Question:
Legislation to reauthorize Trade Promotion Authority (TPA)—sometimes called "fast track"—the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015 (TPA-2015), was signed into law by former President Obama on June 29, 2015 (P.L. 114-26). If the President negotiates an international trade agreement that would reduce tariff or nontariff barriers to trade in ways that require changes in U.S. law, the United States can implement the agreement only through the enactment of legislation. If the trade agreement and the process of negotiating it meet certain requirements, TPA allows Congress to consider the required implementing bill under expedited procedures, pursuant to which the bill may come to the floor without action by the leadership, and can receive a guaranteed up-or-down vote with no amendments.
Under TPA, an implementing bill may be eligible for expedited consideration if (1) the trade agreement was negotiated during the limited time period for which TPA is in effect; (2) the agreement advances a series of U.S. trade negotiating objectives specified in the TPA statute; (3) the negotiations were conducted in compliance with an extensive array of notification and consultation with Congress and other stakeholders; and (4) the President submits to Congress a draft implementing bill, which must meet specific content requirements, and a range of required supporting information. If, in any given case, Congress judges that these requirements have not been met, TPA provides mechanisms through which the eligibility of the implementing bill for expedited consideration may be withdrawn in one or both chambers.
TPA is authorized through July 1, 2021. The United States has now renegotiated the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), now known as the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) for which TPA could be used to consider implementing legislation. The issue of TPA reauthorization raises a number of questions regarding TPA, and this report addresses a number of those questions that are frequently asked, including the following:
What is trade promotion authority? Is TPA necessary? What are trade negotiating objectives and how are they reflected in TPA statutes? What requirements does Congress impose on the President under TPA? Does TPA affect congressional authority on trade policy?
For more information on TPA, see CRS Report RL33743, Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) and the Role of Congress in Trade Policy, by Ian F. Fergusson and CRS In Focus IF10038, Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), by Ian F. Fergusson.


Question:
The Jones Act, which refers to Section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920 (P.L. 66-261), requires that vessels transporting cargo from one U.S. point to another U.S. point be U.S.-built, and owned and crewed by U.S. citizens. The act provides a significant degree of protection for U.S. shipyards, domestic carriers, and American merchant sailors. It is a subject of debate because some experts point out that it leads to high domestic ocean shipping costs and constrains the availability of ships for domestic use. The Jones Act has come into prominence amid debates over Puerto Rico's economic challenges and recovery from Hurricane Maria in 2017; in the investigation into the sinking of the ship El Faro with 33 fatalities during a hurricane in 2015; and in discussions about domestic transportation of oil and natural gas. The law's effectiveness in achieving national security goals has also been the subject of attention in conjunction with a congressional directive that the Administration develop a national maritime strategy, including strategies to increase the use of short sea shipping and enhance U.S. shipbuilding capability.
The Jones Act of 1920 was not the first law requiring that vessels transporting cargo domestically be U.S.-built, owned, and crewed. It restated a long-standing restriction that was temporarily suspended during World War I. Since 1920, Congress has enacted provisions that could be said to tighten Jones Act requirements as well as provisions that exempt certain maritime activity from the requirements. In 1935, Congress forbade Jones Act-qualified vessels that were sold to foreign owners or registered under a foreign flag to subsequently requalify as Jones Act-eligible (P.L. 74-191). This provides additional protection from competition for Jones Act carriers if coastal shipping demand increases, because it can take around two years to construct a new ship. In 1940, Congress expanded the Jones Act to include towing and salvage vessels (P.L. 76-599). In 1988, Congress specified that waterborne transport of valueless material required use of a Jones Act-qualified vessel, such that transport of dredge spoil or municipal waste would fall under the law (P.L. 100-329). Generally, dredging and towing vessels, as well as Great Lakes ships, have occasioned less debate about the Jones Act than oceangoing ships and offshore supply vessels.
Congress has enacted numerous exemptions or exceptions to the Jones Act. In some cases, Congress has enacted an exemption if there are no Jones Act-qualified carriers interested in providing service in a particular market (for example, passenger travel to and from Puerto Rico). Congress has allowed waivers of the Jones Act for national defense reasons, which most often have been executed to speed fuel deliveries to a region after a natural disaster disrupted normal supply lines.
Regulatory interpretations of the Jones Act have been significant in defining what constitutes a "U.S.-built" vessel, what constitutes "transportation" between two U.S. points, and what are "U.S. points." The Coast Guard has determined that a U.S.-built vessel can be assembled with major foreign components such as engines, propellers, and stern and bow sections. This interpretation has been consistent from the late 1800s. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has determined that cruise ship voyages that involve visits to foreign ports in addition to a domestic port are not domestic transportation and therefore not subject to the Jones Act. This interpretation also dates to the late 1800s. CBP's interpretations of what constitutes domestic transportation and U.S. points are significant to the offshore oil industry, as some of the vessels supporting that industry must be Jones Act-compliant while others need not be.
By long-standing agreement, the military is to utilize U.S.-flag commercial ships for sealift before it utilizes government-owned vessels in its reserve fleet. Jones Act mariners are expected to crew sealift ships when needed, and thus the decades-long shrinkage of the oceangoing Jones Act fleet and mariner pool has been raised as a concern. The Department of Defense is planning to buy more used foreign-built ships for sealift rather than building them in the United States for cost reasons. It also has found that repairing its current fleet in U.S. shipyards is three times more expensive and has taken twice as long as estimated.
Much of the commercial fleet is relatively old, raising safety concerns. Some useful types of ships are missing from the Jones Act-qualified fleet, such as heavy-lift vessels, liquefied natural gas (LNG) tankers, and deepwater offshore construction vessels. Both situations appear to some observers to be contrary to the policy goal of the Jones Act, which is to "have a merchant marine of the best equipped and most suitable types of vessels sufficient to carry the greater portion of its commerce and serve as a naval or military auxiliary in times of war or national emergency."


Question: In order for the United States to engage in significant civilian nuclear cooperation with other states, it must conclude a framework agreement that meets specific requirements under Section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA). Significant nuclear cooperation includes the export of reactors, critical parts of reactors, and reactor fuel. The AEA also provides for export control licensing procedures and criteria for terminating cooperation. Congressional review is required for Section 123 agreements; the AEA establishes special parliamentary procedures by which Congress may act on a proposed agreement.


Question:
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (Section 504), and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) each play a significant part in federal efforts to support the education of individuals with disabilities. These statutory frameworks, while overlapping, differ in scope and in their application to students with disabilities. As a result, when students with disabilities transition between levels of schooling, the accommodations and services they must be provided under federal law may change. For example, while the IDEA, the ADA, and Section 504 potentially apply to children with disabilities from preschool through 12th grade (P-12), only the ADA and Section 504 apply to students in an institution of higher education. More generally, application of the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA to students with disabilities is determined by (1) the definition of "disability" employed by each framework; (2) the mechanisms employed under each law to determine whether a student has a qualifying disability; and (3) the adaptations, accommodations, and services that must be provided to students with disabilities under each law.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
The IDEA, as amended, authorizes federal grants to states to support the education of children with disabilities. The act requires that states, as a condition for receiving funds, provide students with disabilities a range of substantive and procedural protections. For example, states and local education agencies (LEAs) must (1) identify, locate, and evaluate all children with disabilities residing in the state, regardless of the severity of their disability, to determine which children are eligible for special education and related services; (2) convene a team, which includes the parents of each eligible child with a disability, to develop an individual education program (IEP) spelling out the specific special education and related services to be provided to that child to ensure a "free appropriate public education" (FAPE); and (3) provide procedural safeguards to children with disabilities and their parents, including a right to an administrative hearing to challenge determinations and placements, with the ability to appeal the ruling to federal district court. Of the three legal frameworks discussed in this report, only the IDEA is focused squarely on educational matters, and its statutory provisions and implementing regulations specifically detail the rights of children with disabilities and their families in U.S. public schools. Of the three laws examined here, the IDEA is also the only one that fixes an age limit, with its substantive and procedural guarantees applying to persons with disabilities from birth until they reach 21 years or exit high school, if earlier.
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
Section 504 is an antidiscrimination provision within a broader federal law providing rehabilitation services to people with disabilities. Section 504 protects individuals from disability discrimination in programs and activities that receive federal financial assistance, including elementary and secondary schools, as well as many colleges and universities. While Section 504 is terse in describing covered entities' obligations, the statute's implementing regulations, including those promulgated by the U.S. Department of Education (ED) applicable in the educational context, are extensive. For example, Section 504 and its implementing regulations require all schools receiving federal funds to make their application forms and course materials accessible to people with disabilities.
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA)
Enacted in 1990, the ADA provides broad nondiscrimination protection for individuals with disabilities across a range of institutional contexts, both public and private, including employment, public services, transportation, telecommunications, public accommodations, and services operated by private entities. In an educational context, the ADA and implementing regulations effectively require both public schools and many P-12 private schools to ensure that students with disabilities are not excluded, denied services, segregated, or otherwise treated differently than other individuals because of their disability, unless the school can demonstrate that taking those steps would fundamentally alter the nature of the school's program or cause an undue financial burden. The ADA's statutory provisions and implementing regulations outline the types of modifications that must be made for individuals with disabilities, including the removal of barriers, alterations to new and existing buildings, accessible seating in assembly areas, and accessible examinations and course materials.


Question:
A growing number of Americans report that they use marijuana. Most states now allow the use of marijuana for treatment of medical conditions. Ten states and the District of Columbia, representing a quarter of the U.S. population, have decriminalized the recreational use of marijuana, and other states are considering following suit.
As the opportunity for legal use of marijuana grows, there is concern about the impact of marijuana usage on highway safety. In a 2018 survey, the majority of state highway safety officers considered drugged driving an issue at least as important as driving while impaired by alcohol (which is associated with over 10,000 highway deaths each year). As of May 2019, 18 states have enacted laws declaring that a specified concentration of THC in a driver's body constitutes evidence of impairment and is inherently illegal (referred to as per se laws), similar to the .08% blood alcohol content (BAC) standard of alcohol impairment.
Advocates of loosening restrictions on marijuana often compare marijuana usage to drinking alcohol, which may contribute to some stakeholders viewing marijuana use and driving as similar to alcohol's impairment of driving. Research studies indicate that marijuana's effects on drivers' performance may vary from the effects of alcohol, in ways that challenge dealing with marijuana impairment and driving similarly to alcohol-impaired driving.
Alcohol is a nervous system depressant that is absorbed into the blood and metabolized by the body fairly quickly, such that there is little trace of alcohol after 24 hours. Its impairing effects have been extensively studied over many decades, and the association between levels of alcohol consumption and degrees of impairment is well-established. By contrast, marijuana is a nervous system stimulant. It contains over 500 chemical compounds, only one of which, tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), is significantly psychoactive. Its effects are felt quickly after smoking, but more slowly when consumed in other forms (e.g., in food). It is metabolized quickly, but the body can store THC in fat cells, so that traces of THC can be found up to several weeks after consumption. Its impairing effects have been the subject of limited study, due in part to its status as a controlled substance under federal law.
Although laboratory studies have shown that marijuana consumption can affect a person's response times and motor performance, studies of the impact of marijuana consumption on a driver's risk of being involved in a crash have produced conflicting results, with some studies finding little or no increased risk of a crash from marijuana usage. Levels of impairment that can be identified in laboratory settings may not have a significant impact in real world settings, where many variables affect the likelihood of a crash occurring. Research studies have been unable to consistently correlate levels of marijuana consumption, or THC in a person's body, and levels of impairment. Thus some researchers, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, have observed that using a measure of THC as evidence of a driver's impairment is not supported by scientific evidence to date.
Congress, state legislatures, and other decisionmakers may address the topic of marijuana use and driver impairment through various policy options, including whether or not to support additional research on the impact of marijuana on driver performance and on measurement techniques for marijuana impairment, as well as training for law enforcement on identifying marijuana impairment. Other deliberations may address federal regulations on marijuana use and testing for transportation safety-sensitive employees.


Question:
At the direction of Congress, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) in the Department of Defense (DOD) undertakes water resource development activities. USACE develops civil works projects principally to improve navigable channels, reduce flood and storm damage, and restore aquatic ecosystems. Congress directs USACE through authorizations and appropriations legislation. Congress often considers USACE authorization legislation biennially and appropriations annually. USACE attracts congressional attention because its projects can have significant local and regional economic benefits and environmental effects. This report summarizes authorization legislation, project delivery, authorities for alternative project delivery, and other USACE authorities.
Authorization Legislation. For USACE studies and projects, congressional study and project authorization generally is required prior to being eligible for federal appropriations. Congress generally considers an omnibus USACE authorization bill biennially. The bill is typically titled a Water Resources Development Act (WRDA). Agency action on an authorization typically requires funding; that is, both an authorization and an appropriation would be needed to proceed. Most water resource project authorizations in WRDAs fall into three general categories: project studies, construction projects, and modifications to existing projects. A few provisions in WRDA bills have time-limited authorizations; therefore, some WRDA provisions may reauthorize expired or expiring authorities. Recent authorization bills include:
America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018 (AWIA 2018; P.L. 115-270), which included Title I, Water Resources Development Act of 2018 (WRDA 2018) which focused on USACE civil works; Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act (WIIN; P.L. 114-322), which included Title I ,Water Resources Development Act of 2016 (WRDA 2016) which focused on USACE civil works; and Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (WRRDA 2014; P.L. 113-121), which was largely, but not wholly, focused on USACE civil works.
In WRRDA 2014, Congress developed processes for identifying site-specific studies and projects for authorization to overcome concerns related to congressionally directed spending (known as earmarks). Congress also used these processes for WRDA 2016 and WRDA 2018.
Standard and Alternative Project Delivery. The standard process for a USACE project requires two separate congressional authorizations—one for studying feasibility, and a subsequent one for construction—as well as appropriations for both. In recent years, congressional authorization for project construction has been based on a favorable report by the Chief of Engineers (a Chief's report) and an accompanying feasibility report. For most activities, Congress requires a nonfederal sponsor to share some portion of study and construction costs. For some project types (e.g., local flood control), nonfederal sponsors are responsible for operation and maintenance.
WRRDA 2014, WRDA 2016, and WRDA 2018 expanded the opportunities for interested nonfederal entities, including private entities, to have greater roles in project development, construction, and financing. WRRDA 2014 also authorized, through the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA), a program to provide direct loans and loan guarantees for water projects. Although the WIFIA program administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is operational, the USACE WIFIA program for navigation, flood risk reduction, and ecosystem restoration projects has not been implemented.
Other USACE Activities and Authorities. Congress has granted USACE general authorities to undertake some activities without requiring additional congressional authorization, including emergency actions related to flooding and limited actions in response to drought. Additionally, under the National Response Framework, USACE may be tasked with performing activities in response to an emergency or disaster, principally associated with public works and engineering such as providing temporary roofing and emergency power restoration. In addition to its work for the Department of the Army under USACE's military program, USACE under various authorities also may perform work on a reimbursable basis for other DOD entities, federal agencies, state and local governments, and foreign governments (e.g., USACE manages the construction of multiple border barrier projects on a reimbursable basis for Customs and Border Protection).


Question: This report provides a brief list of key House, Senate, legislative support agencies, and executive branch offices, as well as links to online resources of use to new congressional staff who work with legislative procedures and conduct legislative research. Some of the websites listed are available only to congressional offices; other sites are restricted by chamber and are only available to those staff working in either House or Senate offices. This report is intended for congressional use only and will be updated annually.


Question:
When civil unrest, violence, or natural disasters erupt in countries around the world, concerns arise over the ability of foreign nationals in the United States from those countries to safely return. Provisions exist in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to offer temporary protected status (TPS) and other forms of relief from removal under specified circumstances. The Secretary of Homeland Security has the discretion to designate a country for TPS for periods of 6 to 18 months and can extend these periods if the country continues to meet the conditions for designation. Congress has also provided TPS legislatively. A foreign national who is granted TPS receives a registration document and employment authorization for the duration of a given TPS designation.
The United States currently provides TPS to approximately 417,000 foreign nationals from 10 countries: El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras, Nepal, Nicaragua, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. Certain Liberians maintain relief under a similar administrative mechanism known as Deferred Enforced Departure (DED). Since September 2017, the Secretary of Homeland Security has announced plans to terminate TPS for six countries—El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras, Nepal, Nicaragua, and Sudan—and extend TPS for Somalia, South Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. In March 2018, President Trump announced an end to DED for Liberia. Several lawsuits have been filed challenging the TPS and DED termination decisions.
There is ongoing debate about whether foreign nationals who have been living in the United States for long periods of time with TPS or DED should receive a pathway to lawful permanent resident (LPR) status. Various proposals related to TPS have been introduced in the 115th and 116th Congresses, including to expand the program to additional countries (e.g., Venezuela), provide a pathway to LPR status, prohibit gang members or those without lawful status from receiving TPS, and phase out the program.


Question:
Congress has delegated responsibility for monetary policy to the Federal Reserve (the Fed), the nation's central bank, but retains oversight responsibilities for ensuring that the Fed is adhering to its statutory mandate of "maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates." To meet its price stability mandate, the Fed has set a longer-run goal of 2% inflation.
The Fed's control over monetary policy stems from its exclusive ability to alter the money supply and credit conditions more broadly. Normally, the Fed conducts monetary policy by setting a target for the federal funds rate, the rate at which banks borrow and lend reserves on an overnight basis. It meets its target through open market operations, financial transactions traditionally involving U.S. Treasury securities. Beginning in 2007, the federal funds target was reduced from 5.25% to a range of 0% to 0.25% in December 2008, which economists call the zero lower bound. By historical standards, rates were kept unusually low for an unusually long time to mitigate the effects of the financial crisis and its aftermath. Starting in December 2015, the Fed has been raising interest rates and expects to gradually raise rates further. The Fed raised rates once in 2016, three times in 2017, and four times in 2018, by 0.25 percentage points each time. In light of increased economic uncertainty and financial volatility, the Fed announced in January 2019 that it would be "patient" before raising rates again.
The Fed influences interest rates to affect interest-sensitive spending, such as business capital spending on plant and equipment, household spending on consumer durables, and residential investment. In addition, when interest rates diverge between countries, it causes capital flows that affect the exchange rate between foreign currencies and the dollar, which in turn affects spending on exports and imports. Through these channels, monetary policy can be used to stimulate or slow aggregate spending in the short run. In the long run, monetary policy mainly affects inflation. A low and stable rate of inflation promotes price transparency and, thereby, sounder economic decisions.
The Fed's relative independence from Congress and the Administration has been justified by many economists on the grounds that it reduces political pressure to make monetary policy decisions that are inconsistent with a long-term focus on stable inflation. But independence reduces accountability to Congress and the Administration, and recent legislation and criticism of the Fed by the President has raised the question about the proper balance between the two.
While the federal funds target was at the zero lower bound, the Fed attempted to provide additional stimulus through unsterilized purchases of Treasury and mortgage-backed securities (MBS), a practice popularly referred to as quantitative easing (QE). Between 2009 and 2014, the Fed undertook three rounds of QE. The third round was completed in October 2014, at which point the Fed's balance sheet was $4.5 trillion—five times its precrisis size. After QE ended, the Fed maintained the balance sheet at the same level until September 2017, when it began to very gradually reduce it to a more normal size. The Fed has raised interest rates in the presence of a large balance sheet through the use of two new tools—by paying banks interest on reserves held at the Fed and by engaging in reverse repurchase agreements (reverse repos) through a new overnight facility. In January 2019, the Fed announced that it would continue using these tools to set interest rates permanently, in which case the balance sheet may not get much smaller than its current size of $4 trillion.
With regard to its mandate, the Fed believes that unemployment is currently lower than the rate that it considers consistent with maximum employment, and inflation is close to the Fed's 2% goal by the Fed's preferred measure. Even after recent rate increases, monetary policy is still considered expansionary. This monetary policy stance is unusually stimulative compared with policy in this stage of previous expansions, and is being coupled with a stimulative fiscal policy (larger structural budget deficit). Debate is currently focused on how quickly the Fed should raise rates. Some contend the greater risk is that raising rates too slowly at full employment will cause inflation to become too high or cause financial instability, whereas others contend that raising rates too quickly will cause inflation to remain too low and choke off the expansion.


Question:
In 2001, in the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, "homeland security" went from being a concept discussed among a relatively small cadre of policymakers and strategic thinkers to one broadly discussed among policymakers, including a broad swath of those in Congress. Debates over how to implement coordinated homeland security policy led to the passage of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296), the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and extensive legislative activity in the ensuing years.
Initially, homeland security was largely seen as counterterrorism activities. Today, homeland security is a broad and complex network of interrelated issues, in policymaking terms. For example, in its executive summary, the Quadrennial Homeland Security Review issued in 2014 delineated the missions of the homeland security enterprise as follows: prevent terrorism and enhance security; secure and manage the borders; enforce and administer immigration laws; safeguard and secure cyberspace; and strengthen national preparedness and resilience.
This report compiles a series of Insights by CRS experts across an array of homeland security issues that may come before the 116th Congress. Several homeland security topics are also covered in CRS Report R45500, Transportation Security: Issues for the 116th Congress.
The information contained in the Insights only scratches the surface of these selected issues. Congressional clients may obtain more detailed information on these topic and others by contacting the relevant CRS expert listed in CRS Report R45684, Selected Homeland Security Issues in the 116th Congress: CRS Experts.


Question:
As the Supreme Court has recognized, social media sites like Facebook and Twitter have become important venues for users to exercise free speech rights protected under the First Amendment. Commentators and legislators, however, have questioned whether these social media platforms are living up to their reputation as digital public forums. Some have expressed concern that these sites are not doing enough to counter violent or false speech. At the same time, many argue that the platforms are unfairly banning and restricting access to potentially valuable speech.
Currently, federal law does not offer much recourse for social media users who seek to challenge a social media provider's decision about whether and how to present a user's content. Lawsuits predicated on these sites' decisions to host or remove content have been largely unsuccessful, facing at least two significant barriers under existing federal law. First, while individuals have sometimes alleged that these companies violated their free speech rights by discriminating against users' content, courts have held that the First Amendment, which provides protection against state action, is not implicated by the actions of these private companies. Second, courts have concluded that many non-constitutional claims are barred by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230, which provides immunity to providers of interactive computer services, including social media providers, both for certain decisions to host content created by others and for actions taken "voluntarily" and "in good faith" to restrict access to "objectionable" material.
Some have argued that Congress should step in to regulate social media sites. Government action regulating internet content would constitute state action that may implicate the First Amendment. In particular, social media providers may argue that government regulations impermissibly infringe on the providers' own constitutional free speech rights. Legal commentators have argued that when social media platforms decide whether and how to post users' content, these publication decisions are themselves protected under the First Amendment. There are few court decisions evaluating whether a social media site, by virtue of publishing, organizing, or even editing protected speech, is itself exercising free speech rights. Consequently, commentators have largely analyzed the question of whether the First Amendment protects a social media site's publication decisions by analogy to other types of First Amendment cases. There are at least three possible frameworks for analyzing governmental restrictions on social media sites' ability to moderate user content.
First, using the analogue of the company town, social media sites could be treated as state actors who are themselves bound to follow the First Amendment when they regulate protected speech. If social media sites were treated as state actors under the First Amendment, then the Constitution itself would constrain their conduct, even absent legislative regulation. The second possible framework would view social media sites as analogous to special industries like common carriers or broadcast media. The Court has historically allowed greater regulation of these industries' speech, given the need to protect public access for users of their services. Under the second framework, if special aspects of social media sites threaten the use of the medium for communicative or expressive purposes, courts might approve of content-neutral regulations intended to solve those problems. The third analogy would treat social media sites like news editors, who generally receive the full protections of the First Amendment when making editorial decisions. If social media sites were considered to be equivalent to newspaper editors when they make decisions about whether and how to present users' content, then those editorial decisions would receive the broadest protections under the First Amendment. Any government regulations that alter the editorial choices of social media sites by forcing them to host content that they would not otherwise transmit, or requiring them to take down content they would like to host, could be subject to strict scrutiny. A number of federal trial courts have held that search engines exercise editorial judgment protected by the First Amendment when they make decisions about whether and how to present specific websites or advertisements in search results, seemingly adopting this last framework.
Which of these three frameworks applies will depend largely on the particular action being regulated. Under existing law, social media platforms may be more likely to receive First Amendment protection when they exercise more editorial discretion in presenting user-generated content, rather than if they neutrally transmit all such content. In addition, certain types of speech receive less protection under the First Amendment. Courts may be more likely to uphold regulations targeting certain disfavored categories of speech such as obscenity or speech inciting violence. Finally, if a law targets a social media site's conduct rather than speech, it may not trigger the protections of the First Amendment at all.


Question:
When federal courts have analyzed and addressed "affirmative action" in higher education, they have done so in two distinct but related senses, both under the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection."
The first has its roots in the original sense of "affirmative action:" the mandatory use of race by public education systems to eliminate the remnants of state-imposed racial segregation. Because state-sanctioned race segregation in public education violates the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, in certain cases involving a state's formerly de jure segregated public university system, a state's consideration of race in its higher education policies and practices may be an affirmative obligation. As the U.S. Supreme Court explained in its consequential 1992 decision United States v. Fordice, equal protection may require states that formerly maintained de jure segregated university systems to consider race for the purpose of eliminating all vestiges of their prior "dual" systems. Drawing upon its precedent addressing racially segregated public schools in the K-12 context, the Court established a three-part legal standard in Fordice for evaluating the sufficiency and effectiveness of a state's efforts in "dismantl[ing]" its formerly de jure segregated public university system. To that remedial end, mandatory race-conscious measures—in this de jure context—are not limited to admissions. Instead, remedies may also address policies and practices relating to academic programs, institutional missions, funding, and other aspects of public university operations.
Outside this de jure context, "affirmative action" has come to refer to a different category of race-conscious policies. These involve what the Court at one time called the "benign" use of racial classifications—voluntary measures designed not to remedy past de jure discrimination, but to help racial minorities overcome the effects of their earlier exclusion. And for institutions of higher education, the Court has addressed one type of affirmative action policy in particular: the use of race as a factor in admissions decisions, a practice now widely observed by both public and private colleges and universities.
The federal courts have come to subject these voluntary race-conscious policies—"affirmative action" in its perhaps more familiar sense—to a particularly searching form of review known as strict scrutiny. And even though this heightened judicial scrutiny has long been regarded as strict in theory but fatal in fact, the Court's review of race-conscious admissions policies in higher education has proved a notable exception, with the Court having twice upheld universities' use of race as one of many factors considered when assembling their incoming classes. The Court has long grappled with this seeming tension—between the strictness of its scrutiny and its approval of race-conscious admissions policies—beginning with its landmark 1978 decision in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke through its 2016 decision in Fisher v. University of Texas.
Though the Equal Protection Clause generally concerns public universities and their constitutional obligations under the Fourteenth Amendment, federal statutory law also plays a role in ensuring equal protection in higher education. To that end, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits recipients of federal funding—including private colleges and universities—from, at a minimum, discriminating against students and applicants in a manner that would violate the Equal Protection Clause. Federal agencies, including the Departments of Justice and Education, investigate and administratively enforce institutions' compliance with Title VI.


Question:
The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-578) created the LWCF in the Treasury as a funding source to implement the outdoor recreation goals set out by the act. The LWCF Act authorizes the fund to receive $900 million annually, with the monies available only if appropriated by Congress (i.e., discretionary appropriations). The fund also receives mandatory appropriations under the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 (GOMESA). The level of annual appropriations for the LWCF has varied since the origin of the fund in FY1965.
The LWCF Act outlines uses of the fund for federal and state purposes. Of the total made available through appropriations or deposits under GOMESA, not less than 40% is to be used for "federal purposes" and not less than 40% is to be used to provide "financial assistance to states." The act lists the federal purposes for which the President is to allot LWCF funds "unless otherwise allotted in the appropriation Act making them available." These purposes primarily relate to acquisition of lands and waters (and interests therein) by the federal government. With regard to state purposes, the act authorizes a matching grant program to states for outdoor recreation purposes. Throughout the LWCF's history, appropriations acts typically have provided funds for land acquisition and outdoor recreational grants to states.
Beginning in FY1998, appropriations also have been provided each year (except FY1999) to fund other purposes related to natural resources. The extent to which the LWCF should be used for purposes other than federal land acquisition and outdoor recreation grants to states, and which other purposes should be funded from the LWCF, continue to be the subject of legislation and debate in Congress. In the past few decades, Presidents have sought LWCF funds for a variety of other purposes. Congress chooses which if any of these requests to fund, and has chosen programs not sought by the President for a particular year. Among other programs, appropriations have been provided for facility maintenance of the land management agencies, ecosystem restoration, the Historic Preservation Fund, the Payments in Lieu of Taxes program, the Forest Legacy Program, State and Tribal Wildlife Grants (under the Fish and Wildlife Service), the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund, U.S. Geological Survey science and cooperative programs, and Bureau of Indian Affairs Indian Land and Water Claim Settlements.
Since FY1998, a total of $2.7 billion has been appropriated for other purposes, of a total LWCF appropriation of $18.9 billion over the history of the fund. The Fish and Wildlife Service and the Forest Service have received the largest shares of the total appropriations for other purposes, about $1.4 billion (53%) and $1.0.billion (38%), respectively, from FY1998 to FY2019. Several agencies shared the remaining $0.2 billion (9%) of the appropriations.
Both the dollar amounts and the percentages of annual LWCF appropriations for other purposes have varied widely since FY1998. The dollar amounts have ranged from $0 in FY1999 to $456.0 million in FY2001. The percentage of annual funds provided for other purposes ranged from 0% in FY1999 to a high of 59% in both FY2006 and FY2007. In some years, the appropriation for other purposes was significantly less than the Administration requested. For instance, for FY2008, the George W. Bush Administration sought $313.1 million; the appropriation was $101.3 million. The appropriation for other purposes last exceeded $100.0 million in FY2010, and most recently was $93.3 million, in FY2019.
Prior to FY2008, several other purposes typically were funded each year from LWCF. Since FY2008, funds have been appropriated annually only for grants under two programs: Forest Legacy and Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund. These two programs and a third grant program—State and Tribal Wildlife Grants—have received more than three-quarters ($2.1 billion, 79%) of the total appropriation for other purposes since FY1998.


Question:
Federal law contains a wide variety of disclosure requirements, including food labels, securities registrations, and disclosures about prescription drugs in direct-to-consumer advertising. These disclosure provisions require commercial actors to make statements that they otherwise might not, compelling speech and implicating the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. Nonetheless, while commercial disclosure requirements may regulate protected speech, that fact in and of itself does not render such provisions unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court has historically allowed greater regulation of commercial speech than of other types of speech. Since at least the mid-1970s, however, the Supreme Court has been increasingly protective of commercial speech. This trend, along with other developments in First Amendment law, has led some commentators to question whether the Supreme Court might apply a stricter test in assessing commercial disclosure requirements in the near future. Nonetheless, governing Supreme Court precedent provides that disclosure requirements generally receive lesser judicial scrutiny when they compel only commercial speech, as opposed to noncommercial speech. In National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, a decision released in June 2018, the Supreme Court explained that it has applied a lower level of scrutiny to compelled disclosures under two circumstances.
First, the Supreme Court has sometimes upheld laws that regulate commercial speech if the speech regulation is part of a larger regulatory scheme that is focused on conduct and only incidentally burdens speech. If a law is properly characterized as a regulation of conduct, rather than speech, then it may be subject to rational basis review, a deferential standard that asks only whether the regulation is a rational way to address the problem. However, it can be difficult to distinguish speech from conduct, and the Supreme Court has not frequently invoked this doctrine to uphold laws against First Amendment challenges.
Second, the Supreme Court has sometimes applied a lower level of scrutiny to certain commercial disclosure requirements under the authority of a 1985 case, Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel. In Zauderer, the Court upheld a disclosure requirement after noting that the challenged provision compelled only "factual and uncontroversial information about the terms under which . . . services will be available." The Court said that under the circumstances, the service provider's First Amendment rights were sufficiently protected because the disclosure requirement was "reasonably related" to the government's interest "in preventing deception of consumers." Lower courts have generally interpreted Zauderer to mean that if a commercial disclosure provision requires only "factual and uncontroversial information" about the goods or services being offered, it should be analyzed under rational basis review. If a commercial disclosure requirement does not qualify for review under Zauderer, then it will most likely be analyzed under the intermediate standard that generally applies to government actions that regulate commercial speech.
Some legal scholars have argued that recent Supreme Court case law suggests the Court may subject commercial disclosure provisions to stricter scrutiny in the future, either by limiting the factual circumstances under which these two doctrines apply or by creating express exceptions to these doctrines. If a court applies a heightened level of scrutiny, it may require the government to present more evidence of the problem it is seeking to remedy and stronger justifications for choosing a disclosure requirement to achieve its purposes.


Question:
In June 2018, in part due to congressional concerns, the Army announced a new modernization strategy and designated the Next Generation Combat Vehicle (NGCV) as the program to replace the M-2 Bradley. In October 2018, Army leadership decided to redesignate the NGCV as the Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle (OMFV) and to add additional vehicle programs to what would be called the NGCV Program.
The M-2 Bradley, which has been in service since 1981, is an Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV) used to transport infantry on the battlefield and provide fire support to dismounted troops and suppress or destroy enemy fighting vehicles. Updated numerous times since its introduction, the M-2 Bradley is widely considered to have reached the technological limits of its capacity to accommodate new electronics, armor, and defense systems. Two past efforts to replace the M-2 Bradley—the Future Combat System (FCS) Program and the Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) Program—were cancelled for programmatic and cost-associated reasons.
In late 2018, the Army established Army Futures Command (AFC), intended to establish unity of command and effort while consolidating the Army's modernization process under one roof. AFC is intended to play a significant role in OMFV development and acquisition. Hoping to field the OMFV in FY2026, the Army plans to employ Section 804 Middle Tier Acquisition Authority for rapid prototyping. The Army plans to develop, in parallel, three complementary classes of Robotic Combat Vehicles (RCVs) intended to accompany the OMFV into combat both to protect the OMFV and provide additional fire support. For RCVs to be successfully developed, problems with autonomous ground navigation will need to be resolved and artificial intelligence must evolve to permit the RCVs to function as intended. The Army has stated that a new congressionally-granted acquisition authority—referred to as Section 804 authority—might also be used in RCV development.
The Army requested $378 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) funding for the OMFV program and $109 million in RDT&E funding for the RCV in its FY2020 budget request.
Potential issues for Congress include the following:
How will the OMFV program avoid the same fate as the cancelled FCS and GCV programs? What is the Army Futures Command's (AFC's) role in program management? What is the relationship between the OMFV and RCVs? What are some of the benefits and concerns regarding Section 804 authority and the OMFV?


Question:
This report uses the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) farm income projections (as of March 6, 2019) and agricultural trade outlook update (as of February 21, 2019) to describe the U.S. farm economic outlook. According to USDA's Economic Research Service (ERS), national net farm income—a key indicator of U.S. farm well-being—is forecast at $69.4 billion in 2019, up $6.3 billion (+10%) from last year. The forecast rise in 2019 net farm income is the result of an increase in gross returns (up $8.5 billion or +2%)—including continued payments under the trade aid package announced by USDA in July 2018—partially offset by slightly higher production expenses (up $2.2 billion or +0.6%). Net farm income is calculated on an accrual basis. Net cash income (calculated on a cash-flow basis) is also projected higher in 2019 (+4.7%) to $95.7 billion.
The 2019 net farm income forecast is substantially below (-18%) the 10-year average of $84.8 billion (in nominal dollars)—primarily the result of the outlook for continued weak prices for most major crops. Commodity prices are under pressure from a record soybean and near-record corn harvest in 2018, diminished export prospects due to an ongoing trade dispute with China, and burdensome stocks.
Government payments are projected down nearly 17% from 2018 at $11.5 billion—due largely to lower market facilitation payments by USDA. Market facilitation payments to qualifying agricultural producers—in response to the U.S.-China trade dispute—were an estimated $5.2 billion in 2018 and are projected at $3.5 billion in 2019. Price Loss Coverage (PLC) and Agricultural Risk Coverage (ARC) payments are also projected lower in 2019 ($1.7 billion) versus 2018 ($3.0 billion). Payments to dairy producers under the new Dairy Margin Coverage (DMC) program are projected up over 200% at $600 million, while payments under conservation and disaster assistance are projected up in 2019 at $4.3 billion (+8.6%) and $1.4 billion (+20%).
Since 2008, U.S. agricultural exports have accounted for a 20% share of U.S. farm and manufactured or processed agricultural sales. In 2018 total agricultural exports were estimated up 2% at $143.4 billion. However, abundant supplies in international markets, strong competition from major foreign competitors, and the ongoing U.S.-China trade dispute are expected to shift trade patterns and lower U.S. export prospects slightly (-1%) in 2019.
In addition to the outlook for slightly higher farm income, farm asset value is also projected up 1.5% from 2018 to $3.1 trillion. However, aggregate farm debt is projected record large at $426.7 billion—up 3.9% from 2018. Farm asset values reflect farm investors' and lenders' expectations about long-term profitability of farm sector investments. USDA farmland values are projected to rise 1.8% in 2019, similar to the increases of 1.9% in 2018 and 2.3% in 2017. Because they comprise such a significant portion of the U.S. farm sector's asset base (83%), change in farmland values is a critical barometer of the farm sector's financial performance. At the farm household level, average farm household incomes have been well above average U.S. household incomes since the late 1990s. However, that advantage has narrowed in recent years. In 2014, the average farm household income (including off-farm income sources) was about 77% higher than the average U.S. household income. In 2017 (the last year with comparable data), that advantage is expected to decline to 32%.
The outlook for below average net farm income and relatively weak prices for most major program crops signals the likelihood of continued relatively lean times ahead. The U.S. agricultural sector's well-being remains dependent on continued growth in domestic and foreign demand to sustain prices at current modest levels. In addition to commodity prices, the financial picture for the agricultural sector as a whole heading into 2019 will hinge on both domestic and international macroeconomic factors, including interest rates, economic growth, and consumer demand.
This report uses the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) farm income projections (as of March 6, 2019) and agricultural trade outlook update (as of February 21, 2019) to describe the U.S. farm economic outlook. According to USDA's Economic Research Service (ERS), national net farm income—a key indicator of U.S. farm well-being—is forecast at $69.4 billion in 2019, up $6.3 billion (+10%) from last year. The forecast rise in 2019 net farm income is the result of an increase in gross returns (up $8.5 billion or +2%)—including continued payments under the trade aid package announced by USDA in July 2018—partially offset by slightly higher production expenses (up $2.2 billion or +0.6%). Net farm income is calculated on an accrual basis. Net cash income (calculated on a cash-flow basis) is also projected higher in 2019 (+4.7%) to $95.7 billion.
The 2019 net farm income forecast is substantially below (-18%) the 10-year average of $84.8 billion (in nominal dollars)—primarily the result of the outlook for continued weak prices for most major crops. Commodity prices are under pressure from a record soybean and near-record corn harvest in 2018, diminished export prospects due to an ongoing trade dispute with China, and burdensome stocks.
Government payments are projected down nearly 17% from 2018 at $11.5 billion—due largely to lower market facilitation payments by USDA. Market facilitation payments to qualifying agricultural producers—in response to the U.S.-China trade dispute—were an estimated $5.2 billion in 2018 and are projected at $3.5 billion in 2019. Price Loss Coverage (PLC) and Agricultural Risk Coverage (ARC) payments are also projected lower in 2019 ($1.7 billion) versus 2018 ($3.0 billion). Payments to dairy producers under the new Dairy Margin Coverage (DMC) program are projected up over 200% at $600 million, while payments under conservation and disaster assistance are projected up in 2019 at $4.3 billion (+8.6%) and $1.4 billion (+20%).
Since 2008, U.S. agricultural exports have accounted for a 20% share of U.S. farm and manufactured or processed agricultural sales. In 2018 total agricultural exports were estimated up 2% at $143.4 billion. However, abundant supplies in international markets, strong competition from major foreign competitors, and the ongoing U.S.-China trade dispute are expected to shift trade patterns and lower U.S. export prospects slightly (-1%) in 2019.
In addition to the outlook for slightly higher farm income, farm asset value is also projected up 1.5% from 2018 to $3.1 trillion. However, aggregate farm debt is projected record large at $426.7 billion—up 3.9% from 2018. Farm asset values reflect farm investors' and lenders' expectations about long-term profitability of farm sector investments. USDA farmland values are projected to rise 1.8% in 2019, similar to the increases of 1.9% in 2018 and 2.3% in 2017. Because they comprise such a significant portion of the U.S. farm sector's asset base (83%), change in farmland values is a critical barometer of the farm sector's financial performance. At the farm household level, average farm household incomes have been well above average U.S. household incomes since the late 1990s. However, that advantage has narrowed in recent years. In 2014, the average farm household income (including off-farm income sources) was about 77% higher than the average U.S. household income. In 2017 (the last year with comparable data), that advantage is expected to decline to 32%.
The outlook for below average net farm income and relatively weak prices for most major program crops signals the likelihood of continued relatively lean times ahead. The U.S. agricultural sector's well-being remains dependent on continued growth in domestic and foreign demand to sustain prices at current modest levels. In addition to commodity prices, the financial picture for the agricultural sector as a whole heading into 2019 will hinge on both domestic and international macroeconomic factors, including interest rates, economic growth, and consumer demand.


Question:
The administration of elections in the United States is highly decentralized. Elections are primarily administered by thousands of state and local systems rather than a single, unified national system.
States and localities share responsibility for most election administration duties. Exactly how responsibilities are assigned at the state and local levels varies both between and within states, but there are some general patterns in the distribution of duties. States typically have primary responsibility for making decisions about the rules of elections (policymaking). Localities typically have primary responsibility for conducting elections in accordance with those rules (implementation). Localities, with varying contributions from states, typically also have primary responsibility for paying for the activities and resources required to conduct elections (funding).
The structures of the state and local systems that conduct elections also vary between and within states. Common variations include differences related to the leadership of the system, the relationship between local election officials and the state, and the population size and density of the jurisdiction the system serves. The leadership of a state or local election system may be elected or appointed, and both the leaders and the methods used to select them may be partisan, bipartisan, or nonpartisan. State officials may have more or less direct influence over local election officials, and the extent of their influence may be affected by other structural features of the state's election systems, such as the methods used to select local officials. Finally, larger election jurisdictions have different administrative advantages and challenges than smaller ones, and more urban jurisdictions have different advantages and challenges than more rural ones. These differences between jurisdictions may be reflected in structural features of the election systems that serve them, such as how the systems allocate resources and where they find specialized expertise.
Understanding the duties and structures of state and local election systems may be relevant to Congress for at least two reasons. First, the way state and local election systems work can affect how well federal action on election administration serves its intended purposes. The effectiveness of federal action depends in part on how it is implemented. How it is implemented can depend, in turn, on how the state and local election systems that implement it work. Second, Congress can make or incentivize changes to the way state and local election systems work. Congress has a number of policy tools it can use to affect the administration of federal elections. The use of these tools can—either intentionally or unintentionally—affect the state and local election systems that administer federal elections.


Question:
The 116th Congress has begun to consider several issues related to two programs in the unemployment insurance (UI) system: Unemployment Compensation (UC) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE). The lapse in federal appropriations that occurred from December 22, 2018, to January 25, 2019, created a partial government shutdown. As a result, agencies without funding furloughed many federal employees, and many federal employees excepted from furlough were working without pay during the lapse in appropriations. Furloughed federal employees may be eligible for UCFE benefits. Private-sector workers who are furloughed or laid off due to the partial government shutdown because they were employed by government contractors may be eligible for regular UC benefits. But, according to guidance from the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), excepted federal employees who are performing services (without pay) would generally be ineligible for UCFE benefits based on states' definitions of "unemployment." In this climate, there has been congressional interest in assisting furloughed and excepted federal employees through the UI system.
UI legislative issues currently facing the 116th Congress include the following:
the effects of the FY2019 sequester order on UI programs and benefits, the role of UI in providing temporary income replacement during a government shutdown, state fiscal concerns related to financing UC benefits, reemployment services and eligibility assessments (RESEA), potential consideration of the UI proposals included in the President's FY2020 budget, and congressional oversight related to a proposed UC drug testing rule reissued by DOL after previously being disapproved using the Congressional Review Act.
In the 116th Congress, policymakers have introduced legislation related to UCFE benefits in response to the recent partial government shutdown (S. 165, H.R. 720, H.R. 725, and H.R. 1117), legislation to provide self-employment and relocation assistance benefits (S. 136 and H.R. 556), legislation to require that states consider an individual who quit employment because of sexual harassment, domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking to be eligible for UC benefits (H.R. 1585), and legislation to amend Title III of the Social Security Act to extend RESEA to all UC claimants (H.R. 1759).
For a brief overview of UC, see CRS In Focus IF10336, The Fundamentals of Unemployment Compensation.


Question:
The Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV) is the Army's proposed replacement for the Vietnam-era M-113 personnel carriers, which are still in service in a variety of support capacities in Armored Brigade Combat Teams (ABCTs). While M-113s no longer serve as infantry fighting vehicles, five variants of the M-113 are used as command and control vehicles, general purpose vehicles, mortar carriers, and medical treatment and evacuation vehicles.
The AMPV is intended to be a nondevelopmental program (candidate vehicles will be either existing vehicles or modified existing vehicles—not vehicles that are specially designed and not currently in service). Some suggest a nondevelopmental vehicle might make it easier for the Army to eventually field this system to the force, as most of the Army's past developmental programs, such as the Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV), the Future Combat System (FCS), the Crusader self-propelled artillery system, and the Comanche helicopter, were cancelled before they could be fully developed and fielded.
On November 26, 2013, the Army issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the AMPV. This RFP stipulated the Army planned to award a five-year Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) contract in May 2014 worth $458 million to a single contractor for 29 prototypes. While the March 2013 RFP established an Average Unit Manufacturing Cost Ceiling for each AMPV at $1.8 million, this was rescinded to permit vendors greater flexibility. The EMD phase was scheduled to run between FY2015 and FY2019, followed by three years of low-rate initial production (LRIP) starting in 2020. As of 2018, the Army planned to procure 2,936 AMPVs to replace M-113s in ABCTs. The Army also has plans to replace 1,922 M-113s at Echelons Above Brigade (EAB), and the Department of Defense (DOD) estimates that if the M-113s are replaced by AMPVs at EAB, total program costs could be increased by an additional $6.5 billion. While the Army would like a pure fleet of AMPVs, budgetary constraints could preclude this.
On December 23, 2014, the Army announced it had selected BAE Systems Land and Armaments L.P. as the winner of the EMD contract. The initial award was for 52 months, valued at about $382 million. In addition, the award provided for an optional low-rate initial production (LRIP) phase. The EMD contract did not include EAB AMPV variants. The AMPV reportedly successfully completed its Critical Design Review (CDR) on June 23, 2016. On December 15, 2016, BAE delivered the first general purpose AMPV to the Army for testing. In September 2017, the Army began AMPV reliability, availability, and maintainability (RAM) testing. Also in 2017, based on budgetary constraints, the Army decided it would upgrade a number of EAB M-113s instead of replacing them with AMPVs. In May 2018, the Army decided to put the EAB M-113 upgrade effort on hold. On March 13, 2019, Army leadership reportedly announced the Army had decided to cut funding over the next five years for 93 programs—including the AMPV—to increase available funding for its new modernization strategy. This cut is not expected to affect the overall AMPV requirement but could slow the AMPV production rate.
Other program issues include DOD Inspector General (IG) concerns regarding performance and design concerns, as well as inaccurate procurement quantities, which could result in inaccurate program costs. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) in 2018 expressed concerns regarding cost growth, difficulties meeting a variety of developmental requirements, and dependencies on other programs that are experiencing developmental challenges.
Potential issues for Congress include a "way ahead" for upgraded M-113s at EAB, DOD Inspector General (IG) and GAO concerns, and the potential revised AMPV procurement rate.


Question:
In 1994, Congress passed and President Clinton signed the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-322), which, among other things, made prisoners ineligible for Pell Grants. However, concerns about the financial and social costs of the growing prison population combined with concerns about the recidivism rate of released prisoners have led some policymakers to reconsider whether prisoners should be allowed to use Pell Grants to help cover the cost of postsecondary coursework. Pell Grants are intended to assist in making the benefits of postsecondary education available to eligible students who demonstrate financial need.
Under Department of Education (ED) regulations, any student who is "serving a criminal sentence in a federal or state penitentiary, prison, jail, reformatory, work farm, or other similar correctional institution" is not eligible to receive a Pell Grant. However, in 2015 ED used its authority under the Higher Education Act (HEA) to create the Second Chance Pell Experiment to determine if access to Pell Grants would increase the enrollment of incarcerated individuals in high-quality postsecondary correctional education programs. Under the experiment, participating institutions of higher education, in partnership with federal and/or state correctional institutions, award Pell Grants to students who are otherwise Pell-eligible except for being incarcerated in a federal or state institution. The experiment is expected to conclude in 2020.
There are several issues policymakers might consider if Congress chooses to take up legislation to reinstate prisoners' eligibility for Pell Grants, including the following:
The Pell Grant program is a need based program that provides funds to all that qualify. Thus, restoring Pell Grant eligibility to all federal and state prisoners will increase Pell Grant program costs. Should tax dollars be used to educate convicted offenders before they are released from prison? There are some prisoners who have been sentenced to death, whose sentences exceed their life expectancy, or who might be civilly committed indefinitely under sexually dangerous persons statutes after they have served their prison sentences. Should these prisoners be eligible to receive Pell Grants? Educational attainment is lower among incarcerated adults than non-incarcerated adults and even prisoners with high school diplomas or general education development (GED) certificates might need additional assistance to help them prepare for the rigors of postsecondary education. Is there a need for additional investment in remedial education or adult basic education for prisoners to help them prepare for postsecondary education classes? Under current law and regulation, to be eligible for a Pell Grant males who are subject to registration with the Selective Service System (SSS) must register or prove they were either not required by SSS to register or failed to register for an ED-qualifying reason. There is a higher incidence of not registering among men who have been incarcerated during some or all of the period between ages 18 to 25. Should this requirement be retained for incarcerated men, or should the process for proving exceptions be modified to facilitate Pell Grant eligibility for incarcerated men? There is a lack of rigorous evaluations that have isolated the effects postsecondary education has on recidivism, and little research on the best way to deliver postsecondary education in prisons. Should Congress take steps to promote data collection on the availability of, and participation in, postsecondary education to advance research on the effects of postsecondary education on recidivism? There can be barriers to providing educational programming in a correctional environment (e.g., lack of classroom space and trained instructors, limitations on internet access) regardless of Pell Grant receipt. Are there steps Congress could take to mitigate these barriers? A criminal history can be a barrier to securing employment in a variety of fields, either because some convicted offenders are prohibited from working in certain jobs due to a provision in law or regulation, or because employers are wary of hiring someone with a criminal history. Is there interest in undertaking any efforts to reduce the collateral consequences of a criminal history on post-release employment to allow the incarcerated student to fully realize the benefits of postsecondary education?


Question:
Recent debates about U.S. nuclear weapons have questioned what role weapons with shorter ranges and lower yields can play in addressing emerging threats in Europe and Asia. These weapons, often referred to as nonstrategic nuclear weapons, have not been limited by past U.S.-Russian arms control agreements, although some analysts argue such limits would be of value, particularly in addressing Russia's greater numbers of these types of weapons. Others have argued that the United States should expand its deployments of these weapons, in both Europe and Asia, to address new risks of war conducted under a nuclear shadow. The Trump Administration addressed these questions in the Nuclear Posture Review released in February 2018, and determined that the United States should acquire two new types of nonstrategic nuclear weapons: a new low-yield warhead for submarine-launched ballistic missiles and a new sea-launched cruise missile.
During the Cold War, the United States and Soviet Union both deployed nonstrategic nuclear weapons for use in the field during a conflict. While there are several ways to distinguish between strategic and nonstrategic nuclear weapons, most analysts consider nonstrategic weapons to be shorter-range delivery systems with lower-yield warheads that might be used to attack troops or facilities on the battlefield. They have included nuclear mines; artillery; short-, medium-, and long-range ballistic missiles; cruise missiles; and gravity bombs. In contrast with the longer-range "strategic" nuclear weapons, these weapons had a lower profile in policy debates and arms control negotiations, possibly because they did not pose a direct threat to the continental United States. At the end of the 1980s, each nation still had thousands of these weapons deployed with their troops in the field, aboard naval vessels, and on aircraft.
In 1991, the United States and Soviet Union both withdrew from deployment most and eliminated from their arsenals many of their nonstrategic nuclear weapons. The United States now has approximately 500 nonstrategic nuclear weapons, with around 200 deployed with aircraft in Europe and the remaining stored in the United States. Estimates vary, but experts believe Russia still has between 1,000 and 6,000 warheads for nonstrategic nuclear weapons in its arsenal. The Bush Administration quietly redeployed some U.S. weapons deployed in Europe, while the Obama Administration retired older sea-launched cruise missiles. Russia, however seems to have increased its reliance on nuclear weapons in its national security concept.
Analysts have identified a number of issues with the continued deployment of U.S. and Russian nonstrategic nuclear weapons. These include questions about the safety and security of Russia's weapons and the possibility that some might be lost, stolen, or sold to another nation or group; questions about the role of these weapons in U.S. and Russian security policy; questions about the role that these weapons play in NATO policy and whether there is a continuing need for the United States to deploy them at bases overseas; questions about the implications of the disparity in numbers between U.S. and Russian nonstrategic nuclear weapons; and questions about the relationship between nonstrategic nuclear weapons and U.S. nonproliferation policy.
Some argue that these weapons do not create any problems and the United States should not alter its policy. Others argue that the United States should expand its deployments of these weapons in response to challenges from Russia, China, and North Korea. Some believe the United States should reduce its reliance on these weapons and encourage Russia to do the same. Many have suggested that the United States and Russia expand efforts to cooperate on ensuring the safe and secure storage and elimination of these weapons; others have suggested that they negotiate an arms control treaty that would limit these weapons and allow for increased transparency in monitoring their deployment and elimination. The 115th Congress may review some of these proposals.


Question:
The Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), administered by the Department of Energy (DOE), has played a role in U.S. energy policy for over 40 years. Over that time, its primary focus has changed from its original intent as world oil market conditions have changed. Originally intended to offset the market power of cartels and prevent economic damage from oil supply disruption, it has become primarily a tool for combatting the fuel market effects of domestic natural disasters like hurricanes. Most recently, U.S. net imports of oil and petroleum products have decreased as a result of the increase in domestic oil production. Because of lower reliance on imports, some stakeholders see less need for an oil stockpile, and view the SPR more as a mechanism for providing funding for a wide variety of legislative purposes, ranging from health care, to highways, and general purpose revenues. Over this period, the SPR has expanded its potential usefulness to cover all of these purposes.
As a member of the International Energy Agency (IEA) and a participant in the International Energy Program established by the IEA, the United States, as are all net-importer nations in the IEA, is required to hold the equivalent of 90 days of its net imports of oil and petroleum products as a reserve stock. As a result of relatively stable U.S. oil consumption and rapidly increasing production, and declining net imports, available oil stocks held in the SPR now are almost double the 90-day requirement.
While the SPR has recently seen relatively little use in combatting oil supply disruptions caused by political and military instability, or even natural disasters, it has provided a source of funding for a variety of legislative initiatives. These mandated sales from the SPR have committed almost 260 million barrels of oil for sale by FY2027, leaving less than 400 million barrels of uncommitted oil reserves. Determining whether further reductions can be made from the reserve while maintaining its ability to carry out its designed purpose is a key energy policy question. The extreme variant of this question is whether a reserve is required at all, or whether privately held stocks, as practiced by most European countries, are adequate to meet international commitments.
Legislation in the 115th Congress, H.R. 6511, sought to maintain the SPR facility and infrastructure, while reducing operating and maintenance costs, by renting unused storage capacity in the reserve to private companies and foreign nations. As of this writing, no bills have been introduced in the 116th Congress modifying the SPR.


Question:
Statutory individual income tax rates are the tax rates that apply by law to various amounts of taxable income. Statutory rates form the basis of marginal effective and average effective tax rates, which most economists believe have a greater impact on the economic behavior of companies and individuals than do statutory rates. Marginal effective rates capture the net effect of special tax provisions on statutory rates. They differ from average effective rates, which measure someone's overall income tax burden.
Current statutory and effective individual tax rates are the result of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (TRA86; P.L. 99-514) and several tax laws that have been enacted since then. Of particular importance among the latter are the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (OBRA90; P.L. 101-508), the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (OBRA93; P.L. 103-66), the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA; P.L. 107-16), the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 (TRUC; P.L. 111-312), the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (ATRA, P.L. 112-240), and the tax rate changes contained in the 2017 tax revision (P.L. 115-97). TRA86 altered the income tax rate structure. EGTRRA established what are referred to as the Bush-era tax cuts for individuals. TRUC extended those cuts for another two years, through 2012. ATRA permanently extended the Bush-era tax rates for taxpayers with taxable incomes below $400,000 for single filers and $450,000 for joint filers but reinstated the 39.6% top rate established by OBRA93 for taxpayers with taxable incomes equal to or above those amounts. And P.L. 115-97 lowered individual tax rates for all income groups except those subject to the 10% and 35% brackets under previous law.
Ordinary income is taxed at seven statutory individual income tax rates, from 2018 to 2026: 10%, 12%, 22%, 24%, 32%, 35%, and 37%. (Starting in 2026, these rates will revert to their levels in 2017.) Income from long-term capital gains and dividends is taxed at 0% for single filers with capital gains below $39,375 (below $78,750 for joint filers), 15% for single filers with capital gains between $39,375 and $434,550 (between $78,750 and $488,850 for joint filers), and 20% for single filers with capital gains above $434,550 (above $488,850 for joint filers). Since 2013, a 3.8% tax has been imposed on the lesser of net investment income received by individuals, estates, or trusts, or the amount of their modified adjusted gross incomes above $250,000 for joint filers and $125,000 for single filers. In addition, the individual alternative minimum tax (AMT), which functions like a separate income tax in that its rate structure is narrower and tax base broader than those of the regular income tax, applies to income above exemption amounts in 2019 of $111,700 for joint filers and $71,700 for single filers; the AMT taxes income at two rates: 26% and 28%.
Tax rates and the income brackets to which they apply are not the only elements of the individual income tax that determine the tax liabilities of taxpayers. Personal exemptions, exclusions, deductions, credits, and certain other elements have an effect as well. Some of these elements are indexed for inflation. Congress added annual indexation to the individual income tax in 1981, using the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers. Such a mechanism helps prevent tax increases and unintended shifts in the distribution of the tax burden that are driven by inflation alone. The indexed elements are tax rate brackets, personal exemptions and their phaseout threshold, standard deductions, the itemized deduction limitation threshold, and the exemption amounts for the AMT. Starting in 2018, these items are indexed for inflation with the Chained Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers.
This report summarizes the tax brackets and other key elements of the individual income tax that help determine taxpayers' marginal and average effective tax rates going back to 1988. It will be updated to reflect indexation adjustments and changes in the taxation of individual income.


Question:
The Small Business Administration's (SBA's) Small Business Investment Company (SBIC) program is designed to enhance small business access to venture capital by stimulating and supplementing "the flow of private equity capital and long-term loan funds which small-business concerns need for the sound financing of their business operations and for their growth, expansion, and modernization, and which are not available in adequate supply." Facilitating the flow of capital to small businesses to stimulate the national economy was, and remains, the SBIC program's primary objective.
As of December 31, 2018, there were 305 privately owned and managed SBA-licensed SBICs providing small businesses private capital the SBIC has raised (called regulatory capital) and funds the SBIC borrows at favorable rates (called leverage) because the SBA guarantees the debenture (loan obligation). SBICs pursue investments in a broad range of industries, geographic areas, and stages of investment. Some SBICs specialize in a particular field or industry, and others invest more generally. Most SBICs concentrate on a particular stage of investment (i.e., startup, expansion, or turnaround) and geographic area.
The SBIC program currently has invested or committed about $30.3 billion in small businesses, with the SBA's share of capital at risk about $14.5 billion. In FY2018, the SBA committed to guarantee $2.52 billion in SBIC small business investments. SBICs invested another $2.98 billion from private capital for a total of $5.50 billion in financing for 1,151 small businesses.
In recent years, some Members of Congress have argued that the program should be expanded as a means to stimulate economic activity and create jobs. For example, P.L. 113-76, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, increased the annual amount of leverage the SBA is authorized to provide to SBICs to $4 billion from $3 billion. P.L. 114-113, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, increased the amount of outstanding leverage allowed for two or more SBIC licenses under common control (the multiple licenses/family of funds limit) to $350 million from $225 million. P.L. 115-187, the Small Business Investment Opportunity Act of 2017, increased the amount of outstanding leverage allowed for individual SBICs to $175 million from $150 million. Others worry that an expanded SBIC program could result in losses and increase the federal deficit. In their view, the best means to assist small business, promote economic growth, and create jobs is to reduce business taxes and exercise federal fiscal restraint.
Some Members have also proposed that the program target additional assistance to startup and early stage small businesses, which are generally viewed as relatively risky investments but also as having a relatively high potential for job creation. During the Obama Administration, the SBA established a five-year, early stage SBIC initiative. Early stage SBICs are required to invest at least 50% of their investments in early stage small businesses, defined as small businesses that have never achieved positive cash flow from operations in any fiscal year. The SBA stopped accepting new applicants for the early stage SBIC initiative in 2017.
This report describes the SBIC program's structure and operations, focusing on SBIC eligibility requirements, investment activity, and program statistics. It also includes information concerning the SBIC program's debenture SBIC program, participating securities SBIC program, impact investment SBIC program (targeting underserved markets and communities facing barriers to access to credit and capital), and early stage SBIC initiative.


Question:
The Energy and Water Development appropriations bill provides funding for civil works projects of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE); the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and Central Utah Project (CUP); the Department of Energy (DOE); the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC); and several other independent agencies. DOE typically accounts for about 80% of the bill's funding.
President Trump submitted his FY2020 detailed budget proposal to Congress on March 18, 2019 (after submitting a general budget overview on March 11). The budget requests for agencies included in the Energy and Water Development appropriations bill total $38.02 billion—$6.64 billion (15%) below the FY2019 appropriation. The largest exception to the overall decrease proposed for energy and water programs is a $1.309 billion increase (12%) for DOE nuclear weapons activities.
For FY2019, the conference agreement on H.R. 5895 (H.Rept. 115-929) provided total Energy and Water Development appropriations of $44.66 billion—3% above the FY2018 level, excluding supplemental funding, and 23% above the FY2019 request. It was signed by the President on September 21, 2018 (P.L. 115-244). Emergency supplemental appropriations totaling $17.419 billion were provided to USACE and DOE for hurricane response by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-123), signed February 9, 2018.
Major Energy and Water Development funding issues for FY2020 are listed below. They were selected based on the total funding involved, the percentage of proposed increases or decreases, and potential impact on broader public policy considerations.
Water Agency Funding Reductions. The Trump Administration requested reductions of 31% for USACE and 29% for Reclamation for FY2020 from the FY2019 enacted levels. The largest reductions would be from USACE Operation and Maintenance (-48%) and Reclamation's Water and Related Resources account (-31%). Similar reductions proposed by the Administration for FY2019 were not enacted. Power Marketing Administration (PMA) Reforms. DOE's FY2020 budget request includes mandatory proposals to sell PMA electricity transmission lines and other assets, repeal certain PMA borrowing authority, and eliminate cost-based limits on the electricity rates charged by the PMAs. The proposals would need to be enacted in authorizing legislation. Termination of Energy Efficiency Grants. DOE's Weatherization Assistance Program and State Energy Program would be terminated under the FY2020 budget request. The Administration had proposed to eliminate the grants in FY2018 and FY2019, but Congress continued funding. Reductions in Energy Research and Development. Under the FY2020 budget request, DOE research and development appropriations would be reduced for energy efficiency and renewable energy (EERE) by 83%, nuclear energy by 38%, and fossil energy by 24%. Similar reductions proposed by the Administration for FY2019 were not enacted. Nuclear Waste Repository. The Administration's budget request would provide new funding for the first time since FY2010 for a proposed nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, NV. DOE would receive $116 million to seek an NRC license for the repository and develop interim waste storage capacity. NRC would receive $38.5 million to consider DOE's repository license application. Similar Administration funding requests for FY2018 and FY2019 were not enacted. Elimination of Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy (ARPA-E). The Trump Administration proposes no new appropriations for ARPA-E in FY2020 and to cancel $287 million in unobligated balances from previous appropriations. Similar proposals to terminate ARPA-E in FY2018 and FY2019 were not enacted. Loan Programs Termination. The FY2020 budget request would terminate DOE's Title 17 Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program, the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program, and the Tribal Energy Loan Guarantee Program. Administration proposals to eliminate the programs were not included in the enacted appropriations measures for FY2018 and FY2019. Weapons Activities. The FY2020 budget request for DOE Weapons Activities is 12% greater than it was in FY2019 ($12.4 billion vs. $11.1 billion), in contrast to a proposed 10% reduction in DOE's total funding. Notable proposed increases would be used for warhead life extension programs and preparations for increase production of plutonium pits (warhead cores).


Question:
The Public Safety Officers' Benefits (PSOB) program provides cash benefits to federal, state, and local law enforcement officers; firefighters; employees of emergency management agencies; and members of emergency medical services agencies who are killed or permanently and totally disabled as the result of personal injuries sustained in the line of duty. The Public Safety Officers' Educational Assistance (PSOEA) program, a component of the PSOB program, provides higher-education assistance to the children and spouses of public safety officers killed or permanently disabled in the line of duty.
The PSOB and PSOEA programs are administered by the Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA). However, claimants dissatisfied with denials of benefits may pursue administrative appeals within DOJ and may seek judicial review before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Each year, Congress appropriates funding for PSOB death benefits, which is considered mandatory spending, and for PSOB disability benefits and PSOEA benefits, which is subject to annual appropriations.
For FY2019, the one-time lump-sum PSOB death and disability benefit is $359,316 and the PSOEA monthly benefit for a student attending an educational institution full-time is $1,224.
In FY2017, the DOJ approved 399 claims for PSOB death benefits, 82 claims for PSOB disability benefits, and 601 claims for PSOEA benefits.


Question:
Throughout its history, the Department of Defense (DOD) has relied on contractors to support a wide range of military operations. Operations over the last thirty years have highlighted the critical role that contractors play in supporting U.S. troops—both in terms of the number of contractors and the type of work being performed. During recent U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, contractors often accounted for 50% or more of the total DOD presence in-country.
For the fourth quarter of fiscal year (FY) 2018, U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) reported 49,451 contractor personnel working for DOD within its area of responsibility, which included 28,189 individuals located in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. From FY2009 to FY2018, obligations for all DOD-funded contracts performed within the Iraq and Afghanistan areas of operation totaled approximately $208 billion in FY2019 dollars.
In late 2017, the DOD stopped reporting the number of U.S. military personnel deployed in support of operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria as part of its quarterly manpower reports and in other official releases. These data remain withheld.


Question:
The Social Security program pays monthly cash benefits to retired or disabled workers and their family members and to the family members of deceased workers. Program income and outgo are accounted for in two separate trust funds authorized under Title II of the Social Security Act: the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Fund. Projections show that the OASI fund will remain solvent until 2034, whereas the DI fund will remain solvent until 2052, meaning that each trust fund is projected to be able to pay benefits scheduled under current law in full and on time up to that point. Following the depletion of trust fund reserves (2052 for DI and 2034 for OASI), continuing income to each fund is projected to cover 91% of DI scheduled benefits and 77% of OASI scheduled benefits. The two trust funds are legally distinct and do not have authority to borrow from each other. However, Congress has authorized the shifting of funds between OASI and DI in the past to address shortfalls in a particular fund. Therefore, this CRS report discusses the operations of the OASI and DI trust funds on a combined basis, referring to them collectively as the Social Security trust funds. On a combined basis, the trust funds are projected to remain solvent until 2035. Following depletion of combined trust fund reserves at that point, continuing income is projected to cover 80% of scheduled benefits.
Social Security is financed by payroll taxes paid by covered workers and their employers, federal income taxes paid by some beneficiaries on a portion of their benefits, and interest income from the Social Security trust fund investments. Social Security tax revenues are invested in U.S. government securities (special issues) held by the trust funds, and these securities earn interest. The tax revenues exchanged for the U.S. government securities are deposited into the General Fund of the Treasury and are indistinguishable from revenues in the General Fund that come from other sources. Because the assets held by the trust funds are U.S. government securities, the trust fund balance represents the amount of money owed to the Social Security trust funds by the General Fund of the Treasury. Funds needed to pay Social Security benefits and administrative expenses come from the redemption or sale of U.S. government securities held by the trust funds.
The Social Security trust funds represent funds dedicated to pay current and future Social Security benefits. However, it is useful to view the trust funds in two ways: (1) as an internal federal accounting concept and (2) as the accumulated holdings of the Social Security program.
By law, Social Security tax revenues must be invested in U.S. government obligations (debt instruments of the U.S. government). The accumulated holdings of U.S. government obligations are often viewed as being similar to assets held by any other trust on behalf of the beneficiaries. However, the holdings of the Social Security trust funds differ from those of private trusts because (1) the types of investments the trust funds may hold are limited and (2) the U.S. government is both the buyer and seller of the investments.
This report covers how the Social Security program is financed and how the Social Security trust funds work.


Question:
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) offers several programs to help farmers recover financially from natural disasters, including drought and floods. All the programs have permanent authorization, and one requires a federal disaster designation (the emergency loan program). Most programs receive mandatory funding amounts that are "such sums as necessary" and are not subject to annual discretionary appropriations.
The federal crop insurance program offers subsidized policies designed to protect crop producers from risks associated with adverse weather, as well as weather-related plant diseases and insect infestations and declines in commodity prices. Policies must be purchased prior to the planting season. Eligible commodities include most major crops and many specialty crops (including fruit, tree nut, vegetable, and nursery crops), as well as forage and pastureland for livestock producers. Producers who grow a crop that is currently ineligible for crop insurance may apply for the Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP). NAP provides a catastrophic level of coverage, as well as options to purchase additional coverage. Similar to crop insurance, policies must be purchased prior to the planting season.
There are four permanently reauthorized disaster programs for livestock and trees. Producers do not pay a fee to participate, and advanced sign-up is not required. The programs are:
1. the Livestock Indemnity Program (LIP), which provides payments to eligible livestock owners and contract growers at a rate of 75% of market value for livestock deaths in excess of normal mortality or sold at a reduced sale price caused by adverse weather, attacks by reintroduced wild animals, and disease; 2. the Livestock Forage Disaster Program (LFP), which makes payments to eligible livestock producers who have suffered grazing losses on drought-affected pasture or grazing land or on rangeland managed by a federal agency due to a qualifying fire; 3. the Emergency Assistance for Livestock, Honey Bees, and Farm-Raised Fish Program (ELAP), which provides payments to producers of livestock, honey bees, and farm-raised fish as compensation for losses due to disease, adverse weather, and feed or water shortages; and 4. the Tree Assistance Program (TAP), which makes payments to orchardists/nursery tree growers for losses in excess of 15% to replant trees, bushes, and vines damaged by natural disasters.
Separately, for all types of farms and ranches, when a county has been declared a disaster area by either the President or the Secretary of Agriculture, producers in that county may become eligible for low-interest emergency disaster loans.
USDA has several permanent disaster assistance programs designed to help producers repair damaged land following natural disasters. It also has authority to issue disaster payments to farmers with funds from "Section 32," or the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC). Finally, USDA can use a variety of existing programs to address disaster issues as they arise, such as allowing emergency grazing on land enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program.
The Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-334) made a number of amendments to the permanent farm bill disaster assistance programs, NAP, and crop insurance, including changes to payment limits, definitions, eligibility, and coverage.