Question:
Between 1969 and 1999, almost 3,500 people died as a result of political violence in Northern Ireland, which is one of four component "nations" of the United Kingdom (UK). The conflict, often referred to as "the Troubles," has its origins in the 1921 division of Ireland and has reflected a struggle between different national, cultural, and religious identities. Protestants in Northern Ireland (48%) largely define themselves as British and support remaining part of the UK (unionists). Most Catholics in Northern Ireland (45%) consider themselves Irish, and many desire a united Ireland (nationalists).
On April 10, 1998, the UK and Irish governments and key Northern Ireland political parties reached a negotiated political settlement. The resulting Good Friday Agreement (also known as the Belfast Agreement) recognized the "consent principle" (i.e., a change in Northern Ireland's status can come about only with the consent of a majority of its people). It called for devolved government—the transfer of power from London to Belfast—with a Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive Committee in which unionist and nationalist parties would share power; it also contained provisions on decommissioning (disarmament) of paramilitary weapons, policing, human rights, UK security normalization (demilitarization), and the status of prisoners.
Despite a much-improved security situation since 1998, full implementation of the peace accord has been challenging. For many years, decommissioning and police reforms were key sticking points that generated instability in the devolved government. In 2007, however, the hard-line Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) and Sinn Fein, the associated political party of the Irish Republican Army (IRA), reached a landmark power-sharing deal.
Although many analysts view implementation of the most important aspects of the Good Friday Agreement as having been completed, tensions remain in Northern Ireland and distrust persists between the unionist and nationalist communities and their respective political parties. In January 2017, the devolved government led by the DUP and Sinn Fein collapsed, prompting snap Assembly elections in March 2017. Amid a renewable energy scandal involving DUP leader Arlene Foster and unease in much of Northern Ireland about "Brexit"—the UK's expected exit from the European Union (EU)—Sinn Fein made significant electoral gains. Negotiations to form a new power-sharing government have been unsuccessful to date.
Northern Ireland continues to face a number of broader challenges in its search for peace and reconciliation. These challenges include reducing sectarian strife, fully grappling with Northern Ireland's legacy of violence (often termed dealing with the past); addressing lingering concerns about paramilitary and dissident activity; and promoting further economic development. Brexit also may have significant political and economic repercussions for Northern Ireland. The future of the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland was a central issue in the UK's withdrawal negotiations with the EU and has posed a key stumbling block to approving the withdrawal agreement in the UK Parliament. Brexit also has renewed questions about Northern Ireland's status within the UK in the longer term.
Successive U.S. Administrations and many Members of Congress have actively supported the Northern Ireland peace process. For decades, the United States provided development aid through the International Fund for Ireland (IFI). In recent years, congressional hearings have focused on the peace process, police reforms, and the status of public inquiries into several murders in Northern Ireland in which collusion between the security forces and paramilitary groups is suspected. Such issues may continue to be of interest in the 116th Congress.


Question:
The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) provides the President broad authority to regulate a variety of economic transactions following a declaration of national emergency. IEEPA, like the Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA) from which it branched, sits at the center of the modern U.S. sanctions regime. Changes in the use of IEEPA powers since the act's enactment in 1977 have caused some to question whether the statute's oversight provisions are robust enough given the sweeping economic powers it confers upon the President upon declaration of a state of emergency.
Over the course of the twentieth century, Congress delegated increasing amounts of emergency power to the President by statute. The Trading with the Enemy Act was one such statute. Congress passed TWEA in 1917 to regulate international transactions with enemy powers following the U.S. entry into the First World War. Congress expanded the act during the 1930s to allow the President to declare a national emergency in times of peace and assume sweeping powers over both domestic and international transactions. Between 1945 and the early 1970s, TWEA became a critically important means to impose sanctions as part of U.S. Cold War strategy. Presidents used TWEA to block international financial transactions, seize U.S.-based assets held by foreign nationals, restrict exports, modify regulations to deter the hoarding of gold, limit foreign direct investment in U.S. companies, and impose tariffs on all imports into the United States.
Following committee investigations that discovered that the United States had been in a state of emergency for more than 40 years, Congress passed the National Emergencies Act (NEA) in 1976 and IEEPA in 1977. The pair of statutes placed new limits on presidential emergency powers. Both included reporting requirements to increase transparency and track costs, and the NEA required the President to annually assess and extend, if appropriate, the emergency. However, some experts argue that the renewal process has become pro forma. The NEA also afforded Congress the means to terminate a national emergency by adopting a concurrent resolution in each chamber. A decision by the Supreme Court, in a landmark immigration case, however, found the use of concurrent resolutions to terminate an executive action unconstitutional. Congress amended the statute to require a joint resolution, significantly increasing the difficulty of terminating an emergency.
Like TWEA, IEEPA has become an important means to impose economic-based sanctions since its enactment; like TWEA, Presidents have frequently used IEEPA to restrict a variety of international transactions; and like TWEA, the subjects of the restrictions, the frequency of use, and the duration of emergencies have expanded over time. Initially, Presidents targeted foreign states or their governments. Over the years, however, presidential administrations have increasingly used IEEPA to target individuals, groups, and non-state actors such as terrorists and persons who engage in malicious cyber-enabled activities.
As of March 1, 2019, Presidents had declared 54 national emergencies invoking IEEPA, 29 of which are still ongoing. Typically, national emergencies invoking IEEPA last nearly a decade, although some have lasted significantly longer--the first state of emergency declared under the NEA and IEEPA, which was declared in response to the taking of U.S. embassy staff as hostages by Iran in 1979, may soon enter its fifth decade.
IEEPA grants sweeping powers to the President to control economic transactions. Despite these broad powers, Congress has never attempted to terminate a national emergency invoking IEEPA. Instead, Congress has directed the President on numerous occasions to use IEEPA authorities to impose sanctions. Congress may want to consider whether IEEPA appropriately balances the need for swift action in a time of crisis with Congress' duty to oversee executive action. Congress may also want to consider IEEPA's role in implementing its influence in U.S. foreign policy and national security decision-making.


Question:
Authorized by P.L. 106-554, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001 (Appendix H: the New Markets Venture Capital Program Act of 2000), the New Markets Venture Capital (NMVC) program, which is no longer active, is designed to promote economic development and the creation of wealth and job opportunities in low-income geographic areas by addressing the unmet equity investments needs of small businesses located in those areas. Modeled on the Small Business Association's (SBA's) Small Business Investment Company (SBIC) program, SBA-selected, privately owned and managed NMVC companies provide funding and operational assistance to small businesses. To do so, they use private capital the NMVC company has raised (called regulatory capital) and up to 150% of that amount (called leverage) from the sale of SBA-guaranteed 10-year debentures, or loan obligations, to third parties, subject to the availability of funds. Because the SBA guarantees the debenture, the SBA is able to obtain favorable interest rates. NMVC companies are responsible for meeting the terms and conditions set forth in the debenture. At least 80% of the investments must be in small businesses located in a low-income area.
Specialized Small Business Investment Companies (SSBICs) established under the SBIC program are also eligible for NMVC operational assistance grants, which are awarded on a dollar-to-dollar matching basis. Six companies participated in the NMVC program.
The NMVC program was appropriated $21.952 million in FY2001 to support up to $150 million in SBA-guaranteed debentures and $30 million to fund operational assistance grants for FY2001 through FY2006. The funds were provided in a lump sum in FY2001 and were to remain available until expended. In 2003, the unobligated balances of $10.5 million for the NMVC debenture subsidies and $13.75 million for operational assistance grants were rescinded. The program continued to operate, with the number and amount of financing declining in recent years as the program's initial investments expired and NMVC companies increasingly engaged only in additional follow-on financings with the small businesses in their portfolios. The NMVC program's active unpaid principal balance peaked at $698 million in FY2008, and then fell each year thereafter until reaching $0 in FY2018.
This report examines the NMVC program's legislative origins and describes the program's eligibility and performance requirements for NMVC companies, eligibility requirements for small businesses seeking financing, and definition of low-income areas. It also reviews regulations governing the SBA's financial assistance to NMVC companies and provides program statistics.
The report concludes with an examination of (1) efforts to eliminate the program based on concerns that it duplicated other SBA programs and is relatively expensive, (2) the rescission of the program's unobligated funding in 2003, and (3) congressional efforts to provide the program additional funds.


Question:
The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant funds a wide range of benefits and services for low-income families with children. TANF was created in the 1996 welfare reform law (P.L. 104-193). This report responds to some frequently asked questions about TANF; it does not describe TANF rules (see, instead, CRS Report RL32748, The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: A Primer on TANF Financing and Federal Requirements, by Gene Falk).
TANF Funding and Expenditures. TANF provides fixed funding for the 50 states, the District of Columbia, the territories, and American Indian tribes. The basic block grant totals $16.5 billion per year. States are also required in total to contribute, from their own funds, at least $10.3 billion annually under a maintenance-of-effort (MOE) requirement.
Though TANF is best known for funding cash assistance payments for needy families with children, the block grant and MOE funds are used for a wide variety of benefits and activities. In FY2017, expenditures on basic assistance totaled $7.1 billion—23% of total federal TANF and MOE dollars. Basic assistance is often—but not exclusively—paid as cash. In addition to funding basic assistance, TANF also contributes funds for child care and services for children who have been, or are at risk of being, abused and neglected. Some states also count expenditures in prekindergarten programs toward the MOE requirement.
The TANF Assistance Caseload. A total of 1.2 million families, composed of 3.1 million recipients, received TANF- or MOE-funded assistance in September 2018. The bulk of the "recipients" were children—2.3 million in that month. The assistance caseload is heterogeneous. The type of family once thought of as the "typical" assistance family—one with an unemployed adult recipient—accounted for 32% of all families on the rolls in FY2016. Additionally, 31% of cash assistance families had an employed adult, while 38% of all TANF families were "child-only" and had no adult recipient. Child-only families include those with disabled adults receiving Supplemental Security Income (SSI), adults who are nonparents (e.g., grandparents, aunts, uncles) caring for children, and families consisting of citizen children and ineligible noncitizen parents.
Cash Assistance Benefits. TANF cash benefit amounts are set by states. In July 2017, the maximum monthly benefit for a family of three ranged from $1,021 in New Hampshire to $170 in Mississippi. Only New Hampshire (at 60% of the federal poverty guidelines) had a maximum TANF cash assistance amount for this sized family in excess of 50% of poverty-level income.
Work Requirements. TANF's main federal work requirement is actually a performance measure that applies to the states. States determine the work rules that apply to individual recipients. TANF law requires states to engage 50% of all families and 90% of two-parent families with work-eligible individuals in work activities, though these standards can be reduced by "credits." Therefore, the effective standards states face are often less than the 50% or 90% targets, and vary by state. In FY2017, states achieved, on average, an all-family participation rate of 53.0% and a two-parent rate of 69.5%. In FY2017, two jurisdictions did not meet the all-family participation standard: Nevada and Guam. This is a reduction from FY2012, when 16 states did not meet that standard. In FY2017, nine jurisdictions did not meet the two-parent standard. States that do not meet work standards are at risk of being penalized by a reduction in their block grant.


Question: This guide provides information on locating military unit histories and individual service records of discharged, retired, and deceased military personnel. It also provides information on locating and replacing military awards and medals. Included is contact information for military history centers, websites for additional sources of research, and a bibliography of other publications, including related CRS reports.


Question: This report summarizes selected congressional roll call votes related to instances in which U.S. Armed Forces have been sent abroad in potentially hostile situations. These votes reflect the type of congressional actions that observers maintain bear directly on issues affecting policy and the funding of troops abroad, often in the context of the War Powers Resolution, continued presence or withdrawal of troops, and the "use of force." The cases of Lebanon (1982-1983), Grenada (1983), Panama (1989), the Persian Gulf War (1990-1991), Somalia (1992-1995), Haiti (1993-1996), Bosnia (1992-1998), Kosovo (1999), the terrorist attack against the United States (2001) (including the use of U.S. Armed Forces in Afghanistan), and the use of U.S. Armed Forces against Iraq (2002-2003) and Iraq and Afghanistan (2001-Present) are examined, as are the revolution in Libya and its aftermath, the uprising and war in Syria, and military action against the self-proclaimed Islamic State (IS a.k.a, ISIS/ISIL). The roll call votes that are available online (since 1990 in the House and 1989 in the Senate) are hyperlinked in the text.


Question:
Venezuela remains in a deep political crisis under the authoritarian rule of President Nicolás Maduro of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV). Maduro, narrowly elected in 2013 after the death of Hugo Chávez (1999-2013), is unpopular. Nevertheless, he has used the courts, security forces, and electoral council to repress the opposition.
On January 10, 2019, Maduro began a second term after winning reelection on May 20, 2018, in an unfair contest deemed illegitimate by the opposition-controlled National Assembly and most of the international community. The United States, the European Union, the Group of Seven, and most Western Hemisphere countries do not recognize the legitimacy of his mandate. They view the National Assembly as Venezuela's only democratic institution.
Maduro's inauguration capped his efforts to consolidate power. In 2017, protesters called for Maduro to release political prisoners and respect the opposition-led National Assembly. Security forces quashed protests, with more than 130 killed and thousands injured. Maduro then orchestrated the controversial July 2017 election of a National Constituent Assembly; this assembly has usurped most legislative functions. During 2018, Maduro's government arrested dissident military officers and others suspected of plotting against him. Efforts to silence dissent may increase, as the National Assembly (under its new president, Juan Guaidó), the United States, and the international community push for a transition to a new government.
Venezuela also is experiencing a serious economic crisis, and rapid contraction of the economy, hyperinflation, and severe shortages of food and medicine have created a humanitarian crisis. President Maduro has blamed U.S. sanctions for these problems, while conditioning receipt of food assistance on support for his government and increasing military control over the economy. He maintains that Venezuela will seek to restructure its debts, although that appears unlikely. The government and state oil company Petróleos de Venezuela, S. A. (PdVSA) defaulted on bond payments in 2017. Lawsuits over nonpayment and seizures of PdVSA assets are likely.
U.S. Policy
The United States historically had close relations with Venezuela, a major U.S. oil supplier, but relations have deteriorated under the Chávez and Maduro governments. U.S. policymakers have expressed concerns about the deterioration of human rights and democracy in Venezuela and the country's lack of cooperation on counternarcotics and counterterrorism efforts. U.S. democracy and human rights funding, totaling $15 million in FY2018 (P.L. 115-141), has aimed to support civil society.
The Trump Administration has employed targeted sanctions against Venezuelan officials responsible for human rights violations, undermining democracy, and corruption, as well as on individuals and entities engaged in drug trafficking. Since 2017, the Administration has imposed a series of broader sanctions restricting Venezuelan government access to U.S. financial markets and prohibiting transactions involving the Venezuelan government's issuance of digital currency and Venezuelan debt. The Administration provided almost $97 million in humanitarian assistance to neighboring countries sheltering more than 3 million Venezuelans.
Congressional Action
The 115th Congress took several actions in response to the situation in Venezuela. In February 2017, the Senate agreed to S.Res. 35 (Cardin), which supported targeted sanctions. In December 2017, the House passed H.R. 2658 (Engel), which would have authorized humanitarian assistance for Venezuela, and H.Res. 259 (DeSantis), which urged the Venezuelan government to accept humanitarian aid. For FY2019, the Administration requested $9 million in democracy and human rights funds for Venezuela. The 115th Congress did not complete action on the FY2019 foreign assistance appropriations measure. The House version of the FY2019 foreign aid appropriations bill, H.R. 6385, would have provided $15 million for programs in Venezuela; the Senate version, S. 3108, would have provided $20 million.
The 116th Congress likely will fund foreign assistance to Venezuela and neighboring countries sheltering Venezuelans. Congress may consider additional steps to influence the Venezuelan government's behavior in promoting a return to democracy and to relieve the humanitarian crisis.
Also see CRS In Focus IF10230, Venezuela: Political and Economic Crisis and U.S. Policy; CRS In Focus IF10715, Venezuela: Overview of U.S. Sanctions; and CRS In Focus IF11029, The Venezuela Regional Migration Crisis.


Question:
The current and planned size and composition of the Navy, the rate of Navy ship procurement, and the prospective affordability of the Navy's shipbuilding plans have been oversight matters for the congressional defense committees for many years.
On December 15, 2016, the Navy released a force-structure goal that calls for achieving and maintaining a fleet of 355 ships of certain types and numbers. The 355-ship force-level goal is the result of a Force Structure Assessment (FSA) conducted by the Navy in 2016. The Navy states that a new FSA is now underway as the successor to the 2016 FSA. This new FSA, Navy officials state, is to be completed by the end of 2019. Navy officials have suggested in their public remarks that this new FSA could change the 355-ship figure, the planned mix of ships, or both.
The Navy's proposed FY2020 budget requests funding for the procurement of 12 new ships, including one Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) class aircraft carrier, three Virginia-class attack submarines, three DDG-51 class Aegis destroyers, one FFG(X) frigate, two John Lewis (TAO-205) class oilers, and two TATS towing, salvage, and rescue ships. The Navy's FY2020 five-year (FY2020-FY2024) shipbuilding plan includes 55 new ships, or an average of 11 new ships per year.
The Navy's FY2020 30-year (FY2020-FY2049) shipbuilding plan includes 304 ships, or an average of about 10 per year. If the FY2020 30-year shipbuilding plan is implemented, the Navy projects that it will achieve a total of 355 ships by FY2034. This is about 20 years sooner than projected under the Navy's FY2019 30-year shipbuilding plan—an acceleration primarily due to a decision announced by the Navy in April 2018, after the FY2019 plan was submitted, to increase the service lives of all DDG-51 destroyers to 45 years. Although the Navy projects that the fleet will reach a total of 355 ships in FY2034, the Navy in that year and subsequent years will not match the composition called for in the FY2016 FSA.
One issue for Congress is whether the new FSA that the Navy is conducting will change the 355-ship force-level objective established by the 2016 FSA and, if so, in what ways. Another oversight issue for Congress concerns the prospective affordability of the Navy's 30-year shipbuilding plan. Decisions that Congress makes regarding Navy force structure and shipbuilding plans can substantially affect Navy capabilities and funding requirements and the U.S. shipbuilding industrial base.


Question:
In the years following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Navy has carried out a variety of irregular warfare (IW) and counterterrorism (CT) activities. Among the most readily visible of these were operations carried out by Navy sailors serving ashore in the Middle East and Afghanistan, as well as the May 1-2, 2011, U.S. military operation in Abbottabad, Pakistan, that killed Osama bin Laden.
During these years, the Navy took certain actions intended to improve its IW capabilities. For example, the Navy established the Navy Expeditionary Combat Command (NECC) informally in October 2005 and formally in January 2006. NECC consolidated and facilitated the expansion of a number of Navy organizations that have a role in IW operations. The Navy also established the Navy Irregular Warfare Office in July 2008, published a vision statement for irregular warfare in January 2010, and established "a community of interest" (COI) to develop and advance ideas, collaboration, and advocacy related to IW in December 2010.
The Navy during these years also reestablished its riverine force and initiated The Global Maritime Partnership, which was a U.S. Navy initiative to achieve an enhanced degree of cooperation between the U.S. Navy and foreign navies, coast guards, and maritime police forces, for the purpose of ensuring global maritime security against common threats. In addition, the Navy operated the Southern Partnership Station (SPS) and the Africa Partnership Station (APS), which were Navy ships, such as amphibious ships or high-speed sealift ships, that deployed to the Caribbean and to waters off Africa, respectively, to support U.S. Navy engagement with countries in those regions, particularly for purposes of building security partnerships with those countries and for increasing the capabilities of those countries for performing maritime-security operations.
The Navy's current IW and CT activities pose a number of potential oversight issues for Congress, including how much emphasis to place on IW and CT activities in Navy budgets, particularly in a context of constraints on Navy budgets and Navy desires to devote resources to developing "high end" combat capabilities for countering improved conventional military capabilities of countries such as China and Russia.


Question:
Throughout the years, Congress has expressed interest and concern for businesses recovering from disasters. For nearly a century, the federal government's policy for providing disaster assistance to businesses has been limited primarily to low interest loans rather than grant assistance. More recently, Congress has contemplated whether grants should be made available to small businesses after a major disaster. During this debate, some have questioned why small businesses are not eligible for disaster grants when residences, nonprofit groups, and state and local governments are eligible. In addition to concerns about equity, proponents of small business disaster grants argue that small businesses should be eligible for grant assistance because of the important role they play in the national economy. Major disasters can severely disrupt economic activity by causing immediate losses of output, income, and employment. While reports vary on the number of small businesses that fail after a disaster, even the low estimates could be considered significant. The Institute for Business and Home Safety found that 25% of businesses that close following a disaster fail to reopen, and a study on businesses in New Orleans recovering from Hurricane Katrina found that 12% of businesses remained closed 26 months after the storm. The number of failing businesses after a disaster reported by Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) are higher. According to FEMA, "roughly 40%-60% of small businesses never reopen their doors following a disaster."
To some, these findings suggest that the federal government should play a greater role in business disaster recovery. As part of this expanded role, Congress could consider providing grants to businesses to help them rebuild and recover from disasters. Changing the federal government's approach to business disaster policy, however, could be complex and require some careful decisionmaking. Steps would need to be taken to avoid and remedy potential grant and loan duplication. Congress would also have to determine under what circumstances and situations the grant program would be put into effect. Eligibility requirements would need to be developed to determine under what situations and circumstances grants would be provided as well as what types of businesses should be eligible to receive grants. Similarly, Congress might consider whether grants could be used for rebuilding, mitigation, or economic loss, in addition to other recovery activities. In addition to these concerns and others, Congress may want to investigate the potential cost implications of a small business disaster grant program.
This report examines the historical development of federal disaster assistance to help explain possible reasons why businesses are currently provided disaster loans rather than grants. This is followed by a discussion of policy considerations and options related to a potential disaster grant program for small businesses, including
how to minimize duplication of operations and benefits; whether to authorize the program in the Small Business Act, the Stafford Act, or other statute; the potential cost implications of a small business disaster grant program; and eligibility requirements (such as business size standards, eligible activities, and grant award amounts).
Alternatively, Congress could explore other policy options to support small businesses struggling to recover from a disaster, including
loan forgiveness; decreased interest rates; and establishing programs to help small (and large) businesses develop disaster and business continuity plans.


Question:
South Africa is a majority black, multiracial country of nearly 58 million people. It has cordial relations with the United States, notwithstanding some occasional strains, and is the largest U.S. trade partner in Africa. South African President Cyril Ramaphosa is spearheading efforts to address years of weak economic growth and multiple corruption scandals under his predecessor, Jacob Zuma. These issues helped spur Zuma's resignation in early 2018—prior to a likely vote of no confidence by parliament—and led to the election of Ramaphosa, who was selected to lead the African National Congress (ANC) party in late 2017. If the ANC wins a majority in forthcoming elections in May 2019, as polls suggest is probable, he will likely remain president.
Corruption linked to Zuma and a network of business and political associates was reportedly so systematic that it was dubbed "state capture." Multiple efforts to address this problem are underway, including a high-profile commission of judicial inquiry. Zuma is also being tried on charges linked to a 1990s-era arms procurement scandal. Broader challenges include high levels of poverty, social inequality, and unemployment, and unequal access to public services. Such problems disproportionately affect the generally poor black majority, the main victims of apartheid—a codified system of racial bias that ended in 1994, when the first universal suffrage elections were held. Unequal access to land is a particularly sensitive issue. State land redistribution efforts have sought to ensure greater access to land by blacks and other historically disadvantaged groups, but progress has been slow. In 2018, pressure to speed this process prompted the government to launch an ongoing effort to amend the constitution to permit uncompensated land expropriation. South Africa also struggles with violent crime, labor unrest, and protests over public service delivery and corruption.
South Africa has the most diversified and industrialized economy in Africa, but has suffered years of anemic growth attributable to a range of international and domestic factors. The Ramaphosa administration has made economic growth a priority, and is pursuing a range of efforts to reduce unemployment, poverty, and socioeconomic inequality; improve education and healthcare; and unite a socioeconomically, geographically, and racially divided society. It is also seeking to attract $100 billion in new investment over five years and has elicited at least $55 billion to date.
Congress played a leading international role in efforts to end apartheid, although some South African decisionmakers appear to harbor abiding resentments toward the United States as a result of the Reagan Administration's approach to achieving this goal and its posture toward the ANC. Contemporary U.S.-South African ties are cordial, based on shared democratic values and often-concordant views on regional development goals. The two countries maintain a bilateral strategic dialogue, and the United States provides substantial aid to South Africa, primarily to combat the country's HIV/AIDS epidemic. U.S.-South African views regularly diverge, however, on international policy matters (e.g., Palestinian statehood, and responses to Iran and Venezuela). There have also been periodic trade frictions; in 2015-2016 the two countries had a poultry and meat trade dispute and in 2018 the Trump Administration imposed tariffs on U.S. imports of steel and aluminum, including from South Africa. South Africa was later exempted from many of these tariffs, but prospective U.S. tariffs on autos and auto parts could spur renewed strains. The Trump Administration has not otherwise pursued any major changes in the bilateral relationship. An August 2018 tweet by President Trump alleging that South Africa's government was seizing white-owned farmland and that large numbers of farmers were being killed, however, drew criticism from the South African government.
U.S.-South African relations arguably have the potential to deepen, although such an outcome might require dedicated efforts by the two sides. If President Ramaphosa demonstrates concrete progress in reasserting the rule of law and turning around the ailing economy, following substantial deterioration in these areas under former President Zuma, the country may become more attractive as a U.S. partner. Greater cooperation and collaboration can be envisioned regarding bilateral trade and investment, responses to political-military and development challenges in Africa, educational and cultural exchange, and technical cooperation in multiple areas. In recent years, South Africa-related congressional activity has mainly focused on U.S. healthcare assistance, trade issues, and consultations during periodic congressional travel to the country. Given South Africa's economic and political influence with in Africa and on African and developing country positions in multilateral contexts—which do not always dovetail with those of the United States—some Members of Congress may see a need to expand the scope and broaden the focus of congressional and other U.S. engagement with South Africa.


Question:
Like most federal agencies, the Department of Education (ED) receives funds in support of its mission through various federal budget and appropriations processes. While not unique, the mechanisms by which ED receives, obligates, and expends funds can be complex. For example, ED receives both mandatory and discretionary appropriations; ED is annually provided forward funds and advance appropriations for some—but not all—discretionary programs; ED awards both formula and competitive grants; and a portion of ED's budget subsidizes student loan costs (direct loans and loan guarantees). As such, analyzing ED's budget requires an understanding of a broad range of federal budget and appropriations concepts. This report provides an introduction to these concepts as they are used specifically in the context of the congressional appropriations process for ED.
The first section of this report provides an introduction to key terms and concepts in the federal budget and appropriations process for ED. In addition to those mentioned above, the report includes explanations of terms and concepts such as authorizations versus appropriations; budgetary allocations, discretionary spending caps, and sequestration; transfers and reprogramming; and matching requirements.
The second section answers frequently asked questions about federal funding for ED or education in general. These are as follows:
How much funding does ED receive annually? How much does the federal government spend on education? Where can information be found about the President's budget request and congressional appropriations for ED? How much ED funding is in the congressional budget resolution? What is the difference between the amounts in appropriations bills and report language? What happens to education funding if annual appropriations are not enacted before the start of the federal fiscal year? What happens if an ED program authorization "expires"?
The third section includes a brief description of, and links to, reports and documents that provide more information about budget and appropriations concepts.


Question:
This report details the evolution of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees' subcommittee structure from the 1920s to the present. In 1920, the House adopted a change in its rules to consolidate jurisdiction over all appropriations in the Appropriations Committee. After the enactment of the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, the House reorganized its Appropriations Committee by establishing for the first time a set of subcommittees to consider appropriations bills based on the administrative organization of the executive branch. The Senate followed suit in 1922, and the two chambers have continued under that basic organizational approach since that time.
It is possible to divide the evolution of the modern Appropriations subcommittee structure into four eras. The first era, stretching roughly from the initial reorganization in the 1920s until the end of the Second World War, was marked by stability. Most of the changes in Appropriations structure resulted from combining bills (e.g., the Treasury Department bill with the Post Office Department bill beginning in 1924), although one new bill (and subcommittee) was created when the appropriations bill for the Department of Labor was split off from the Departments of State, Justice, Commerce, and Labor bill in 1939.
The second era, from the end of the Second World War through 1970, saw a number of significant changes. During this period, Congress attempted to keep pace with executive branch reorganizations (e.g., creation of subcommittees to consider appropriations for the new Departments of Defense in 1947 and Transportation in 1967) and changing national priorities (e.g., creation of a separate appropriations bill, and later subcommittee, for foreign operations).
The third era, from 1971 through 2003, was marked by a renewed stability. While some appropriations subcommittees were renamed to reflect changes in agency and departmental status, these changes did not represent major shifts in jurisdiction.
Following major changes in organization involving nearly every subcommittee in the 108th, 109th, and 110th Congresses, the two chambers have once again settled into an era of stable organization. In 2003, both the House and Senate Appropriations Committees merged their subcommittees on Transportation and Treasury and created new subcommittees to consider appropriations for the newly created Department of Homeland Security. In 2005, both chambers undertook major reorganizations, eliminating three subcommittees in the House and one in the Senate. This reorganization, however, left the two chambers with differing subcommittee jurisdictions. In 2007 the two Appropriations Committees reorganized again to reestablish parallel subcommittees that have remained in place since.
During the first session of the 110th Congress (2007), the House created the Select Intelligence Oversight Panel of the appropriations committee to oversee spending on federal intelligence activities. This panel was eliminated in 2011 at the beginning of the 112th Congress.
This report will be updated to reflect any changes in Appropriations subcommittee structure.


Question:
The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) is an interagency body comprised of nine Cabinet members, two ex officio members, and other members as appointed by the President, that assists the President in reviewing the national security aspects of foreign direct investment in the U.S. economy. While the group often operated in relative obscurity, the perceived change in the nation's national security and economic concerns following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and the proposed acquisition of commercial operations at six U.S. ports by Dubai Ports World in 2006 placed CFIUS's review procedures under intense scrutiny by Members of Congress and the public. In 2018, prompted by concerns over Chinese and other foreign investment in U.S. companies with advanced technology, Members of Congress and the Trump Administration enacted the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act of 2018 (FIRRMA), which became effective on November 11, 2018. This measure marked the most comprehensive revision of the foreign investment review process under CFIUS since the previous revision in 2007, the Foreign Investment and National Security Act (FINSA).
Generally, efforts to amend CFIUS have been spurred by a specific foreign investment transaction that raised national security concerns. Despite various changes to the CFIUS statute, some Members and others question the nature and scope of CFIUS reviews. The CFIUS process is governed by statute that sets a legal standard for the President to suspend or block a transaction if no other laws apply and if there is "credible evidence" that the transaction threatens to impair the national security, which is interpreted as transactions that pose a national security risk.
The U.S. policy approach to international investment traditionally established and supported an open and rules-based trading system that is in line with U.S. economic and national security interests. Recent debate over CFIUS reflects long-standing concerns about the impact of foreign investment on the economy and the role of economics as a component of national security. Some Members question CFIUS's performance and the way the Committee reviews cases involving foreign governments, particularly with the emergence of state-owned enterprises, and acquisitions involving leading-edge or foundational technologies. Recent changes expand CFIUS's purview to include a broader focus on the economic implications of individual foreign investment transactions and the cumulative effect of foreign investment on certain sectors of the economy or by investors from individual countries.
Changes in U.S. foreign investment policy have potentially large economy-wide implications, since the United States is the largest recipient and the largest overseas investor of foreign direct investment. To date, six investments have been blocked, although proposed transactions may have been withdrawn by the firms involved in lieu of having a transaction blocked. President Obama used the FINSA authority in 2012 to block an American firm, Ralls Corporation, owned by Chinese nationals, from acquiring a U.S. wind farm energy firm located near a Department of Defense (DOD) facility and to block a Chinese investment firm in 2016 from acquiring Aixtron, a Germany-based firm with assets in the United States. In 2017, President Trump blocked the acquisition of Lattice Semiconductor Corp. by the Chinese investment firm Canyon Bridge Capital Partners; in 2018, he blocked the acquisition of Qualcomm by Broadcom; and in 2019, he directed Beijing Kunlun Co. to divest itself of Grindr LLC, an online dating site, over concerns of foreign access to personally identifiable information of U.S. citizens. Given the number of regulatory changes mandated by FIRRMA, Congress may well conduct oversight hearings to determine the status of the changes and their implications.


Question:
There are five major sources of airport capital development funding: the federal Airport Improvement Program (AIP); local passenger facility charges (PFCs) imposed pursuant to federal law; tax-exempt bonds; state and local grants; and airport operating revenue from tenant lease and other revenue-generating activities such as landing fees. Federal involvement is most consequential in AIP, PFCs, and tax-exempt financing.
The AIP has been providing federal grants for airport development and planning since the passage of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248). AIP funding is usually spent on projects that support aircraft operations such as runways, taxiways, aprons, noise abatement, land purchase, and safety or emergency equipment. The funds obligated for AIP are drawn from the airport and airway trust fund, which is supported by a variety of user fees and fuel taxes. Different airports use different combinations of these sources depending on the individual airport's financial situation and the type of project being considered. Although smaller airports' individual grants are of much smaller dollar amounts than the grants going to large and medium hub airports, the smaller airports are much more dependent on AIP to meet their capital needs. This is particularly the case for noncommercial airports, which received over 25% of AIP grants distributed in FY2018. Larger airports are much more likely to issue tax-exempt bonds or finance capital projects with the proceeds of PFCs.
The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-254) provided annual AIP funding of $3.35 billion from the airport and airway trust fund for five years from FY2019 to FY2023. The act left the basic structure of AIP unchanged, but authorized supplemental annual funding of over $1 billion from the general fund to the AIP discretionary funds, starting with $1.02 billion in FY2019, and required at least 50% of the additional discretionary funds to be available to nonhub and small hub airports. The act included a provision permitting eligible projects at small airports (including those in the State Block Grant Program) to receive a 95% federal share of project costs (otherwise capped at 90%), if such projects are determined to be successive phases of a multiphase construction project that received a grant in FY2011.
The 2018 reauthorization expanded the number of states that could participate in the State Block Grant Program from 10 to 20 and also expanded the existing airport privatization pilot program (now renamed the Airport Investment Partnership Program) to include more than 10 airports. The law included a provision that forbids states or local governments from levying or collecting taxes on a business at an airport that "is not generally imposed on sales or services by that State, political subdivision, or authority unless wholly utilized for airport or aeronautical purposes."
The airport improvement issues Congress generally faces in the context of FAA reauthorization include the following:
Should airport development funding be increased or decreased? Should the $4.50 ceiling on PFCs be eliminated, raised, or kept as it is? Could AIP be restructured to address congestion at the busiest U.S. airports, or should a large share of AIP resources continue to go to noncommercial airports that lack other sources of funding? Should Congress set tighter limits on the purposes for which AIP and PFC funds may be spent?
This report provides an overview of airport improvement financing, with emphasis on AIP and the related passenger facility charges. It also discusses some ongoing airport issues that are likely to be included in a future FAA reauthorization debate.


Question:
This report provides an overview and analysis of FY2019 appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The primary focus of this report is on congressional direction and funding provided to DHS through the appropriations process. It includes an Appendix with definitions of key budget terms used throughout the suite of Congressional Research Service reports on homeland security appropriations. It also directs the reader to other reports providing context for specific component appropriations.
As part of an overall DHS budget that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) estimated to be $74.88 billion, the Trump Administration requested $47.43 billion in adjusted net discretionary budget authority through the appropriations process for DHS for FY2018. The request amounted to a $0.29 billion (0.6%) decrease from the $47.72 billion in annual appropriations enacted for FY2018 through the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2018 (P.L. 115-141, Division F).
The Administration also requested discretionary funding for DHS components that does not count against discretionary spending limits and is not reflected in the adjusted net discretionary budget authority total. The Administration requested an additional $6.65 billion for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in disaster relief funding, as defined by the Budget Control Act (P.L. 112-25; BCA), and in the budget request for the Department of Defense (DOD), $165 million in Overseas Contingency Operations designated funding (OCO) from the Operations and Maintenance budget of the U.S. Navy.
On June 21, 2018, the Senate Committee on Appropriations reported out S. 3109, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2019, accompanied by S.Rept. 115-283. Committee-reported S. 3109 included $48.33 billion in adjusted net discretionary budget authority for FY2019. This was $901 million (1.9%) above the level requested by the Administration, and $611 million (1.3%) above the enacted level for FY2018. The Senate committee-reported bill included the Administration-requested levels for disaster relief funding, and included the OCO funding in an appropriation to the Coast Guard, rather than as a transfer from the U.S. Navy.
On July 26, 2018, the House Appropriations Committee marked up H.R. 6776, its version of the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2019. H.Rept. 115-948 was filed September 12, 2018. Committee-reported H.R. 6776 included $51.44 billion in adjusted net discretionary budget authority. The House committee-reported bill included the Administration-requested levels for disaster relief funding, but unlike S. 3109, did not include the OCO funding for the Coast Guard.
As some of the annual appropriations for FY2019 remained unfinished, a consolidated appropriations bill that included a continuing resolution was passed by Congress and signed into law on September 28, 2018. The resolution, which covered DHS along with several other departments and agencies, continued funding at a rate of operations equal to FY2018 with some exceptions. This continuing resolution was extended through December 21, 2018, after which point annual appropriations lapsed. A partial government shutdown ensued for 35 days until continuing appropriations were resumed January 25, 2019, by P.L. 116-5.
P.L. 116-6, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019, was passed by Congress on February 14, 2019, and signed into law the following day. Division A of the act included the Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2019, which included $49.41 billion in adjusted net discretionary budget authority, $12 billion designated for the costs of major disasters, and $165 million in OCO funding for the Coast Guard.
This report will be updated in the event of FY2019 supplemental appropriations actions.


Question:
The 115th Congress enacted several provisions affecting management of the National Forest System (NFS), administered by the Forest Service (in the Department of Agriculture), and the lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM, in the Department of the Interior). The provisions were enacted through two laws: the Stephen Sepp Wildfire Suppression Funding and Forest Management Activities Act, enacted as Division O of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (P.L. 115-141, commonly referred to as the FY2018 omnibus), and the Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-334, Title VIII, commonly referred to as the 2018 farm bill).
Many of the provisions enacted by the 115th Congress affect Forest Service and BLM implementation of two laws: the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA). These laws, among others, authorize specific forest management activities and establish decisionmaking procedures for those activities. The enacted provisions are summarized and analyzed in the following categories: project planning and implementation, wildland fire management, forest management and restoration programs, and miscellaneous. Ongoing issues for Congress include oversight of (i) the agencies' implementation of the new laws, and (ii) the extent these provisions achieve their specified purposes, such as improving agency efficiencies, increasing the scale, scope, and implementation of forest restoration projects, and reducing hazardous fuel levels to mitigate against the risk of catastrophic wildfire.
Both the FY2018 omnibus and 2018 farm bill included provisions that affect Forest Service and BLM decisionmaking processes by changing certain aspects of the NEPA process and the interagency consultation requirements established in Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). For example, each law specified that certain forest management projects would be considered actions categorically excluded from the requirements of NEPA. Also, both laws expanded various authorities originally authorized in HFRA intended to expedite decisionmaking for specific projects. This included reauthorizing the use of procedures intended to expedite priority projects in designated NFS insect and disease treatment areas and amending the definition of an authorized fuel reduction project to include additional activities.
The FY2018 omnibus and 2018 farm bill also contained provisions that affect federal wildland fire management. The FY2018 omnibus directed the Secretary of Agriculture to adapt the national-scale wildfire hazard potential map for use at the community level to inform risk management decisions. Both laws directed Forest Service and DOI to provide annual reports on a variety of wildfire-related metrics. The FY2018 omnibus also changed how Congress appropriates funding specifically for wildfire suppression purposes. The so-called wildfire funding fix authorized an adjustment to the discretionary spending limits for wildfire suppression operations for each year from FY2020 through FY2027. However, statutory spending limits are set to expire after FY2021, meaning that the adjustment is effectively in place for two years.
Congress has established specific forest restoration programs for Forest Service and BLM, or has authorized forest restoration to be one of many activities or land management objectives for some programs. Forest restoration activities address concerns related to forest health, such as improving forest resistance and resilience to disturbance events (e.g., insect and disease infestation or uncharacteristically catastrophic wildfires). The 115th Congress established two new programs for Forest Service (water source protection and watershed condition framework) and amended three others: the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program (CFLRP, available only for Forest Service), stewardship contracting authority, and the good neighbor authority. Aspects of several of these programs allow Forest Service and BLM to partner with various stakeholders in different ways to perform specified forest management and restoration activities.
Both the FY2018 omnibus and the 2018 farm bill enacted various other provisions related to land acquisition, exchange and disposal; the issuance of special use authorizations for the use or occupancy of federal lands; the payments, activities, and Resource Advisory Committees authorized by the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act; and forest management on tribal lands.


Question:
Compared with most other tax provisions, the potential revenue gain scored for an increase in capital gains taxes is strongly affected by behavioral responses assumed by the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) and the Department of the Treasury. As an illustration, the Obama Administration estimated in February 2010 that allowing the Bush tax cuts for capital gains to expire would have raised $16 billion of revenue in FY2019. Yet, based on Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projections in January 2010, the current effective capital gains tax was 13.3% in 2008 and would have increased to 17.9% in 2019; applying the differential in these rates to the realizations in 2019 would have produced a revenue difference of $40 billion. Although some of this differential could arise from different forecasts, assumptions about behavioral responses are the main reason for the reduction in projected revenues.
Because these behavioral responses limit the potential revenue scored from a tax increase on capital gains and because of concerns that most income of very high-income individuals is in the form of capital gains (whether accrued or realized), proposals have been advanced to tax capital gains currently (as accrued) by marking to market publicly traded securities and imposing a look-back tax on difficult-to-value assets. Such a change faces a number of difficulties; thus it is important to understand the evidence of the behavioral responses. The analysis in this study suggests that the Administration's projections and those of the JCT, absent a change in their realizations response, may understate revenue gains from increasing capital gains tax rates.
Realizations responses in revenue projections by the revenue-estimating agencies (Joint Committee on Taxation and the Treasury) were publicly discussed at the end of the 1980s, in the midst of a contentious debate. The larger the absolute value of the elasticity (the percentage change in realizations divided by the percentage change in taxes), the smaller the revenue gain; with elasticities larger than one in absolute value, a loss would occur. Estimated elasticities in the literature prior to 1990 ranged from 0.3 to almost 3.8, leaving limited guidance for revenue-estimating agencies. JCT used an elasticity of 0.76, whereas Treasury used an elasticity of one.
Concerns were raised at that time that there were serious problems with this evidence. Perhaps the most significant concern was that the larger results from studies of individuals reflected a timing or transitory response (high-income taxpayers with variable income chose to realize gains when tax rates were temporarily low). This transitory response is not appropriate for assessing a permanent change.
Evidence and studies since that time suggest that the permanent elasticity is considerably lower than what appeared to be the case in 1990. The surge in realizations in 1986 as a capital gains tax rate increase was preannounced provided compelling evidence of the importance of a transitory response. A study of the limits of realizations (which cannot exceed accruals in the long run) suggested the elasticity (percentage change in realizations divided by the percentage change in the tax rate) could be no more than 0.5 in absolute value (evaluated at a 22% tax rate), and a midpoint of 0.25. A number of new econometric studies, using new techniques to isolate the permanent response, suggested elasticities of around 0.5 or less. Other recent studies suggested larger responses. The JCT appears to maintain its original assumption, while the Treasury response has been reduced to be similar to JCT's; both appear to exceed the realizations limit.
Simulations indicate that an increase in capital gains tax rates of five percentage points would raise slightly more than $40 billion on a static basis for 2019, about $30 billion using the 0.25 elasticity and $18 billion using the 0.5 elasticity. The JCT estimates would likely be around $10 billion, reflecting a 0.68 elasticity. Taxing gains on an accrual basis would eliminate this response in the long run and gain additional revenues on currently unrealized gains.


Question:
The annual Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs (SFOPS) appropriations legislation funds many of the nondefense international affairs activities of the United States. The State Department portion makes up about one-third of the funding, and the Foreign Operations accounts comprise the remainder. SFOPS is one of 12 annual appropriations acts that fund the federal government each fiscal year.
Congress appropriated SFOPS in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 (P.L. 116-6), under Division F, "Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2019." That act is divided into eight titles. Each title funds a variety of government activities, ranging from the operational and administrative costs of government agencies, to direct grant funds for private nonprofit or multilateral organizations. By title, SFOPS provisions set out activities as follows:
Title I—Department of State and Related Agency: Funds State Department general operations and diplomatic programs, such as cultural exchange programs, dues to the United Nations, international broadcasting, and grants to U.S. diplomacy-focused nongovernmental organizations such as the National Endowment for Democracy. Title II—United States Agency for International Development (USAID): Funds general operations of USAID, but not USAID foreign assistance programs (see Title III). Title III—Bilateral Economic Assistance: The primary funding source for humanitarian and international development programs of the U.S. government. Includes bilateral assistance for disaster relief, global health, and economic development activities, as well as funding several independent development-oriented agencies, notably the Millennium Challenge Corporation and Peace Corps. Title IV—International Security Assistance: The primary title for U.S. security cooperation programs abroad outside of the National Defense appropriations bill. Includes antinarcotics and rule of law strengthening programs; nonproliferation, anti-terrorism, and demining programs; some assistance to foreign militaries; and some funding for international peacekeeping efforts. Title V—Multilateral Assistance: Contributes funds to several multilateral finance and grant-making institutions. Title VI—Export and Investment Assistance: Funds the three independent export promotion agencies of the U.S. government, the Export-Import Bank; the Overseas Private Investment Corporation; and the Trade and Development Agency. Title VII—General Provisions: Establishes guidance for the allocation of funds appropriated in other titles and lays out restrictions and priorities for programming. Title VIII—Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on Terrorism: Provides additional funding to accounts in Titles I to V, to address ongoing U.S. military operations priorities overseas, particularly terrorist threats in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as worldwide.


Question:
The Small Business Administration (SBA) administers several types of 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 the SBA's loan, venture capital, training, and contracting programs has increased in recent years, primarily because small businesses are viewed as a means to stimulate economic activity and create jobs. Many Members of Congress also regularly receive constituent inquiries about the SBA's programs.
This report provides an overview of the SBA's programs, including
entrepreneurial development programs (including Small Business Development Centers, Women's Business Centers, SCORE, and Microloan Technical Assistance); disaster assistance; capital access programs (including the 7(a) loan guaranty program, the 504/Certified Development Company loan guaranty program, the Microloan program, International Trade and Export Promotion programs, and lender oversight); contracting programs (including the 8(a) Minority Small Business and Capital Ownership Development Program, the Historically Underutilized Business Zones [HUBZones] program, the Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business Program, the Women-Owned Small Business [WOSB] Federal Contract Program, and the Surety Bond Guarantee Program); SBA regional and district offices; the Office of Inspector General; the Office of Advocacy; and capital investment programs (including the Small Business Investment Company program, the New Markets Venture Capital program, the Small Business Innovation Research [SBIR] program, the Small Business Technology Transfer program [STTR], and growth accelerators).
The report also discusses recent programmatic changes resulting from the enactment of legislation (such as P.L. 111-5, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, P.L. 111-240, the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, P.L. 114-38, the Veterans Entrepreneurship Act of 2015, P.L. 114-88, the Recovery Improvements for Small Entities After Disaster Act of 2015 [RISE After Disaster Act of 2015], P.L. 115-123, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, and P.L. 115-189, the Small Business 7(a) Lending Oversight Reform Act of 2018).
In addition, it provides an overview of the SBA's budget and references other CRS reports that examine these programs in greater detail.


Question:
The Constitution vests Congress with the legislative power, which includes authority to establish federal agencies and conduct oversight of those entities. Criminal investigations and prosecutions, however, are generally regarded as core executive functions assigned to the executive branch. Because of the potential conflicts of interest that may arise when the executive branch investigates itself, there have often been calls for criminal investigations by prosecutors with independence from the executive branch. In response, Congress and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) have used both statutory and regulatory mechanisms to establish a process for such inquiries. These frameworks have aimed to balance the competing goals of independence and accountability with respect to inquiries of executive branch officials.
Under the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, for example, Congress authorized the appointment of "special prosecutors," who later were known as "independent counsels." Under this statutory scheme, the Attorney General could request that a specially appointed three-judge panel appoint an outside individual to investigate and prosecute alleged violations of criminal law. These individuals were vested with "full power and independent authority to exercise all investigative and prosecutorial functions and powers of the Department of Justice" with respect to matters within their jurisdiction. Ultimately, debate over the scope, cost, and effect of the investigations (perhaps most notably the Iran-Contra and the Whitewater investigations) resulted in the law's expiration and nonrenewal in 1999.
Following the lapse of these statutory provisions, DOJ promulgated regulations authorizing the Attorney General (or, if the Attorney General is recused from a matter, the Acting Attorney General) to appoint a "special counsel" from outside the federal government to conduct specific investigations or prosecutions that may be deemed to present a conflict of interest if pursued under the normal procedures of the agency. Special counsels are not subject to "day-to-day supervision" by any official and are vested "within the scope of his or her jurisdiction, the full power and independent authority to exercise all investigative and prosecutorial functions of any United States Attorney."
The independent nature of these investigations has raised constitutional questions about the propriety of the appointment and removal mechanisms provided for the officials leading the inquiries. These concerns were addressed by the Supreme Court in the 1988 case of Morrison v. Olson, which upheld the constitutionality of the independent counsel statute. The reasoning of that opinion has been challenged, however, and the Court's subsequent analysis of related issues in the 1997 case of Edmond v. United States and the 2010 case Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Accounting Oversight Board did not apply the standard enunciated in Morrison. The constitutional status of a statutory framework similar to the independent counsel statute is thus subject to debate. Several bills introduced in the 116th Congress (including S. 71 and H.R. 197, which merge aspects of two preceding bills introduced in the 115th Congress, S. 1735 and S. 1741) would statutorily insulate a special counsel from removal, echoing aspects of the independent counsel statute's provisions. Whether such proposals would withstand constitutional challenge today might ultimately turn on the continued vitality of the analysis applied in Morrison.


Question:
The Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) is one of the most-tracked single accounts funded by Congress each year. Managed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), it is the primary source of funding for the federal government's domestic general disaster relief programs. These programs, authorized under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), outline the federal role in supporting state, local, tribal, and territorial governments as they respond to and recover from a variety of incidents. They take effect in the event that nonfederal levels of government find their own capacity to deal with an incident is overwhelmed.
The appropriation which feeds the DRF predates current disaster relief programs and FEMA itself. It dates back to a half-million dollar deficiency appropriation to the President in 1948 that was drafted to allow him to use these resources to provide temporary emergency assistance to communities in the wake of unspecified potential natural disasters. Although the appropriation was provided with one particular Upper Midwest flooding incident in mind, the legislative language allowed the funding to be used more broadly, if the President wished to do so. This policy of providing general disaster relief was a shift from previous policy, which largely left emergency management, disaster relief, and disaster recovery in the hands of other levels of government and private relief organizations. Prior to the development of the general relief program, when the federal government got involved in disaster response and recovery, it was on an ad hoc, case-by-case basis. By comparison, the annual appropriation for the DRF in FY2018—70 years after the initial appropriation for general disaster relief—was $7.9 billion.
The evolving federal role in disaster relief is partially illuminated in the funding stream provided for it through the DRF. What is a fixture of federal policy today was not a given a century ago. Examining the history of the program and its funding through the DRF may help Congress consider future approaches to disaster relief.
This report introduces the DRF and provides a brief history of federal disaster relief programs. It goes on to discuss the appropriations that fund the DRF, and provides a funding history from FY1964 to the present day, discussing factors that contributed to those changing appropriations levels. It concludes with discussion of how the budget request for the DRF has been developed and structured, given the unpredictability of the annual budgetary impact of disasters, and raises some potential issues for congressional consideration.
This report is updated on an annual basis.


Question:
Afghanistan has been a central U.S. foreign policy concern since 2001, when the United States, in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, led a military campaign against Al Qaeda and the Taliban government that harbored and supported it. In the intervening 17 years, the United States has suffered around 2,400 fatalities in Afghanistan (including seven in 2019 to date) and Congress has appropriated approximately $133 billion for reconstruction there. In that time, an elected Afghan government has replaced the Taliban, and nearly every measure of human development has improved, although future prospects of those measures remain mixed. The fundamental objective of U.S. efforts in Afghanistan is "preventing any further attacks on the United States by terrorists enjoying safe haven or support in Afghanistan."
In early 2019, U.S. military engagement in Afghanistan appears closer to ending than perhaps ever before as U.S. officials negotiate directly with Taliban interlocutors on the issues of counterterrorism and the presence of U.S. troops. However, U.S. negotiators caution that talks are still at a preliminary stage, and Afghan government representatives have not been directly involved. Lead U.S. negotiator Zalmay Khalilzad insists that the United States seeks a comprehensive peace agreement but some worry that the United States will prioritize a military withdrawal over a complex political settlement that preserves some of the social, political, and humanitarian gains made since 2001. It remains unclear what kind of political arrangement could satisfy both Kabul and the Taliban to the extent that the latter fully abandons armed struggle.
Press reports in December 2018 and early 2019 indicate that the Trump Administration may be considering withdrawing some U.S. forces, though U.S. officials maintain that no policy decision has been made to reduce U.S. force levels. Many observers assess that a full-scale U.S. withdrawal would lead to the collapse of the Afghan government and perhaps even the reestablishment of Taliban control. By many measures, the Taliban are in a stronger military position now than at any point since 2001, though at least some once-public metrics related to the conduct of the war have been classified or are no longer produced (including district-level territorial and population control assessments, as of the April 30, 2019, quarterly report from the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction). Underlying the negotiations is the unsettled state of Afghan politics, which is a major complicating factor: Afghanistan held inconclusive parliamentary elections in October 2018 and the all-important presidential election, originally slated for April 2019, has been postponed twice and is now scheduled for September 2019.
For background information and analysis on the history of congressional engagement with Afghanistan and U.S. policy there, as well as a summary of recent Afghanistan-related legislative proposals, see CRS Report R45329, Afghanistan: Legislation in the 115th Congress, by Clayton Thomas.


Question:
Why GAO Did This Study

Starting in September 2017, the first borrowers became eligible and began applying to have their loans forgiven through the PSLF program. GAO was asked to review the PSLF program.
This report examines the (1) number of borrowers pursuing PSLF and the extent to which Education has conducted outreach to increase borrower awareness of program eligibility requirements, and (2) extent to which Education has provided key information to the PSLF servicer and borrowers. GAO analyzed data from the PSLF servicer on employment and loan certifications and loan forgiveness applications as of April 2018; reviewed Education's guidance and instructions for the PSLF servicer; assessed the information used by Education and the PSLF servicer and communicated to borrowers against federal internal control standards; and interviewed officials from Education and the four largest loan servicers, including the PSLF servicer.

What GAO Found

As of April 2018, over a million borrowers had taken steps to pursue Public Loan Service Forgiveness (PSLF) from the Department of Education (Education), but few borrowers have been granted loan forgiveness to date. The PSLF program, established by statute in 2007, forgives borrowers' federal student loans after they make at least 10 years of qualifying payments while working for certain public service employers and meeting other requirements. Over 890,000 borrowers have passed a first step towards potentially qualifying for PSLF by voluntarily having their employment and loans certified as eligible for PSLF as of April 2018, according to data from Education's PSLF loan servicer. While borrowers first became eligible to apply for loan forgiveness in September 2017, few applicants had met all requirements as of April 2018, with 55 borrowers having received loan forgiveness (see figure). Education has used various outreach methods to inform borrowers about PSLF, but the large number of denied borrowers suggests that many are still confused by the program requirements. A recently enacted law requires Education to conduct additional outreach to help borrowers understand how to meet program requirements.
Education does not provide key information to the PSLF servicer and borrowers.
Guidance and instructions: Education provides piecemeal guidance and instructions to the PSLF servicer it contracts with to process certification requests and loan forgiveness applications. This information is fragmented across the servicing contract, contract updates, and hundreds of emails. As a result, PSLF servicer officials said their staff are sometimes unaware of important policy clarifications. Education officials said they plan to create a comprehensive PSLF servicing manual but have no timeline for doing so.
Qualifying employers: Education has not provided the PSLF servicer and borrowers with a definitive source of information for determining which employers qualify a borrower for loan forgiveness, making it difficult for the servicer to determine whether certain employers qualify and for borrowers to make informed employment decisions.
Qualifying loan payments: Education does not ensure the PSLF servicer receives consistent information on borrowers' prior loan payments from the eight other federal loan servicers, which could increase the risk of miscounting qualifying payments. Borrowers also lack sufficiently detailed information to easily identify potential payment counting errors that could affect their eligibility for loan forgiveness.
These weaknesses are contrary to federal internal control standards for using and communicating quality information, creating uncertainty for borrowers and raising the risk some may be improperly granted or denied loan forgiveness.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that Education (1) develop a timeline for issuing a comprehensive guidance and instructions document for the PSLF servicer, (2) provide the PSLF servicer and borrowers with additional information about qualifying employers, (3) standardize payment information other loan servicers provide to the PSLF servicer, and (4) ensure borrowers receive sufficiently detailed information to help identify potential payment counting errors. Education agreed with GAO's recommendations.


Question:
Why GAO Did This Study

IRS attempts to collect tax debts to promote tax compliance but does not have resources to pursue all debts. A 2015 law required IRS to contract with private collection agencies for certain tax debts. However, stakeholders such as the National Taxpayer Advocate have noted that safeguards are needed to protect taxpayers from risks, such as scammers impersonating collection agencies.
GAO was asked to review IRS's PDC program. This report assesses the extent to which IRS (1) documented program objectives and measures, (2) documented revenue collection and cost results data, (3) used data to improve the program and meet its objectives, and (4) addressed risks to prevent or address scams and other harmful effects on taxpayers. GAO analyzed IRS's documents on PDC program administration and planning; collections and costs reporting; and managing risks. GAO interviewed officials from IRS and external groups that represent taxpayer interests.

What GAO Found

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) documented objectives and proposed measures for its private debt collection (PDC) program for sending tax debt cases to private collection agencies, but the objectives are not clearly defined and their linkages with program measures are unclear. For example, one objective is to provide taxpayers an opportunity to understand and resolve their tax debts, but the proposed measure focuses on taxpayer satisfaction with collection agencies rather than taxpayers' understanding. The objectives also do not include some key program risks, such as scams. Without clearly defined objectives and measures, IRS will have limited ability to assess program results.
IRS's reports to Congress on the PDC program have not provided complete financial information. For example, as of September 2018, IRS reported program revenue collections of about $89 million and costs of $67 million, suggesting a positive balance of $22 million for the general fund of the Treasury (the Treasury). However, the report did not clarify that about $51 million collected went to the Treasury and the remaining $38 million were retained by IRS in two special funds to pay current and future program costs. Without this information, Congress has an incomplete picture of the program's true costs and revenues.
IRS has not analyzed PDC program results to identify the types of cases that should not be assigned to collection agencies because they do not result in collections. GAO's analysis of IRS data shows that between April 2017 and September 2018 about 73,000 of 111,000 cases closed by collection agencies had little or no revenue collected because the collection agencies were unable to contact the taxpayer or collect the debt, among other reasons. Given the costs associated with managing these cases, without such analyses, IRS may continue to use resources inefficiently and assign cases with little or no potential for revenue collection, or miss opportunities to assign other cases that could produce more revenue.
IRS has identified and taken steps to mitigate some PDC program risks that could harm taxpayers. However, IRS has not completed the process of identifying and documenting all risks nor has it fully assessed risks to taxpayers from the program or its response to these risks. Specifically, GAO found that
IRS identified and documented 6 taxpayer risks related to the PDC program, such as scammers impersonating collection agencies, but had not identified an additional 10 risks that GAO did, such as taxpayers agreeing to debt payments they cannot afford.
IRS had not consistently assessed the impact or likelihood of the identified risks. As a result, IRS's responses to mitigate risks were broad in nature, and were not prioritized or aligned to address specific risks.
IRS monitors a sample of collection agencies' telephone calls with taxpayers and reviews taxpayer complaints, but these methods do not provide information on whether IRS's responses to risks are effective.
Without addressing these risk management issues, IRS cannot ensure it has fully identified PDC program risks and effectively responded to protect taxpayers from them.

What GAO Recommends

GAO makes 12 recommendations, including that IRS improve PDC program objectives and measures, revenue and cost reporting, analysis to assign cases, and management of taxpayer risks. IRS agreed with nine recommendations, partially agreed with GAO's recommendation on improving objectives—which GAO clarified in response—and disagreed with two recommendations to include certain costs in reporting and analyze data to identify cases not collectible. GAO maintains the recommendations would more fully report PDC program federal costs and prevent waste.


Question:
Why GAO Did This Study

The federal government continues to work to reduce its real property inventory and associated costs. GSA provides space for agencies in government-owned and commercially leased buildings. In 2015, the OMB issued a memorandum requiring the 24 agencies with chief financial officers to reduce their domestic office and warehouse space. These agencies are required to set annual reduction targets for a 5-year time period and update their real property plans annually.
GAO was asked to review the implementation of this space reduction initiative. This report discusses: (1) the approaches and any challenges the 24 agencies identified to achieving their reduction targets for all their domestic office and warehouse space; (2) the extent these agencies reduced their space and met their fiscal year 2016 targets; and (3) how GSA manages vacated space it had leased to these agencies.
GAO conducted a content analysis of the 24 agencies' real property plans for fiscal years 2016 and 2017 and analyzed agencies' data as submitted to GSA on their targets and reductions for fiscal year 2016, the only year for which data were available. GAO selected five agencies as case studies based on several factors, including size of the agencies' office and warehouse portfolio, agency reduction targets, and fiscal year 2016 reported reductions. GAO reviewed relevant documentation and interviewed officials from GSA, OMB, and GAO's case study agencies. GAO provided a draft of this product to GSA, OMB, and our case study agencies for comment. GAO incorporated technical comments, as appropriate.

What GAO Found

Most of the 24 agencies with chief financial officers reported to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the General Services Administration (GSA) that they planned to consolidate their office and warehouse space and allocate fewer square feet per employee as the key ways to achieve their space reduction targets. For example, the Department of Agriculture reported it will consolidate staff from five component agencies in two office buildings. When complete, the space allocated per employee will average about 250 square feet down from a high of 420 square feet per employee. In taking these actions, the agencies most often identified the cost of space reduction projects as a challenge to achieving their targets. Agencies cited costs such as for space renovations to accommodate more staff and required environmental clean-up before disposing of property as challenges to completing projects. Some agencies required to maintain offices across the country reported that their mission requirements limit their ability to reduce their space.
In fiscal year 2016, 17 of the 24 agencies reported they reduced their space, but had varying success achieving their first-year targets. Of the 17 agencies, 9 exceeded their target and reduced more space than planned, 7 missed their target (by anywhere between 2.8 and 96.7 percent), and 1 reduced space, despite a targeted increase. Agency officials said that it is not unusual for projects to shift to different years and that such shifts could lead to missing targets one year and exceeding them the next.
GSA has processes to manage the space vacated by agencies that is leased through GSA. For example, starting in November 2016, GSA started tracking agencies' space release requests centrally to help standardize the process and established an e-mail address to which agencies can submit requests. GSA relies on regional offices to manage real property in their regions and to identify tenants for vacant space or to remove unused space from the inventory. GSA's regional officials said regular monitoring and coordinating with agencies minimizes the likelihood GSA is caught off guard by a return of space. These processes also help them to plan ahead. GSA met its 2016 performance goal to have an annual vacant space rate of no more than 3.2 percent in its federally owned and leased buildings. However, given the recent implementation of the space reduction initiative, it is too early to determine the extent to which agencies will return space to GSA prior to the end of their leases and the effect on GSA's inventory.


Question:
Why GAO Did This Study

Many state and local crime labs have backlogs of requests for DNA analysis of crime scene evidence, as reported by grantees participating in DOJ's CEBR grant program. These backlogs can include sexual assault kits. Since 2011, DOJ's Office of Justice Programs—the primary grant-making arm of DOJ—has awarded nearly $500 million to states and local jurisdictions through the CEBR grant program to help reduce DNA evidence awaiting analysis at crime labs. There have been concerns that these backlogs of unanalyzed evidence have enabled serial offenders to reoffend or have delayed justice.
This statement is based on preliminary observations and analyses from GAO's ongoing review of (1) the level of crime scene DNA evidence backlogs among CEBR grantees and the factors that contribute to such backlogs; (2) the extent to which DOJ has clearly defined goals for CEBR; and (3) the extent to which OJP has controls for CEBR related to federal conflicts of interest and lobbying requirements. To develop these preliminary findings, GAO reviewed CEBR grantee data from 2011-2016 (the latest data available) and studies relevant to the DNA backlog, visited selected labs, and interviewed DOJ officials, among others.

What GAO Found

GAO's preliminary analysis found that, among the Department of Justice's (DOJ) DNA Capacity Enhancement and Backlog Reduction Program (CEBR) grantees (state and local entities with forensic crime labs), the reported aggregated backlog of crime scene DNA analysis requests has increased by 77 percent from 2011-2016. The growth in this reported aggregate backlog is the result of labs receiving more requests than they were able to complete, although they were receiving and completing more requests, as shown in the figure below.
GAO's preliminary analysis also found that the National Institute of Justice (NIJ)—the component within DOJ's Office of Justice Programs (OJP) that is responsible for administering CEBR grants—has not defined CEBR program-wide goals in clear, specific, and measurable terms. Additionally, GAO's ongoing work identified statements in NIJ and CEBR program documentation that communicated program-wide goals, but the documentation did not consistently identify the same goals or cite the same number of goals. GAO continues to evaluate CEBR program goals and is in the process of evaluating related CEBR performance measures as part of its ongoing work.
GAO's preliminary analysis found that OJP has some controls to implement federal requirements associated with conflicts of interest and lobbying that apply to both OJP CEBR grant administrators as well as recipients of CEBR grant funding, but OJP has not fully established all appropriate controls related to lobbying.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is not making recommendations in this testimony but will consider them, as appropriate, as it finalizes its work.


Question:
Why GAO Did This Study

State spends millions of dollars annually on allowances to compensate its employees for costs and hardships related to foreign assignments. Many of these assignments are critical to U.S. foreign policy objectives. In accordance with U.S. law, State employees working abroad may be reimbursed for costs related to working overseas, including the cost of living in expensive locations, dependent education costs, and the costs of maintaining family members away from post. They also may be eligible for such allowances in locations where they encounter harsh or dangerous living conditions. These allowances cover over 13,000 employees across more than 275 posts.
GAO was asked to review State's administration of allowances for its employees. GAO's September 2017 report focused on State hardship and danger pay allowances ( GAO-17-715 ), while this report (1) describes all of the allowances that State offers its employees serving overseas and (2) examines the amount State spent annually on these allowances in fiscal years 2011 through 2016. GAO analyzed State data and documents and communicated with State officials in Washington, D.C., and Charleston, South Carolina, the location of State's Bureau of the Comptroller and Global Financial Services.

What GAO Found

The Department of State (State) offers 14 different allowances to compensate State employees serving at overseas posts for costs and hardships related to foreign assignments across four categories.
Cost-of-living allowances consist of six types of allowances that reimburse employees for certain costs incurred from employment overseas, such as the cost for dependent education that would normally be free in the United States.
Recruitment and retention incentive allowances consist of three types of allowances that compensate employees for service at posts where conditions may be difficult or dangerous. For example, hardship pay compensates employees for service where conditions differ substantially from those in the United States.
Quarters allowances consist of three types of allowances that reimburse employees for substantially all housing costs at posts where government housing is not provided. For example, the temporary quarters subsistence allowance pays for temporary housing when government-provided housing is not available.
Other allowances consist of two types of allowances that reimburse employees, such as ambassadors, who must maintain an official residence in-country or employees who incur expenses representing the U.S. government in an official capacity to a foreign government.
State spent almost $480 million per year on its 14 allowances for employees serving overseas, totaling almost $2.9 billion in fiscal years 2011 through 2016. Most of this amount went toward cost-of-living and recruitment and retention allowances. During this period, the three largest individual allowances accounted for about 70 percent of the total spending on all allowances. These were the education allowance, about $853.0 million; hardship pay, about $732.3 million; and post allowance, used to offset the higher cost of living at certain posts, about $417.3 million.


Question:
Why GAO Did This Study

FHA insures private lenders against losses from defaults on single-family mortgages. According to independent actuarial reviews, in fiscal years 2009–2014, FHA's MMI Fund (which insures $1.2 trillion in single-family traditional and reverse mortgages) did not meet its statutory 2 percent capital requirement. Also, a budgetary review determined that the fund required $1.69 billion in supplemental funds in fiscal year 2013.
GAO was asked to examine issues concerning the MMI Fund's capital requirement and actuarial reviews. This report examines the types of information provided by assessments of the fund's financial condition, FHA's capital requirement and stress testing practices, and trade-offs associated with including reverse mortgages in the fund's capital assessment.
GAO analyzed actuarial and budgetary assessments of the MMI Fund. GAO reviewed financial institution and regulatory capital and stress testing principles to develop an evaluative framework and applied it to FHA. GAO also interviewed federal and mortgage industry officials.

What GAO Found

The Federal Housing Administration's (FHA) budgetary reviews of the Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund (MMI Fund) assess whether it needs more budget authority to cover expected future costs, and independent actuarial reviews provide complementary information on the fund's finances. FHA uses the actuarial reviews to assess whether the MMI Fund's capital ratio (economic value divided by insurance obligations) meets the 2 percent requirement and how fund components would perform under alternative economic scenarios. While the actuarial assessment does not directly determine the need for additional budget authority, it evaluates the fund's ability to absorb unexpected losses and may prompt changes in FHA policies and insurance premiums.
Capital requirements and stress testing practices—tools for managing financial risks—for the MMI Fund are not consistent with all elements of a framework GAO developed to help assess these tools in the context of FHA's single-family mortgage insurance programs. In accordance with the framework, FHA's capital assessments and stress tests are transparent and incorporate a number of relevant risk factors. However, areas of inconsistency include the following:
Scenario-based requirement . The statutory capital requirement is intended to help ensure the fund can absorb unexpected losses but is not based on a specified risk threshold, such as an adverse economic scenario the fund would be expected to withstand without requiring supplemental funds.
Accountability mechanisms . The capital requirement also does not include accountability mechanisms, such as a set of steps FHA would have to take if the capital ratio again fell below the 2 percent minimum.
Fund-wide stress tests . FHA has conducted separate stress tests—projections of financial condition under adverse scenarios—of its forward (traditional) and reverse mortgage (loans against home equity available to seniors) portfolios, but has not performed tests on a fund-wide basis.
Stress test objectives . FHA has not defined specific objectives for its stress tests such as determining the amount of additional capital, if any, that would be needed to withstand conditions similar to the last housing crisis.
Strengthening FHA's capital requirement and stress testing practices could help ensure that the MMI Fund is able to withstand economic downturns and that stress test results are as relevant and useful as possible for risk management.
Including reverse mortgages in the fund's capital assessment has advantages and disadvantages. Unlike for stress tests, FHA jointly assesses forward and reverse mortgages to calculate a combined capital ratio. Subjecting the reverse mortgage portfolio to capital assessment has made its financial condition more transparent. But, the portfolio's sensitivity to changes in economic assumptions makes the combined ratio more unpredictable. Alternative approaches also pose trade-offs. For example, a separate reverse mortgage capital requirement may help ensure the financial transparency of both portfolios, but requiring FHA to hold more capital to account for the volatility of the reverse mortgage portfolio could compel FHA to raise insurance premiums or lower borrowing limits.

What GAO Recommends

Congress should consider specifying the economic conditions the MMI Fund would be expected to withstand without supplemental funds, and FHA should conduct stress tests on a fund-wide basis and specify the objectives of its stress tests. GAO also continues to maintain that Congress should incorporate accountability mechanisms into FHA's capital requirement (as stated in GAO-13-722 ). FHA agreed with GAO's recommendations.