines the effects of the federal excise tax on gasoline and analyzes the positive and negative effects of the tax. The report also evaluates the incentive structure that a higher gasoline tax would likely create, and examines a revised version of the tax, a variable gasoline tax.

Sep 11, 2009

Education for the Disadvantaged: Analysis of Issues for the ESEA Title I-A Allocation Formulas

Title I, Part A, of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) authorizes federal aid to local educational agencies (LEAs) for the education of disadvantaged children. Title I-A grants provide supplementary educational and related services to low-achieving and other pupils attending pre-kindergarten through grade 12 schools with relatively high concentrations of pupils from low-income families. In recent years, they have also become a “vehicle” to which a number of requirements affecting broad aspects of public K-12 education for all pupils have been attached as a condition for receiving Title I-A grants. These include requirements for assessments of pupil achievement; adequate yearly progress (AYP) standards and determinations for schools, LEAs, and states; consequences for schools and LEAs that fail to make AYP for two consecutive years or more; plus teacher and paraprofessional qualifications. The ESEA was initially adopted in 1965, and was most recently reauthorized and amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), P.L. 107-110. Currently, although the authorization for ESEA Title I-A has expired, appropriations have continued to be provided, and the program continues to be implemented under the policies established by the most recent authorization statute. The 111th Congress is expected to consider proposals to extend and amend the ESEA. For the allocation of funds to states and LEAs, Title I-A has four separate formulas: the Basic, Concentration, Targeted, and Education Finance Incentive Grant (EFIG) formulas. Once these funds reach LEAs, they are no longer treated separately; they are combined and used without distinction for the same program purposes. While there are numerous complications and special features associated with the Title I-A allocation formulas, each has the same underlying structure. For each formula, a maximum grant is calculated by multiplying a “population factor,” consisting primarily of estimated numbers of school-age children in poor families, by an “expenditure factor” based on state average per pupil expenditures for public K-12 education. In some formulas, additional factors are multiplied by the population and expenditure factors, and/or the population factor is modified to direct increased funds to LEAs with concentrations of poverty. Major Title I-A reauthorization issues regarding allocation formulas are likely to include the following: Should annual variations in the poverty estimates used to calculate Title I-A grants be reduced through multi-year averaging or other methods? Has the targeting of Title I-A funds on high poverty LEAs increased since 2001? Should the population weighting factors of the Targeted and Education Finance Incentive Grant (EFIG) formulas be modified to more equally favor LEAs with large numbers of school-age children in poor families and LEAs with high poverty rates? Should the expenditure factors continue to play a major role in the Title I-A formulas? Should there be some consolidation of the four different allocation formulas? Should the authorization level for Title I-A continue to be specified for future years, and if so, at what levels? Should the effort factor in the EFIG formula be modified? Should the equity factor in the EFIG formula be modified? Should the current provisions for intra-LEA allocation be reconsidered? Should the remaining special constraints on grants to Puerto Rico, the cap on aggregate population weights in the Targeted Grant formula, be removed? Should the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) formula factor be eliminated? And finally, should each county portion of New York City and other multi-county LEAs continue to be treated as separate LEAs under the Title I-A allocation formulas? This report will not be updated.

Sep 10, 2009

Energy Projects on Federal Lands: Leasing and Authorization

The report reviews laws and regulations affecting leasing of federal lands for exploration and production of oil and natural gas, which have evolved under a complex leasing system over the last century. The report also addresses existing laws and regulations that affect the use of federal lands for renewable energy projects, including geothermal, wind, and solar energy.

Sep 8, 2009

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

This report discuses the Financial Services and General Government (FSGG) appropriations bill, which provides funding for two of the three branches of the federal government, a city government, and 26 independent agencies with a range of functions and encompasses a number of potentially controversial issues.

Sep 4, 2009

Reporting and Disclosure Requirements for Institutions of Higher Education to Participate in Federal Student Aid Programs Under Title IV of the Higher Education Act

The Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA; P.L. 89-329), as amended, authorizes a broad array of federal student aid programs that assist students and their families with paying for or financing the costs of obtaining a postsecondary education. These federal student aid programs are authorized under Title IV of the HEA. Requirements applicable to the administration of Title IV federal student aid programs are specified in Title I of the HEA, as well as in Title IV. The HEA also authorizes many other types of programs, including programs that make federal aid and support available to institutions of higher education (IHEs). The Department of Education administers programs authorized under the HEA. In 2008, the HEA was reauthorized under the Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA; P.L. 110-315); and in 2009 technical amendments to the HEA were made under P.L. 111-39. Institutions that participate in one or more Title IV programs, or that seek to begin participating in these programs, are subject to a wide range of requirements under the act to report or disclose information to the Secretary of Education, to students, to the public, or to other entities. As part of the amendments made to the HEA, the HEOA added numerous additional requirements for the reporting and disclosure of information, many of which are applicable to IHEs. This has resulted in a sizable expansion of the reporting and disclosure requirements with which IHEs must comply as a condition of their participation in HEA, Title IV federal student aid programs. This report responds to requests by Members of Congress for an in-depth examination of the reporting and disclosure requirements applicable to IHEs that participate in Title IV federal student aid programs. Specifically, it identifies and describes the reporting and disclosure requirements specified under Title I and Title IV of the HEA that applied to institutions prior to the enactment of the HEOA and those that were amended or newly established by the HEOA. It has been prepared to serve as a resource to assist Members of Congress and their staff in overseeing the Department of Education’s implementation of amendments to the HEA made by the HEOA. It is designed to be comprehensive, though not necessarily exhaustive, in scope. It will not be updated.

Aug 31, 2009

The Housing Trust Fund: Background and Issues

Aug 28, 2009

Mexico's Free Trade Agreements

This report provides an overview of Mexico's free trade agreements, its motivations for trade liberalization and entering into free trade agreements, and some of the issues Mexico faces in addressing its economic challenges.

Aug 27, 2009

Deadlocked Votes Among Members of the Federal Election Commission (FEC): Overview and Potential Considerations for Congress

Aug 26, 2009

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Global Health Programs: FY2001-FY2010

This report explains the role the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) plays in U.S. global health assistance, highlights how much the agency has spent on global health efforts from FY2001 to FY2010, and discusses how funding to each of its programs changed during this period.

Aug 21, 2009

Noncitizen Health Insurance Coverage and Use of Select Safety-Net Providers

The 111th Congress has made health reform a priority. As health reform is debated, one possible issue that may surface is the rights and requirements of noncitizens (aliens) under health reform. Because some of the proposals to address health reform in the United States would create a mechanism to provide health insurance to the overwhelming majority of individuals in the nation, this report explores the health insurance coverage of noncitizens, as well as noncitizen use of selected safety-net providers and the impact of unauthorized aliens on the health care system. Noncitizens are not barred from having health insurance or from paying for health care on their own. Indeed, due to the quality of health care in the United States, some noncitizens come to the United States to receive health care from world-renowned doctors and hospitals. Furthermore, U.S. law mandates that Medicare-participating hospitals provide emergency medical services for all patients who seek care, regardless of their ability to pay, including services to noncitizens, regardless of their immigration status. Nonetheless, the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (P.L. 104-193) established comprehensive new restrictions on the eligibility of noncitizens for federal, state, and local public benefits, setting specific eligibility requirements and exceptions for many health care services. In general, noncitizens have specific eligibility requirements under law for public benefits, including means-tested public benefits such as Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, but are eligible for emergency medical services. In addition, due to the exemptions and the fact that federally funded health centers are not defined as federal public benefits under regulation, there do not appear to be specified eligibility requirements related to noncitizens’ use of Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs). In terms of insurance coverage, noncitizens are more than three times as likely as native-born U.S. citizens and more than two times as likely as naturalized U.S. citizens to be uninsured. Similarly, noncitizens have a lower rate of private insurance coverage, while native-born and naturalized U.S. citizens have similar rates of private health insurance. The noncitizen population also has the lowest rate of Medicare coverage, while naturalized citizens, who tend to be older than native-born citizens and noncitizens, have the highest rate of Medicare coverage. Lastly, the noncitizen population has much lower rates of military/veterans coverage than the naturalized and native-born citizen populations. The rates and types of health insurance coverage are affected by variables such as occupation, industry, education, and region of birth; however, other socio-economic variables, such as age, do not seem to have an effect. Between 2000 and 2006, the percentage of noncitizens in the uninsured population increased from 19.6% to 21.5% and then decreased slightly (to 21.1%) in 2007. Conversely, in 2000, native-born citizens made up the largest percentage of the uninsured population (75.5%), and the percentage decreased, though not uniformly, to a low of 73.1% in 2007. As with the noncitizen population, the naturalized citizens percentage of the uninsured population increased from a low of 4.6% in 2000 to a high of 5.8% in 2007. In FY2006, 1.5% of the total Medicaid recipients received emergency Medicaid, and $2.6 billion was spent on emergency Medicaid, constituting 1.1% of the total Medicaid spending. The impact of noncitizen usage on emergency departments and FQHCs is unclear. Finally, several studies have attempted to quantify the health care costs of unauthorized aliens to certain states or geographic areas. The studies do not tend to be comparable because of differences in timeframes, methodology, and the types of costs studied. This report will not be updated.

Aug 20, 2009

Veterans' Benefits: Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) for Survivors

This report outlines the eligibility requirements and benefit levels for Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) and related policy issues.

Aug 19, 2009

Early Childhood Care and Education Programs: Background and Funding

Several federal programs support child care, education, or related services, primarily for low-income working families. In addition, the tax code includes provisions specifically targeted to assist families with child care expenses. This report includes an update on FY2010 funding developments and the status of FY2009 appropriations in the early childhood care and education arena. This report also provides a six-year funding history and brief descriptions of the various related programs and tax provisions.

Aug 19, 2009

Guantanamo Detention Center: Legislative Activity in the 111th Congress

This report analyzes the relevant provisions of the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009, and selected legislative proposals that have been introduced in the 111th Congress.

Aug 6, 2009

Qui Tam: The False Claims Act and Related Federal Statutes

Aug 6, 2009

United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan: Background and Policy Issues

This report examines the role of United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) in Afghanistan and discusses the obstacles the organization faces in coordinating international efforts and explores related policy issues and considerations for the 112th Congress.

Jul 30, 2009

The Unified Agenda: Implications for Rulemaking Transparency and Participation

The Obama Administration has launched an initiative to make the policymaking process more open and transparent, and has asked for comments from the public on how the rulemaking process in particular can be improved in these respects. Some observers have concluded that the most critical part of that process occurs before a proposed rule is published in the Federal Register, and (for significant rules) possibly even earlier—before the rule is approved by the issuing agency and submitted to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the Office of Management and Budget for review pursuant to Executive Order 12866. A representative of the Obama Administration has said that the public will be allowed to participate in the development of proposed rules. However, in order for the public to do so, or to allow more time to prepare comments during sometimes brief comment periods, the public must first know that the proposed rule is being developed. The Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (Unified Agenda), which has been published twice each year since 1983, arguably provides federal agencies with the most systematic, government-wide method to alert the public about their upcoming proposed rules. To determine how frequently agencies are using the Unified Agenda to perform this task, CRS examined all 231 significant proposed rules that were issued after having been reviewed by OIRA in 2008. About three-quarters of those rules were preceded by a “proposed rule” Unified Agenda entry (indicating that the agency was developing a proposed rule), and two-thirds of the rules had such entries even earlier, before the rules were submitted to OIRA for review. Viewed another way, however, there were no “proposed rule” Unified Agenda entries for about one-quarter of the proposed rules before they were published in the Federal Register, and there were no such entries before one-third of the rules were submitted to OIRA for review. Some agencies almost always used the Unified Agenda to notify the public about their upcoming proposed rules, while others did so less frequently. If Congress or the Obama Administration conclude that improvements are needed in the transparency of the rulemaking process, or in the ability of the public to participate in that process prior to the publication of proposed rules, various policy options are available. Some of the options do not involve the Unified Agenda (e.g., greater use of public meetings, blogs, or making agencies’ internal rulemaking tracking systems available to the public). Also, or alternatively, either Congress or the Obama Administration could take one or more of the following actions: (1) improve the visibility of the Unified Agenda to the public; (2) require agencies to publish “proposed rule” entries in the Unified Agenda before submitting their significant draft rules to OIRA, or to explain why such entries were not possible; (3) increase the frequency with which the Unified Agenda is published; and (4) require agencies to establish a rulemaking docket where comments could be placed when the public is notified of an upcoming proposed rule. This report will be updated to reflect changes in factual information or policy developments.

Jul 20, 2009

401(k) Plans and Retirement Savings: Issues for Congress

Over the past 25 years, defined contribution (DC) plans - including 401(k) plans - have become the most prevalent form of employer-sponsored retirement plan in the United States. This report describes seven major policy issues with respect to defined contribution plans: 1) access to employer-sponsored retirement plans; 2) participation in employer-sponsored plans; 3) contribution rates; 4) investment choices; 5) fee disclosure; 6) leakage from retirement savings; and 7) converting retirement savings into income.

Jul 14, 2009

Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS): Current Legislative Issues

The Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program was created by Title I of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-322). The mission of the COPS program is to advance community policing in all jurisdictions across the United States. Legislation introduced in the 111th Congress would reauthorize the COPS program through FY2014 and reestablish COPS as a multi-grant program. This report provides an overview and analysis of issues Congress might choose to consider when taking up legislation to reauthorize the COPS program.

Jul 14, 2009

Tax Havens: International Tax Avoidance and Evasion

The federal government loses both individual and corporate income tax revenue from the shifting of profits and income into low-tax countries, often referred to as tax havens. The revenue losses from this tax avoidance and evasion are difficult to estimate, but some have suggested that the annual cost of offshore tax abuses may be around $100 billion per year. Recent actions by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the G-20 industrialized nations have targeted tax haven countries, focusing primarily on evasion issues. There are also a number of legislative proposals that address these issues including the Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act (S. 506, H.R. 1265); draft proposals by the Senate Finance Committee; two other related bills, S. 386 and S. 569; and a proposal by President Obama. This report discusses this issue in detail.

Jul 9, 2009

Congressional Member Organizations: Their Purpose and Activities, History, and Formation

There are 645 informal (Congressional) Member organizations listed in the Congressional Yellow Book or registered with the Committee on House Administration. Of these 645 informal organizations, 256 are registered with the Committee on House Administration as a congressional Member organization (CMO). This report examines the purpose and activities of CMOs and the reasons Members form them. It also identifies and describes seven CMO types, and it provides an overview of the historical development of informal Member organizations since the first Congress. It concludes with a step-by-step guide for House Members and staff who might be interested in forming a CMO.

Jul 1, 2009

North Korea's Second Nuclear Test: Implications of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1874

The United Nations Security Council unanimously passed Res. 1874 on June 12, 2009, in response to North Korea's second nuclear test. The resolution puts in place a series of sanctions on North Korea's arms sales, luxury goods, and financial transactions related to its weapons programs, and calls upon states to inspect North Korean vessels suspected of carrying such shipments. This report summarizes and analyzes Res. 1874.

Jul 1, 2009

Calculation of Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions for the Renewable Fuel Standard

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) significantly expanded the renewable fuel standard (RFS) established in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. EISA requires an increasing amount of the 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel by 2022 mandate be met with "advanced biofuels." This report defines the classification "biofuels," discusses the ongoing debate regarding several aspects of biofuels endeavors, and discusses related legislative efforts on climate change policy and low-carbon fuel standards.

Jun 25, 2009

Energy Efficiency in Buildings: Critical Barriers and Congressional Policy

Federal policymakers are debating a range of potential initiatives to limit U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2). The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (H.R. 2454), for example, would set a target of reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, including CO2 emissions, 17% below 2005 levels by 2020. In the electricity industry, increasing the energy efficiency of buildings is viewed by many as the measure with the greatest potential to reduce CO2 emissions quickly and at relatively low cost. In light of the efficiency initiatives the federal government has taken since the 1970s, questions arise as to what additional policies might be considered to achieve more ambitious efficiency goals under a national policy of carbon control. In November 2007, a congressionally-mandated advisory committee released a report examining barriers to the deployment of greenhouse gas reducing technologies and practices, including energy efficiency. The report, Carbon Lock-In: Barriers To Deploying Climate Change Mitigation Technologies, identified the following six “critical” barriers to end-use efficiency in buildings: industry structure, incomplete/imperfect information, high (first) costs, technical risks, market risks, and unfavorable utility fiscal policies. Looking back on key federal efficiency statutes in the context of the Carbon Lock-in report, it seems that congressional policies since 1975 have been focused persistently on the critical barriers of industry structure, imperfect information, and high first costs. Congress has a history of addressing technical risk, too, by encouraging technology demonstration, although this issue appears to have been a lower priority over the last few years. In successive statutes, Congress has attempted to “push the envelope” in these four areas through ever tighter efficiency standards, new financial incentives, and other measures. Congress has a more limited history of addressing unfavorable rate policies among utilities. Until 2009, this history could be characterized as a single significant, but largely ineffective, attempt to advance efficiency-oriented utility rates under the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-486). However, new rate provisions in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (P.L. 111-5) are another significant attempt to lower utility rate policy barriers, although it will be years before Congress can gauge their effects. Market risks, especially energy price risks, seem to have received relatively little policy attention from Congress to date. It stands to reason that uncertainty about the future price of energy would complicate decisions about building efficiency investments, and could deter conservative building owners from considering all but the most highly cost effective improvements. As it happens, recent U.S. energy price volatility is at historic highs. Market evidence suggests that energy price uncertainties may be having a greater negative impact on the nature and timing of building efficiency investments in the private sector than is commonly understood. In the context of building energy efficiency, there may be many policy options available to reduce energy price uncertainty, but there has been relatively little identification or consideration of them in the policy community. Neither the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (H.R. 2454), now under consideration, nor any other current legislative proposals contain these kinds of provisions. Using the “critical” barriers from the congressionally mandated Lock-in report as a guide, it appears that significant policy gaps remain with respect to utility rate policies and market risks. To the extent that these barriers continue to impede private investment in building efficiency, they may reduce the likelihood of achieving federal targets for carbon control associated with efficiency. Therefore, policymakers may benefit from a complete and integrated understanding of the full set of barriers to building efficiency and the range of carbon outcomes they imply.

Jun 24, 2009

Legal Issues Relating to the Disposal of Dispensed Controlled Substances

Jun 23, 2009

Congressional Budget Resolutions: Consideration and Amending in the Senate

Title III of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (Titles I-IX of P.L. 93-344, 2 U.S.C. 601-688) (“the Budget Act”), as amended, provides for the adoption of an annual concurrent resolution on the budget (“budget resolution”) by Congress. The Budget Act includes provisions governing the consideration and amending process of the budget resolution, such as establishing points of order, setting time limits on certain motions, amendments, and the budget resolution itself, and restricting the content of amendments. This report highlights some of the Budget Act’s budget resolution provisions, and how they play out on the Senate floor during consideration and amending. One notable subject that this report addresses is the “vote-arama,” or the period when the Senate disposes of amendments after the time for debate on the resolution has expired. In addition to Budget Act provisions, this report also includes examples of when the Senate has utilized unanimous consent agreements to further structure floor procedure.

Jun 23, 2009

Parliamentary Rights of the Delegates and Resident Commissioner From Puerto Rico

Jun 18, 2009

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA): OMB and Agency Responsibilities and Burden Estimates

Federal agencies often collect information from the public to accomplish their missions, but those information collection requirements can also impose a substantial paperwork burden on the public. The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. §§ 3501-3520) established the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to provide central agency leadership and oversight of government-wide efforts to reduce unnecessary paperwork burden and improve the management of information resources. The PRA’s scope is very broad, both in terms of the federal agencies that must comply with its requirements, and the types of information collection requirements and activities that are covered. The PRA requires agencies to justify any collection of information from the public by establishing the need and intended use of the information, estimating the burden that the collection will impose on respondents, and showing that the collection is the least burdensome way to gather the information. Agencies must receive OIRA approval for each information collection request (signified by an OMB control number displayed on collection) before it is implemented. Failure to obtain OIRA approval for an active collection, or the lapse of that approval, represents a violation of the PRA, and the public is not required to provide the requested information. As a result of OIRA initiatives in recent years, the number of reported violations of the act declined from more than 800 in FY1998 to 15 in FY2007. Paperwork burden is most commonly estimated in terms of “burden hours,” which is a function of (1) the frequency of an information collection, (2) the estimated number of respondents, and (3) the amount of time that the agency estimates it takes each respondent to complete the collection. As of May 2009, the government-wide estimate was about 9.9 billion burden hours, an increase of nearly 2 billion burden hours (25%) between 2004 and 2009. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) represents nearly 80% of the government-wide estimate (about 7.7 billion burden hours), and more than 85% of the IRS estimate is driven by 10 large information collections. If the total labor cost to complete federal paperwork is $40 per hour (including benefits and overhead), then the 9.9 billion burden hours cost providers nearly $400 billion. About $60 billion in other financial costs raises the total annual cost of federal paperwork to about $460 billion. However, the benefits associated with these collections may far exceed these costs. Some inspectors general (IGs) and the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (SIGTARP) have expressed concerns that the PRA’s commenting and review requirements affect their ability to conduct timely audits and investigations, and have proposed that they (like the Government Accountability Office) be exempted from the act’s requirements. The PRA of 1995 authorized appropriations for OIRA to carry out the PRA’s requirements through September 30, 2001. Since then, OIRA has been funded through OMB’s general appropriation. Historically, the reauthorization of appropriations for OIRA has provided an opportunity for Congress to amend the PRA and, in so doing, to try and improve the act’s implementation. In the 111th Congress, the only proposed legislation to amend the PRA is H.R. 535, which would, if enacted, “provide for the suspension of fines under certain circumstances for first-time paperwork violations by small business concerns.” Similar legislation was introduced but not enacted in the 110th Congress (H.R. 456 and S. 281). This report will be updated as other information becomes available.

Jun 15, 2009

U.S. Offshore Oil and Gas Resources: Prospects and Processes

Jun 12, 2009

Legislative Branch: FY2010 Appropriations

Jun 11, 2009

Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty: Updated “Safeguards” and Net Assessments

Limitations on nuclear testing have been on the international agenda since 1954. The United States ratified one such treaty in 1963 and two in 1990 that together bar all but underground nuclear tests with an explosive yield of 150 kilotons or less. The United States has observed a unilateral moratorium on nuclear tests since 1992. In 1996, this nation signed the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), which would ban all nuclear explosions. The Senate rejected the CTBT in 1999. That debate focused on such pros and cons as whether the United States could maintain its nuclear weapons without testing, whether it could verify compliance with the treaty, and how the treaty would affect nuclear nonproliferation. Another aspect to past debates was “Safeguards,” measures that this nation can take unilaterally within the treaty to protect its nuclear security. To compensate for “disadvantages and risk” they saw in the treaty regime, the Joint Chiefs of Staff conditioned their support for the 1963 treaty on four Safeguards: an aggressive nuclear test program, maintaining nuclear weapon laboratories, maintaining the ability to resume atmospheric tests promptly, and improving intelligence and nuclear explosion monitoring capabilities. Safeguards were key to securing Senate ratification of the 1963 treaty. Updated Safeguards have been part of subsequent treaty ratification efforts. In April 2009, President Obama pledged to pursue U.S. CTBT ratification “immediately and aggressively.” A debate on the treaty would involve its pros and cons and how they have changed since 1999. CRS Report RL34394, Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty: Issues and Arguments, examines such issues, but no prior CRS report examined the role of Safeguards in a future debate. Like pros and cons, Safeguards could affect Senators’ net assessment of the treaty; unlike pros and cons, they are amenable to legislative bargaining and compromise. As such, they may play a key role in a CTBT debate. To that end, Safeguards could be updated, such as by adding Safeguards for the nuclear weapon production plants and strategic forces, and could be augmented with implementation measures. While Safeguards may be part of a future CTBT debate, both supporters and opponents of the treaty could criticize them. Supporters may see augmented Safeguards as unneeded, arguing that the technical case for the treaty is stronger than in 1999. Many supporters favor further reductions and, ultimately, elimination of nuclear weapons, and view the CTBT as a stepping-stone in that direction; they could see revised Safeguards as moving in the opposite direction by supporting U.S. nuclear capabilities. Opponents assert that this nation cannot have confidence in its nuclear weapons or the program to maintain them without testing, and that nations could conceal nuclear tests. They hold that the United States has not adequately implemented existing Safeguards, and doubt it would do better with CTBT Safeguards. In their view, both the CTBT and inadequately-supported Safeguards would jeopardize U.S. security. This report may be updated occasionally.

Jun 3, 2009

Medicare Part D Prescription Drug Benefit

Jun 1, 2009

Access to Broadband Networks: The Net Neutrality Debate

This report discusses the current debate over "net neutrality." While there is no single accepted definition of "net neutrality," most agree that any such definition should include the general principles that owners of the networks that compose and provide access to the Internet should not control how consumers lawfully use that network, and they should not be able to discriminate against content provider access to that network.

Jun 1, 2009

Hiring and Pay Authorities for Federal Scientific and Technical (S&T) Personnel

In recent decades, the federal government has made many efforts to recruit and retain scientists, engineers, and technical workers, who otherwise may find a more attractive environment in the private and nonfederal sectors. As a group, these science and technology (S&T) personnel may be called the federal S&T workforce. A large subset of the S&T workforce is composed of scientific and engineering (S&E) personnel. By one count, the federal government employs over 200,000 scientists and engineers. Several factors have contributed to concerns about the federal S&T workforce. These include demand for S&T workers, concerns as to whether federal salaries are competitive with the private sector, the need for U.S. citizenship for federal employment, and the aging of the federal S&T workforce as those hired during previous federal S&T hiring “booms” retire. Many federal S&T personnel are hired or paid under agency-specific statutory authorities, rather than government-wide civil service laws in Title 5 of the United States Code. Others may be hired or paid under a variety of executive-branch-wide statutory authorities which allow for, among other things, demonstration projects, direct hiring, and special pay rates. Congress frequently has been willing to grant flexibility for expedited hiring or higher-than-usual rates of pay, in order to better equip agencies to accomplish congressionally determined public policy objectives. However, Congress frequently also has been wary of providing too much flexibility, or unaccountable flexibility, because of the potential for flexibility to be abused. Therefore, federal personnel-related laws continually raise the issue of how to balance flexibility, on one hand, with preventing abuse of the flexibility, on the other. Human resource management issues relating to S&T personnel have been of ongoing concern to Congress, both government-wide and for particular agencies. Because hiring and pay practices are changing constantly, not only by law, but also by agency regulation and administrative action, it is not possible to provide a comprehensive overview or assessment of all policies here. Nevertheless, if Congress wishes to evaluate the ability of the federal government and its agencies to recruit and retain S&T personnel, the variety of statutory authorities provide illustrations of topics that might be examined. In addition, the federal government’s experience with these statutory authorities might inform Congress’s deliberations. For example, Congress may wish to consider modifying the ability of the federal government to recruit highly-qualified scientific, engineering, and technical personnel. In evaluating current efforts or considering future modifications, Congress may wish to consider options that include agency-specific or executive-branch-wide approaches; leveraging the involvement of the Office of Personnel Management, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the federal Chief Human Capital Officers Council, or other entities; requiring agencies to engage in strategic planning, evaluation, or other activities; and exploring a variety of S&T personnel issues in specific agency and policy contexts. This report will be updated when events warrant.

May 29, 2009

Landsat and the Data Continuity Mission

This report discusses the U.S. Landsat Mission, which has collected remotely sensed imagery of the Earth's surface for more than 35 years. The two satellites currently in orbit are operating beyond their designed life and may fail at any time. Most Landsat data is used by federal agencies. Efforts to commercialize Landsat operations have not been successful. This report discusses issues facing Congress regarding funding for new Landsat satellites.

May 22, 2009

Concurrent Receipt: Background and Issues for Congress

This report addresses the two primary components of the concurrent receipt program: Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC) and Concurrent Retirement and Disability Payments (CRDP). It reviews the possible legislative expansion of the program to additional populations and provide several potential options for Congress to consider.

May 21, 2009

Direct-to-Consumer Advertising of Prescription Drugs

A phenomenon that has become more and more important over the last decade, direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising has grown from about $800 million in 1996 to over $4.7 billion in 2007. Its supporters point to more informed consumers who then visit their doctors and become more involved in their own treatment, leading to better and earlier diagnosis of undertreated illnesses. The critics believe that industry’s presentation of the balance of drug benefit and risk information may encourage the inappropriate use of advertised products and lead to higher than necessary spending. In addition to concerns with accuracy and balance, health professionals point out that DTC ads rarely mention alternative treatments, such as other or generic medications or non-drug interventions. In 1962, Congress gave the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) certain authorities to regulate prescription drug advertising. Except in extreme circumstances, the law does not allow FDA to require pre-release review of ads. Regulations—written at a time when most ads were printed in medical journals for a physician audience—require that all drug ads disclose all of a drug’s known risks. However, as drug makers considered moving into broadcast advertising and wanted to get their messages to consumers, they noted, without explicit guidance from FDA, the difficulty in including all risks in the format of a 30-second commercial. FDA issued guidance in 1999 stipulating that broadcast ads had to include the advertised product’s most important risks in the audio portion of the advertisement and should give sources where more complete risk information about a drug would be available. FDA reviews ads once they are launched, and its enforcement options are notice-of-violation and warning letters, criminal prosecution (through the Department of Justice), civil monetary penalties, product seizures, and withdrawal of approval for sale. Despite these activities, Members of Congress and the public ask what FDA could do differently in light of the safety problems involving some heavily advertised medications. Congress could consider a variety of options to allay concerns about DTC drug advertising. It could encourage FDA to expand activities allowed under current legislative authority, including provisions in P.L. 110-85 (the FDA Amendments Act of 2007): FDA could increase post-publication review of ads, expand its role in consumer education, and increase its enforcement activities. Other possible options would require Congress to grant new authority so that FDA could require pre-release review and approval; require changes to ads; use stronger enforcement tools; require data collection; require public posting of risk information; prohibit DTC ads when a drug is first approved; and set limits on the timing and placement of ads. Congress could go beyond FDA to encourage other industry-independent entities to provide public education or set standards; it could also use tax and other financial incentives to make DTC advertising less profitable to industry. This report will be updated periodically.

May 20, 2009

Immigration Policies and Issues on Health-Related Grounds for Exclusion

This report discusses the criteria that foreign nationals must meet before admission to the United States, including the reasons why a foreign national might be denied admission, most particularly on health-related grounds. This report discusses such issues in relation to the recent outbreak of the 2009 H1N1 ("swine flu") virus, and how the outbreak has affected various government agencies, such as the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agency within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). This report also discusses efforts to confront and address such issues on a legislative front.

May 18, 2009

Thirty-Five Years of Water Policy: The 1973 National Water Commission and Present Challenges

Concern about the availability and use of water to support the nation’s people, economy, and environment has bolstered interest in establishing a national water commission. The commission structure proposed in recent legislation (e.g., H.R. 135) is similar to that of the 1968-1973 National Water Commission (NWC or Commission). As proposed in H.R. 135, the commission would assess future water demands, study current management programs, and develop recommendations for a comprehensive water strategy. Questions about a commission as an effective model and which topics a commission might consider have raised interest in assessing what the NWC recommended in its 1973 report, Water Policies for the Future, and how the issues that it identified have evolved. The NWC recommended addressing the interconnection between water development and the natural environment, implementing a “users pay” or “beneficiary pays” approach, accomplishing water quality improvements, and adapting governance and organizations to meet water challenges. Since 1973, progress has been made in some of these areas; however, few actions can be traced directly to the NWC’s recommendations. Nonetheless, the influence of the NWC on the evolution of water policy cannot be dismissed. Many of the problems that the Commission identified remain today, and some actions since 1973 have moved water policy toward alignment with NWC recommendations; others have moved it in the opposite direction of NWC recommendations. Shifts in institutional arrangements in general have reduced coordination of federal water agency activities and in many ways have moved away from NWC-recommended multi-objective or river basin planning. State-federal tensions over proper and respective roles continue to cloud resolution of difficult water resource issues and complicate coordination efforts. While many support better coordination of federal water activities and a clearer national “vision” for water management, Congress has not enacted overarching water policy legislation since the 1965 Water Resources Planning Act. Instead, water policy has largely evolved through executive and judicial actions, in many cases in response to piecemeal legislation. Congress continually modifies federal water projects through amendments to existing projects and programs through Water Resources Development Acts (WRDAs), Reclamation acts, water quality legislation, and appropriations decisions. Incremental and ad hoc evolution of water policy, however, is not surprising. Water management is complicated by past decisions and investments affecting a wide range of stakeholders pursuing different goals. Specifically, federal and state laws and regulations, local ordinances, tribal treaties, contractual obligations, and economies dependent on existing water use patterns and infrastructure all affect water management. Attempts to untangle such complexities involve many constituencies with differing interests, and success is difficult to achieve. Expectations for a commission to achieve change in a complex system resistant to transformation may be unreasonable; instead, the influence of a commission may lie in how its recommendations combine with other drivers to support policy evolution. This CRS report presents the NWC’s recommendations and analyzes how issues targeted by the recommendations have evolved during the intervening years. The report focuses on key federal-level recommendations, thereby targeting what has been accomplished since 1973, what issues remain unresolved, and what additional concerns have developed.

May 11, 2009

Alert Systems for Missing Adults in Eleven States: Background and Issues for Congress

A patchwork of alert systems to recover vulnerable missing adults is developing through the country. These systems, administered at the state and local levels, are intended to alert law enforcement entities and the public that adults with cognitive impairment or other disabilities are missing and may need assistance. The alerts are activated on behalf of targeted groups of individuals—such as those with cognitive or mental impairment (e.g., Alzheimer’s disease and other forms of dementia), developmental disabilities, or suicidal tendencies—who may be at high risk of going missing and unable to make their way home or to a safe place. Recent media attention to cases of vulnerable missing adults has prompted policymakers to consider whether the federal government should expand its role in helping these individuals. Currently, the federal Missing Alzheimer’s Disease Patient Alert program funds a service that provides enrollees—individuals with Alzheimer’s or dementia—with a bracelet indicating that the individual is memory impaired, including a toll-free, 24-hour emergency response number to call if the person is found wandering or lost. Some Members of Congress have expressed interest in assisting states to create and expand alert systems for missing adults. In the opening weeks of the 111th Congress, the House passed legislation (H.R. 632) to establish a grant program to encourage states to develop, expand, and coordinate these alert systems. A companion bill (S. 557) was introduced in the Senate shortly thereafter. The proposed program is similar to a federal grant program that funds training and technical assistance for what are known as AMBER (America’s Missing: Broadcast Emergency Response) Alert systems. Each state has developed an AMBER Alert system to assist in the recovery of children who are believed to have been abducted. In response to the increased congressional focus on alert systems for missing adults, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) gathered data on 11 states (Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Texas, and Virginia) that were known to have developed such systems. CRS conducted a review of state laws, regulations, or executive orders that established the systems, and contacted officials in each of the states to learn more about how the systems were administered. CRS found that most of the systems were established only recently, since 2006. This report provides an overview of the alert systems in these 11 states, including (1) the legal authority to establish the systems; (2) the target population for the alerts; (3) administrative responsibility for the alerts, including coordination with AMBER Alerts; (4) training of law enforcement agencies and other entities about the alerts; (5) the process for activating alerts; (6) coordination of alerts with other states; (7) system costs; (8) use of the systems; and (9) any information about outcomes of the individuals for whom alerts were activated. The last section of the report provides a discussion of issues for Congress to consider with respect to the federal role, if any, in developing state alert programs for missing adults. For example, some states with alert systems noted that they might have difficulty coordinating with another state that lacks a similar system. States may also have challenges coordinating with states that have alert systems with different criteria that must be met before an alert is activated. The federal government may be able to help establish protocols to coordinate cross-state alerts and to assist in establishing formal agreements or protocols for the use of interstate alerts. This report will not be updated.

May 7, 2009

How Would Medicare Part B Premiums Be Affected If There Is No Social Security COLA?

This report outlines how Medicare Part B premiums and Social Security cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) are calculated, and how the COLA affects Part B premiums. The report also examines a scenario in which Medicare Part B premiums rise but Social Security benefits do not.

May 4, 2009

The 2009 H1N1 "Swine Flu" Outbreak: An Overview

This report provides an introduction to the situation regarding the potential of a global human influenza pandemic caused by the new H1N1 flu strain. It includes a brief chronology of events; a discussion of key actions taken and authorities invoked by the WHO and the U.S. government; and information about key U.S. government pandemic flu planning documents.

Apr 30, 2009

Environmental Exposure to Endocrine Disruptors: What Are the Human Health Risks?

In 2008, Congress banned the use in children’s toys and child care articles of several chemicals known to disrupt normal development and reproduction of mice and rats. The legislation was a response to accumulating scientific evidence supporting the hypothesis that exposure to certain chemicals in consumer products and the environment might be adversely affecting human reproduction, growth, development, or metabolism by interfering with endocrine systems. This report summarizes the science underlying the environmental endocrine-disruptor hypothesis, and describes congressional actions and related programs and policy issues at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This report focuses on the potential human health effects of environmental exposure to endocrine disruptors. The potential effects on fish and wildlife also are of concern. Scientists have discovered many egg-bearing male (intersex) bass in the Potomac River, as well as intersex fish of other species in other U.S. waters. Chemicals of interest include certain pesticides (e.g., DDT), synthetic hormones administered to cattle and poultry, both prescription and over-the-counter drugs and ingredients of some personal-care products (e.g.,triclocarban in antibacterial soaps), naturally occurring plant hormones (e.g., in soy beans), industrial compounds (e.g., polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)), some dioxins, lead, mercury, cadmium, uranium, arsenic, and organic compounds of tin. Potential sources of such chemicals include runoff from animal feedlots and agricultural fields, wastewater discharges, industrial releases, and consumer products. In the 111th Congress, H.R. 1145 would require each water resources research and technology institute to conduct technical research on prevention and removal of contaminants of emerging concern, including endocrine-disrupting compounds. Support might be found for the hypothesis that chemicals in the environment are disrupting human endocrine systems in the apparent increases in rates of certain cancers, reported declines in sperm counts, and reported scientific evidence of increasing rates of some birth defects, thyroid disorders, attention deficit disorder, premature births, and premature puberty. There appears to be a worldwide increase in cases of testicular cancer, for which there is no clear cause. Any of these effects could be linked to hormone disruption because they are hormone dependent and have been chemically induced in experimental animals. However, scientifically demonstrating a cause-effect relationship between environmental exposure to a particular chemical and human health effects is difficult. Many scientists hypothesize that environmental levels of potential endocrine disruptors are too low to influence human endocrine systems. Others argue that significant adverse effects might result from long-term exposure to low levels of multiple endocrine disruptors. Congress began investigating the presence and possible effects of endocrine disruptors in the environment at a hearing in 1993. In 1996, Congress directed EPA to establish and implement an endocrine-disruptor screening program for pesticides and drinking water contaminants. As of April 2009, chemical screening under that program has not begun, and funding for the program has declined, and legislators have expressed concern about the pace of program development. However, EPA this month promulgated final rules establishing the list of 67 pesticide ingredients and procedures that will be followed when the first set of testing orders is issued to manufacturers. EPA has stated that orders will be issued during the summer of 2009. Once the program is implemented, Congress might consider whether statutes and regulations provide adequate authority and direction with respect to the influence of any findings of endocrine disruption on the regulation of specific chemicals, chemical groups, uses, or products.

Apr 29, 2009

Advance Appropriations for Veterans’ Health Care: Issues and Options for Congress

The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) operates the Nation’s largest health care delivery system, with about 222,000 employees supporting its mission. It is also the largest provider of health care education and training for medical residents and other health care trainees in the United States. In FY2008, VHA provided medical care to approximately 5.6 million unique patients and spent approximately $43.5 billion for medical care and research. A coalition of veterans’ service organizations (VSOs) has been calling on Congress to provide VHA with a budget which is “sufficient, timely, and predictable.” These organizations have asserted that VHA has underestimated its budget in the past. Moreover, VSOs contend that Congress has not enacted the VA budget by the beginning of the fiscal year. According to these organizations the delays in the enactment of the budget have exacerbated operational challenges—such as, differing capital expenditures, delaying recruitment, restricting acquisitions, limiting maintenance—faced by VHA network directors. To mitigate these issues VSO’s have proposed that Congress change the funding process for VHA to an advance appropriation. In general, an appropriations act makes budget authority available beginning on October 1 of the fiscal year (FY) for which the appropriations act is passed (“budget year”). However, there are some types of appropriations that don’t follow this pattern; among them are advance appropriations. An advance appropriation means appropriation of new budget authority that becomes available one or more fiscal years beyond the fiscal year for which the appropriations act was passed (that is, beyond the budget year). Under the current scoring guidelines (estimating the budgetary effects of pending legislation and comparing them to the budget resolution or to any limits that may be set in law), new budget authority for an advance appropriation is scored in the fiscal year in which the funds become available for obligation. In the 111th Congress, the Veterans Health Care Budget Reform and Transparency Act of 2009 (H.R. 1016 and a companion version S. 423) has been introduced. Under H.R. 1016 and S. 423, the following accounts that fund VHA—medical services, medical support and compliance, and medical facilities—would be funded as an advance appropriation beginning with FY2011. The funding would be under a discretionary budget authority, and the legislation calls for a study by the Comptroller General (of the Government Accountability Office) on the adequacy and accuracy of the budget projections based on VHA’s Enrollee Health Care Projection Model (EHCPM). There are two broad sets of issues related to advance funding for some accounts of VHA: budget enforcement issues and implementation issues. Among budget enforcement issues a key issue is that an advance appropriation mechanism may not be able to insulate a program from budget enforcement and competition with other programs. Among implementation issues a key issue is that funding VHA under an advance appropriation, based on the EHCPM, could create budget shortfalls if there are unanticipated developments affecting the EHCPM. This report will be updated as events warrant.

Apr 28, 2009

The 2010 Decennial Census: Background and Issues

This report discusses the major innovations that were planned for the 2010 Census, problems encountered in the attempt to automate certain decennial field operations, issues of census accuracy and coverage, and efforts to ensure an equitable count.

Apr 27, 2009

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5): Summary and Legislative History

President Barack Obama signed H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009, into law on February 17, 2009, as P.L. 111-5 (123 Stat. 115-521). The act is seen as one of the most significant legislative responses made thus far to the current economic turmoil. This report provides a summary and legislative history of ARRA and identifies other resources that provide additional information regarding its content and implementation. ARRA is a relatively lengthy and complex act, amounting to just over 400 pages (in slip law form) and melding together hundreds of billions of dollars in discretionary spending, mandatory spending, and revenue provisions encompassing the jurisdiction of several House and Senate committees. The act consists of two major divisions. Division A (Appropriations Provisions) includes supplemental appropriations for FY2009 (and later fiscal years) covering by separate titles all 12 of the regular appropriations acts, as well as four additional titles dealing with health information technology, a state fiscal stabilization fund, accountability and transparency, and general provisions. Division B (Tax, Unemployment, Health, State Fiscal Relief, and Other Provisions) consists of seven separate titles. Division A includes the discretionary spending provisions, but some significant substantive provisions as well; Division B includes the mandatory spending and revenue provisions, with some exceptions. ARRA provides almost $800 billion through extensive discretionary spending, mandatory spending, and revenue provisions that the Administration estimates will save or create some 3.5 million jobs. Funding is provided for existing and some new programs in the 15 Cabinet-level departments and 11 independent agencies. Some of the funds are distributed to states, localities, other entities, and individuals through a combination of formula and competitive grants and direct assistance. In addition to new spending and tax provisions, new policies are created regarding unemployment compensation, health insurance, health information technology, broadband communications, and energy, among others. Numerous oversight, accountability, and transparency provisions are contained in the act. They include various reporting requirements and funding for offices of inspector general, the Government Accountability Office, and a newly established Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board. With regard to its specific impact on the budget, the act is estimated by the Congressional Budget Office to increase the deficit by $787.2 billion over the 11-year period covering FY2009-FY2019. The estimated deficit impact reflects spending increases of $575.3 billion (in outlays) and revenue reductions of $211.8 billion. The total spending increases consist of $311.2 billion in discretionary new budget authority (yielding $308.3 billion in outlays) and $269.5 billion in mandatory new budget authority (yielding $267.0 billion in outlays). About 21% of total outlays ($120.1 billion) under ARRA are estimated to occur by the end of FY2009. By the end of FY2010, 59% of total outlays ($339.4 billion) are expected to occur, and by the end of FY2011, 81% of total outlays ($465.6 billion) are expected to occur. Revenue reductions occur more quickly, with reductions of $64.8 billion in FY2009 and $180.1 billion in FY2010, offset somewhat in later years by modest revenue increases. This report will not be updated.

Apr 20, 2009

Cars and Climate: What Can EPA Do to Control Greenhouse Gases from Mobile Sources?

This report discusses legislation being considered by congress to reduce the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that contribute to climate change. It discusses the EPA's authority under Title II and provides information regarding the mobile sources that might be regulated under this authority. Among these sources, motor vehicles (passenger cars and light trucks, including SUVs) are assumed to be the most likely initial targets for regulation, both because a petition addressing these sources began EPA's consideration of the endangerment issue, and because these are the most significant GHG emission sources among those covered by Title II.

Apr 20, 2009

Insolvency of Systemically Significant Financial Companies: Bankruptcy vs. Conservatorship/Receivership

This report first discusses the purposes behind the creation of a separate insolvency regime for depository institutions. The report then compares and contrasts the characteristics of depository institutions with systemically significant financial companies (SSFCs). Next, the report provides a brief analysis of some important differences between the FDIC's conservatorship/receivership authority and that of the Bankruptcy Code.

Apr 20, 2009

FY2009 Spring Supplemental Appropriations for Overseas Contingency Operations

This report discusses the White House's request for supplemental appropriations that include funding for defense, foreign affairs, and domestic fire fighting.

Apr 17, 2009

Tax Credit Bonds: Overview and Analysis

Tax Credit Bonds (TCBs) are a type of bond that offers the holder a federal tax credit instead of interest. This report explains the tax credit mechanism and describes the market for the bonds. It also discusses related pieces of legislation and what the most common uses of the proceeds from TCBs are.

Apr 16, 2009

Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School

Apr 16, 2009