Question:
Congress created offices of inspector general (OIGs) to assist in its oversight of the executive branch. OIGs provide independent, nonpartisan analysis, conducted in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards, to identify and recommend ways to limit waste, fraud, and abuse in federal programs and enhance program and operational efficiency and effectiveness. OIGs' activities supplement and complement those of the Government Accountability Office (GAO), which serves a similar, though not identical, role in assisting congressional oversight of the executive branch. Together, OIGs and GAO provide Congress with information and analysis needed to conduct effective oversight and, in the process, help Congress maintain its balance of power with the presidency.
OIGs exist in more than 70 federal agencies, including all departments and larger agencies, numerous boards and commissions, and other entities. The U.S. Small Business Administration's Office of Inspector General (SBA OIG) was created under authority of the Inspector General Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-452, as amended). Its three primary statutory purposes are to
1. conduct and supervise audits and investigations of the SBA's programs and operations; 2. recommend policies designed to promote the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of the SBA's programs and operations and to prevent and detect fraud and abuse; and 3. keep both the SBA Administrator and Congress "fully and currently informed about problems and deficiencies relating to the administration of such programs and operations and the necessity for and progress of corrective action."
During FY2018, the SBA OIG issued 26 audit reports containing 111 recommendations for improving the SBA's programs and operations, and its investigations resulted in 62 indictments or informations and 43 convictions. The SBA OIG claimed that its recommendations resulted in monetary savings and recoveries of nearly $224.5 million in FY2018. In addition, the SBA OIG's annual Report on the Most Serious Management and Performance Challenges Facing the SBA focuses attention "on areas that are particularly vulnerable to fraud, waste, error, and mismanagement, or otherwise pose a significant risk and generally have been subject to one or more OIG or GAO reports."
This report examines the SBA OIG's statutory authorities; reporting requirements; funding ($22.9 million in FY2018); staffing and organizational structure; and recent activities (audits, investigations, etc.). It also examines the SBA OIG's impact on monetary savings, SBA programs and operations, and legislation affecting the agency. The report concludes with observations concerning the SBA OIG's relationship with Congress.
Some areas of possible congressional interest, other than SBA OIG funding and staffing issues, include exploring ways to more accurately quantify the SBA OIG's claims of monetary savings and to determine if the SBA OIG should undertake additional tracking and monitoring activities to more accurately quantify the office's impact on SBA programs, operations, and legislation.


Question:
The farm bill is an omnibus, multiyear law that governs an array of agricultural and food programs. The farm bill has typically undergone reauthorization about every five years. The current farm bill—the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-334), often called the "2018 farm bill"—was enacted in December 2018 and expires in 2023.
The farm bill provides an opportunity for Congress to choose how much support, if any, to provide for various agriculture and nutrition programs and how to allocate it among competing constituencies. Under congressional budgeting rules, many programs are assumed to continue beyond the end of a farm bill. From a budgetary perspective, this provides a baseline for comparing future spending reauthorizations, reallocations to other programs, and reductions to projected spending. Since 2000, congressional goals for the farm bill's budget have varied: The 2002 farm bill increased spending over 10 years, the 2008 farm bill was essentially budget neutral, the 2014 farm bill reduced spending, and the 2018 farm bill is budget neutral, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).
The farm bill authorizes programs in two spending categories: mandatory spending and discretionary spending. Mandatory spending is not only authorized but also actually provided via budget enforcement rules. Discretionary spending may be authorized in a farm bill but is not actually provided until budget decisions are made in a future annual appropriations act.
The CBO baseline is a projection at a particular point in time of future federal spending on mandatory programs under current law. When a new bill is proposed that would affect mandatory spending, the cost impact (score) is measured in relation to the baseline. Changes that increase spending relative to the baseline have a positive score; those that decrease spending relative to the baseline have a negative score. Federal budget rules such as "PayGo" may require budgetary offsets to balance new spending so that there is no increase in the federal deficit.
The April 2018 CBO baseline was the official benchmark to measure changes made by the 2018 farm bill. The five-year baseline was $426 billion over FY2019-FY2023 (what the 2014 farm bill would have spent had it been continued). The budgetary impact of the 2018 farm bill is measured relative to that baseline. Among its impacts are these four points:
1. The enacted farm bill increases net outlays in the first five years by $1.8 billion, which is offset by the same amount of net reductions in outlays during the second five years. Therefore, over 10 years, the net impact is budget neutral. 2. Eight titles in the enacted law have increased outlays over the five-year period, including Farm Commodities, Conservation, Trade, Nutrition, Research, Energy, Horticulture, and Miscellaneous. Two of those titles—Conservation and Nutrition—have reductions in the second five years of the budget window that make them budget neutral over 10 years. 3. Most of the budget reductions at the title level that provide offsets for the increases above, especially in the 10-year budget window, are from changes in the rural development title. 4. The 2018 farm bill provides continuing funding and, in some cases, permanent baseline, for 23 of the 39 so-called programs without baseline from the 2014 farm bill.
Projected outlays for the 2018 farm bill at enactment are $428 billion over the FY2019-FY2023 five-year life of the act. The Nutrition title and its largest program, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), account for $326 billion (76%) of those projected outlays. The remaining 24%, $102 billion, is for agricultural programs, mostly in crop insurance (8.9%), farm commodity programs (7.3%), and conservation (6.8%). Other titles of the farm bill account for 1% of the mandatory spending, some of which are funded primarily with discretionary spending.
Historical trends in farm bill spending show increased SNAP outlays after the 2009 recession, increased crop insurance outlays based on insurable coverage, farm commodity programs outlays that vary inversely with markets, and steadily increasing conservation program outlays that have leveled off in recent years.


Question:
In response to concerns over the adequacy of firefighter staffing, the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response Act, known as the SAFER Act, was enacted by the 108th Congress as Section 1057 of the FY2004 National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 108-136). The SAFER Act authorizes grants to career, volunteer, and combination local fire departments for the purpose of increasing the number of firefighters to help communities meet industry-minimum standards and attain 24-hour staffing to provide adequate protection from fire and fire-related hazards. Also authorized are grants to volunteer fire departments for recruitment and retention of volunteers. SAFER is administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
On January 3, 2018, the President signed the United States Fire Administration, AFG, and SAFER Program Reauthorization Act of 2017 (P.L. 115-98). P.L. 115-98 extends the SAFER and AFG authorizations through FY2023; extends the sunset provisions for SAFER and AFG through September 30, 2024; provides that the U.S. Fire Administration (USFA) may develop and make widely available an online training course on SAFER and AFG grant administration; expands SAFER hiring grant eligibility to cover the conversion of part-time or paid-on-call firefighters to full-time firefighters; directs FEMA, acting through the Administrator of USFA, to develop and implement a grant monitoring and oversight framework to mitigate and minimize risks of fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement related to the AFG and SAFER grant programs; and makes various technical corrections to the SAFER and AFG statute.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 (P.L. 116-6) provided $700 million for firefighter assistance in FY2019, including $350 million for SAFER and $350 million for AFG. For FY2020, the Administration requested $688.688 million for firefighter assistance, including $344.344 million for SAFER and $344.344 million for AFG. This is the same amount the Administration requested in its FY2019 budget proposal and a 1.6% reduction from the FY2019 appropriation.
An overall issue for the 116th Congress is how equitably and effectively grants are being distributed and used to protect the health and safety of the public and firefighting personnel against fire and fire-related hazards. Another continuing issue is budget appropriations for SAFER and AFG. As is the case with many federal programs, concerns over the federal budget deficit could impact budget levels for SAFER and AFG. At the same time, firefighter assistance budgets will likely receive heightened scrutiny from the fire service community, given the local budgetary shortfalls that many fire departments may face.
Additionally, a continuing issue related to SAFER hiring grants has been whether SAFER statutory restrictions should be waived to permit grantees to use SAFER funds for retention and rehiring. Division F, Title III, Section 307 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 stated that FEMA "may" grant SAFER waiver authority. However, for the 2018 round of SAFER awards, FEMA has chosen not to exercise that authority, and thus will not provide SAFER hiring grants for retaining or rehiring firefighters. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 (P.L. 116-6) also includes SAFER waiver authority for the FY2019 round of SAFER awards. The Administration's FY2020 budget proposal does not request SAFER waiver authority.


Question:
The House minority leader, the head of the "loyal opposition," is elected every two years by secret ballot of his or her party caucus or conference. The minority leader occupies a number of important institutional and party roles and responsibilities, and his or her fundamental goal is to recapture majority control of the House.
From a party perspective, the minority leader has a wide range of assignments, all geared toward retaking majority control of the House. Five principal party activities direct the work of the minority leader. First, he or she provides campaign assistance to party incumbents and challengers. Second, the minority leader devises strategies, in consultation with like-minded colleagues, to advance party objectives. Third, the minority leader works to promote and publicize the party's agenda. Fourth, the minority leader, if his or her party controls the White House, confers regularly with the President and his aides about issues before Congress, the Administration's agenda, and political events generally. Fifth, the minority leader strives to promote party harmony so as to maximize the chances for legislative and political success.
From an institutional perspective, the rules of the House assign a number of specific responsibilities to the minority leader. For example, Rule XIII, clause 6, grants the minority leader (or a designee) the right to offer a motion to recommit with instructions; and Rule II, clause 6, states that the Inspector General shall be appointed by joint recommendation of the Speaker, majority leader, and minority leader. The minority leader also has other institutional duties, such as appointing individuals to certain federal or congressional entities.


Question:
The "child nutrition programs" refer to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food and Nutrition Service (USDA-FNS) programs that provide food for children in school or institutional settings. The best known programs, which serve the largest number of children, are the school meals programs: the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and the School Breakfast Program (SBP). The child nutrition programs also include the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP), which provides meals and snacks in day care and after school settings; the Summer Food Service Program (SFSP), which provides food during the summer months; the Special Milk Program (SMP), which supports milk for schools that do not participate in NSLP or SBP; and the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program (FFVP), which funds fruit and vegetable snacks in select elementary schools.
Funding: The vast majority of the child nutrition programs account is considered mandatory spending, with trace amounts of discretionary funding for certain related activities. Referred to as open-ended, "appropriated entitlements," funding is provided through the annual appropriations process; however, the level of spending is controlled by benefit and eligibility criteria in federal law and dependent on the resulting levels of participation. Federal cash funding (in the form of per-meal reimbursements) and USDA commodity food support is guaranteed to schools and other providers based on the number of meals or snacks served and participant category (e.g., free meals for poor children get higher subsidies).
Participation: The child nutrition programs serve children of varying ages and in different institutional settings. The NSLP and SBP have the broadest reach, serving qualifying children of all ages in school settings. Other child nutrition programs serve more-narrow populations. CACFP, for example, provides meals and snacks to children in early childhood and after-school settings among other venues. Programs generally provide some subsidy for all food served but a larger federal reimbursement for food served to children from low-income households.
Administration: Responsibility for child nutrition programs is divided between the federal government, states, and localities. The state agency and type of local provider differs by program. In the NSLP and SBP, schools and school districts ("school food authorities") administer the program. Meanwhile, SFSP (and sometimes CACFP) uses a model in which sponsor organizations handle administrative responsibilities for a number of sites that serve meals.
Reauthorization: The underlying laws covering the child nutrition programs were last reauthorized in the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (HHFKA, P.L. 111-296, enacted December 13, 2010). This law made significant changes to child nutrition programs, including increasing federal financing for school lunches, expanding access to community eligibility and direct certification options for schools, and expanding eligibility options for home child care providers. The law also required an update to school meal nutrition guidelines as well as new guidelines for food served outside the meal programs (e.g., snacks sold in vending machines and cafeteria a la carte lines).
Current Issues: The 114th Congress began but did not complete a 2016 child nutrition reauthorization, and there was no significant legislative activity with regard to reauthorization in the 115th Congress. However, the vast majority of operations and activities continue with funding provided by appropriations laws. Current issues in the child nutrition programs are discussed in CRS Report R45486, Child Nutrition Programs: Current Issues.


Question:
Streamgages are fixed structures at streams, rivers, lakes, and reservoirs that measure water level and related streamflow—the amount of water flowing through a water body over time. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in the Department of the Interior operates streamgages in every state, the District of Columbia, and the territories of Puerto Rico and Guam. The USGS Streamgaging Network encompasses 10,300 streamgages, which record water levels or streamflow for at least a portion of the year. Approximately 8,200 of these streamgages measure streamflow year round as part of the National Streamflow Network. The USGS also deploys temporary rapid deployment gages to measure water levels during storm events, and select streamgages measure water quality.
Streamgages provide foundational information for diverse applications that affect a variety of constituents. The USGS disseminates streamgage data free to the public and responds to over 670 million requests annually. Direct users of streamgage data include a variety of agencies at all levels of government, private companies, scientific institutions, and recreationists. Data from streamgages inform real-time decisionmaking and long-term planning on issues such as water management and energy development, infrastructure design, water compacts, water science research, flood mapping and forecasting, water quality, ecosystem management, and recreational safety.
Congress has provided the USGS with authority and appropriations to conduct surveys of streamflow since establishing the first hydrological survey in 1889. Many streamgages are operated cooperatively with nonfederal partners, who approach the USGS and sign joint-funding agreements to share the cost of streamgages and data collection. The USGS Cooperative Matching Funds (CMF) Program provides up to a 50% match with tribal, regional, state, and local partners, as authorized by 43 U.S.C. §50. The average nonfederal cost-share contribution has increased from 50% in the early 1990s to 63% in FY2018. In the early 2000s, the USGS designated federal priority streamgage (FPS) locations based on five identified national needs. The SECURE Water Act of 2009 (Title IX, Subtitle F, of P.L. 111-11) directed the USGS to operate by FY2019 no less than 4,700 federally funded streamgages. In FY2018, 3,640 of the 4,760 FPSs designated by the USGS were operational, with 52% of their funding from the USGS.
Congressional appropriations and agreements with 1,400 nonfederal partners funded USGS streamgages at $189.5 million in FY2018. The USGS share included $24.7 million for FPSs and $29.8 million for cooperative streamgages through CMF. A dozen other federal agencies provided $40.7 million. Nonfederal partners, mostly affiliated with CMF, provided $94.3 million. In FY2019, Congress appropriated level funding for FPS and CMF streamgages. Congress directed an additional $8.5 million to pilot a Next Generation Integrated Water Observing System (NextGen), establishing dense networks of streamgages in representative watersheds in order to model streamflow in analogous watersheds. The President's budget request for FY2020 does not include NextGen system funding and would reduce CMF for streamgages by $250,000.
The USGS uses appropriated funding to develop and maintain the USGS Streamgaging Network. The USGS and numerous stakeholders have raised funding considerations including user needs, priorities of partners, federal coverage, infrastructure repair, disaster response, inflation, and technological advances. Some stakeholders advocate for maintaining or expanding the network. Others may argue that Congress should consider reducing the network in order to prioritize other activities and that other entities operate streamgages tailored to localized needs. Congress might also consider whether to invest in streamgage restoration and new technologies.
Congress may consider outlining the future direction for the USGS Streamgaging Network through oversight or legislation. As the USGS faces a deadline by the SECURE Water Act of 2009 to operate no less than 4,700 FPSs by FY2019, Congress directed the USGS through appropriations legislation to invest in the NextGen system. Congress may consider such policy options as pursuing both the FPS mandate and the NextGen system simultaneously, amending the SECURE Water Act of 2009, and the relative emphasis of the NextGen system.


Question:
The Purple Heart is one of the oldest and most recognized American military medals, awarded to servicemembers who were killed or wounded by enemy action. The conflicts 2001 to the present have greatly increased the number of Purple Hearts awarded to servicemembers.
Events over the past few years have spurred debate on the eligibility criteria for the Purple Heart. Shootings on U.S. soil and medical conditions such as traumatic brain injury (TBI) and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) have prompted changes to the eligibility requirements for the Purple Heart. Some critics believe that these changes may lessen the value of the medal and the sacrifices of past recipients on the battlefield. In the past, efforts to modify the Purple Heart's eligibility requirements were contentious, and veterans groups were vocal concerning eligibility changes.
While medal requirements are often left to the military and executive branch to decide, Congress is involved in Purple Heart eligibility, utilizing its constitutional power "To Make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces" (U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, clause 14). The Carl Levin and Howard P. "Buck" McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (P.L. 113-291) included language that expands eligibility for the Purple Heart.
Previous debates have raised several questions about the Purple Heart. In some respects, how an event is defined can determine eligibility: Is a servicemember the victim of a crime or a terrorist attack? Conversely, arguing that killed or wounded servicemembers "should" be eligible for the Purple Heart can redefine an event: Is the servicemember an advisor to a foreign military or a combatant? Are PTSD and other mental health conditions adequate injuries to warrant the Purple Heart? These are questions that Congress might consider if it chooses to act on this issue.


Question:
Cuba remains a one-party authoritarian state with a poor human rights record. Current President Miguel Díaz-Canel succeeded Raúl Castro in April 2018, although Castro is continuing as first secretary of Cuba's Communist Party. Over the past decade, Cuba has implemented gradual market-oriented economic policy changes, but critics maintain that it has not taken enough action to foster sustainable economic growth. Most observers do not anticipate major policy changes under Díaz-Canel, at least in the short term; the president faces the enormous challenges of reforming the economy and responding to desires for greater freedom.
U.S. Policy
Congress has played an active role in shaping policy toward Cuba, including the enactment of legislation strengthening and at times easing U.S. economic sanctions. Since the early 1960s, the centerpiece of U.S. policy has consisted of economic sanctions aimed at isolating the Cuban government. In 2014, however, the Obama Administration initiated a major policy shift, moving away from sanctions toward a policy of engagement. The policy change included the restoration of diplomatic relations (July 2015); the rescission of Cuba's designation as a state sponsor of international terrorism (May 2015); and an increase in travel, commerce, and the flow of information to Cuba implemented through regulatory changes.
In June 2017, President Trump unveiled a new policy toward Cuba that increased sanctions and partially rolled back some of the Obama Administration's efforts to normalize relations. The most significant changes include restrictions on transactions with companies controlled by the Cuban military and the elimination of individual people-to-people travel. In response to unexplained injuries of members of the U.S. diplomatic community at the U.S. Embassy in Havana, the State Department reduced the staff of the U.S. Embassy by about two-thirds; the reduction has affected embassy operations, especially visa processing, and made bilateral engagement more difficult.
Legislative Activity
In the 115th Congress, debate over Cuba policy continued, especially with regard to economic sanctions. The 2018 farm bill, P.L. 115-334 (H.R. 2), enacted in December 2018, has a provision permitting funding for two U.S. agricultural export promotion programs in Cuba. Two FY2019 House appropriations bills, Commerce (H.R. 5952) and Financial Services (H.R. 6258 and H.R. 6147), had provisions that would have tightened economic sanctions, but final action was not completed by the end of the 115th Congress. Other bills were introduced, but not acted upon, that would have eased or lifted sanctions altogether: H.R. 351 and S. 1287 (travel); H.R. 442/S. 472 and S. 1286 (some economic sanctions); H.R. 498 (telecommunications); H.R. 525 (agricultural exports and investment); H.R. 572 (agricultural and medical exports and travel); H.R. 574, H.R. 2966, and S. 1699 (overall embargo); and S. 275 (private financing for U.S. agricultural exports).
Congress continued to provide funding for democracy and human rights assistance in Cuba and for U.S.-government sponsored broadcasting. For FY2017, Congress provided $20 million in democracy assistance and $28.1 million for Cuba broadcasting (P.L. 115-31). For FY2018, it provided $20 million for democracy assistance and $28.9 million for Cuba broadcasting (P.L. 115-141; explanatory statement to H.R. 1625). For FY2019, the Trump Administration requested $10 million in democracy assistance and $13.7 million for Cuba broadcasting. The House Appropriations Committee's FY2019 State Department and Foreign Operations appropriations bill, H.R. 6385, would have provided $30 million for democracy programs, whereas the Senate version, S. 3108, would have provided $15 million; both bills would have provided $29 million for broadcasting. The 115th Congress approved a series of continuing resolutions (P.L. 115-245 and P.L. 115-298 ) that continued FY2019 funding at FY2018 levels through December 21, 2018, but did not complete action on FY2019 appropriations, leaving the task to the 116th Congress.
In other action, several approved measures—P.L. 115-232, P.L. 115-244, and P.L. 115-245—have provisions extending a prohibition on FY2019 funding to close or relinquish control of the U.S. Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; the conference report to P.L. 115-232 also requires a report on security cooperation between Russia and Cuba. The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-254) requires the Transportation Security Administration to brief Congress on certain aspects of Cuban airport security and efforts to better track public air charter flights between the United States and Cuba. In April 2018, the Senate approved S.Res. 224, commemorating the legacy of Cuban democracy activist Oswaldo Payá. For more on legislative initiatives in the 115th Congress, see Appendix A.


Question:
On December 21, 2018, President Trump signed into law the First Step Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-391). The act was the culmination of several years of congressional debate about what Congress might do to reduce the size of the federal prison population while also creating mechanisms to maintain public safety. This report provides an overview of the provisions of the act.
The act has three major components: (1) correctional reform via the establishment of a risk and needs assessment system at the Bureau of Prisons (BOP), (2) sentencing reform via changes to penalties for some federal offenses, and (3) the reauthorization of the Second Chance Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-199). The act also contains a series of other criminal justice-related provisions.
The First Step Act requires the Department of Justice (DOJ) to develop a risk and needs assessment system to be used by BOP to assess the recidivism risk of all federal prisoners and to place prisoners in programs and productive activities to reduce this risk. Prisoners who successfully complete recidivism reduction programming and productive activities can earn additional time credits that will allow them to be placed in prerelease custody (i.e., home confinement or a Residential Reentry Center) earlier than they were previously allowed. The act prohibits prisoners convicted of any one of dozens of offenses from earning additional time credits, though these prisoners can earn other benefits, such as additional visitation time, for successfully completing recidivism reduction programming. Offenses that make prisoners ineligible to earn additional time credits can generally be categorized as violent, terrorism, espionage, human trafficking, sex and sexual exploitation, repeat felon in possession of firearm, certain fraud, or high-level drug offenses.
The act makes changes to the penalties for some federal offenses. The act modified mandatory minimum prison sentences for some drug traffickers with prior drug convictions by increasing the threshold for prior convictions that count toward triggering higher mandatory minimums for repeat offenders, reducing the 20-year mandatory minimum (applicable where the offender has one prior qualifying conviction) to a 15-year mandatory minimum, and reducing a life-in-prison mandatory minimum (applicable where the offender has two or more prior qualifying convictions) to a 25-year mandatory minimum. The act made the provisions of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-220) retroactive so that currently incarcerated offenders who received longer sentences for possession of crack cocaine than they would have received if sentenced for possession of the same amount of powder cocaine before the enactment of the Fair Sentencing Act can submit a petition in federal court to have their sentences reduced. The act also expands the safety valve provision, which allows courts to sentence low-level, nonviolent drug offenders with minor criminal histories to less than the required mandatory minimum for an offense. Finally, the act eliminated the stacking provision, which allowed prosecutors to charge offenders with a second and subsequent use of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking or violent offense in the same criminal incident, which, if the offender is convicted, carries a 25-year mandatory minimum. Now, the mandatory minimum will only apply when the offender has a prior conviction for use of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking or violent crime from a previous criminal prosecution.
The First Step Act contains the Second Chance Reauthorization Act of 2018. This act reauthorizes appropriations for and expands the scope of some grant programs that were initially authorized under the Second Chance Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-199). The reauthorized programs include the Adult and Juvenile State and Local Offender Demonstration Program, Grants for Family-Based Substance Abuse Treatment, Careers Training Demonstration Grants, the Offender Reentry Substance Abuse and Criminal Justice Collaboration Program, and the Community-Based Mentoring and Transitional Service Grants to Nonprofit Organizations Program. The act also reauthorized and modified a pilot program that allows BOP to place certain elderly and terminally ill prisoners on home confinement to serve the remainder of their sentences.
Finally, the First Step Act includes a series of other criminal justice-related provisions. These provisions include a prohibition on the use of restraints on pregnant inmates in the custody of BOP and the U.S. Marshals Service; a change to the way good time credit is calculated so prisoners can earn 54 days of good time credits for each year of imposed sentence rather than for each year of time served; a requirement for BOP to provide a way for employees to safely store firearms on BOP grounds; a requirement for BOP to try to place prisoners within 500 driving miles of their primary residences; authority for the Federal Prison Industries to sell products to public entities for use in correctional facilities, disaster relief, or emergency response, to the District of Columbia government, and to nonprofit organizations; a prohibition against the use of solitary confinement for juvenile delinquents in federal custody; and a requirement that BOP aid prisoners with obtaining identification before they are released.


Question:
Social Security, the largest program in the federal budget (in terms of outlays), provides monthly cash benefits to retired or disabled workers and their family members as well as to the family members of deceased workers. In 2018, benefit outlays were approximately $989 billion, with roughly 63 million beneficiaries and 176 million workers in Social Security-covered employment. Under current law, Social Security's revenues are projected to be insufficient to pay full scheduled benefits after 2035.
Monthly benefit amounts are determined by federal law. Social Security is of ongoing interest both because of its role in supporting a large portion of the population and because of its long-term financial imbalance, and policymakers have considered numerous proposals to change its benefit computation rules.
The Social Security benefits that are paid to worker beneficiaries and to workers' dependents and survivors are based on workers' past earnings. The computation process involves three main steps
First, a summarized measure of lifetime earnings is computed. That measure is called the average indexed monthly earnings (AIME). Second, a benefit formula is applied to the AIME to compute the primary insurance amount (PIA). The benefit formula is progressive. As a result, workers with higher AIMEs receive higher Social Security benefits, but the benefits received by people with lower earnings replace a larger share of past earnings. Third, an adjustment may be made based on the age at which a beneficiary chooses to begin receiving payments. For retired workers who claim benefits at the full retirement age (FRA) and for disabled workers, the monthly benefit equals the PIA. Retired workers who claim earlier receive lower monthly benefits, and those who claim later receive higher benefits.
Retired worker benefits can be affected by other adjustments. For example, the windfall elimination provision can reduce benefits for individuals who receive a pension from non-Social Security-covered earnings, and benefits can be withheld under the retirement earnings test if an individual continues to work and earns above a certain amount. Although not an adjustment, Social Security benefits can be subject to income tax, thereby affecting the beneficiary's net income.
Benefits for eligible dependents and survivors are based on the worker's PIA. For example, a dependent spouse receives a benefit equal to 50% of the worker's PIA, and a widow(er) receives a benefit equal to 100% of the worker's PIA. Dependent benefits may also be adjusted based on the age at which they are claimed and other factors.


Question:
The United States and Turkey have been NATO allies since 1952 and share some vital interests, but harmonizing their priorities can be difficult. These priorities sometimes diverge irrespective of who leads the two countries, based on contrasting geography, threat perceptions, and regional roles.
Turkey's core security and economic relationships and institutional links remain with Western nations, as reflected by some key U.S. military assets based in Turkey and Turkey's strong trade ties with the European Union. However, various factors complicate U.S.-Turkey relations. For example, Turkey relies to some degree on nations such as Russia and Iran for domestic energy needs and coordination on regional security, and therefore balances diplomatically between various actors. Additionally, Turkey's president and longtime leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan appears to be concerned that the United States and some other Western countries harbor sympathies for some of the groups that have been marginalized domestically under Erdogan. Also, Turkey has played a larger role in the Middle East since the 2000s, but has faced a number of setbacks and has problematic relations with Israel and most Sunni Arab countries other than Qatar.
Bilateral relations between the Trump Administration and the Erdogan government have been difficult, but have improved somewhat since October 2018, when a Turkish court allowed Pastor Andrew Brunson to return to the United States after a two-year imprisonment. The following are current points of tension in the U.S.-Turkey relationship.
F-35 aircraft acquisition endangered by possible S-400 acquisition from Russia. Turkey's planned purchase of an S-400 air defense system from Russia could trigger U.S. sanctions under existing law and decrease Turkey's chances of acquiring U.S.-origin F-35 aircraft. The possible S-400 transaction has sparked broader concern over Turkey's relationship with Russia and implications for NATO. U.S. officials seek to prevent the deal by offering Patriot air defense systems as an alternative to the S-400.
Syria and the Kurds. Turkey's political stances and military operations in Syria have fed U.S.-Turkey tensions, particularly regarding Kurdish-led militias supported by the United States against the Islamic State over Turkey's strong objections. President Trump's announcement in December 2018 that U.S. troops would withdraw from Syria came after a call with President Erdogan in which Erdogan accepted responsibility for countering the Islamic State in Syria. Efforts to coordinate U.S. and Turkish actions related to a U.S. withdrawal have triggered debate about the possible consequences of Turkish intervention in northeast Syria, especially for those Kurdish-led militias, which have links with the PKK (Kurdistan Workers' Party). The PKK is a U.S.-designated terrorist organization that originated in Turkey and wages an on-and-off insurgency against the Turkish government while using safe havens in both Syria and Iraq.
Congressional initiatives. Within the tense bilateral context, the 115th Congress required the Trump Administration—in the FY2019 John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA, P.L. 115-232)—to report on the status of U.S.-Turkey relations, with particular emphasis on the possible S-400 deal and its implications. The Department of Defense (DOD) submitted a mostly classified report to Congress in November 2018. Appropriations legislation proposed for FY2019 in the 116th Congress (H.R. 648) would require an update to the DOD report.
Turkey's domestic trajectory and financial distress. President Erdogan rules in an increasingly authoritarian manner, with his power further consolidated in June 2018 presidential and parliamentary elections. A number of developments (a globally stronger dollar, rule of law concerns and political uncertainty, significant corporate debt) led to a precipitous drop in the value of Turkey's currency during 2018. A major September 2018 interest rate hike by Turkey's central bank helped reverse some of the currency's downward slide, but concerns remain about Turkey's financial position and the possible consequences that higher interest rates might have for economic growth. Local elections are scheduled for March 2018 against the backdrop of these economic concerns.
The next steps in relations between the United States and Turkey will take place with Turkey facing a number of political and economic challenges. Given Erdogan's consolidation of power, observers now question how he will govern a polarized electorate and deal with the foreign actors who can affect Turkey's financial solvency, regional security, and political influence. U.S. officials and lawmakers can refer to Turkey's complex history, geography, domestic dynamics, and international relationships in evaluating how to encourage Turkey to align its policies with U.S. interests.


Question:
The budget resolution reflects an agreement between the House and Senate on a budgetary plan for the upcoming fiscal year. Once agreed to by both chambers in the exact same form, the budget resolution creates parameters that may be enforced by (1) points of order and (2) using the budget reconciliation process.
When the House and Senate do not reach final agreement on this plan, it may be more difficult for Congress to reach agreement on subsequent budgetary legislation, both within each chamber and between the chambers.
In the absence of agreement on a budget resolution, Congress may employ alternative legislative tools to serve as a substitute for a budget resolution. These substitutes are typically referred to as "deeming resolutions," because they are deemed to serve in place of an annual budget resolution for the purposes of establishing enforceable budget levels for the upcoming fiscal year.
Since the creation of the budget resolution, there have been 10 years in which Congress did not come to agreement on a budget resolution. In each of those years, one or both chambers employed at least one deeming resolution to serve as a substitute for a budget resolution.
While referred to as deeming resolutions, such mechanisms are not formally defined and have no specifically prescribed content. Instead, they represent the House and Senate, often separately, engaging legislative procedures to deal with enforcement issues on an ad hoc basis. As described below, the mechanisms can vary significantly in content and timing. This report covers the use of deeming resolutions pertaining to fiscal years for which the House and Senate did not agree on a budget resolution.
While neither the House nor Senate have yet adopted a budget resolution for FY2020, they may still do so. In the meantime, on April 9, 2019, the House passed a deeming resolution for FY2020, H.Res. 293.


Question:
The growth of the national debt, which is considered unsustainable under current policies, continues to be one of the central issues of domestic federal policymaking.
Addressing a federal budget deficit that is unsustainable over the long run involves choices. Fundamentally, the issues require deciding what government goods, services, and transfers are worth paying taxes for. Most people would agree that the country benefits from a wide range of government services—air traffic controllers, border security, courts and corrections, and so forth—provided by the federal government. Yet federal government provision of goods and services comprises only a modest portion of the federal budget. Transfers, including interest payments, accounted for around 75% of the federal budget.
Central findings of this analysis include the following:
A comparatively small share of federal spending is for the direct provision of domestic government goods and services. Transfers and payments to persons and to state and local governments constitute most of federal spending, about 75% of all federal spending. Defense spending, accounting for about 15% of federal spending, has declined as a share of output over the past 35 years, but it also tends to vary depending, in part, on the presence and magnitude of international conflicts. The problem with the debt lies not in the past but in the future, as growth in spending for health and Social Security is projected to continue faster than the economy as a whole. The increase in deficits and debt, in turn, leads to a significant increase in interest payments. Because much of the pressure on future spending arises from imbalances in Social Security and Medicare Part A (Hospital Insurance) trust funds, keeping these funds and their sources of financing intact is a concern that could constrain choices. Preserving entitlements would likely require significant increases in taxes, such as raising rates, reducing tax expenditures, increasing other taxes, or introducing new revenue sources. Reductions in discretionary spending are insufficient to reduce the deficit to a sustainable level, so limiting taxes as a percentage of output or constraining the overall size of the government to current levels would likely require significant cuts in mandatory spending, including entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Because the federal government provides about one-fifth of the revenue for state and local governments, cutbacks in transfers to these governments may, in part, shift the burden of providing services from the national to subnational governments rather than altering the overall size of government services.


Question:
Several countries, primarily in Europe, and the European Commission have proposed or adopted taxes on revenue earned by multinational corporations (MNCs) in certain "digital economy" sectors from activities linked to the user-based activity of their residents. These proposals have generally been labeled as "digital services taxes" (DSTs). For example, beginning in 2019, Spain is imposing a DST of 3% on online advertising, online marketplaces, and data transfer service (i.e., revenue from sales of user activities) within Spain. Only firms with €750 million in worldwide revenue and €3 million in revenues with users in Spain are to be subject to the tax. In 2020, the UK plans to implement a 3% DST that would apply only to businesses whose revenues exceed £25 million per year and groups that generate global revenues from search engines, social media platforms, and online marketplaces in excess of £500 million annually. The UK labels its DST as an "interim" solution until international tax rules are modified to allow countries to tax the profits of foreign MNCs if they have a substantial enough "digital presence" based on local users. The member states of the European Commission are also actively considering such a rule. These policies are being considered and enacted against a backdrop of ongoing, multilateral negotiations among members and nonmembers of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). These negotiations, prompted by discussions of the digital economy, could result in significant changes for the international tax system.
Proponents of DSTs argue that digital firms are "undertaxed." This sentiment is driven in part by some high-profile tech companies that reduced the taxes they paid by assigning ownership of their income-producing intangible assets (e.g., patents, marketing, and trade secrets) to affiliate corporations in low-tax jurisdictions. Proponents of DSTs also argue that the countries imposing tax should be entitled to a share of profits earned by digital MNCs because of the "value" to these business models made by participation of their residents through their content, reviews, purchases, and other contributions. Critics of DSTs argue that the taxes target income or profits that would not otherwise be subject to taxation under generally accepted income tax principles. U.S. critics, in particular, see DSTs as an attempt to target U.S. tech companies, especially as minimum thresholds are high enough that only the largest digital MNCs (such as Google, Facebook, and Amazon) will be subject to these specific taxes.
DSTs are structured as a selective tax on revenue (akin to an excise tax) and not as a tax on corporate profits. A tax on corporate profits taxes the return to investment in the corporate sector. Corporate profit is equal to total revenue minus total cost. In contrast, DSTs are "turnover taxes" that apply to the revenue generated from taxable activities regardless of costs incurred by a firm. Additionally, international tax rules do not allow countries to tax an MNC's cross-border income solely because their residents purchase goods or services provided by that firm. Rather, ownership of assets justifies a country to be allocated a share of that MNC's profits to tax. Under these rules and their underlying principles, the fact that a country's residents purchase digital services from an MNC is not a justification to tax the MNC's profits.
DSTs are likely to have the economic effect of an excise tax on intermediate services. The economic incidence of a DST is likely to be borne by purchasers of taxable services (e.g., companies paying digital economy firms for advertising, marketplace listings, or user data) and possibly consumers downstream from those transactions. As a result, economic theory and the general body of empirical research on excise taxes predict that DSTs are likely to increase prices in affected markets, decrease quantity supplied, and reduce investment in these sectors. Compared to a corporate profits tax—which, on balance, tends to be borne by higher-income shareholders—DSTs are expected to be more regressive forms of raising revenue, as they affect a broad range of consumer goods and services.
Certain design features of DSTs could also create inequitable treatment between firms and increase administrative complexity. For example, minimum revenue thresholds could be set such that primarily large, foreign (and primarily U.S.) corporations are subject to tax. Requirements to identify the location of users could also introduce significant costs on businesses.
This report traces the emergence of DSTs from multilateral tax negotiations in recent years, addresses various purported policy justifications of DSTs, provides an economic analysis of their effects, and raises several issues for Congress.


Question:
Firearms regulation is an area of shared authority among federal, state, and local governments. Individual states have enacted a diverse range of laws relating to the possession, registration, and carrying of firearms, among other things. Federal law establishes a regulatory framework for the lawful manufacture, sale, and possession of firearms at the national level. The federal framework generally serves as a floor for permissible firearm use and transactions, leaving states free to supplement with additional restrictions so long as they do not conflict with federal law.
Federal laws regulating firearms date back roughly a century, and over time lawmakers have established more stringent requirements for the transfer, possession, and transportation of firearms. The two principal federal firearms laws currently in force are the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) and the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), as amended. The NFA was the first major piece of federal legislation regulating the sale and possession of firearms. Through a taxation and registration scheme, the law sought to curb the rise of violence connected to organized crime by targeting the types of weapons that (at the time of passage) were commonly used by gang members. Congress passed the GCA in the wake of the assassinations of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Senator Robert Kennedy to prevent firearm possession by prohibited persons and to help law enforcement stem increasing crime rates. The GCA is a complex statutory regime that has been supplemented regularly in the decades since its inception. Broadly speaking, the GCA, as amended, regulates the manufacture, transfer, and possession of firearms, extending to categories of weapons that fall outside the scope of the NFA. In general terms, the GCA sets forth who can—and cannot—sell, purchase, and possess firearms, how those sales and purchases may lawfully take place, what firearms may lawfully be possessed, and where firearm possession may be restricted. The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act amended the GCA to require a background check for many, but not all, firearms transfers.
Numerous constitutional considerations may inform congressional proposals to modify the current framework for regulating firearms sales and possession. Although Congress has broad constitutional authority to regulate firearms, any firearm measure must be rooted in one of Congress's enumerated powers. In enacting firearms laws, Congress has typically invoked its tax, commerce, and spending powers. For example, the NFA invokes Congress's tax power, and many GCA provisions invoke Congress's commerce power. Additionally, Congress has used its spending power to incentivize states, through offering grant money, to provide comprehensive records to the FBI's National Instant Background Check System (NICS).
When exercising its enumerated powers, Congress nevertheless must be mindful of other constitutional restraints. Congress may want to look to the Supreme Court's Second Amendment jurisprudence—chiefly, District of Columbia v. Heller—when imposing any firearm restriction. In Heller, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment provides an individual right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes. Further, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment limits Congress's ability to deprive a person of any constitutionally protected interest, such as Second Amendment firearms rights, and rights in property, such as firearms and accessories. Moreover, when enacting measures seeking to limit state firearm schemes, Congress may want to consider the federalism limits inherent in the Constitution's system of dual sovereignty, such as the anti-commandeering doctrine.
These constitutional considerations are relevant to the scope of legislation that the 115th and 116th Congresses have considered to amend the existing federal statutory framework of firearms regulation. Among other things, such legislation has focused on issues arising from the dissemination of 3D-printed and untraceable firearms, gaps in the collection of records for background checks of prospective firearm purchasers, restrictions on certain types of firearms and accessories, possession of firearms by the mentally ill, interstate reciprocity for lawful concealed carry of firearms, and laws permitting courts to order that firearms be temporarily removed from persons deemed to be a risk to themselves or others.


Question:
Artificial intelligence (AI) is a rapidly growing field of technology with potentially significant implications for national security. As such, the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) and other nations are developing AI applications for a range of military functions. AI research is underway in the fields of intelligence collection and analysis, logistics, cyber operations, information operations, command and control, and in a variety of semiautonomous and autonomous vehicles. Already, AI has been incorporated into military operations in Iraq and Syria. Congressional action has the potential to shape the technology's development further, with budgetary and legislative decisions influencing the growth of military applications as well as the pace of their adoption.
AI technologies present unique challenges for military integration, particularly because the bulk of AI development is happening in the commercial sector. Although AI is not unique in this regard, the defense acquisition process may need to be adapted for acquiring emerging technologies like AI. In addition, many commercial AI applications must undergo significant modification prior to being functional for the military. A number of cultural issues also challenge AI acquisition, as some commercial AI companies are averse to partnering with DOD due to ethical concerns, and even within the department, there can be resistance to incorporating AI technology into existing weapons systems and processes.
Potential international rivals in the AI market are creating pressure for the United States to compete for innovative military AI applications. China is a leading competitor in this regard, releasing a plan in 2017 to capture the global lead in AI development by 2030. Currently, China is primarily focused on using AI to make faster and more well-informed decisions, as well as on developing a variety of autonomous military vehicles. Russia is also active in military AI development, with a primary focus on robotics.
Although AI has the potential to impart a number of advantages in the military context, it may also introduce distinct challenges. AI technology could, for example, facilitate autonomous operations, lead to more informed military decisionmaking, and increase the speed and scale of military action. However, it may also be unpredictable or vulnerable to unique forms of manipulation. As a result of these factors, analysts hold a broad range of opinions on how influential AI will be in future combat operations. While a small number of analysts believe that the technology will have minimal impact, most believe that AI will have at least an evolutionary—if not revolutionary—effect.
Military AI development presents a number of potential issues for Congress:
What is the right balance of commercial and government funding for AI development? How might Congress influence defense acquisition reform initiatives that facilitate military AI development? What changes, if any, are necessary in Congress and DOD to implement effective oversight of AI development? How should the United States balance research and development related to artificial intelligence and autonomous systems with ethical considerations? What legislative or regulatory changes are necessary for the integration of military AI applications? What measures can Congress take to help manage the AI competition globally?


Question:
Over the past several years, the nation has seen an uptick in the use and abuse of opioids—both prescription opioids and non-prescription opioids such as heroin. In 2016, there were an estimated 948,000 individuals (0.4% of the 12 and older population) who reported using heroin within the past year—up from 0.2% to 0.3% of this population reporting use in the previous decade. In addition to an increase in heroin use over the past several years, there has been a simultaneous increase in its availability in the United States. The increase in availability has been fueled by a number of factors, including increased production and trafficking of heroin—principally by Mexican criminal networks.
Mexican transnational criminal organizations are the major suppliers and key producers of most illegal drugs smuggled into the United States. They have been increasing their share of the U.S. drug market—particularly with respect to heroin—even though the United States still receives some heroin from South America and, to a lesser extent, Southwest Asia. To facilitate the distribution and sale of drugs in the United States, Mexican drug traffickers have formed relationships with U.S. gangs.
Heroin seizures across the country, as well as those at the Southwest border, have generally increased over the past decade. Nationwide heroin seizures reached 7,979 kg in 2017, with 3,090 kg (39%) seized at the Southwest border. This is up from about 2,000 kg seized at the Southwest border a decade prior. Further, there has been an increase in federal arrests and sentences for heroin-related crimes. For instance, the Drug Enforcement Administration made 5,408 heroin-related arrests in 2017—up from about 2,500 a decade prior. In addition, U.S. Sentencing Commission data indicate that from 2007 to 2017, there was a general increase in the number of individuals sentenced for heroin trafficking offenses in U.S. District Courts.
The federal government—specifically, law enforcement—relies on a number of tools and initiatives to counter heroin trafficking. Many of these efforts focus on drug trafficking broadly and prioritize the greatest drug trafficking threats in a given area, whether those threats come from trafficking heroin or other illicit drugs or substances.
Going forward, there are a number of issues policymakers may consider as they address heroin trafficking. For instance, what is known about drug trafficking is contingent on data surrounding poppy cultivation, heroin production, and product inflows into the United States. Given that these are often based on snapshots of knowledge from disparate sources, Congress may question how these data are collected and their adequacy. In addition, Congress may examine current law enforcement efforts to dismantle heroin trafficking networks and prosecute their leaders. Policymakers may also look at existing federal strategies on drug control and transnational crime to evaluate whether they are able to target the heroin trafficking threat effectively.


Question:
Title IV of the Higher Education Act (HEA) authorizes programs that provide financial assistance to students to assist them in obtaining a postsecondary education at certain institutions of higher education (IHEs). These IHEs include public, private nonprofit, and proprietary institutions. For students attending such institutions to be able to receive Title IV assistance, an institution must meet basic criteria, including offering at least one eligible program of education (e.g., programs leading to a degree or preparing a student for gainful employment in a recognized occupation).
In addition, an IHE must satisfy the program integrity triad, under which it must be
licensed or otherwise legally authorized to operate in the state in which it is physically located, accredited or preaccredited by an agency recognized for that purpose by the Department of Education (ED), and certified by ED as eligible to participate in Title IV programs.
These requirements are intended to provide a balance between consumer protection, quality assurance, and oversight and compliance in postsecondary education providers participating in Title IV student aid programs.
An IHE must also fulfill a variety of other related requirements, including those that relate to institutional recruiting practices, student policies and procedures, and the administration of the Title IV student aid programs.
Finally, additional criteria may apply to an institution depending on its control or the type of educational programs it offers. For example, proprietary institutions must meet HEA requirements that are otherwise inapplicable to public and private nonprofit institutions, including deriving at least 10% of their revenues from non-Title IV funds (also known as the 90/10 rule). While an institution is ineligible to participate in Title IV programs if more than 50% of its courses are offered by correspondence or if 50% or more of its students are enrolled in correspondence courses.
This report first describes the types of institutions eligible to participate in Title IV programs and discusses the program integrity triad. It then discusses additional issues related to institutional eligibility, including program participations agreements, required campus safety policies and crime reporting, and distance and correspondence education.


Question:
The Navy began procuring Arleigh Burke (DDG-51) class destroyers, also known as Aegis destroyers, in FY1985, and a total of 82 have been procured through FY2019. The Navy's proposed FY2020 budget requests funding for the procurement of three more DDG-51s, which would be the 83rd, 84th, and 85th ships in the class.
DDG-51s planned for procurement in FY2018-FY2022 are being procured under a multiyear procurement (MYP) contract that Congress approved as part of its action on the Navy's FY2018 budget. DDG-51s procured in FY2017 and subsequent years are being built to a new design (the Flight III DDG-51 design), which incorporates a new and more capable radar called the Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR) or SPY-6 radar.
The Navy procured DDG-51s from FY1985 through FY2005, and resumed procuring them in FY2010. In FY2007-FY2009, during the time when the Navy was not procuring DDG-51s, the Navy procured three Zumwalt (DDG-1000) class destroyers. The Navy plans no further procurement of DDG-1000s. The Navy's proposed FY2020 budget requests $155.9 million in procurement funding to help complete the total procurement cost of the three DDG-1000 class ships.
The Navy estimates the combined procurement cost of the three DDG-51s requested for procurement in FY2020 at $5,463.0 million, or an average of $1,821.0 million each. The ships have received $363.7 million in prior-year Economic Order Quantity (EOQ) advance procurement (AP) funding (i.e., funding for up-front batch orders of components of DDG-51s to be procured under the FY2018-FY2022 MYP contract). The Navy's proposed FY2020 budget requests the remaining $5,099.3 million in procurement funding needed to complete the estimated procurement cost of the three DDG-51s, as well as $224.0 million in EOQ funding for DDG-51s to be procured in FY2021 and FY2022, bringing the total amount requested for the DDG-51 program for FY2020 to $5,323.3 million, excluding outfitting and post-delivery costs.
The Navy wants to procure the first ship of a new class of large surface combatants in FY2025. Under the Navy's plan, FY2025 would be the final year of DDG-51 procurement.
Issues for Congress for FY2019 for the DDG-51 and DDG-1000 destroyer programs include the following:
whether to approve, reject, or modify the Navy's FY2020 funding requests for the DDG-51 and DDG-1000 programs; cost, schedule, and technical risk in the Flight III DDG-51 effort; the potential impact on the DDG-51 program of a possible change in the surface force architecture; and the Navy's plan to shift the mission orientation of the DDG-1000s from an emphasis on naval surface fire support (NSFS) to an emphasis on surface strike.


Question:
For more than four decades, Congress has authorized and refined several programs to help communities address water supply and wastewater problems. The agencies that administer these programs differ in multiple ways. In terms of funding mechanisms, projects developed by the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) typically require direct, individual project authorizations from Congress.
In contrast, standing program authorizations provide project funding for other agencies, including
the Department of Agriculture (USDA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Commerce, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
The key practical difference is that with the individual project authorizations, there is no predictable assistance or even guarantee of funding after a project is authorized, because funding must be secured each year in the congressional appropriations process. The programs, on the other hand, have set program criteria, are generally funded from year to year, and provide a process under which project sponsors compete for funding.
In terms of scope and mission, the primary responsibilities of USACE are to maintain inland navigation, provide for flood and storm damage reduction, and restore aquatic ecosystems, while EPA's mission relates to protecting public health and the environment. The Department of Commerce and HUD focus on community and economic development. Likewise, the specific programs—while all address water supply and wastewater treatment to some degree—differ in important respects. Some are national in scope (those of USDA, EPA, and the Department of Commerce, for example), while others are regionally focused (Reclamation's programs and projects). Some focus primarily on urban areas (HUD) and some on rural areas (USDA), and others do not distinguish based on community size (e.g., EPA, USACE).
Federal funding for the programs and projects discussed in this report varies greatly. Collectively, congressional funding for these programs in recent years has been somewhat eroded by overall competition among the many programs that are supported by discretionary spending, despite the continuing pressure from stakeholders and others for increased funding. FY2019 appropriations highlights include the following:
$1.164 billion for capitalization grants to states under EPA's State Revolving Fund (SRF) loan program for drinking water systems and $1.694 billion for EPA's SRF program for wastewater projects; $60 million in subsidy costs for the EPA-administered Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) program, allowing the agency to provide approximately $5.5 billion in credit assistance for drinking water and wastewater infrastructure projects; $400 million for USDA's rural water and waste disposal grant program and direct loan authority of approximately $1.4 billion; $3.4 billion for HUD Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds (water and wastewater projects are among many eligible uses); and $58.6 million for Reclamation's Title XVI reclamation/recycling projects.


Question:
The Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program provides monthly benefits to retired or disabled workers and their family members and to the family members of deceased workers. These monthly benefits constitute a substantial portion of income for a large segment of recipients.
The OASDI program is financed primarily by payroll taxes on covered earnings up to an annual limit, as well as federal income taxes paid by some beneficiaries on a portion of their OASDI benefits. OASDI program revenues are invested in federal government securities held by the Federal Old-Age Survivors Insurance (OASI) and Federal Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Funds, where they earn interest. The interest earned on assets in the trust funds provides a third stream of revenue to the OASDI program.
The OASDI Trust Funds are overseen by a Board of Trustees, which is composed of six members: the Secretary of the Treasury, who is the managing trustee; the Secretary of Labor; the Secretary of Health and Human Services; the Commissioner of Social Security; and two public trustees, who are appointed by the President with advice and consent of the Senate. By law, the assets of the OASDI Trust Funds may be invested only in federal government securities issued by the Secretary of the Treasury. Although the Managing Trustee may invest in U.S. securities that are sold on the open market (marketable securities) if it is deemed in the public interest to do so, in practice, the OASDI Trust Funds' assets are invested in nonmarketable U.S. securities, known as special issues. The practice of investing solely in special issues has led the Board of Trustees to effectively adopt the principles of (1) nonintervention in the private economy, (2) security, (3) neutrality, and (4) minimal management. Although not explicitly codified in the Social Security Act, these principles have provided a framework to guide the trustees in their investment operations.
At the beginning of 2018, the trust funds reported asset reserves of around $2.9 trillion, which represents the projected peak value of the funds. The OASDI program's total costs are projected to exceed its total revenues, due largely to the aging of the baby boomers, thus requiring the trust funds to draw down their assets to pay scheduled benefits. The trustees expect this trend to continue indefinitely, with the trust funds' reserves reaching depletion in 2034. To extend the trust funds' solvency, some argue the trust funds' assets should be invested in equities (i.e., stocks sold on the open market). The main argument for this approach is that equities have historically produced higher rates of return, on average, than U.S. securities, which are the trust funds' only investment option under current law. Proposals favoring equity investment seek to earn higher rates of return for the trust funds than provided by special issues. However, the higher average rates of return associated with equity investing come with more risk. Investing the trust funds in equities would expose them to a higher degree of volatility than the current investment practices.
The trustees estimate that bringing OASDI program revenues into balance with program costs would require an immediate permanent increase of 2.78 percentage points in the payroll tax rate, from 12.40% to 15.18%, a permanent reduction in benefits of about 17%, or some combination of the two approaches. Although investing in equities may result in a higher return on the trust funds' assets, such a proposal would, by itself, have little effect on the program's long-term outlook, and it would have budgetary implications by requiring the immediate liquidation of the trust funds' existing assets. Because the trust funds are projected to be depleted in 2034 and because costs are expected to exceed revenues indefinitely, any proposal to invest the trust funds' asset in equities without first bringing the OASDI program into balance would result in little change to the program's solvency. Should Congress pass legislation that reduces the actuarial deficit, research indicates that including equity in the trust funds' investment practices could improve the program's financial position. This practice, if enacted, would disregard several of the trust funds' investment principles.


Question:
The United States, as the largest consumer and producer of oil, plays a major role in the world market. Policy decisions can affect the price of oil and petroleum products (e.g., gasoline) for U.S. consumers and companies operating in U.S. oil production, transportation, and refining sectors. Congress considers policies that can affect the world oil market, including trade, sanctions, protection of trade routes, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), and alternative fuel standards.
Technological advancements, supportive policies, and other aspects of the U.S. oil industry have reversed a multidecade downward trend in U.S. oil production. In 2018, U.S. oil production nearly doubled compared to 2008. The United States is also the number one consumer of crude oil and refined petroleum products in the world. The pricing of crude oil contributes to the price consumers pay for petroleum products in the United States.
Congress has maintained an interest in oil policy. Following the 1973 Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (OAPEC) oil embargo, Congress passed the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA; P.L. 94-163). In response to rapid price escalation and perceived scarcity, the EPCA, among many other things, restricted U.S. produced crude oil exports. As the oil sector evolved, Congress has amended the EPCA. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (P.L. 114-113) repealed Section 103 of the EPCA removing any restrictions to crude oil exports.
Supply, demand, price, and other factors all combine and interact with one another to create the world oil market. Saudi Arabia, historically, has been the world's leading oil producer and along with the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Counties (OPEC) has held enough spare capacity to influence global oil supply and prices. World oil demand typically follows world economic conditions. Oil prices are set in the world market and are primarily a function of supply and demand fundamentals, but also a number of other factors, such as quality, location, and transport infrastructure availability (e.g., pipelines). While the world oil market historically follows the world economy, supply generally does not follow demand smoothly and this results in price volatility. As economies grow, so too does the demand for crude oil and petroleum products, including fuels, paints, lubricants, and plastics. China and India are forecasted by the International Energy Agency (IEA) to contribute a large portion of oil demand growth, representing around 20% of total world demand by 2023. Asia, by IEA's forecast, will remain a net importer of crude oil through 2023.
Oil policy can be influential as a response to or in anticipation of undesirable international behavior or as a means to bring balance and stability to an otherwise volatile market. OPEC, especially in conjunction with other major producers (e.g., Russia), can exert influence on the oil market. Several bills introduced in the 115th Congress addressed the U.S. relationship with OPEC, such as the No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels (NOPEC) Act of 2018 (H.R. 5904 and S. 3214). The United States has utilized the oil market as a political tool. National oil companies (NOCs) operate under government ownership or are companies under influence by national governments. The United States, by placing sanctions on crude oil and crude oil-related industries, can send a message to those governments (e.g., Iran). Physical threats to oil supply still exist, particularly along certain trade routes. For instance, roughly 24% of the world oil market transited the Strait of Hormuz in the first half of 2018. A disruption to world supply along trade routes could permeate into geopolitical relationships, secondary industries (e.g., petrochemicals, agriculture), and the economy at large.
The United States plays a multifaceted role in the world oil market, which may affect policy decisions for Congress. Congress has in the past enacted legislation to promote a stable, reliable supply of oil. For example, the EPCA created the SPR and established the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standard for vehicles, in part, as strategies to reduce U.S. exposure to future supply disruptions. Additionally, Congress has enacted legislation to diversify transportation fuels, including tax credits for electric vehicles and the Renewable Fuel Standard. As the oil market continues to evolve, Congress may want to consider these and other major policy options that could include international trade policies, infrastructure, diversification of transportation fuels, and funding in research and development.


Question:
The Social Security full retirement age (FRA) is the age at which workers can first claim full Social Security retired-worker benefits. Among other factors, a worker's monthly benefit amount is affected by the age at which he or she claims benefits relative to the FRA. Benefit adjustments are made based on the number of months before or after the FRA the worker claims benefits. The adjustments are intended to provide the worker with roughly the same total lifetime benefits, regardless of when he or she claims benefits, based on average life expectancy. Claiming benefits before the FRA results in a permanent reduction in monthly benefits (to take into account the longer expected period of benefit receipt); claiming benefits after the FRA results in a permanent increase in monthly benefits (to take into account the shorter expected period of benefit receipt).
The FRA was 65 at the inception of Social Security in the 1930s. Under legislation enacted in 1983, the FRA is increasing gradually from 65 to 67 over a 22-year period (for those reaching age 62 between 2000 and 2022). The FRA will reach 67 for workers born in 1960 or later (i.e., for workers who become eligible for retirement benefits at age 62 in 2022). Currently, the FRA is 66 and 6 months for workers who become eligible for retirement benefits in 2019 (i.e., workers born in 1957).
Workers can claim reduced retirement benefits as early as age 62 (the early eligibility age). Spouses can also claim reduced retirement benefits starting at age 62. Other dependents, such as widow(er)s, can claim benefits at earlier ages. For workers with an FRA of 66, for example, claiming benefits at age 62 results in a 25% reduction in monthly benefits. For workers with an FRA of 67, claiming benefits at age 62 results in a 30% benefit reduction. A majority of retired-worker beneficiaries claim benefits before the FRA. In 2017, 37% of new retired-worker beneficiaries were age 62; almost two-thirds (64%) were under the age of 66.
Workers who delay claiming benefits until after the FRA receive a delayed retirement credit, which applies up to the age of 70. For workers with an FRA of 66, for example, claiming benefits at age 70 results in a 32% increase in monthly benefits. For workers with an FRA of 67, claiming benefits at age 70 results in a 24% benefit increase. In 2017, almost one-fourth (23%) of new retired-worker beneficiaries were age 66; 12% were over the age of 66.
Some lawmakers have called for increasing the Social Security retirement age in response to the system's projected financial imbalance, citing gains in life expectancy for the population overall. Other lawmakers, however, express concern that increasing the retirement age would disproportionately affect certain groups within the population, citing differences in life expectancy by socioeconomic groups. Differential gains in life expectancy are important in the context of Social Security because the actuarial adjustments for claiming benefits before or after the full retirement age are based on average life expectancy. Proposals to increase the retirement age are also met with concerns about the resulting hardship for certain workers, such as those in physically demanding occupations, who may be unable to work until older ages and may not qualify for Social Security disability benefits. For an in-depth discussion of potential changes in the Social Security retirement age in the context of life expectancy trends, see CRS Report R44846, The Growing Gap in Life Expectancy by Income: Recent Evidence and Implications for the Social Security Retirement Age.


Question:
Since 2011, the Syria conflict has presented significant policy challenges for the United States. (For a brief conflict summary, see Figure 2). U.S. policy toward Syria since 2014 has prioritized counterterrorism operations against the Islamic State (IS, also known as ISIL/ISIS), but also has included nonlethal assistance to Syrian opposition groups, diplomatic efforts to reach a political settlement to the civil war, and humanitarian aid to Syria and regional countries affected by refugee outflows. U.S. forces deployed to Syria have trained, equipped, and advised local partners under special authorization from Congress and have worked primarily "by, with, and through" those local partners to retake nearly all areas formerly held by the Islamic State.
Following an internal policy review, Administration officials in late 2018 had described U.S. policy toward Syria as seeking (1) the enduring defeat of the Islamic State; (2) a political settlement to the Syrian civil war; and (3) the withdrawal of Iranian-commanded forces. President Trump's December 2018 announcement that U.S. forces had defeated the Islamic State and would leave Syria appeared to signal the start of a new U.S. approach. However, in February 2019, the White House stated that several hundred U.S. troops would remain in Syria, and the President is requesting $300 million in FY2020 defense funding to continue to equip and sustain Syrian partner forces. The FY2019 National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 115-232) required the Administration to clarify its Syria strategy and report on current programs in order to obligate FY2019 defense funds for train and equip purposes in Syria.
The United States continues to advocate for a negotiated settlement between the government of Syrian President Bashar al Asad and Syrian opposition forces in accordance with U.N. Security Council Resolution 2254 (which calls for the drafting of a new constitution and U.N.-supervised elections). However, the Asad government's use of force to retake most opposition-held areas of Syria has reduced pressure on Damascus to negotiate, and U.S. intelligence officials in 2019 assessed that Asad has little incentive to make significant concessions to the opposition. U.S. officials have stated that the United States will not contribute aid to reconstruction in Asad-held areas unless a political solution is reached.
The United States has directed more than $9.1 billion toward Syria-related humanitarian assistance, and Congress has appropriated billions more for security and stabilization initiatives in Syria and neighboring countries. The Defense Department has not disaggregated the costs of military operations in Syria from the overall cost of the counter-IS campaign in Syria and Iraq (known as Operation Inherent Resolve, OIR), which had reached $28.5 billion by September 2018.
The 115th Congress considered proposals to authorize or restrict the use of force against the Islamic State and in response to Syrian government chemical weapons attacks, but did not enact any Syria-specific use of force authorizations. The 116th Congress may seek clarification from the Administration concerning its overall Syria policy, plans for the withdrawal of U.S. military forces, the U.S role in ensuring a lasting defeat for the Islamic State, U.S. investments and approaches to postconflict stabilization, the future of Syrian refugees and U.S. partners inside Syria, and the challenges of dealing with the Iran- and Russia-aligned Asad government.


Question:
Four months into 2019, unification talks intended to end the division of Cyprus after 55 years as a politically separated nation and 45 years as a physically divided country have remained suspended since July 2017. Attempts by the United Nations to find common ground between the two Cypriot communities to resume the negotiations have not been successful. The talks have fallen victim to the realities of five decades of separation and both sides' inability to make the necessary concessions to reach a final settlement. As a result, the long-sought bizonal, bicommunal, federal solution for the island has remained elusive and may no longer be attainable.
Cyprus negotiations typically exhibit periodic levels of optimism, quickly tempered by the political reality that difficult times between Greek and Turkish Cypriots always lay ahead. In June 2018, in an attempt to jump-start the talks, U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres appointed Jane Holl Lute as his new adviser for Cyprus. Her mission was to consult with the two Cypriot leaders, Nicos Anastasiades and Mustafa Akinci, and the three guarantor parties (Greece, Turkey, and Great Britain) to determine if sufficient conditions existed to resume U.N.-hosted negotiations and, if so, to prepare a comprehensive "terms of reference" document by the end of 2018. This document was supposed to include a version of a 2017 "framework" proposed by Guterres, previous "convergences" both sides had reportedly reached on many issues, and a proposed road map for how the negotiations would proceed.
Lute conducted her first consultations in September 2018 and a second round in October. Although the talks reportedly were "productive," they did not result in an agreement to resume the talks and Lute announced she would have to return to the island in early 2019, reaffirming the difficulty many thought she would encounter in trying to reach agreement on the provisions of the "terms of reference." Lute's initial return in January 2019 was short and inconclusive.
Subsequently, Lute returned to meet with Anastasiades and Akinci on April 7. What Lute apparently found was that both sides were seemingly farther apart. Aside from the long-standing disagreement on security guarantees, a big sticking point was Akinci's insistence that the Turkish Cypriots have political equality, demanding that on all issues taken up at any new federal level, a positive Turkish Cypriot vote would be necessary. Anastasiades expressed a willingness to discuss Akinci's proposal for some issues but rejected the demand claiming, it would give the Turkish Cypriots an absolute veto over all policy issues, potentially resulting in gridlock. At the same time, Anastasiades resurrected an old proposal that the new government be a cross between a presidential system, in which the president would be a Greek Cypriot, and a parliamentary system in which a prime minister would rotate between the two communities. Akinci rejected this proposal, claiming it reinforced his view that the Greek Cypriots will always see the Turkish Cypriots as a minority and not a coequal partner.
Lute's fourth attempt failed to achieve an agreement between the two Cypriot leaders on how to restart the talks and suggested that negotiations were likely to remain suspended indefinitely.
The United States historically has held an "honest broker" approach to achieving a just, equitable, and lasting settlement of the Cyprus issue. However, some observers have seen recent actions within Congress and the Administration in support of Cyprus's unfettered energy development in the Eastern Mediterranean and lifting of restrictions on arms sales to Cyprus as an admission by the United States that an equitable solution has become more difficult. These policy directions also suggest that U.S. interests in the Eastern Mediterranean have moved on to security and energy concerns for which closer relations with the Republic of Cyprus have become a higher priority.
This report provides an overview of the negotiations' history and a description of some of the issues involved in those talks.


Question:
Foreign assistance is the largest component of the international affairs budget and is viewed by many as an essential instrument of U.S. foreign policy. On the basis of national security, commercial, and humanitarian rationales, U.S. assistance flows through many federal agencies and supports myriad objectives. These include promoting economic growth, reducing poverty, improving governance, expanding access to health care and education, promoting stability in conflict regions, countering terrorism, promoting human rights, strengthening allies, and curbing illicit drug production and trafficking. Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, foreign aid has increasingly been associated with national security policy. At the same time, many Americans and some Members of Congress view foreign aid as an expense that the United States cannot afford given current budget deficits.
In FY2017, U.S. foreign assistance, defined broadly, totaled an estimated $49.87 billion, or 1.2% of total federal budget authority. About 44% of this assistance was for bilateral economic development programs, including political/strategic economic assistance; 35% for military aid and nonmilitary security assistance; 18% for humanitarian activities; and 4% to support the work of multilateral institutions. Assistance can take the form of cash transfers, equipment and commodities, infrastructure, or technical assistance, and, in recent decades, is provided almost exclusively on a grant rather than loan basis. Most U.S. aid is implemented by nongovernmental organizations rather than foreign governments. The United States is the largest foreign aid donor in the world, accounting for about 24% of total official development assistance from major donor governments in 2017 (the latest year for which these data are available).
Key foreign assistance trends in the past decade include growth in development aid, particularly global health programs; increased security assistance directed toward U.S. allies in the anti-terrorism effort; and high levels of humanitarian assistance to address a range of crises. Adjusted for inflation, annual foreign assistance funding over the past decade was the highest it has been since the Marshall Plan in the years immediately following World War II. In FY2017, Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, and Egypt received the largest amounts of U.S. aid, reflecting long-standing aid commitments to Israel and Egypt, the strategic significance of Afghanistan and Iraq, and the strategic and humanitarian importance of Jordan as the crisis in neighboring Syria continues. The Near East region received 27% of aid allocated by country or region in FY2017, followed by Africa, at 25%, and South and Central Asia, at 15%. This was a significant shift from a decade prior, when Africa received 19% of aid and the Near East 34%, reflecting significant increases in HIV/AIDS-related programs concentrated in Africa between FY2007 and FY2017 and the drawdown of U.S. military forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Military assistance to Iraq began to decline starting in FY2011, but growing concern about the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) has reversed this trend.
This report provides an overview of the U.S. foreign assistance program by answering frequently asked questions on the subject. It is intended to provide a broad view of foreign assistance over time, and will be updated periodically. For more current information on foreign aid funding levels, see CRS Report R45168, Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs: FY2019 Budget and Appropriations, by Susan B. Epstein, Marian L. Lawson, and Cory R. Gill.


Question:
The federal government collects various fees from businesses and households. Choosing to raise public funds via user fees, as opposed to other means such as taxes, has important administrative and economic consequences. Many fees stem from "business-like activities," in which the government provides a service or benefit in return for payment. For example, many national parks charge entry fees, which then help fund maintenance projects. Such fees and charges that result from voluntary choices, such as entering a national park, are distinguished from taxes—which stem from the government's sovereign power to compel payments. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) defines a user fee as a "fee assessed to users for goods or services provided by the federal government. User fees generally apply to federal programs or activities that provide special benefits to identifiable recipients above and beyond what is normally available to the public."
User fees and charges have several advantages as a means of financing public activities. They are voluntary, they connect the burden of financing activities to those who directly benefit from them, and can help decentralize decisionmaking by bypassing centralized allocation of resources. Some have expressed concerns that user fee arrangements may bypass regular congressional scrutiny and dilute Congress's power of the purse. Collections of fees and charges may also be more sensitive to economic fluctuations, which could complicate financing of programs dependent on those revenue streams.
Many user fees or charges are classified as offsetting collections, which are deposited into expenditure accounts. Offsetting collections can be used to offset agency spending and typically require no further congressional approval to use. Other fees and charges are classified as offsetting receipts, which are collected into revenue accounts and typically require congressional authorization to be spent. User fees and charges can be classified as discretionary or mandatory spending, depending on how they are legally authorized. The levels and administration of some fees are specified in detailed statutory text, while other fees are created under broader agency authorities. Certain agencies, such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), have increased their reliance on user fees in past decades. Some critics have raised concerns that increased reliance on user fees could shift incentives facing those agencies.
Some legislative proposals, such as H.R. 850 introduced in the 115th Congress, would limit or eliminate most exceptions and require most fees and charges to be deposited in the U.S. Treasury General Fund. Congress could fund agencies and activities now funded in whole or in part via user fees directly through the annual appropriations process. Such proposals would mark a departure from past practice. Statutory text governing many fees has evolved over many years and involves substantive policy decisions, often related to the industry or programmatic concerns. A general change in funding from user fees and charges to annual appropriations would likely shift the division of responsibilities between authorizing committees and appropriations committees.
Congress may also enhance its oversight of agencies reliant on user fees by requiring more timely and detailed financial reports as well as more precise and systematic explanations of linkages between those fees and associated programs. Congress could also ask for greater transparency in fiscal data. While the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the U.S. Treasury Bureau of the Fiscal Service provide extensive data on user fees and charges, it is difficult to conduct governmentwide analyses using publicly available sources. Congress could mandate more detailed and more easily accessed data on user fees and charges. Additional funding may be needed to develop the capacity to issue those data.


Question:
This report describes online tools, reports, and data compilations created by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) that contain statistics about federal employees and the federal workforce.
The report also describes key characteristics of each resource and briefly discusses selected methodological differences, with the intention of facilitating the selection of appropriate data for specific purposes. This report is not intended to be a definitive list of all information on the federal workforce. It describes significant and recurring products that contain specific data often requested by Members or congressional staff.