Question:
The FY2019 Department of Defense Appropriations Act, enacted as Division A of P.L. 115-245 , provides $667.3 billion in new budget authority to fund all activities of the Department of Defense (DOD) except for the construction of military facilities and the operation of military family housing complexes.
While the total amount appropriated for DOD for FY2019 was nearly equal to the Administration's request, the act provides more funding than requested for dozens of weapons acquisition programs, with the gross increase exceeding $10 billion. Those additions are offset by hundreds of reductions made elsewhere within the budget request.
In effect, these reductions allowed Congress to add billions of dollars to the Administration's DOD budget request without exceeding the cap on defense spending that arose from the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 ( P.L. 115-123 ). That cap applies to discretionary appropriations for DOD's base budget —that is, appropriations designated by Congress and the President as funding for emergencies or for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO). OCO activities include current operations in Afghanistan and Syria, and any other operations which are so designated by Congress and the President.
A House-Senate conference committee reported a version of the bill on September 13, 2018. The Senate approved the conference report on September 18 by a vote of 93-7 and the House did likewise on September 26 by a vote of 361-61. President Donald J. Trump signed the bill into law ( P.L. 115-245 ) on September 28, 2018.
As enacted, H.R. 6157 funds the Administration's major defense initiatives, including an increase of 16,500 active-duty military personnel. Among the weapons procurement programs for which the bill provides substantial additions add to the amounts requested are the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter used by the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps (77 aircraft requested and 93 funded) and the Navy's Littoral Combat Ship (one requested and three funded).


Question:
The Department of Defense (DOD) obligates more than $300 billion annually to buy goods and services, and to support research and development. Most of these acquisitions are governed by procurement statutes and regulations found in Title 10 (and parts of other select titles) of the United States Code, the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), and the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement.
Under certain circumstances, DOD can enter into an other transaction (OT) agreement instead of a traditional contract. OT agreements are generally exempt from federal procurement laws and regulations. These exemptions grant government officials the flexibility to include, amend, or exclude contract clauses and requirements that are mandatory in traditional procurements (e.g., termination clauses, cost accounting standards, payments, audit requirements, intellectual property, and contract disputes). OT authorities also grant more flexibility to structure agreements in numerous ways, including joint ventures; partnerships; consortia; or multiple agencies joining together to fund an agreement encompassing multiple providers.
Other transaction agreements are legally binding contracts; they are referred to as agreements to distinguish them from the traditional procurement contracts governed by the FAR and procurements laws. Other transaction authorities are set forth in two sections of law:
10 U.S.C. 2371—granting authority to use OTs for basic, applied, and advanced research projects. 10 U.S.C. 2371b—granting authority to use OTs for prototype projects and follow-on production. Under this authority, a prototype project can only be conducted if at least one nontraditional defense contractor significantly participates in the project; all significant participants are small businesses or nontraditional defense contractors; at least one-third of the total cost of the prototype project is provided by nongovernment participants; or the senior procurement acquisition official provides a written justification for using an OT. Follow-on production can only be conducted when the underlying prototype OT was competitively awarded, and the prototype project was successfully completed.
OTs have the potential to provide significant benefits to DOD, including
attracting nontraditional contractors with promising technological capabilities to work with DOD, establishing a mechanism to pool resources with other entities to facilitate development of, and obtain, state-of-the-art dual-use technologies, and offering a unique mechanism for DOD to invest in, and influence the direction of, technology development.
A number of analysts warn that along with the potential benefits come significant risks, including potentially diminished oversight and exemption from laws and regulations designed to protect government and taxpayer interests.
In FY2017, DOD obligated $2.1 billion on prototype OT agreements, representing less than 1% of contract obligations for the year. However, the use of OTs is expected to grow at a rapid pace, due in part to recent statutory changes expanding other transaction authorities.
A number of analysts and officials have raised concerns that if DOD uses OTs in ways not intended by Congress—or is perceived to abuse the authority—Congress could clamp down on the authority. Generally, DOD lacks authoritative data that can be used to measure and evaluate the use of other transaction authorities.


Question:
Given the large potential impact broadband access may have on the economic development of rural America, concern has been raised over a "digital divide" between rural and urban or suburban areas with respect to broadband deployment. While there are many examples of rural communities with state-of-the-art telecommunications facilities, recent surveys and studies have indicated that, in general, rural areas tend to lag behind urban and suburban areas in broadband deployment.
According to the Federal Communications Commission's Communications Marketplace Report, as of 2017, 24% of Americans in rural areas lacked coverage from fixed terrestrial 25 Mbps/3 Mbps broadband, as compared to only 1.5% of Americans in urban areas. The comparatively lower population density of rural areas is likely a major reason why broadband is less deployed than in more highly populated suburban and urban areas. Particularly for wireline broadband technologies—such as cable modem and fiber—the greater the geographical distances among customers, the larger the cost to serve those customers.
The Rural Utilities Service (RUS) at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) houses three ongoing assistance programs exclusively created and dedicated to financing broadband deployment: the Rural Broadband Access Loan and Loan Guarantee Program, the Community Connect Grant Program, and the ReConnect Program. Additionally, the Telecommunications Infrastructure Loan and Loan Guarantee Program (previously the Telephone Loan Program) funds broadband deployment in rural areas. Distance Learning and Telemedicine (DLT) grants—while not principally supporting connectivity—fund equipment and software that operate via telecommunications to rural end-users of telemedicine and distance learning applications.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 (P.L. 116-6) provided $5.83 million to subsidize a rural broadband loan level of $29.851 million, $30 million to Community Connect broadband grants, $47 million for DLT grants, and $1.725 million in loan subsidies for a total loan level of $690 million for the Telecommunications Infrastructure Loan and Loan Guarantee Program. P.L. 116-6 also provided $550 million for the ReConnect Program, which is in addition to the $600 million provided in the 2018 Consolidated Appropriations Act.
The Administration's FY2020 budget proposal requested zero funding for Rural Broadband Access Loans, $200 million for the ReConnect Program, $1.933 million in budget authority to subsidize a loan level of $690 million for Telecommunications Infrastructure Loans and Loan Guarantees, $30 million for Community Connect Grants, and $43.6 million for Distance Learning and Telemedicine Grants.
On December 20, 2018, the President signed the 2018 farm bill (P.L. 115-334, Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018). Regarding the RUS broadband programs, the act includes provisions authorizing a grant component in combination with the broadband loan program; increasing the annual authorization level from $25 million to $350 million; raising the proposed service area eligibility threshold of unserved households from 15% to 50% for broadband loans; authorizing grants, loans, and loan guarantees for middle mile infrastructure; directing improved federal agency broadband program coordination; and providing eligible applicants with technical assistance and training to prepare applications. In the 116th Congress, appropriations will determine the extent to which these programs will be funded.


Question:
The leaders of the legislative branch agencies and entities—the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the Library of Congress (LOC), the Congressional Research Service (CRS), the Government Publishing Office (GPO, formerly Government Printing Office), the Office of the Architect of the Capitol (AOC), the U.S. Capitol Police (USCP), the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), and the Office of Compliance—are appointed in a variety of manners.
Four agencies are led by a person appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate; two are appointed by Congress; one is appointed by the Librarian of Congress; and one is appointed by a board of directors.
Congress has periodically examined the procedures used to appoint these officers with the aim of protecting the prerogatives of, and ensuring accountability to, Congress within the framework of the advice and consent appointment process established in Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution.
This report contains information on the legislative branch agency heads' appointment processes, length of tenures (if terms are set), reappointment or removal provisions (if any), salaries and benefits, and most recent appointments.
This report also briefly addresses legislation considered, but not enacted, in the 115th Congress to change the appointment process for the Register of Copyrights.


Question:
On January 6, 2011, after spending approximately $3 billion in developmental funding, the Marine Corps cancelled the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) program due to poor reliability demonstrated during operational testing and excessive cost growth. Because the EFV was intended to replace the 40-year-old Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAV), the Pentagon pledged to move quickly to develop a "more affordable and sustainable" vehicle to replace the EFV. The Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV) is intended to replace the AAV, incorporating some EFV capabilities but in a more practical and cost-efficient manner. In concert with the ACV, the Marines were developing the Marine Personnel Carrier (MPC) to serve as a survivable and mobile platform to transport Marines when ashore. The MPC was not intended to be amphibious like an AAV, EFV, or the ACV but instead would be required to have a swim capability for inland waterways such as rivers, lakes, and other water obstacles such as shore-to-shore operations in the littorals. Both vehicles were intended to play central roles in future Marine amphibious operations. On June 14, 2013, Marine leadership put the MPC program "on ice" due to budgetary pressures but suggested the program might be resurrected some 10 years down the road when budgetary resources might be more favorable.
In what was described as a "drastic shift," the Marines decided to "resurrect" the MPC in March 2014. The Marines designated the MPC as ACV Increment 1.1 and planned to acquire about 200 vehicles. The Marines also plan to develop ACV Increment 1.2, a tracked, fully amphibious version, and at the time planned to acquire about 470 vehicles and fund an ongoing high water speed study. Although ACV Increment 1.1 is to have a swim capability, another mode of transport (ship or aircraft) would be required to get the vehicles from ship to shore. The Marines are reportedly exploring the possibility of developing a high water speed ACV 2.0, which could accompany tanks and light armored vehicles into combat.
On November 5, 2014, the Marines released a draft Request for Proposal (RFP) for ACV Increment 1.1. On November 24, 2015, the Marine Corps awarded BAE Systems and SAIC contracts to develop ACV 1.1 prototypes for evaluation. BAE's contract was for $103.8 million and SAIC's for $121.5 million, and each company was to build 16 prototypes to be tested over the next two years. Both BAE and SAIC delivered their prototypes early, and Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) testing began mid-March 2017. In early December 2017, the Marines reportedly sent the ACV 1.1 down select request for proposals to BAE and Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC).
On June 19, 2018, the Marine Corps selected BAE Systems to produce the ACV. The initial contract—valued at $198 million—was for low-rate production of 30 vehicles to be delivered by the autumn of 2019. On April 10, 2019, during testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee, Navy and Marine Corps leadership announced that during the fall of 2018, ACV 1.1 prototypes demonstrated satisfactory water mobility performance in high surf conditions and, in doing so, met the full water mobility transition requirement for ACV 1.2 capability. As a result, ACV 1.1 and ACV 1.2 were to be consolidated into a single variant—the ACV—which is intended to replace all AAVs.
Potential issues for Congress include the potential ramifications of the consolidation of the ACV 1.1 and ACV 1.2 programs and how the possible adoption of the Expeditionary Advance Base Operations (EABO) operational concept could affect the ACV program.


Question:
Congress currently appropriates most foreign affairs funding through annual Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs (SFOPS) appropriations. Prior to FY2008, however, Congress provided funding for the Department of State, international broadcasting, and related programs within the Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies appropriations. In those years, Congress separately appropriated funding for the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and foreign aid within the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs appropriations. The 110th Congress aligned the two foreign affairs appropriations into the SFOPS legislation.
SFOPS appropriations since FY2001 have included enduring appropriations (ongoing or base funding), emergency supplemental appropriations, and Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) appropriations. Total SFOPS funding levels in both current and constant dollars show a general upward trend, with FY2004 as the peak largely as a result of emergency supplemental appropriations for Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Funds. When adjusted for inflation, annual foreign affairs appropriations have yet to surpass the FY2004 peak. The Budget Control Act (BCA) of 2011 and the Bipartisan Budget Acts (BBA) of 2015 and 2018 appear to have had an impact on both enduring and OCO funding levels.
The legislative history of SFOPS appropriations shows that nearly all foreign affairs appropriations measures within the past 25 years were passed within omnibus, consolidated, or full-year continuing resolutions, rather than in stand-alone bills. Moreover, many appropriations were passed after the start of the new fiscal year, at times more than half way into the new fiscal year. In many fiscal years, SFOPS appropriations included emergency supplemental funding or, since FY2012, OCO funding.


Question:
Dining facilities in the Capitol and in House and Senate office buildings provide an essential convenience for Members of Congress and congressional staff, enabling them to easily obtain meals, beverages, and snacks, and quickly return to work. By providing an efficient way to meet congressional dining needs during unpredictable workdays, the restaurant systems help facilitate the legislative and representational work of Congress. These restaurants also provide spaces for constituents and other visitors to meet with staff and Members of Congress, or to purchase refreshments. House and Senate restaurant services are also available to provide catering to Members of Congress when they host events on Capitol grounds. The restaurants remain a subject of ongoing congressional interest, as many Members and staff visit them on a daily basis.
Those involved with restaurant administration in the House and Senate have often considered how management choices affect operating costs, services available, oversight, and other elements of the restaurant systems. For much of their histories, the House and Senate operated their own restaurants, but since 1994 in the House and since 2008 in the Senate, private vendors have run the restaurants. In August 2015, the House entered an agreement with Sodexo to operate the 17 facilities in the House restaurant system, subject to direction from the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) and the Committee on House Administration. In December 2015, the Senate entered a new contract with Restaurant Associates to operate the 12 facilities in the Senate restaurant system, subject to direction from the Architect of the Capitol (AOC) and the Committee on Rules and Administration.
Many argue that this professional restaurant management experience is necessary to meet the variety of customer needs in the House and Senate restaurants in a cost-effective manner. Numerous nearby eateries compete with the congressional restaurants for customers. Often, an advantage the House and Senate restaurants are able to provide is convenience for Members, staff, and visitors. This advantage, however, may be undermined if the restaurants are not responsive to customer input and are unable to provide consistent food quality, sufficient variety, or reasonably priced service, relative to their competitors.
Food and price issues, along with other day-to-day operational issues, including personnel matters, are largely the responsibility of the restaurant contractors. Some Members and observers have raised concerns about the degree of accountability for the House and Senate restaurant contractors, believing that the restaurants' administration reflects upon Congress and that the restaurants should set an example for other businesses to follow. Although the House and Senate are responsible for restaurant oversight, the delegation of restaurant operations to private contractors means the chambers have less control over employee wages and benefits, procurement, or other business decisions that affect the restaurant systems.
The combination of entities involved in House and Senate dining operations creates a unique organizational arrangement, unlike other institutional dining systems. Other features of Congress also distinguish the House and Senate restaurants from similar-seeming restaurant operations. The restaurants' business volume, for example, is highly contingent on the congressional calendar, consisting of a fairly constant weekday breakfast and lunch business, but experiencing substantial, and sometimes unexpected, decreases if Congress adjourns for a recess. Information specific to the House and Senate restaurant systems may therefore be of particular interest to those concerned with their operations. Additional background and context on House and Senate restaurant operations is found in CRS Report R44600, History of House and Senate Restaurants: Context for Current Operations and Issues, by Sarah J. Eckman.


Question:
The low-income housing tax credit (LIHTC) program is one of the federal government's primary policy tools for encouraging the development and rehabilitation of affordable rental housing. These nonrefundable federal housing tax credits are awarded to developers of qualified rental projects via a competitive application process administered by state housing finance authorities. Developers typically sell their tax credits to outside investors in exchange for equity in the project. Selling the tax credits reduces the debt developers would otherwise have to incur and the equity they would otherwise have to contribute. With lower financing costs, tax credit properties can potentially offer lower, more affordable rents. The LIHTC is estimated to cost the government an average of approximately $9.9 billion annually.
In late 2017, there was a revision to the Internal Revenue Code (P.L. 115-97) that substantially changed the federal tax system. The revision did not directly alter the LIHTC program; however, there had been early reports of downward pressure on tax credit demand stemming from the 2017 tax revision.
Most recently, the 2018 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 115-141) made two changes to the LIHTC program. First, the act modified the so-called "income test," which determines the maximum income an LIHTC tenant may have. Previously, each individual tenant was required to have an income below one of two threshold options (either 50% or 60% of area median gross income, depending on an election made by the property owner). With the modification, property owners may use a third income test option that allows them to average the income of tenants when determining whether the income restriction is satisfied. Second, the act also increased the amount of credits available to states each year by 12.5% for years 2018 through 2021.
This report will be updated as warranted by legislative changes.


Question:
Federal law requires a sentencing judge to impose a minimum sentence of imprisonment following conviction for any of a number of federal offenses. Congress has created three exceptions. Two are available in any case where the prosecutor asserts that the defendant has provided substantial assistance in the criminal investigation or prosecution of another. The other, commonly referred to as the safety valve, is available, without the government's approval, for a handful of the more commonly prosecuted drug trafficking and unlawful possession offenses that carry minimum sentences.
Qualification for the substantial assistance exceptions is ordinarily only possible upon the motion of the government. In rare cases, the court may compel the government to file such a motion when the defendant can establish that the refusal to do so was based on constitutionally invalid considerations, or was in derogation of a plea bargain obligation or was the product of bad faith.
Qualification for the safety valve exception requires a defendant to satisfy five criteria. His past criminal record must be minimal; he must not have been a leader, organizer, or supervisor in the commission of the offense; he must not have used violence in the commission of the offense, and the offense must not have resulted in serious injury; and prior to sentencing, he must tell the government all that he knows of the offense and any related misconduct.
In response to a congressional request, the U.S. Sentencing Commission recommended expansion of the safety valve. The First Step Act, P.L. 115-391, broadened the safety valve for the benefit of (1) defendants with slightly more serious criminal records and (2) defendants convicted under the Maritime Drug Enforcement Act.


Question:
The Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) is being developed by the Army and the Marine Corps as a successor to the High Mobility, Multi-Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV), which has been in service since 1985. On October 28, 2008, awards were made for the JLTV Technology Development (TD) Phase to three industry teams: (1) BAE Systems, (2) the team of Lockheed Martin and General Tactical Vehicle, and (3) AM General and General Dynamics Land Systems.
On January 26, 2012, the Army issued the Request for Proposal (RFP) for the JLTV's Engineering Manufacturing Development (EMD) phase. Up to three EMD contracts scheduled for June could have been awarded. The period of performance for EMD contracts was 27 months, and the overall EMD phase was scheduled to last 33 months. Vendors were required to provide 22 JLTV prototypes for testing 12 months after contract award. The target cost for the base vehicle was $250,000, excluding add-on armor and other kits.
On August 22, 2012, the Army announced the award of three firm-fixed price JLTV EMD contracts totaling approximately $185 million. The three companies awarded the EMD contracts were AM General, LLC (South Bend, IN); Lockheed Martin Corporation (Grand Prairie, TX); and Oshkosh Corporation (Oshkosh, WI).
On September 3, 2013, the Army began JLTV testing at Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD; Yuma, AZ; and Redstone Arsenal, AL. The Army planned to select a single vendor by 2015, with the first Army brigade being equipped with JLTVs by 2018. FY2015 program plans anticipated a Milestone C (Production and Deployment Phase Approval) decision in the fourth quarter of FY2015, followed by Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP).
On August 25, 2015, it was announced the Army had awarded Oshkosh a $6.7 billion low rate initial production (LRIP) contract with eight options to procure the initial 16,901 vehicles for the Army and Marines. The JLTV is being produced in Oshkosh, WI.
It is also reported the Army plans to use the JLTV as the interim platform for its upcoming Light Reconnaissance Vehicle (LRV) program instead of procuring a new system. The British Army is reportedly trying to acquire 2,747 JLTVs through Foreign Military Sales (FMS). The Marines have also reportedly increased their JLTV requirement for a total of 9,091 JLTVs. The Air Force and Navy are also procuring a limited number of JLTVs for use.
A redacted May 2, 2018, DOD Inspector General (IG) report noted the services have not demonstrated effective test results to prepare the JLTV program for full rate production, but the JLTV Program Office has plans to address this concern. The Director, Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) FY2018 Annual Report notes among other findings that JLTVs are not operationally suitable because of deficiencies in reliability, maintainability, training, manuals, crew situational awareness, and safety. Reportedly, the Army has decided to delay JLTV full-rate production, previously scheduled for December 2018, until the early summer of 2019 in order to assess options for vehicle design changes. On March 14, 2019, Army leadership reportedly announced the Army was lowering its overall requirement for JLTVs by 1,900 vehicles in order to free up funding for modernization.
The FY2020 Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) and Procurement JLTV budget request for all four services is $1.641 billion for 4,090 vehicles. Potential issues for Congress include (1) the possible examination of the DOD Inspector General's Report and DOT&E's FY2018 Annual Report findings and full-rate JLTV production, (2) the potential consequences of a delayed full-rate JLTV production decision, and (3) implications of the Army's new top-line JLTV requirement.


Question:
The size of the U.S. bilateral trade deficit with China has been and continues to be an important issue in bilateral trade relations. President Trump and some Members of Congress view the deficit as a sign of unfair economic policies in China. The Trump Administration has reportedly asked China to develop a plan to reduce the bilateral trade deficit by $100 billion. In the 116th Congress, the Fair Trade with China Enforcement Act (H.R. 704 and S. 2) and the United States Reciprocal Trade Act (H.R. 764) mention U.S. trade deficits as a reason for the proposed legislation.
There is a large and growing difference between the official trade statistics released by the United States and the People's Republic of China. According to the United States, the 2018 bilateral merchandise trade deficit with China was $419.2 billion. According to China, its trade surplus with the United States was $323.3 billion—a $95.9 billion difference.
This report examines the differences in the trade data from the two nations in two ways. First, it compares the trade figures using the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System (Harmonized System) to discern any patterns in the discrepancies between the U.S. and Chinese data. This comparison reveals that more than 94% of the difference in the value of China's exports to the United States in 2018 was attributable to five types of goods. Those five types of goods, in order of the size of the discrepancy, were electrical machinery, machinery, toys and sporting goods, optical and medical equipment, and footwear.
The second approach to examining the differing trade data involves a review of the existing literature on the technical and non-technical sources of the trade data discrepancies. The literature reveals that the leading sources of the discrepancies are differences in the list value of shipments when they leave China and when they enter the United States, and differing attributions of origin and destination of Chinese exports that are transshipped through a third location (such as Hong Kong) before arriving in the United States.
In light of the differences in the official bilateral merchandise trade data, the U.S.-China Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade (JCCT) established a statistical working group in 2004. The working group has released two reconciliation studies (in 2009 and 2012) to identify the causes of the statistical discrepancies. The Working Group stated that the adjustments contained in the two studies are not meant to imply errors in the official statistics of either country.
This report is updated annually, after the release of official trade data by China and the United States.


Question:
Charging fees for grazing private livestock on federal lands is a long-standing but contentious practice. Generally, livestock producers who use federal lands want to keep fees low, whereas conservation groups believe fees should be increased. The current formula for determining the grazing fee for lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service (FS) was established in the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 (PRIA) and continued by a 1986 executive order issued by President Reagan. The fee is based on grazing of a specified number of animals for one month, known as an animal unit month (AUM). The fee is set annually under a formula that uses a base value per AUM. The base value is adjusted by three factors—the lease rates for grazing on private lands, beef cattle prices, and the cost of livestock production.
For 2019, BLM and FS are charging a grazing fee of $1.35 per AUM. This fee is in effect from March 1, 2019, through February 29, 2020, and is the minimum allowed. Since 1981, when BLM and FS began charging the same grazing fee, the fee has ranged from $1.35 per AUM (for about half the years) to $2.31 per AUM (for 1981). The average fee during the period was $1.55 per AUM. In recent decades, grazing fee reform has occasionally been considered by Congress or proposed by the President, but no fee changes have been adopted.
The grazing fees collected by each agency essentially are divided between the agency, Treasury, and states/localities. The agency portion is deposited in a range betterment fund in the Treasury and is subject to appropriation by Congress. The agencies use these funds for on-the-ground activities, such as range rehabilitation and fence construction. Under law, BLM and FS allocate the remaining collections differently between the Treasury and states/localities.
Issues for Congress include whether to retain the current grazing fee or alter the charges for grazing on federal lands. The current BLM and FS grazing fee is generally lower than fees charged for grazing on state and private lands. Comparing the BLM and FS fee with state and private fees is complicated, due to factors including the purposes for which fees are charged, the quality of the resources on the lands being grazed, and whether the federal grazing fee alone or other nonfee costs are considered.
Unauthorized grazing occurs on BLM and FS lands in a variety of ways, including when cattle graze outside the allowed areas or seasons or in larger numbers than allowed under permit. In some cases, livestock owners have intentionally grazed cattle on federal land without getting a permit or paying the required fee. The agencies have responded at times by fining the owners, as well as by impounding and selling the trespassing cattle. BLM continues to seek a judicial resolution to a long-standing controversy involving cattle grazed by Cliven Bundy on lands in Nevada.
There have been efforts to end livestock grazing in specific areas through voluntary retirement of permits and leases and subsequent closure of the allotments to grazing. Congress has enacted some such proposals. Congress also has considered measures to reduce or end grazing in specified states or to allow a maximum number of permits to be waived yearly. Among other reasons, such measures have been supported to protect range resources but opposed as diminishing ranching operations.
Another issue involves expiring grazing permits. Both BLM and FS have a backlog of permits needing evaluation for renewal. To allow for continuity in grazing operations, P.L. 113-291 made permanent the automatic renewal (until the evaluation process is complete) of permits and leases that expire or are transferred. The law provided that the issuance of a grazing permit "may" be categorically excluded from environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) under certain conditions. NEPA categorical exclusions have been controversial.


Question:
This report presents a profile of the membership of the 116th Congress (2019-2020) as of March 7, 2019. Statistical information is included on selected characteristics of Members, including data on party affiliation, average age, occupation, education, length of congressional service, religious affiliation, gender, ethnicity, foreign birth, and military service.
In the House of Representatives, there are 239 Democrats (including 4 Delegates), 199 Republicans (including 1 Delegate and the Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico), and 3 vacant seats. The Senate has 53 Republicans, 45 Democrats, and 2 Independents, who both caucus with the Democrats. Additionally
The average age of Members of the House at the beginning of the 116th Congress was 57.6 years; of Senators, 62.9 years. The overwhelming majority, 96%, of Members of Congress have a college education. The dominant professions of Members are public service/politics, business, and law. Most Members identify as Christians, and the collective majority of these affiliate with a Protestant denomination. Roman Catholics account for the largest single religious denomination, and numerous other affiliations are represented, including Jewish, Mormon, Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, Greek Orthodox, Pentecostal Christian, Unitarian Universalist, and Adventist. The average length of service for Representatives at the beginning of the 116th Congress was 8.6 years (4.3 House terms); for Senators, 10.1 years (1.7 Senate terms). A record 131 women serve in the 116th Congress: 106 in the House, including 3 Delegates and the Resident Commissioner, and 25 in the Senate. There are 55 African American Members of the House and 3 in the Senate. This House number includes two Delegates. There are 50 Hispanic or Latino Members (a record number) serving: 45 in the House, including 2 Delegates and the Resident Commissioner, and 5 in the Senate. There are 20 Members (14 Representatives, 3 Delegates, and 3 Senators) who are Asian Americans, Indian Americans, or Pacific Islander Americans. This is also a record number. A record four American Indians (Native Americans) serve in the House.
The portions of this report covering political party affiliation, gender, ethnicity, and vacant seats may be updated as events warrant. The remainder of the report will not be updated.


Question:
The Constitution grants Congress the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States—one part of its power of the purse—and thus mandates that Congress exercise control over federal debt. Control of debt policy has at times provided Congress with a means of raising concerns regarding fiscal policies. Debates over federal fiscal policy have been especially animated in the past decade, in part because of the accumulation of federal debt in the wake of the 2007-2008 financial crisis and subsequent recession. Rising debt levels, along with continued differences in views of fiscal policy, led to a series of contentious debt limit episodes in recent years.
The most recent suspension of the debt limit lapsed after March 1, 2019. The limit was then reset at $21.988 trillion, a level that accommodates federal obligations incurred during the suspension period. U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin invoked extraordinary authorities on March 4, 2019. CBO estimates that Treasury could meet federal obligations until just before or just after October 1, 2019. One private estimate suggests Treasury could cover federal payments until mid-August, if not later. Such estimates are subject to considerable uncertainty.
The 2011 debt limit episode was resolved on August 2, 2011, when President Obama signed the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA; S. 365; P.L. 112-25). The BCA included provisions aimed at deficit reduction and allowing the debt limit to rise in three stages, the latter two subject to congressional disapproval. Once the BCA was enacted, a presidential certification triggered a $400 billion increase. A second certification led to a $500 billion increase on September 22, 2011, and a third, $1,200 billion increase took place on January 28, 2012.
Federal debt again reached its limit on December 31, 2012. Extraordinary measures were again used to allow payment of government obligations until February 4, 2013, when H.R. 325, which suspended the debt limit until May 19, 2013, was signed into law (P.L. 113-3), which reset extraordinary measures. On October 16, 2013, enactment of a continuing resolution (H.R. 2775; P.L. 113-46) resolved a funding lapse and suspended the debt limit through February 7, 2014. On February 15, 2014, a measure to suspend the debt limit (S. 540; P.L. 113-83) through March 15, 2015, was enacted. On November 2, 2015, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (BBA2015; H.R. 1314; P.L. 114-74) was enacted, which suspended the debt limit through March 15, 2017, and relaxed some discretionary spending limits.
On March 16, 2017, the debt limit was reset at $19,809 billion, and Treasury Secretary Mnuchin notified Congress that he had invoked authorities to use extraordinary measures. On September 6, 2017, an agreement on the debt limit and a continuing resolution was announced between President Trump and congressional leaders. Two days later a measure (P.L. 115-56) was enacted to implement that agreement, which included a suspension of the debt limit through December 8, 2017. Once that suspension lapsed—with a new debt limit set at $20,456 billion—Treasury Secretary Mnuchin invoked authorities to employ extraordinary measures, which estimates had suggested would last until early March. The debt limit issue was addressed when the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 (BBA 2018; P.L. 115-123) was enacted on February 9, 2018. Section 30301 of the BBA 2018 suspended the debt limit through March 1, 2019.
Total federal debt increases when the government sells debt to the public to finance budget deficits, which adds to debt held by the public, or when the federal government issues debt to certain government accounts, such as the Social Security, Medicare, and Transportation trust funds, in exchange for their reported surpluses—which adds to debt held by government accounts; or when new federal loans outpace loan repayments. The sum of debt held by the public and debt held by government accounts is the total federal debt. Surpluses reduce debt held by the public, while deficits raise it.


Question:
The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (the Stafford Act) authorizes the President to issue two types of declarations that could potentially provide federal assistance to states and localities in response to a terrorist attack: a "major disaster declaration" or an "emergency declaration." Major disaster declarations authorize a wide range of federal assistance to states, local governments, tribal nations, individuals and households, and certain nonprofit organizations to recover from a catastrophic event. Major disaster declarations also make Small Business Administration (SBA) disaster loans available to eligible businesses and households. Emergency declarations authorize a more limited range of federal assistance to protect property and public health and safety, and to lessen or avert the threat of a major disaster. Only private nonprofit organizations are eligible for disaster loans under an emergency declaration.
The Stafford Act has been used to provide assistance in response to terrorist attacks in the past including the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Building in Oklahoma City, the September 11, 2001, attacks, and the 2013 Boston Marathon attack. Nevertheless, the tactics used in recent incidents such as the 2015 San Bernardino, CA, and the 2016 Orlando, FL, mass shootings, and the 2016 Ohio State University vehicular and knife attack, have brought to light two main challenges that might prevent certain types of terrorist incidents from receiving the wider assistance provided under a major disaster declaration:
the major disaster definition lists specific incident types that are eligible for federal assistance. Past terrorist incidents were considered major disasters, in part, because they resulted in fires and explosions. Incidents without a fire or an explosion may not meet the definition of a major disaster; and the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) recommendation to the President to issue a major disaster declaration is mainly based on damage amounts to public infrastructure compared to the state's population. Terrorist incidents with a large loss of life but limited damage to public infrastructure may not meet this criterion.
Some may argue that terrorist incidents warrant the wider range of assistance provided by a major disaster declaration, and advocate for changes to the Stafford Act and FEMA policies to make all acts of terrorism eligible for major disaster assistance. Others may disagree and argue that Stafford Act should not be altered for the following reasons:
regardless of cause, state and local governments should be the main source of assistance if damages are limited; if the incident does not qualify for major disaster assistance, it could still be eligible for limited assistance under an emergency declaration.
Advocates of changing the Stafford Act may argue that emergency declaration assistance is too limited. For example, parts of FEMA's Individual Assistance (IA) program, which provides various forms of help for families and individuals, are not available without a major disaster declaration. Another concern is the limited availability of SBA disaster loans under an emergency declaration. Advocates might therefore argue that changes to the Stafford Act are needed to make it easier for certain terror attacks to qualify for major disaster assistance. These include
expanding the major disaster definition to include terror incidents that do not involve fires and explosions; requiring FEMA to use additional metrics when making major disaster recommendations; and/or extending the availability of certain IA programs and SBA disaster loans under an emergency declaration.
This report provides an overview of emergency and major disaster declarations and explains how they might be used in the aftermath of a terrorist incident that does not involve a fire or an explosion, such as high casualty mass shootings or chemical gas attacks. This report also provides an overview of Stafford Act assistance provided for past terrorist incidents.
This report will be updated as events warrant.


Question:
A key U.S. ally in the Latin American region, Colombia endured an internal armed conflict for half a century. Drug trafficking fueled the violence by funding both left-wing and right-wing armed groups. Some analysts feared Colombia would become a failed state in the late 1990s, but the Colombian government devised a new security strategy, known as Plan Colombia, to counter the insurgencies. Originally designed as a 6-year program, Plan Colombia ultimately became a 17-year U.S.-Colombian bilateral effort. The partnership focused initially on counternarcotics and later on counterterrorism; it then broadened to include sustainable development, human rights, trade, regional security, and many other areas of cooperation. Between FY2000 and FY2016, the U.S. Congress appropriated more than $10 billion to help fund Plan Colombia and its follow-on programs. For FY2018, Congress appropriated $391.3 million in foreign aid for Colombia, including assistance to promote peace and end the conflict.
President Juan Manuel Santos (2010-2018) made concluding a peace accord with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC)—the country's largest leftist guerrilla organization—his government's primary focus. Following four years of formal peace negotiations, Colombia's Congress ratified the FARC-government peace accord in November 2016. During a U.N.-monitored demobilization effort in 2017, approximately 11,000 FARC disarmed and demobilized. This figure included FARC who had been held in prison for crimes of rebellion and those making up FARC militias, who were accredited by the Colombian government as eligible to demobilize.
On August 7, 2018, Iván Duque, a senator from the conservative Democratic Center party, was inaugurated to a four-year presidential term. Duque, who also worked at the Inter-American Development Bank in Washington, DC, and is Colombia's youngest president in a century, campaigned as a critic of the peace accord with the FARC. His party objected to specific measures concerning justice and political representation. Some observers maintain that his election has generated uncertainty for implementation of the accord. Shortly after taking office, Duque suspended peace talks with the National Liberation Army (ELN), the country's second-largest rebel group, which had begun under President Santos.
Since the ratification of the peace accord, Colombia's long-term strategy has evolved from defeating insurgents to post-conflict stabilization. Many considered Plan Colombia and its successor strategies a remarkable advance, given the country's improvements in security and economic stability. Nevertheless, recent developments have called into question Colombia's progress. The FARC's demobilization has triggered open conflict among armed actors (including FARC dissidents and transnational criminal groups), which seek to control drug cultivation and trafficking, illegal mining, and other illicit businesses that the demobilized FARC abandoned. The ongoing lack of governance in remote rural areas recalls the conditions that originally gave rise to the FARC and other armed groups.
Many observers continue to raise concerns about the country's human-rights conditions, sharp increases in coca cultivation and cocaine production, and problems stemming from the failing authoritarian government of neighboring Venezuela, which shares a nearly 1,400-mile border with Colombia. Venezuela's humanitarian crisis has set in motion an exodus of migrants, many of whom have sought temporary residence (or extended stays) in Colombia. Political upheaval has added yet more uncertainty after the United States and many other Western Hemisphere and European nations, including Colombia, called for a democratic transition in Venezuela and recognized the president of the Venezuelan National Assembly, Juan Guaidó, as the country's interim president in January 2019.
The U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement went into force in May 2012. The United States remains Colombia's top trade partner. After several years of annual growth exceeding 4%, one of the steadiest expansion rates in the region, Colombia grew by an estimated 2.7% in 2018. The FARC-government peace accord is projected to cost more than $40 billion to implement over 15 years, adding to the polarization over the controversial peace process.
For additional background, see CRS In Focus IF10817, Colombia's 2018 Elections, CRS Report R44779, Colombia's Changing Approach to Drug Policy, CRS Report R42982, Colombia's Peace Process Through 2016, and CRS Report RL34470, The U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement: Background and Issues.


Question:
CVN-78, CVN-79, CVN-80, and CVN-81 are the first four ships in the Navy's new Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) class of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers (CVNs).
CVN-78 (Gerald R. Ford) was procured in FY2008. The Navy's proposed FY2020 budget estimates the ship's procurement cost at $13,084.0 million (i.e., about $13.1 billion) in then-year dollars. The ship received advance procurement (AP) funding in FY2001-FY2007 and was fully funded in FY2008-FY2011 using congressionally authorized four-year incremental funding. To help cover cost growth on the ship, the ship received an additional $1,394.9 million in FY2014-FY2016 and FY2018 cost-to-complete procurement funding. The ship was delivered to the Navy on May 31, 2017, and was commissioned into service on July 22, 2017. The Navy is currently working to complete construction, testing, and certification of the ship's 11 weapons elevators.
CVN-79 (John F. Kennedy) was procured in FY2013. The Navy's proposed FY2020 budget estimates the ship's procurement cost at $11,327.4 million (i.e., about $11.3 billion) in then-year dollars. The ship received AP funding in FY2007-FY2012, and was fully funded in FY2013-FY2018 using congressionally authorized six-year incremental funding. The ship is scheduled for delivery to the Navy in September 2024.
CVN-80 (Enterprise) and CVN-81 (not yet named) are being procured under a two-ship block buy contract that was authorized by Section 121(a)(2) of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (H.R. 5515/P.L. 115-232 of August 13, 2018). The provision permitted the Navy to add CVN-81 to the existing contract for building CVN-80 after the Department of Defense (DOD) made certain certifications to Congress. DOD made the certifications on December 31, 2018, and the Navy announced the award of the contract on January 31, 2019. Compared to the estimated procurement costs for CVN-80 and CVN-81 in the Navy's FY2019 budget submission, the Navy estimates under its FY2020 budget submission that the two-ship block buy contract will reduce the cost of CVN-80 by $246.6 million and the cost of CVN-81 by $2,637.3 million, for a combined reduction of $2,883.9 million (i.e., about $2.9 billion). Using higher estimated baseline costs for CVN-80 and CVN-81 taken from a December 2017 Navy business case analysis, the Navy estimates under its FY2020 budget submission that the two-ship contract will reduce the cost of CVN-80 by $770.9 million and the cost of CVN-81 by $3,086.3 million, for a combined reduction of $3,857.2 million (i.e., about $3.9 billion).
CVN-80 was procured in FY2018. The Navy's proposed FY2020 budget estimates the ship's procurement cost at $12,335.1 million (i.e., about $12.3 billion) in then-year dollars. The ship received AP funding in FY2016 and FY2017, and the Navy plans to fully fund the ship in FY2018-FY2025 using incremental funding authorized by Section 121(c) of P.L. 115-232. The Navy's proposed FY2020 budget requests $1,062.0 million in procurement funding for the ship. The ship is scheduled for delivery to the Navy in March 2028.
Prior to the awarding of the two-ship block buy contract, CVN-81 was scheduled to be procured in FY2023. Following the awarding of the two-ship block buy contract, the Navy has chosen to show CVN-81 in its FY2020 budget submission as a ship to be procured in FY2020 (as opposed to a ship that was procured in FY2019). The Navy's FY2020 budget submission estimates the ship's procurement cost at $12,450.7 million (i.e., about $12.5 billion) in then-year dollars. The Navy plans to fully fund the ship beginning in FY2019 and extending beyond FY2026 using incremental funding authorized by Section 121(c) of P.L. 115-232. The Navy's proposed FY2020 budget requests $1,285.0 million in procurement funding for the ship. The ship is scheduled for delivery to the Navy in February 2032.
The Navy's FY2020 budget submission proposed to not fund the mid-life nuclear refueling overhaul (called a Refueling Complex Overhaul, or RCOH) for the aircraft carrier CVN-75 (Harry S. Truman), and to instead retire the ship around FY2024 and also deactivate one of the Navy's carrier air wings at about the same time. On April 30, 2019, however, the Administration announced that it was effectively withdrawing this proposal from the Navy's FY2020 budget submission. The Administration now supports funding the CVN-75 RCOH and keeping CVN-75 (and by implication its associated air wing) in service past FY2024.
Oversight issues for Congress for the CVN-78 program include the following:
DOD's decision to show CVN-81 in its FY2020 budget submission as a ship to be procured in FY2020, instead of a ship that was procured in FY2019; the Navy's decision, as part of its FY2020 budget submission, to not accelerate the scheduled procurement of CVN-82 from FY2028 to an earlier fiscal year; whether to approve, reject, or modify the Navy's FY2020 procurement funding request for the CVN-78 program; the date for achieving the Navy's 12-ship force-level goal for aircraft carriers; cost growth in the CVN-78 program, Navy efforts to stem that growth, and Navy efforts to manage costs so as to stay within the program's cost caps; Navy efforts to complete the construction, testing, and certification of the weapons elevators on CVN-78; additional CVN-78 program issues that were raised in a December 2018 report from the Department of Defense's (DOD's) Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E); additional CVN-78 program issues that were raised in a May 2019 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on DOD weapon systems; whether the Navy should shift at some point from procuring large-deck, nuclear-powered carriers like the CVN-78 class to procuring smaller aircraft carriers.


Question:
For the last several years, Central American migrant families have arrived at the U.S.-Mexico border in relatively large numbers, many seeking asylum. While some request asylum at U.S. ports of entry, others do so after entering the United States "without inspection" (i.e., illegally) between U.S. ports of entry. On May 7, 2018, the Department of Justice (DOJ) implemented a "zero tolerance" policy toward illegal border crossing both to discourage illegal migration into the United States and to reduce the burden of processing asylum claims that Administration officials contend are often fraudulent.
Under the zero tolerance policy, DOJ prosecuted all adult aliens apprehended crossing the border illegally, with no exception for asylum seekers or those with minor children. DOJ's policy represented a change in the level of enforcement of an existing statute rather than a change in statute or regulation. Prior Administrations prosecuted illegal border crossings relatively infrequently.
Criminally prosecuting adults for illegal border crossing requires detaining them in federal criminal facilities where children are not permitted. While DOJ and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have broad statutory authority to detain adult aliens, children must be detained according to guidelines established in the Flores Settlement Agreement (FSA), the Homeland Security Act of 2002, and the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008. A 2015 judicial ruling held that children remain in family immigration detention for no more than 20 days. If parents cannot be released with them, children are treated as unaccompanied alien children and transferred to the Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS's) Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) for care and custody.
The widely publicized family separations were a consequence of the Trump Administration's zero tolerance policy, not the result of an explicit family separation policy. Since the zero tolerance policy was implemented, up to 3,000 children may have been separated from their parents. In addition, thousands more were separated prior to the public announcement of the policy change.
Following mostly critical public reaction, President Trump issued an executive order on June 20, 2018, mandating that DHS maintain custody of alien families during the pendency of any criminal trial or immigration proceedings. DHS Customs and Border Protection (CBP) subsequently stopped referring most illegal border crossers to DOJ for criminal prosecution. A federal judge then mandated that all separated children be promptly reunited with their families. Another rejected DOJ's request to modify the FSA to extend the 20-day child detention guideline. DHS has since reverted to some prior immigration enforcement policies, and family separations continue to occur based upon DHS enforcement protocols in place prior to the 2018 zero tolerance policy.
Administration officials and immigration enforcement advocates argue that measures like the zero tolerance policy are necessary to discourage migrants from coming to the United States and submitting fraudulent asylum requests. They maintain that alien family separation resulting from the prosecution of illegal border crossers mirrors that which occurs regularly under the U.S. criminal justice system policy where adults with custody of minor children are charged with a crime and may be held in jail, effectively separating them from their children.
Immigrant advocates contend that migrant families are fleeing legitimate threats from countries with exceptionally high rates of gang violence, and that family separations resulting from the zero tolerance policy are cruel and violate fundamental human rights—such as the ability to request asylum. They maintain that the zero tolerance policy was hastily implemented and lacked planning for family reunification following criminal prosecutions. Some observers question the Trump Administration's capacity to marshal sufficient resources to prosecute all illegal border crossers without additional resources. Others criticize the family separation policy in light of less expensive alternatives to detention.
In prior years, most individuals apprehended were single adult males. Family unit apprehensions, which increased from just over 11,000 in FY2012 to 99,901 in the first four months of FY2019, and apprehensions of unaccompanied alien children are occurring within the context of otherwise relatively low historical levels of total alien apprehensions. In addition, the national origin of recently apprehended family units and unaccompanied children has shifted to mostly Central American from long-term trends of mostly Mexican.


Question:
The House Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) was established on March 11, 2008, with the passage of H.Res. 895. It was most recently reauthorized by the House as part of the rules package (H.Res. 6) adopted by the 116th Congress on January 3, 2019.
The office's establishment followed years of efforts by groups within and outside Congress to create an independent entity to investigate allegations of misconduct by Members, officers, and employees of Congress. During the 110th Congress (2007-2008), Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Minority Leader John Boehner created the bipartisan Special Task Force on Ethics Enforcement, chaired by Representative Michael Capuano, to consider whether the House should create an "outside" ethics-enforcement entity. The task force worked for nearly a year before issuing its recommendations for the creation of the OCE.
The mandate of the OCE, which has jurisdiction only in the House, is to review information, and when appropriate, refer findings of fact to the House Committee on Ethics. Only this committee, pursuant to House rules, has the authority to recommend House discipline of Members and staff. Information of alleged wrongdoing by Members, officers, and employees of the House may be accepted by the OCE from the general public, but only the OCE board can initiate a review.
The OCE is composed of six board members, and at least two alternates, each of whom serves a four-year term. The Speaker and the minority leader are each responsible for the appointment of three board members and one alternate. The chair is selected by the Speaker and a co-chair is selected by the minority leader. Current Members of the House, federal employees, and lobbyists are not eligible to serve on the board.
OCE rules for the conduct of investigations and code of conduct can be found at their website, https://oce.house.gov.
This report describes the history and rationale behind the creation of the OCE, its operations, its relationship with the House Committee on Ethics, and options potentially available for Congress if further amendments to the House ethics process are desired.
For additional information, please refer to CRS Report RL30764, Enforcement of Congressional Rules of Conduct: A Historical Overview, by Jacob R. Straus; CRS Report RL30650, Senate Select Committee on Ethics: A Brief History of Its Evolution and Jurisdiction, by Jacob R. Straus; and CRS Report 98-15, House Committee on Ethics: A Brief History of Its Evolution and Jurisdiction, by Jacob R. Straus.


Question:
The Coast Guard Polar Security Cutter (PSC) program is a program to acquire three new heavy polar icebreakers, to be followed years from now by the acquisition of up to three new medium polar icebreakers. On April 23, 2019, the Coast Guard-Navy Integrated Program Office for the PSC program awarded a $745.9 million fixed-price, incentive-firm contract for the detail design and construction (DD&C) of the first PSC to VT Halter Marine of Pascagoula, MS, a shipyard owned by Singapore Technologies (ST) Engineering. VT Halter was the leader of one of three industry teams that competed for the DD&C contract. The first PSC is scheduled to begin construction in 2021 and be delivered in 2024, though the DD&C contract includes financial incentives for earlier delivery.
The DD&C contract includes options for building the second and third PSCs. If these options are exercised, the total value of the contract would increase to $1,942.8 million (i.e., about $1.9 billion). The figures of $745.9 million and $1,942.8 million cover only the shipbuilder's costs; they do not include the cost of government-furnished equipment (GFE), which is equipment for the ships that the government purchases and then provides to the shipbuilder for incorporation into the ship, or government program-management costs. When GFE and government program-management costs are included, the total estimated procurement cost of the first PSC is between $925 million and $940 million, and the total estimated procurement cost of the three-ship PSC program is about $2.95 billion.
The PSC program has received a total of $1,034.6 million (i.e., about $1.0 billion) in procurement funding through FY2019, including $300 million provided through the Navy's shipbuilding account in FY2017 and FY2018. The Coast Guard's proposed FY2020 budget requests $35 million in procurement funding for the PSC program, which is enough to cover the PSC program's FY2020 government program-management costs. The Coast Guard's FY2019 budget submission had projected that a total of $125 million in procurement funding would be requested for the PSC program in FY2020.
The operational U.S. polar icebreaking fleet currently consists of one heavy polar icebreaker, Polar Star, and one medium polar icebreaker, Healy. In addition to Polar Star, the Coast Guard has a second heavy polar icebreaker, Polar Sea. Polar Sea, however, suffered an engine casualty in June 2010 and has been nonoperational since then. Polar Star and Polar Sea entered service in 1976 and 1978, respectively, and are now well beyond their originally intended 30-year service lives. The Coast Guard is using Polar Sea as a source of spare parts for keeping Polar Star operational.
Issues for Congress for the PSC program include, inter alia, whether to approve, reject, or modify the Coast Guard's FY2020 procurement funding request for the program; whether to use a contract with options or a block buy contract to procure the ships; whether to continue providing at least some of the procurement funding for the PSC program through the Navy's shipbuilding account; technical, schedule, and cost risk in the PSC program; and whether to procure heavy and medium polar icebreakers to a common basic design.


Question:
Exposure to ozone, a common air pollutant, has been linked to early death, plant and crop damage, and damage to property. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sets National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ground-level ozone to protect human health and welfare with, by law, a "margin of safety." States that contain areas with ozone concentrations above these standards must develop plans to reduce emissions and improve air quality. However, states have direct control only over emission sources located within their borders.
The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires EPA to re-evaluate the NAAQS every five years to include the latest science and technological advancements. Studies reporting the human health impacts of ozone increasingly suggest that ozone exposure may not be completely safe at any level. With the potential for a NAAQS re-evaluation leading to science-based recommendations for a tighter standard, some stakeholders have expressed increasing concern that future—and even current—ozone standards could be difficult to meet due to the contribution of "background ozone," which arises from a variety of sources described in this report. In some areas of the United States, background ozone may be approaching 70 parts per billion (ppb) on some days, the current level of the NAAQS.
Some Members of Congress have expressed interest in adverse health effects that occur at or below the current standard, challenges some nonattainment areas may have in meeting current standards, and particularly the responsibilities for meeting the health standard, given interstate and international transport. EPA's review of the ozone NAAQS is underway and set to be completed in 2020, with background ozone contributions suggested as a topic to be addressed. Congress may have an interest in better understanding scientific capabilities, needs, and efforts to improve understanding of contributions from background sources, as well as options for regulatory responses.
Defining Background Ozone
Three terms are used for different types of background ozone, and distinguishing among them can be important for regulatory purposes.
1. Natural background. Ozone concentrations that would be present without any human influence or contribution from anywhere on the globe. Natural background includes contributions from wildfires, vegetation, lightning, ozone in the stratosphere, and global methane concentrations. Contributions to background ozone from wildfires and methane have been increasing over the past several decades. 2. North American background. Ozone concentrations absent human-caused emissions from North America. North American background includes all sources in natural background plus ozone from international sources outside North America. Studies suggest that Asian emissions may be contributing to ozone in the United States, especially in Western states, but that those contributions may be beginning to decrease. 3. United States background. Ozone concentrations absent human-caused emissions from the United States. U.S. background includes all sources in North American background plus ozone formed from emission sources in Mexico and Canada.
Challenges in Estimating Background Ozone
The CAA provides alternative regulatory options for areas that successfully demonstrate significant influence from some specific sources of natural background ozone on ozone exceedences. However, such demonstrations may be difficult to conduct and reliably assess, given data and analytical challenges:
Emissions inventories. Current understanding of the amount, location, and type of pollutant emissions from many types of sources is insufficient. Therefore inventories typically provide estimations, which may not be precise enough for apportioning contributions. Weather data. Meteorological data (i.e., wind speed, wind direction, temperature, cloud cover, humidity, etc.) are not currently measured at a fine enough spatial scale to adequately represent relevant weather processes. Ambient air quality measurements. Data on pollutant concentrations are limited, which increases the challenge of understanding ozone formation and movement. Fine spatial and temporal measurements are needed both horizontally across the surface and vertically to higher levels of the atmosphere. Source contribution variability. Background ozone source contributions change by year, season, day, and hour and from location to location. This makes it difficult to project future contributions, including when contributions will be relevant to attainment status.
This report provides information on sources of background ozone, presents key challenges in addressing these sources, and discusses potential options to overcome these challenges.


Question:
The Navy wants to procure a total of 13 LPD-17 Flight II amphibious ships. LPD-17 Flight II ships cost roughly $1.8 billion each to procure. The first LPD-17 Flight II ship, LPD-30, was procured in FY2018. As part of its action on the Navy's proposed FY2019 budget, Congress provided $350 million in unrequested advance procurement (AP) funding for a second LPD-17 Flight II ship, LPD-31, to be procured in FY2020. This was consistent with the Navy's FY2019 budget submission, under which LPD-31 was planned for procurement in FY2020 and the remainder of its procurement cost was to be requested in FY2020. The Navy's FY2020 budget submission, however, proposes deferring the procurement of LPD-31 by one year, to FY2021, and the Navy's proposed FY2020 budget, rather than requesting the remainder of LPD-31's procurement cost, instead requests $247.1 million in AP funding for the ship.
Navy officials state that if no LPD-17 Flight II ship is procured in FY2020, the $350 million in FY2019 AP funding that Congress provided for the LPD-17 program would become unexecutable, because that funding was provided specifically for use in building an LPD-17 Flight II ship procured in FY2020, not an LPD-17 Flight II ship procured in FY2021. The $350 million in FY2019 AP funding can be made executable by procuring LPD-31 in FY2020 or by passing legislation permitting the FY2019 AP funding to be used for an LPD-17 Flight II ship procured in FY2021. One alternative for procuring LPD-31 in FY2020 would be to do so with full funding (i.e., with the remainder of the ship's procurement cost provided in FY2020). Another alternative would be to pass legislation giving the Navy the authority to procure LPD-31 in FY2020 using incremental funding. Navy officials state that under the latter alternative, the amount of procurement funding needed for LPD-31 in FY2020 would be, at a minimum, roughly $200 million, and not more than the requested amount of $247.1 million.
As part of its action on the Navy's proposed FY2019 budget, Congress also provided $350 million in unrequested AP funding for a different kind of amphibious ship—an amphibious assault ship called LHA-9. This ship is considerably larger and more expensive than an LPD-17 Flight II ship. The Navy's FY2020 budget submission estimates LHA-9's procurement cost at $4,076.4 million (i.e., about $4.1 billion). Under the Navy's FY2019 budget submission, LHA-9 was planned for procurement in FY2024. The $350 million in FY2019 AP funding that Congress provided was intended to encourage the Navy to accelerate the procurement of LHA-9 from FY2024 to an earlier fiscal year, such as FY2020 or FY2021. Under the Navy's FY2020 budget submission, the Navy continues to show LHA-9 as a ship planned for procurement in FY2024, and the Navy's proposed FY2020 budget does not request any additional procurement or AP funding for the ship.
Issues for Congress include whether to procure LPD-31 in FY2020 or FY2021; whether to procure LPD-31 (if it is procured in FY2020) with full funding or incremental funding; the amount of procurement or AP funding to provide for LPD-31 and LHA-9 in FY2020; more generally whether the Navy is placing too much, too little, or about the right amount of emphasis on amphibious ships in its FY2020 budget submission, particularly compared to other Navy shipbuilding programs; and technical risk in the LPD-17 Flight II and LHA programs.


Question:
The federal government pays benefits to coal miners affected by coal workers' pneumoconiosis (CWP, commonly referred to as black lung disease) and other lung diseases linked to coal mining in cases where responsible mine operators are not able to pay. In 2019, the monthly benefit for a miner with no dependents is $660.10. Benefits can be as much as $1,320.10 per month for miners with three or more dependents. Medical benefits are provided separately from disability benefits. Benefit payments and related administrative expenses in cases in which the responsible operators do not pay are paid out of the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund. The primary source of revenue for the trust fund is an excise tax on coal produced and sold domestically. If excise tax revenue is not sufficient to finance Black Lung Program benefits, the trust fund may borrow from the general fund of the Treasury.
For 2018, the tax rates on coal were $1.10 per ton of underground-mined coal or $0.55 per ton of surface-mined coal, limited to 4.4% of the sales price. These rates were established in 1986. Starting in 2019, under current law, these tax rates are $0.50 per ton of underground-mined coal or $0.25 per ton of surface-mined coal, limited to 2% of the sales price. These are the rates that were set when the trust fund was established in 1977.
The decline in the excise tax rates will likely put additional financial strain on a trust fund that already borrows from the general fund to meet obligations. The decline in domestic coal production, recent increases in the rate of CWP, and bankruptcies in the coal sector also contribute to the financial strain on the trust fund.
The Black Lung Disability Trust Fund and associated excise tax on coal were established so that the coal industry, as opposed to taxpayers in general, would bear the burden associated with providing black lung benefits. Throughout its history, the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund has not raised revenues sufficient to meet obligations. As a result, at various points in time, Congress and the President have acted to increase the excise tax on coal, forgive or refinance trust fund debt, and modify black lung benefits eligibility. With the rate of the excise tax on coal reduced in 2019, the 116th Congress may again evaluate options for improving the fiscal condition of the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund, or other issues related to providing federal benefits to miners with black lung disease.


Question:
This report examines the Small Business Administration's (SBA's) appropriations (new budget authority, minus rescissions and sequestration) over time, focusing on developments and trends since FY2000. It also provides total available funding (which includes carryover from the prior fiscal year, carryover into the next fiscal year, account transfers, rescissions, and sequestration) and, for entrepreneurial development noncredit programs, actual and anticipated expenditures for comparative purposes.
SBA appropriations, as a whole, have varied significantly from year to year since FY2000 and across all three of the agency's major spending categories: disaster assistance, business loan credit subsidies, and "other programs," a category that includes salaries and expenses, business loan administration, the Office of Inspector General, the Office of Advocacy, and entrepreneurial development programs. Overall, the SBA's appropriations have ranged from a high of $2.359 billion in FY2018 to a low of $571.8 million in FY2007. Much of this volatility is due to significant variation in appropriations for disaster assistance, which ranged from a high of $1.7 billion in FY2006 to a low of $0 in FY2009. This variation can be attributed primarily to supplemental appropriations provided to address disaster needs arising from the impact of major hurricanes, such as Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy, and more recently, Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria.
The SBA's appropriations for business loan credit subsidies have also varied since FY2000, ranging from a high of $319.7 million in FY2013 ($337.3 million before sequestration and rescission) to a low of $1.3 million in FY2006 and FY2007. This variation is due to the impact of changing economic conditions on the SBA's guaranteed loan portfolios. During good economic times, revenue from SBA fees and collateral liquidation is typically sufficient to cover the costs of purchasing guaranteed loans that have defaulted. During and immediately following recessions, however, that revenue is typically insufficient to cover the costs of purchasing guaranteed loans that have defaulted.
The SBA's appropriations for other programs, as a collective, have also varied since FY2000, ranging from a high of $1.6253 billion in FY2010 to a low of $455.6 million in FY2007. This variation is primarily due to congressional response to changing economic conditions. For example, Congress approved significant, temporary increases in appropriations for the SBA's other programs spending category in FY2009 and FY2010. Overall, since FY2000, appropriations for other programs have increased at a pace that exceeds inflation. This report provides appropriations for all five major components of the other programs spending category, including the SBA's entrepreneurial development programs.
The SBA's appropriations for FY1954 through FY1999 are provided in the Appendix.


Question:
Corruption of public officials in Latin America continues to be a prominent political concern. In the past few years, 11 presidents and former presidents in Latin America have been forced from office, jailed, or are under investigation for corruption. As in previous years, Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index covering 2018 found that the majority of respondents in several Latin American nations believed that corruption was increasing. Several analysts have suggested that heightened awareness of corruption in Latin America may be due to several possible factors: the growing use of social media to reveal violations and mobilize citizens, greater media and investor scrutiny, or, in some cases, judicial and legislative investigations. Moreover, as expectations for good government tend to rise with greater affluence, the expanding middle class in Latin America has sought more integrity from its politicians. U.S. congressional interest in addressing corruption comes at a time of this heightened rejection of corruption in public office across several Latin American and Caribbean countries.
Whether or not the perception that corruption is increasing is accurate, it is nevertheless fueling civil society efforts to combat corrupt behavior and demand greater accountability. Voter discontent and outright indignation has focused on bribery and the economic consequences of official corruption, diminished public services, and the link of public corruption to organized crime and criminal impunity. In some countries, rejection of tainted political parties and leaders from across the spectrum has challenged public confidence in governmental legitimacy. In some cases, condemnation of corruption has helped to usher in populist presidents. For example, a populist of the left won Mexico's election and of the right Brazil's in 2018, as winning candidates appealed to end corruption and overcome political paralysis.
The 2017 U.S. National Security Strategy characterizes corruption as a threat to the United States because criminals and terrorists may thrive under governments with rampant corruption. Studies indicate that corruption lowers productivity and mars competitiveness in developing economies. When it is systemic, it can spur migration and reduce GDP measurably.
The U.S. government has used several policy tools to combat corruption. Among them are sanctions (asset blocking and visa restrictions) against leaders and other public officials to punish and deter corrupt practices, and programming and incentives to adopt anti-corruption best practices. The United States has also provided foreign assistance to some countries to promote clean or "good" government goals. U.S. efforts include assistance to strengthen the rule of law and judicial independence, law enforcement training, programs to institutionalize open and transparent public sector procurement and other clean government practices, and efforts to tap private-sector knowledge to combat corruption.
This report examines U.S. strategies to help allies achieve anti-corruption goals, which were once again affirmed at the Summit of the Americas held in Peru in April 2018, with the theme of "Democratic Governance against Corruption." The case studies in the report explore:
Brazil's collaboration with the U.S. Department of Justice and other international partners to expand investigations and use tools such as plea bargaining to secure convictions; Mexico's efforts to strengthen protections for journalists and to protect investigative journalism generally, and mixed efforts to implement comprehensive reforms approved by Mexico's legislature; and the experiences of Honduras and Guatemala with multilateral anti-corruption bodies to bolster weak domestic institutions, although leaders investigated by these bodies have tried to shutter them.
Some analysts maintain that U.S. funding for "anti-corruption" programming has been too limited, noting that by some definitions, worldwide spending in recent years has not exceeded $115 million annually. Recent congressional support for anti-corruption efforts includes: training of police and justice personnel, backing for the Trump Administration's use of targeted sanctions, and other efforts to condition assistance. Policy debates have also highlighted the importance of combating corruption related to trade and investment. The 116th Congress may consider the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), which would revise the NAFTA trade agreement, and contains a new chapter on anti-corruption measures.


Question:
USAspending.gov, available at http://www.USAspending.gov, is a government source for data on federal awards by state, congressional district (CD), county, and zip code. The awards data in USAspending.gov are provided by federal agencies and represent contracts, grants, loans, and other forms of financial assistance. USAspending.gov also provides tools for examining the broader picture of federal spending obligations by categories, such as budget function, agency, and object class.
Using USAspending.gov to locate and compile accurate data on federal awards can be challenging due, in part, to continuing data quality issues that have been identified by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). Users of USAspending.gov need to be aware that while search results may be useful for informing consideration of certain questions, these results may be incomplete or contain inaccuracies.
USAspending.gov was created under P.L. 109-282, the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (FFATA), and is being enhanced under requirements in P.L. 113-101, the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 (DATA Act).
Other federal awards data sources reviewed in this report include the following:
Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS); Census Federal Audit Clearinghouse; U.S. Budget: Aid to State and Local Governments; Census Federal Aid to States (FAS) and Consolidated Federal Funds Report (CFFR); and Additional federal grant awards databases, including sources tracking medical, scientific, and technical research.


Question:
Several federal agencies, including the Small Business Administration (SBA), provide training and other assistance to veterans seeking civilian employment. For example, the Department of Defense (DOD), in cooperation with the SBA, Department of Labor, Department of Veterans Affairs, and several other federal agencies, operates the Transition Goals Plans Success program (Transition GPS), which provides employment information and entrepreneurship training to exiting military servicemembers to assist them in transitioning from the military to the civilian labor force.
In recent years, the unemployment rate among veterans as a whole has generally been similar to or lower than the unemployment rate for nonveterans 18 years and older. However, veterans who have left the military since September 2001 have experienced higher unemployment than other veterans and, in some years, higher unemployment than nonveterans. As a result, Congress has focused much of its attention on finding ways to assist veterans who have left the military since September 2001.
The SBA provides management and technical assistance services to more than 100,000 veterans each year through its various management and technical assistance training partners (e.g., Small Business Development Centers, Women's Business Centers [WBCs], Service Corps of Retired Executives [SCORE], and Veterans Business Outreach Centers [VBOCs]). The SBA's Office of Veterans Business Development (OVBD) also administers several programs to assist veterans, including the Operation Boots to Business: From Service to Startup initiative, which is part of DOD's Transition GPS program.
The expansion of federal employment training programs targeted at specific populations, such as women and veterans, has led some Members and organizations to ask if these programs should be consolidated. In their view, eliminating program duplication among federal business assistance programs across federal agencies, and within the SBA, would result in lower costs and improved services. Others argue that keeping these business assistance programs separate enables them to offer services that match the unique needs of various underserved populations, such as veterans. In their view, instead of considering program consolidation as a policy option, the focus should be on improving communication and cooperation among the federal agencies providing assistance to entrepreneurs.
This report opens with an examination of the economic circumstances of veteran-owned businesses drawn from the Bureau of the Census's 2012 Survey of Business Owners (SBO). It then provides a brief overview of veterans' employment experiences, comparing unemployment and labor force participation rates for veterans, veterans who have left the military since September 2001, and nonveterans. The report also describes employment assistance programs offered by several federal agencies to assist veterans in their transition from the military to the civilian labor force and examines, in greater detail, the SBA's veteran business development programs, the SBA's efforts to assist veterans' access to capital, and the SBA's veteran contracting programs. It also discusses the SBA's Military Reservist Economic Injury Disaster Loan program and P.L. 114-38, the Veterans Entrepreneurship Act of 2015, which authorized and made permanent the SBA's recent practice of waiving the SBAExpress loan program's one time, up-front loan guarantee fee for veterans (and their spouse).


Question:
The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) administers several programs to support small businesses, including loan guaranty and venture capital programs to enhance small business access to capital; contracting programs to increase small business opportunities in federal contracting; direct loan programs for businesses, homeowners, and renters to assist their recovery from natural disasters; and small business management and technical assistance training programs to assist business formation and expansion. Congressional interest in these programs has increased in recent years, primarily because assisting small business is viewed as a means to enhance economic growth.
Some have argued that the SBA should be provided additional resources to assist small businesses in acquiring capital necessary to start, continue, or expand operations and create jobs. Others worry about the long-term adverse economic effects of spending programs that increase the federal deficit. They advocate business tax reduction, reform of financial credit market regulation, and federal fiscal restraint as the best means to assist small business economic growth and job creation.
Over the past several Congresses, several laws were enacted to assist small businesses, including
P.L. 111-5, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), provided the SBA an additional $730 million, including $375 million to temporarily subsidize SBA fees and increase the 7(a) loan guaranty program's maximum loan guaranty percentage to 90%. P.L. 111-240, the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, authorized numerous changes to the SBA's loan guaranty and contracting programs; provided $510 million to continue the SBA's fee subsidies and 90% maximum loan guaranty percentage through December 31, 2010; and provided about $12 billion in tax relief for small businesses. P.L. 111-322, the Continuing Appropriations and Surface Transportation Extensions Act, 2011, continued the SBA's fee subsidies and the 7(a) program's 90% maximum loan guaranty percentage through March 4, 2011, or until available funding was exhausted, which occurred on January 3, 2011. P.L. 112-106, the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act, established a regulatory structure for startups and small businesses to raise capital through securities offerings using the Internet through crowdfunding. P.L. 113-76, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, increased the annual authorization amount for the SBA's Small Business Investment Company (SBIC) venture capital program to $4 billion from $3 billion. P.L. 114-38, the Veterans Entrepreneurship Act of 2015, authorized and made permanent the SBA's practice of waiving the SBAExpress loan program's one-time, up-front loan guaranty fee for veterans and increased the 7(a) loan program's FY2015 authorization limit from $18.75 billion to $23.5 billion. P.L. 114-113, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, expanded the projects eligible for refinancing under the 504/CDC loan guaranty program in any fiscal year in which the refinancing program and the 504/CDC program as a whole do not have credit subsidy costs, increased the SBIC program's family of funds limit (the amount of outstanding leverage allowed for two or more SBIC licenses under common control) to $350 million from $225 million, and increased the 7(a) loan program's authorization limit to $26.5 billion for FY2016. P.L. 115-31, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017, increased the 7(a) program's authorization limit to $27.5 billion for FY2017. P.L. 115-141, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, increased the 7(a) program's authorization limit to $29.0 billion for FY2018.
This report addresses a core issue facing the 116th Congress: What, if any, additional action should the federal government take to enhance small business access to capital? It discusses the role of small business in job creation and retention, then provides an assessment of the supply and demand for small business loans and recently enacted laws designed to enhance small business access to capital by increasing either the supply of small business loans or the demand for small business loans, or both. It also examines recent actions concerning the SBA's budget and concludes with a brief overview of three legislative options available to address small business access to capital issues during the 116th Congress: wait-and-see, enact additional programs, or reduce and consolidate existing programs.


Question:
The Agriculture appropriations bill funds the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) except for the Forest Service. The FY2018 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 115-141, Division A), and the FY2019 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 116-6, Division B) include funding for conservation programs and activities at USDA.
Congress passed the FY2018 Consolidated Appropriations Act on March 23, 2018. FY2019 began with seven appropriations bills, including USDA, unfinished. The House and Senate Appropriations Committees reported Agriculture appropriations bills for FY2019 (H.R. 5961, S. 2976), with the Senate having amended and passed its version as Division C of a four-bill minibus (H.R. 6147). Congress and the President approved continuing resolutions to fund the affected federal agencies through December 21, 2018, at the FY2018 level (P.L. 115-245). After December 21, 2018, a partial shutdown of the government, including many agencies within USDA, occurred. One of the few exceptions was the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), which was able to operate on mandatory and carryover funds during the majority of the shutdown. On January 25, 2019, an agreement was reached to continue funding for USDA and other appropriations that had lapsed through February 15, at the FY2018 level (P.L. 116-5). The FY2019 Consolidated Appropriations Act was signed into law on February 15, 2019, funding USDA through the end of the fiscal year (Division B, P.L. 116-6).
Agricultural conservation programs include both mandatory and discretionary spending. Most conservation program funding is mandatory and is authorized in omnibus farm bills. Other conservation programs—mostly technical assistance—are discretionary and are funded through annual appropriations.
The largest discretionary program is the Conservation Operations (CO) account, which funds conservation planning and implementation assistance on private agricultural lands across the country. The enacted FY2018 appropriation provided $874 million for CO, an increase from the FY2017 enacted amount ($864 million). The enacted FY2019 appropriation decreases funding for CO below FY2018 levels to $819 million and redirects funding to the new Farm Production and Conservation Business Center. Other discretionary spending is primarily for watershed programs. The largest—Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations (WFPO)—was funded at $150 million annually in FY2018 and FY2019.
Most mandatory conservation programs are authorized in omnibus farm bills and do not require an annual appropriation. However, Congress has reduced mandatory conservation programs through changes in mandatory program spending (CHIMPS) in the annual agricultural appropriations law every year since FY2003. The enacted FY2018 omnibus marks the first appropriation since FY2002 that did not include CHIMPS to mandatory conservation programs. The enacted FY2019 appropriation also does not include reductions to mandatory conservation programs, as most programs' authorizations expired on September 30, 2018, making these programs ineligible for reduction. The 2018 farm bill (Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018, P.L. 115-334) reauthorized and amended funding for many of the mandatory conservation programs.
While this is infrequent, the Agriculture appropriations bill may also serve as a vehicle for amendments to authorized programs that permanently alter or create programs. The FY2018 Agriculture appropriations act included two such amendments—one to WFPO and one to farm bill conservation program reporting requirements. The WFPO amendment increased the size threshold required for congressional approval. Under the amended language, the Senate and House Agriculture Committees must approve WFPO projects that include an estimated federal contribution of more than $25 million for construction, an increase from the previous $5 million threshold. Additionally, the FY2018 appropriations act exempted farm bill conservation programs from select federal reporting requirements, including obtaining a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and System for Award Management (SAM) registration.
Agriculture appropriations bills may also include policy-related provisions that direct how the executive branch should carry out the appropriation. The FY2018 and FY2019 appropriations acts both include policy provisions for conservation programs that range from reports to Congress to suggested natural resource priorities.