Question:
Essentially all of the outstanding debt of the federal government is subject to a statutory limit, which is set forth as a dollar limitation in 31 U.S.C. 3101(b). From time to time, Congress considers and passes legislation to adjust or suspend this limit.
At the beginning of the 116th Congress, the House adopted a standing rule that would provide for legislation suspending the statutory debt limit to be considered as passed by the House, without a separate vote, when the House adopts the budget resolution for a fiscal year. This House rule is similar to a previous one related to the debt limit (commonly referred to as the "Gephardt rule," named after its original sponsor, former Representative Richard Gephardt), which was first adopted in 1979 but was repealed at the beginning of the 112th Congress in 2011.
The House may also consider debt limit legislation without resorting to the new debt limit rule (and also did so under the former Gephardt rule) either as freestanding legislation, as part of another measure, or as part of a budget reconciliation bill. The Senate does not have (and has never had) a comparable procedure. If it chooses under the new rule to consider such debt-limit legislation, it would do so under its regular legislative process.
This report first explains the current House debt limit rule, particularly in relation to the former Gephardt rule. Then, it describes the legislative history of the former rule and reviews how the former rule operated before it was repealed at the beginning of the 112th Congress.
Under the former Gephardt rule, in 11 of the 31 years between 1980 and 2010, the rule was either suspended (1988, 1990-1991, 1994-1997, and 1999-2000) or repealed (2001-2002) by the House. In most years in which the rule was suspended, legislation changing the statutory limit was not necessary—that is, at the time, the existing public debt limit was expected to be sufficient.
During the years in which the rule applied (i.e., in the remaining 20 of the 31 years between 1980 and 2010), the rule led to the automatic engrossment of 20 House joint resolutions increasing the statutory limit on the public debt. In effect, under the rule, in these cases, the House was able to initiate legislation increasing the level of the public debt limit without a separate, direct vote on the legislation. Of these 20 joint resolutions, 15 became law. In 10 of these 15 cases, the Senate passed the measure without change, allowing it to be sent to the President for his signature without any further action by the House. In the remaining 5 cases, the Senate amended the rule-initiated legislation, requiring the House to vote on the amended legislation before it could be sent to the President.
During this period, the House also originated and considered debt limit legislation without resorting to the Gephardt rule either as freestanding legislation, as part of another measure, or as part of a budget reconciliation bill. Of the 47 public debt limit changes enacted into law during the period 1980-2010, 32 were enacted without resorting to the Gephardt rule, each requiring the House to vote on such legislation.
In total, between 1980 and 2010, the rule effectively allowed the House to avoid a separate, direct vote on 10 of the 47 measures changing the debt limit that were ultimately enacted into law.
This report updates the previous one (dated July 27, 2015) with a description of the changes to the former rule.


Question:
The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that "[n]o person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury." This provision requires that a federal prosecutor, in order to charge a suspect with a serious federal crime, secure the assent of an independent investigative and deliberative body comprising citizens drawn from the jurisdiction in which the crime would be tried. Federal grand juries serve two primary functions: (1) they aid federal prosecutors in investigating possible crimes by issuing subpoenas for documents, physical evidence, and witness testimony; and (2) they determine whether there is sufficient evidence to charge a criminal suspect with the crime or crimes under investigation.
Traditionally, the grand jury has conducted its work in secret. Secrecy prevents those under scrutiny from fleeing or importuning the grand jurors, encourages full disclosure by witnesses, and protects the innocent from unwarranted prosecution, among other things. The long-established rule of grand jury secrecy is enshrined in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e), which provides that government attorneys and the jurors themselves, among others, "must not disclose a matter occurring before the grand jury." Accordingly, as a general matter, persons and entities external to the grand jury process are precluded from obtaining transcripts of grand jury testimony or other documents or information that would reveal what took place in the proceedings, even if the grand jury has concluded its work and even if the information is sought pursuant to otherwise-valid legal processes.
At times, the rule of grand jury secrecy has come into tension with Congress's power of inquiry when an arm of the legislative branch has sought protected materials pursuant to its oversight function. For instance, some courts have determined that the information barrier established in Rule 6(e) extends to congressional inquiries, observing that the Rule contains no reservations for congressional access to grand jury materials that would otherwise remain secret. Nevertheless, the rule of grand jury secrecy is subject to a number of exceptions, both codified and judicially crafted, that permit grand jury information to be disclosed in certain circumstances (usually only with prior judicial authorization). Perhaps the most significant of these for congressional purposes are (1) the exception that allows a court to authorize disclosure of grand jury matters "preliminarily to or in connection with a judicial proceeding," and (2) the exception, recognized by a few courts, that allows a court to authorize disclosure of grand jury matters in special or exceptional circumstances. In turn, some courts have determined that one or both of these exceptions applies to congressional requests for grand jury materials in the context of impeachment proceedings, though there is authority to the contrary.
Additionally, because Rule 6(e) covers only "matters occurring before the grand jury," courts have recognized that documents and information are not independently insulated from disclosure merely because they happen to have been presented to, or considered by, a grand jury. As such, even if Rule 6(e) generally limits congressional access to grand jury information, Congress has a number of tools at its disposal to seek materials connected to a grand jury investigation.
Prior Congresses have considered legislation that would have expressly permitted a court to authorize disclosure of grand jury matters to congressional committees on a showing of substantial need. However, in response to such proposals, the executive branch has voiced concerns that the legislation would raise due-process and separation-of-powers issues and potentially undermine the proper functioning of federal grand juries. These concerns may have resulted in Congress declining to alter Rule 6(e). As a result, to the extent Rule 6(e) constrains Congress's ability to conduct oversight, legislation seeking to amend the rules governing grand jury secrecy in a way that would give Congress independent access to grand jury materials may raise additional legal and pragmatic issues for the legislative branch to consider.


Question:
The U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) is a federal executive department responsible for the conservation and administration of the public lands and mineral estate of the United States. DOI describes its mission as protecting and managing the nation's natural resources and cultural heritage for the benefit of the American people; providing scientific and scholarly information about those resources and natural hazards; and exercising the nation's trust responsibilities and special commitments to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and island territories under U.S. administration.
As part of its responsibilities, DOI oversees and fosters the use of more than 480 million acres of public lands, 700 million acres of subsurface minerals, and 1.7 billion acres of the outer continental shelf. Each year, Congress deliberates legislation that could affect DOI's management of this vast federal estate. As a result, understanding the roles and responsibilities of DOI's various components and offices is valuable when crafting legislation that affects the department's operations and ability to fulfill its mission.
DOI primarily implements its responsibilities and mission through nine technical bureaus that make up more than 80% of the agency's workforce. These technical bureaus are the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE), National Park Service (NPS), Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Each of these bureaus has a unique mission and set of responsibilities, as well as a distinct organizational structure that serves to meet its functional duties. In addition to these technical bureaus, DOI has multiple departmental offices, which provide leadership, coordination, and services to DOI's various bureaus and programs.
As of June 2018, DOI employed a staff of 69,563 nationwide across its bureaus and offices. However, total DOI employment figures fluctuate throughout the year, as some bureaus rely on seasonal and part-time staff, increasing staff totals during the summer months. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) reports the average total DOI employment as 65,350 for the four reporting periods from September 2017 to June 2018. The largest bureau within DOI based on number of staff is NPS, which averaged close to 20,000 staff over the same time period—more than twice the size of the second-largest bureau, BLM. The smallest technical bureau by employment is OSMRE, which averaged just over 400 employees. Approximately 10% of all DOI staff are within the District of Columbia core-based statistical area (CBSA), which includes the District of Columbia and selected counties in Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia.
Congress provides discretionary appropriations for DOI through two annual appropriations bills: the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies bill and the Energy and Water appropriations bill. Enacted discretionary appropriations for FY2018 totaled $14.6 billion. DOI also received $566 million in supplemental emergency appropriations in FY2018, for a total of $15.2 billion in discretionary appropriations for FY2018.
The organizational structure of DOI is subject to continual congressional oversight and executive branch examination. In 2017 and 2018, President Trump and then-Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke submitted reorganization plans for the department and its bureaus. These plans put forth several recommendations, including the consolidation and transfer of most functions of the Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Division to DOI, the merger of the Department of Commerce's National Marine Fisheries Service with FWS, and the creation of 12 "Unified Regional Boundaries" across DOI's various bureaus.


Question:
Social Security auxiliary benefits are paid to the spouse, former spouse, survivor, child, or parent of a Social Security-covered worker and are equal to a specified percentage of the worker's basic monthly benefit amount (subject to a maximum family benefit amount). For example, the spouse of a retired worker may receive up to 50% of the retired worker's basic benefit and the widow(er) of a retired worker may receive up to 100% of the retired worker's basic benefit.
When auxiliary benefits were first established, most households consisted of a single earner—usually the husband—and a wife who cared for children and remained out of the paid workforce. As a result, benefits for nonworking spouses were structured to be relatively generous. A woman who was never employed but is married to a man with high Social Security-covered wages may receive a Social Security spousal benefit that is higher than the retirement benefit received by a single woman, or a divorced woman who was married less than 10 years, who worked a full career in a low-wage job.
In recent decades, this household structure has changed in part because women have entered the workforce in increasing numbers. The labor force participation rate of women with children under the age of 18 increased from 47% in 1975 to 70.8% in March 2016. As a result, many women now qualify for Social Security benefits based on their own work records. Women are, however, more likely than men to take breaks in employment to care for family members, which can result in fewer years of contributions to Social Security and employer-sponsored pension plans.
Beneficiaries who qualify for multiple benefits do not receive both benefits in full, however. For example, for a beneficiary eligible for his or her own retired-worker benefits as well as spousal benefits, the spousal benefit is reduced by the amount of the retired-worker benefit. The beneficiary receives a reduced spousal benefit (if not reduced to zero) in addition to his or her retired-worker benefit. This effectively means the beneficiary receives the higher of the two benefit amounts. Because of this, a two-earner household may receive lower total Social Security benefits than a single-earner household with identical total Social Security-covered earnings.
Another change since 1939 has been an increase in the number of men and women who remain single or who have divorced. Persons who have never been married, or divorced before 10 years of marriage, do not qualify for Social Security spousal or survivors benefits under current law.
Proposals to modify the Social Security auxiliary benefit structure are often motivated by desire to improve adequacy for certain beneficiaries, or equity between a two-earner household and a one-earner household with similar earning profiles. For example, some proposals address the adequacy of benefits for certain groups of beneficiaries, such as elderly and widowed women. Although Social Security plays an important role in the retirement security of aged women, about 13.9% of widowed women aged 65 or older, 15.8% of divorced elderly women, and 21.5% of never-married elderly women have family incomes below the official poverty line in 2017.


Question:
The consumer data industry—generally referred to as credit reporting agencies or credit bureaus—collects and subsequently provides information to firms about the behavior of consumers when they participate in various financial transactions. Firms use consumer information to screen for the risk that consumers will engage in behaviors that are costly for businesses. For example, lenders rely upon credit reports and scores to determine the likelihood that prospective borrowers will repay their loans. Insured depository institutions (i.e., banks and credit unions) rely on consumer data service providers to determine whether to make available checking accounts or loans to individuals. Some insurance companies use consumer data to determine what insurance products to make available and to set policy premiums. Some payday lenders use data regarding the management of checking accounts and payment of telecommunications and utility bills to determine the likelihood of failure to repay small-dollar cash advances. Merchants rely on the consumer data industry to determine whether to approve payment by check or electronic payment card. Employers may use consumer data information to screen prospective employees to determine the likelihood of fraudulent behavior. In short, numerous firms rely upon consumer data to identify and evaluate potential risks a consumer may pose before entering into a financial relationship with that consumer.
Greater reliance by firms on consumer data significantly affects—and potentially limits—consumer access to financial products or opportunities. Specifically, negative or derogatory information, such as late payments, loan defaults, and multiple overdrafts, may stay on consumer reports for several years and lead firms to deny a consumer access to credit, a financial product, or a job opportunity. Having a nonexistent, insufficient, or a stale credit history may also prevent credit access.
Accordingly, various policy issues have been raised about the consumer data industry, most notably including the following:
How to address inaccurate or disputed consumer data provided in consumer data reports; How long negative or derogatory information should remain in consumer data reports; How to address differences in billing and collection practices that can adversely affect consumer data reports, an issue of particular concern with medical billing practices; How to ensure that consumers are aware of their rights and how to exercise them in the event of a consumer data dispute; Whether uses of consumer data reports outside of the financial services, such as for employment decisions, adversely affect consumers and should be limited; Whether the use of alternative consumer data or newer versions of credit scores may increase accuracy and credit access; and How to address data protection and security issues in consumer data reporting.
Congress has shown continuing interest in these and other policy questions surrounding the consumer data industry, particularly in its regulation and whether such regulation currently provides sufficient protection to consumers. In the 116th Congress, legislation has been introduced to address many of these concerns. The Comprehensive Credit Reporting Reform Act of 2019 (CCRRA) and the Protecting Innocent Consumers Affected by a Shutdown Act, both released as drafts by Chairwoman Maxine Waters, would amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and create additional laws to address these concerns. Other relevant bills introduced in the 116th Congress address topics such as credit reporting and cybersecurity (H.R. 331 and H.R. 1282); credit information used for auto insurance (H.R. 1756); and federal employees affected by the shutdown (H.R. 935, H.R. 799, H.R. 1286, and S. 535).


Question:
Congress enacted the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA; P.L. 92-583, 16 U.S.C. §§1451-1466) in 1972 and has amended the act 11 times, most recently in 2009. CZMA sets up a national framework for states and territories to consider and manage coastal resources. If a state or territory chooses to develop a coastal zone management program and the program is approved, the state or territory (1) becomes eligible for several federal grants and (2) can perform reviews of federal agency actions in coastal areas (known as federal consistency determination reviews).
Each level of government plays a role in coastal management under CZMA. At the federal level, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA's) Office for Coastal Management (OCM) in the Department of Commerce implements CZMA's national policies and provisions. OCM administers CZMA under several national programs; the National Coastal Zone Management Program (NCZMP) is the focus of this report. To participate in the NCZMP, states and territories (hereinafter referred to as states) must adhere to guidelines set out in CZMA and related regulations. States determine the details of their coastal management programs (CMPs), including the boundaries of their coastal zones, issues of most interest to the state, and policies to address these issues, among other factors. Local governments then implement the approved CMPs, often through land use regulations.
The Secretary of Commerce must approve state CMPs. Once the Secretary approves a state's CMP, the state is eligible to receive the NCZMP's benefits and is referred to as a participant in the program (16 U.S.C. §1455). Participation in the NCZMP provides several advantages to participants, including eligibility for federal grant programs and the right to review federal actions for consistency with state coastal policies. Thirty-five states and territories (including states surrounding the Great Lakes, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands) are eligible to participate. Although all 35 eligible states have at some point chosen to participate, 34 are currently part of the NCZMP.
Since 1972, NOAA has allocated over $2 billion in coastal zone management-related grants to eligible coastal states. States have received amounts ranging from $13 million to over $106 million in grant funding, depending on factors such as how long the state has been a part of the NCZMP, the state's size and population, and extent of the state's applications to grant programs.
CZMA consistency provisions (Section 307) require federal actions that have reasonably foreseeable effects on coastal uses or resources to be consistent with the enforceable policies of a participant's approved CMP. These actions may occur in the state's approved coastal zone or in federal or out-of-state waters (which may cause interstate coastal effects). Federal agencies or applicants proposing to perform these federal actions must submit a consistency determination to the potentially affected participant, certifying that the actions are consistent with state coastal policies and providing participants the opportunity to review their determinations (16 U.S.C. §1456).
The 116th Congress may consider changes to CZMA. These changes may address issues such as growing population and infrastructure needs and changing environmental conditions along the coast, questions about the effectiveness of CZMA implementation, and expired authorization of appropriations for CZMA grant programs. Some of these concerns were addressed in proposed legislation in the 115th Congress, such as legislation to expand grant programs to cover more topics and affected groups, and may be addressed in the 116th Congress.


Question:
Suspension of the rules is the most commonly used procedure to call up measures on the floor of the House of Representatives. As the name suggests, the procedure allows the House to suspend its standing and statutory rules in order to consider broadly supported legislation in an expedited manner. More specifically, the House temporarily sets aside its rules that govern the raising and consideration of measures and assumes a new set of constraints particular to the suspension procedure.
The suspension of the rules procedure has several parliamentary advantages: (1) it allows nonprivileged measures to be raised on the House floor without the need for a special rule, (2) it enables the consideration of measures that would otherwise be subject to a point of order, and (3) it streamlines floor action by limiting debate and prohibiting floor amendments. Given these features, as well as the required two-thirds supermajority vote for passage, suspension motions are generally used to process less controversial legislation.
In the 114th Congress (2015-2016), measures considered under suspension made up 62% of the bills and resolutions that received floor action in the House (743 out of 1,200 measures). The majority of suspension measures were House bills (83%), followed by Senate bills (11%) and House resolutions (4%). The measures covered a variety of policy areas but most often addressed government operations, such as the designation of federal facilities or amending administrative policies.
Most measures that are considered in the House under the suspension procedure are sponsored by a House or Senate majority party member. However, suspension is the most common House procedure used to consider minority-party-sponsored legislation regardless of whether the legislation originated in the House or Senate. In 2015 and 2016, minority-party members sponsored 31% of suspension measures, compared to 9% of legislation subject to different procedures, including privileged business (17 measures), unanimous consent (21 measures), and under the terms of a special rule (one Senate bill).
Most suspension measures are referred to at least one House committee before their consideration on the floor. The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform (now called the Committee on Oversight and Reform) was the committee of primary jurisdiction for the plurality of suspension measures considered in the 114th Congress. Additional committees—such as Energy and Commerce, Homeland Security, Natural Resources, Foreign Affairs, and Veterans' Affairs—also served as the primary committee for a large number of suspension measures.
Suspension motions are debatable for up to 40 minutes. In most cases, only a fraction of that debate time is actually used. In the 114th Congress, the average amount of time spent considering a motion to suspend the rules was 13 minutes and 10 seconds.
The House adopted nearly every suspension motion considered in 2015 and 2016. Approval by the House, however, did not guarantee final approval in the 114th Congress. The Senate passed or agreed to 40% of the bills, joint resolutions, and concurrent resolutions initially considered in the House under suspension of the rules, and 276 measures were signed into law.
This report briefly describes the suspension of the rules procedure, which is defined in House Rule XV, and provides an analysis of measures considered under this procedure during the 114th Congress. Figures and one table display statistics on the use of the procedure, including the prevalence and form of suspension measures, sponsorship of measures by party, committee consideration, length of debate, voting, resolution of differences between the chambers, and the final status of legislation. In addition, an Appendix illustrates trends in the use of the suspension procedure from the 110th to the 114th Congress (2007-2016).


Question:
U.S. airborne electronic warfare (EW) programs involve developing and procuring EW aircraft and EW systems that are mounted on U.S. aircraft. The President's FY2020 budget request for the Department of Defense (DOD) proposes funding for a number of airborne EW programs.
The Role of Airborne EW in Modern Warfare
EW is a component of modern warfare, particularly in response to threats posed by potential adversaries such as Russia or China. EW refers to operations that use the electromagnetic spectrum (i.e., the "airwaves") to detect, listen to, jam, and deceive (or "spoof") enemy radars, radio communication systems, data links, and other electronic systems. EW also refers to operations that defend against enemy attempts to do the same.
The shift in the international security environment from the post-Cold War era to an era of renewed great power competition has led to an increased focus on EW in U.S. defense planning and programming, particularly aspects of EW related to high-end warfare.
U.S. Airborne Electronic Attack Capabilities
Airborne EW capabilities are a component of U.S. military airpower. Although dedicated U.S. EW aircraft are relatively few in number compared with U.S. fighters, strike fighters, and attack aircraft, they play a role in helping to ensure the combat survivability and effectiveness of other aircraft and friendly forces on the ground.
DOD's three primary manned EW electronic attack aircraft are the Navy EA-18G Growler, the Air Force EC-130H Compass Call, and the Air Force EC-37B Compass Call Re-Host. A fourth manned aircraft—the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter—has extensive, integrated EW capabilities. DOD's primary airborne electronic attack payloads include the AN/ALQ-99 electronic attack suite, the Next Generation Jammer, and the Miniature Air Launched Decoy-Jammer.
EW Oversight Issues for Congress
Congress has continually shown interest in EW, and the decisions it makes regarding EW could affect future U.S. military capabilities and funding requirements. In particular, EW programs pose several potential oversight issues for Congress
Whether DOD is prioritizing appropriately airborne EW programs in its planning and budgeting relative to other U.S. military EW programs (such as those for U.S. ground forces or Navy surface ships) and to other DOD non-EW priorities. Whether DOD's proposed mix of airborne EW capabilities and investments is appropriate. The evolution of technology and how new technologies can be employed for EW operations. The Air Force's planned rate for procuring EC-37Bs and replacing EC-130Hs.


Question:
U.S. relations with the Kingdom of Cambodia have become increasingly strained in recent years in light of Prime Minister Hun Sen's suppression of the political opposition and his growing embrace of the People's Republic of China (PRC). During the previous decade, U.S. engagement with the Kingdom slowly strengthened as Western countries continued to pressure Hun Sen to abide by democratic norms and institutions and as the U.S. government attempted to prevent Cambodia from falling too heavily under China's influence. Following strong performances by the opposition in the 2013 and 2017 elections, the Cambodian government banned the largest opposition party, the Cambodia National Rescue Party (CNRP), in 2017. As a result, the ruling Cambodian People's Party (CPP) ran virtually unopposed in the 2018 National Assembly election. The Trump Administration and Congress have imposed sanctions in order to pressure Hun Sen into restoring democratic rights and dropping criminal charges against opposition leaders.
While the U.S. government has criticized Hun Sen's backtracking on democracy, it also has sought to remain engaged with Cambodia. During the past decade, U.S. interests and foreign assistance efforts in Cambodia have included strengthening democratic institutions and norms, promoting the rule of law, increasing bilateral trade and investment, supporting economic growth, reducing poverty, and improving public health. The U.S. government has supported demining and related activities in Cambodia, which is among the countries most heavily affected by unexploded ordnance (UXO). Military engagement has included U.S. naval port visits, U.S. military assistance and training, and joint exercises.
The United States and other countries have provided funding for the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC), also known as the Khmer Rouge Tribunal, established through a 2003 agreement between the government of Cambodia and the United Nations. Since the court commenced proceedings in 2006, it has convicted and sentenced three former Khmer Rouge leaders for crimes against humanity and war crimes committed during the period of Khmer Rouge rule (1975-1978). Following the conclusion of two trials in November 2018, the Cambodian government announced that the ECCC's work was concluded, despite calls by some Cambodians and international human rights groups to prosecute additional Khmer Rouge officials.
In recent years, PRC assistance to Cambodia, by some measures, has begun to match total annual foreign aid flows from traditional major providers of official development assistance to Cambodia. China's economic support has given Hun Sen greater political room to maneuver, according to some analysts. In return, Cambodia has appeared increasingly willing to accommodate or support Beijing's positions on various regional issues, including territorial disputes in the South China Sea. Japan is the largest provider of Official Development Assistance and second-largest source of foreign direct investment in Cambodia.
One of the poorest countries in Asia, Cambodia has performed well on some socioeconomic indicators since the United Nations brokered a peace settlement in 1991 and restored a constitutional monarchy in 1993. The Kingdom's economy has achieved an average annual growth rate of 7.7% since 1995, driven by growth in the agricultural, construction, garment, real estate, and tourism sectors. China, Japan, South Korea, and Southeast Asian countries are the main sources of foreign investment. The United States is the single largest overseas market for Cambodian merchandise exports, which consist mostly of garments and footwear.


Question:
The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) is a federal agency established by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA; P.L. 93-406). It was created to protect the pensions of participants and beneficiaries covered by private sector defined benefit (DB) plans. These pension plans provide a specified monthly benefit at retirement, usually either a percentage of salary or a flat dollar amount multiplied by years of service. Defined contribution (DC) plans, such as 401(k) plans, are not insured. PBGC is chaired by the Secretary of Labor, with the Secretaries of the Treasury and Commerce serving as board members.
PBGC runs two distinct insurance programs: one for single-employer pensions and a second for multiemployer plans. Single-employer pension plans are sponsored by one employer and cover eligible workers employed by the plan sponsor. Multiemployer plans are collectively bargained plans to which more than one company makes contributions. PBGC maintains separate reserve funds for each program.
A firm must be in financial distress to end an underfunded single-employer plan and for PBGC to become the trustee of the plan. Multiemployer plans do not terminate. When a multiemployer plan becomes insolvent and is not able to pay promised benefits, PBGC provides financial assistance to the plan in the form of loans, although PBGC does not expect the loans to be repaid.
In FY2018, PBGC insured about 25,000 DB pension plans covering approximately 37 million people. PBGC became the trustee of 58 newly terminated single-employer pension plans and began providing financial assistance to an additional 6 multiemployer pension plans. PBGC paid benefits to 861,371 participants in 4,919 single-employer pension plans and 62,300 participants in 78 multiemployer plans.
There is a statutory maximum benefit that PBGC can pay. Participants receive the lower of their benefit as calculated under the plan or the statutory maximum benefit. If a participant's benefit is higher than the statutory maximum benefit, the participant's benefit is reduced. Participants in single-employer plans that terminate in 2019 and are trusteed by PBGC may receive up to $67,295 per year if they begin taking their pension at the age of 65. The single-employer maximum benefit is adjusted depending on the age at which the participant begins taking the benefit and on the form of the benefit (e.g., the maximum benefit is lower for a joint-and-survivor annuity). The maximum benefit for participants in multiemployer plans that receive financial assistance depends on the number of years of service in the plan. For example, a participant with 30 years of service may receive up to $12,870 per year. Currently, most workers in single-employer plans taken over by PBGC and multiemployer plans that receive financial assistance from PBGC receive the full pension benefit that they earned. However, among participants in multiemployer plans that were terminated and likely to need financial assistance in the future, 49% have a benefit below the PBGC maximum guarantee and 51% have a benefit larger than the PBGC maximum guarantee.
At the end of FY2018, PBGC had a total deficit of $51.4 billion, which consisted of a $2.4 billion surplus from the single-employer program and a $53.9 billion deficit from the multiemployer program. PBGC's single-employer program has been on the Government Accountability Office's (GAO's) list of high-risk government programs since 2003. PBGC's multiemployer program was added in 2009. PBGC projects the financial position of the single-employer program to improve slightly, but the financial position of the multiemployer program is expected to worsen considerably over the next 10 years.


Question:
Medicare is a federal insurance program that pays for covered health care services of most individuals aged 65 and older and certain disabled persons. In calendar year 2019, the program is expected to cover about 61 million persons (52 million aged and 9 million disabled) at a total cost of $798 billion. Most individuals (or their spouses) aged 65 and older who have worked in covered employment and paid Medicare payroll taxes for 40 quarters receive premium-free Medicare Part A (Hospital Insurance). Those entitled to Medicare Part A (regardless of whether they are eligible for premium-free Part A) have the option of enrolling in Part B, which covers such things as physician and outpatient services and medical equipment.
Beneficiaries have a seven-month initial enrollment period, and those who enroll in Part B after this initial enrollment period and/or reenroll after a termination of coverage may be subject to a late-enrollment penalty. This penalty is equal to a 10% surcharge for each 12 months of delay in enrollment and/or reenrollment. Under certain conditions, some beneficiaries are exempt from the late-enrollment penalty; these exempt beneficiaries include working individuals (and their spouses) with group coverage through their current employment, some international volunteers, and those granted "equitable relief."
Whereas Part A is financed primarily by payroll taxes paid by current workers, Part B is financed through a combination of beneficiary premiums and federal general revenues. The standard Part B premiums are set to cover 25% of projected average per capita Part B program costs for the aged, with federal general revenues accounting for the remaining amount. In general, if projected Part B costs increase or decrease, the premium rises or falls proportionately. However, some Part B enrollees are protected by a provision in the Social Security Act (the hold-harmless provision) that prevents their Medicare Part B premiums from increasing more than the annual increase in their Social Security benefit payments. This protection does not apply to four main groups of beneficiaries: low-income beneficiaries whose Part B premiums are paid by the Medicaid program; high-income beneficiaries who are subject to income-related Part B premiums; those whose Medicare premiums are not deducted from Social Security benefits; and new Medicare and Social Security enrollees.
Most Part B participants must pay monthly premiums, which do not vary with a beneficiary's age, health status, or place of residence. However, since 2007, higher-income enrollees pay higher premiums to cover a higher percentage of Part B costs. Additionally, certain low-income beneficiaries may qualify for Medicare cost-sharing and/or premium assistance from Medicaid through a Medicare Savings Program. The premiums of those receiving benefits through Social Security are deducted from their monthly payments.
Each year, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) determines the Medicare Part B premiums for the following year. The standard monthly Part B premium for 2019 is $135.50. However, in 2019, the hold-harmless provision applies to about 3.5% of Part B enrollees, and these individuals pay lower premiums. (The premiums of those held harmless vary depending on the dollar amount of the increase in their Social Security benefits.) Higher-income beneficiaries, currently defined as individuals with incomes over $85,000 per year or couples with incomes over $170,000 per year, pay $189.60, $270.90, $352.20, $433.40, or $460.50 per month, depending on their income levels.
Starting in 2018, the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA; P.L. 114-10) reduced the income thresholds in the highest two income tiers so that more enrollees will pay higher premiums. The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 (BBA 18; P.L. 115-123) added an additional income tier beginning in 2019 for individuals with annual incomes of $500,000 or more or couples filing jointly with incomes of $750,000 or more.
Current issues related to the Part B premium that may come before Congress include the amount of the premium and its rate of increase (and the potential net impact on Social Security benefits), the impact of the hold-harmless provision on those not held harmless, modifications to the late-enrollment penalty, and possible increases in Medicare premiums as a means to reduce federal spending and deficits.


Question:
The Capitol Rotunda and the Capitol Grounds have been used as the setting for a variety of events, ranging from memorial ceremonies and the reception of foreign dignitaries to the presentation of awards and the hosting of public competitions. This report identifies and categorizes uses of the Capitol Rotunda and Capitol Grounds authorized by concurrent resolutions since the 101st Congress.
In most cases, use of the Capitol Rotunda requires a concurrent resolution agreed to by both the House and Senate. A concurrent resolution for the use of the Rotunda typically identifies the event and date for which use is authorized. Often, the resolution also directs physical preparations to be carried out under the supervision of the Architect of the Capitol.
Ninety-nine concurrent resolutions were agreed to by the House and the Senate authorizing the use of the Rotunda between the 101st and the 115th Congresses. These resolutions can be divided into seven categories: (1) commemoration ceremonies; (2) Congressional Gold Medal ceremonies; (3) artwork unveilings; (4) presidential inauguration activities; (5) receptions or ceremonies honoring living people; (6) persons lying in state or honor; and (7) prayer vigils.
Use of the Capitol Grounds can be authorized either by the passage of a concurrent resolution or through an application process with the Capitol Police. A concurrent resolution is typically needed for events longer than 24 hours in duration, for events that require vehicles on the Capitol Grounds for setup, for events requiring electronics on the Lower West Terrace of the Capitol, and for events where a large number of Members will be in attendance. The Capitol Police's special events office handles permits and approval for all other events.
One hundred twelve concurrent resolutions were agreed to by the House and the Senate authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds between the 101st and the 115th Congresses. These resolutions can be divided into four categories: (1) events sponsored by nonfederal-government groups; (2) memorial services; (3) events sponsored by the federal government; and (4) award and dedication ceremonies.
Upon the completion and opening of the Capitol Visitor Center (CVC) during the 110th Congress, Emancipation Hall of the CVC became available for use in the same manner as the Rotunda and Capitol Grounds. Use of Emancipation Hall requires the passage of a resolution agreed to by both houses of Congress authorizing its use. These resolutions can be divided into four categories: (1) commemoration ceremonies, (2) congressional gold medal ceremonies, (3) artwork unveilings, and (4) presidential inauguration activities. As of the date of this report, 43 concurrent resolutions authorizing the use of Emancipation Hall have been agreed to.
This report will be updated at the end of each session of Congress.


Question:
Statuary Hall has been used as the setting for a variety of events, including memorial ceremonies and receptions for new Members of Congress, award presentations, and as media space after presidential addresses. This report identifies and categorizes uses of Statuary Hall since 2005.
Use of Statuary Hall is at the discretion of the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Under House Rule I, clause 3, the Speaker has the authority to assign unappropriated rooms on the House of Representatives side of the Capitol, including Statuary Hall. Use of Statuary Hall could also be authorized by House resolution, but no events since 2005 have been held in Statuary Hall on such authority.
Since 2005, 170 events have been held in Statuary Hall. Events held in Statuary Hall can be divided into four categories: (1) receptions and dinners, (2) ceremonies, (3) media events, and (4) memorial services. The report provides a brief explanation of each category and examples of activities in each category.


Question:
Guatemala, the most populous Central American country, with a population of 16.3 million, has been consolidating its transition to democracy since the 1980s. Guatemala has a long history of internal conflict, including a 36-year civil war (1960-1996) during which the Guatemalan military held power and over 200,000 people were killed or disappeared. A democratic constitution was adopted in 1985, and a democratically elected government was inaugurated in 1986.
President Jimmy Morales is being investigated for corruption and has survived three efforts to remove his immunity from prosecution. Morales took office in January 2016, having campaigned on an anticorruption platform. The previous president and vice president had resigned and been arrested after being implicated in a large-scale corruption scandal.
In what many observers see as a step forward in Guatemala's democratic development, the Public Ministry's corruption and human rights abuse investigations in recent years have led to the arrest and trial of high-level government, judicial, and military officials. The Public Ministry is responsible for public prosecution and law enforcement, and works in conjunction with the United Nations-backed International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG) to strengthen rule of law in Guatemala. As their anticorruption efforts prove effective, the circle of those feeling threatened by investigations broadens, and attacks against CICIG and the judicial system it supports broaden and intensify as well.
Since Morales and some of his inner circle became the targets of investigations, he has ended CICIG's mandate, tried to terminate it early, and fired some of his more reformist officials. The Guatemalan Congress is moving legislation forward that would give amnesty to perpetrators of crimes against humanity, free some high-profile prisoners held for corruption, and limit the work of nongovernment organizations. Observers within Guatemala and abroad worry that Morales and the Congress are trying to protect themselves and others from corruption and other charges, and threatening the rule of law in doing so.
Guatemala continues to face many other challenges, including insecurity, high rates of violence, and increasing rates of poverty and malnourishment. Guatemala remains a major transit country for cocaine and heroin trafficked from South America to the United States. Although Guatemala recorded record drug seizures in 2017, the lack of law enforcement and the collusion between corrupt officials and organized crime in many areas enable trafficking of illicit drugs, precursor chemicals, weapons, people, and other contraband. During Morales's first year, his administration improved tax collection, and the interior ministry reported a 5% drop in homicide rates. Morales has since fired many of the officials responsible for those advances and other reforms.
Guatemala has the largest economy in Central America and in recent decades has had relatively stable economic growth. Despite that economic growth, Guatemala's economic inequality and poverty have increased, especially among the rural indigenous population. The Economist Intelligence Unit projects that the country's economic growth rate will likely peak in 2018-2019 at 3.2%, followed by a decrease until 2022. The World Bank calls for rapid economic growth coupled with increased public investment and pro-poor policies to improve social conditions.
Traditionally, the United States and Guatemala have had close relations, with friction at times over human rights and civil/military issues. Guatemala and the United States have significant trade and are part of the U.S.-Central America-Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR). Top priorities for U.S. bilateral assistance to Guatemala include improving security, governance, and justice for citizens; improving economic growth and food security; providing access to health services; promoting better educational outcomes; and providing opportunities for out-of-school youth to reduce their desire to migrate. The U.S. Strategy for Engagement in Central America is meant to spur development and reduce illegal emigration to the United States. The Trump Administration has proposed substantially cutting funds for Guatemala, and eliminating traditional food aid and the Inter-American Foundation in its FY2018-FY2020 budget requests. Congress rejected much of those cuts in the reports to and language in the Consolidated Appropriations Acts of 2018 (P.L. 115-141), and 2019 (P.L. 116-6). Tensions between Guatemala and much of the international community have arisen over Guatemalan efforts to oust CICIG and to grant amnesty for human rights violations. The Trump Administration suspended military aid to Guatemala in March 2019 over its misuse of armored vehicles provided by the Department of Defense to combat drug trafficking.
Bills introduced in the 116th Congress regarding Guatemala address immigration, order security, corruption and other governance issues, and include H.Res. 18, H.R. 1630, and S. 716.


Question:
The Antideficiency Act (31 U.S.C. 1341-1342, 1511-1519) generally bars the obligation of funds in the absence of appropriations. Exceptions are made under the act, including for activities involving "the safety of human life or the protection of property." The interval during the fiscal year when appropriations for a particular project or activity are not enacted into law, either in the form of a regular appropriations act or a continuing resolution (CR), is referred to as a funding gap or funding lapse. Although funding gaps may occur at the start of the fiscal year, they may also occur any time a CR expires and another CR (or the regular appropriations bill) is not enacted immediately thereafter. Multiple funding gaps may occur within a fiscal year.
When a funding gap occurs, federal agencies are generally required to begin a shutdown of the affected projects and activities, which includes the prompt furlough of non-excepted personnel. The general practice of the federal government after the shutdown has ended has been to retroactively pay furloughed employees for the time they missed, as well as employees who were required to come to work.
Although a shutdown may be the result of a funding gap, the two events should be distinguished. This is because a funding gap may result in a total shutdown of all affected projects or activities in some instances but not others. For example, when funding gaps are of a short duration, agencies may not have enough time to complete a shutdown of affected projects and activities before funding is restored. In addition, the Office of Management and Budget has previously indicated that a shutdown of agency operations within the first day of the funding gap may be postponed if a resolution appears to be imminent.
Since FY1977, 20 funding gaps occurred, ranging in duration from 1 day to 34 full days. These funding gaps are listed in Table 1. About half of these funding gaps were brief (i.e., three days or less in duration). Notably, many of the funding gaps do not appear to have resulted in a "shutdown." Prior to the issuance of the opinions in 1980 and early 1981 by then-Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti, while agencies tended to curtail some operations in response to a funding gap, they often "continued to operate during periods of expired funding." In addition, some of the funding gaps after the Civiletti opinions did not result in a completion of shutdown operations due to both the funding gap's short duration and an expectation that appropriations would soon be enacted. Some of the funding gaps during this period, however, did have a broader impact on affected government operations, even if only for a matter of hours.
Two funding gaps occurred in FY1996, amounting to 5 days and 21 days. The chronology of regular and continuing appropriations enacted during FY1996 is illustrated in Figure 1.
At the beginning of FY2014 (October 1, 2013), none of the regular appropriations bills had been enacted, so a government-wide funding gap occurred. It concluded on October 17, 2013, after lasting 16 full days.
During FY2018, there was a funding gap when a CR covering all of the regular appropriations bills expired on January 19, 2018. It concluded on January 22, 2018, after lasting two full days.
The most recent funding gap occurred during FY2019, when a CR covering federal agencies and activities funded in 7 of the 12 regular appropriations bills expired on December 21, 2018. It concluded on January 25, 2019, after lasting 34 full days.
For a general discussion of federal government shutdowns, see CRS Report RL34680, Shutdown of the Federal Government: Causes, Processes, and Effects, coordinated by Clinton T. Brass.


Question:
Most major cybersecurity legislative provisions were enacted prior to 2002, despite many recommendations having been made over the past decade. More recently, in the 115th and 116th Congresses, cybersecurity legislation has received either committee or floor action or final passage, and both chambers have held multiple hearings.
In the 116th Congress, a number of House and Senate bills have received consideration, and hearings have been held by committees in each chamber.
In the 115th Congress, 31 bills received some type of action (committee consideration or passage by one or both chambers). Five bills became public law. The House held 54 hearings on cybersecurity issues and the Senate held 40 hearings.


Question:
This report is designed to assist Members of Congress and their staff as they address the needs of their states, communities, and constituents after a disaster. It includes a summary of federal programs that provide federal disaster assistance to individual survivors, states, territories, local governments, and nongovernmental entities following a natural or man-made disaster. A number of federal agencies provide financial assistance through grants, loans, and loan guarantees to assist in the provision of critical services, such as temporary housing, counseling, and infrastructure repair.
The programs summarized in this report fall into two broad categories. First, there are programs specifically authorized for use during situations occurring because of a disaster. Most of these programs are administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Second are general assistance programs that in some instances may be used either in disaster situations or to meet other needs unrelated to a disaster. Many federal agencies, including the Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Housing and Urban Development (HUD), administer programs that may be included in the second category.
The programs in the report are primarily organized by recipient: individuals, state and local governments, nongovernmental entities, or businesses. These programs address a variety of short-term needs, such as food and shelter, and long-term needs, such as the repair of public utilities and public infrastructure.
The report also includes a list of Congressional Research Service (CRS) reports on disaster assistance as well as relevant federal agency websites that provide information on disaster responses, updates on recovery efforts, and resources on federal assistance programs.
This report will be updated as significant legislative or administrative changes occur.


Question:
Historically, the United States' leadership of the global trading system has ensured the United States a seat at the table to shape the international trade agenda in ways that both advance and defend U.S. interests. The evolution of U.S. leadership and the global trade agenda remain of interest to Congress, which holds constitutional authority over foreign commerce and establishes trade negotiating objectives and principles through legislation. Congress has recognized the World Trade Organization (WTO) as the "foundation of the global trading system" within trade promotion authority (TPA) and plays a direct legislative and oversight role over WTO agreements. The statutory basis for U.S. WTO membership is the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (P.L. 103-465), and U.S. priorities and objectives for the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)/WTO have been reflected in various TPA legislation since 1974. Congress also has oversight of the U.S. Trade Representative and other agencies that participate in WTO meetings and enforce WTO commitments.
The WTO is a 164-member international organization that was created to oversee and administer multilateral trade rules, serve as a forum for trade liberalization negotiations, and resolve trade disputes. The United States was a major force behind the establishment of the WTO in 1995, and the rules and agreements resulting from multilateral trade negotiations. The WTO encompassed and succeeded the GATT, established in 1947 among the United States and 22 other countries. Through the GATT and WTO, the United States, with other countries, sought to establish a more open, rules-based trading system in the postwar era, with the goal of fostering international economic cooperation and raising economic prosperity worldwide. Today, 98% of global trade is among WTO members.
The WTO is a consensus and member-driven organization. Its core principles include nondiscrimination (most favored nation treatment and national treatment), freer trade, fair competition, transparency, and encouraging development. These are enshrined in a series of WTO trade agreements covering goods, agriculture, services, intellectual property rights, and trade facilitation, among other issues. Some countries, including China, have been motivated to join the WTO not just to expand access to foreign markets but to spur domestic economic reforms, help transition to market economies, and promote the rule of law.
The WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) provides an enforceable means for members to resolve disputes over WTO commitments and obligations. The WTO has processed more than 500 disputes, and the United States has been an active user of the dispute settlement system. Supporters of the multilateral trading system consider the dispute settlement mechanism an important success of the system. At the same time, some members, including the United States, contend it has procedural shortcomings and has exceeded its mandate in deciding cases.
Many observers are concerned that the effectiveness of the WTO has diminished since the collapse of the Doha Round of multilateral trade negotiations, which began in 2001, and believe the WTO needs to adopt reforms to continue its role as the foundation of the global trading system. To date, WTO members have been unable to reach consensus for a new comprehensive multilateral agreement on trade liberalization and rules. While global supply chains and technology have transformed international trade and investment, global trade rules have not kept up with the pace of change. Many countries have turned to negotiating free trade agreements (FTAs) outside the WTO as well as plurilateral agreements involving subsets of WTO members rather than all members.
At the latest WTO Ministerial conference in December 2017, no major deliverables were announced. Several members committed to make progress on ongoing talks, such as fisheries subsidies and e-commerce, while other areas remain stalled. While many were disappointed by the limited progress, in the U.S. view, the outcome signaled that "the impasse at the WTO was broken," paving the way for groups of like-minded countries to pursue new work in other key areas.
Certain WTO members have begun to explore aspects of reform and future negotiations. Potential reforms concern the administration of the organization, its procedures and practices, and attempts to address the inability of WTO members to conclude new agreements. Proposed DS reforms also attempt to improve the working of the dispute settlement system, particularly the Appellate Body—the seven-member body that reviews appeals by WTO members of a panel's findings in a dispute case.
Some U.S. frustrations with the WTO are not new and many are shared by other trading partners, such as the European Union. At the same time, the Administration's overall approach has spurred new questions regarding the future of U.S. leadership and U.S. priorities for improving the multilateral trading system. Concerns have emphasized that the Administration's recent actions to unilaterally raise tariffs under U.S. trade laws and to possibly impede the functioning of the dispute settlement system might undermine the credibility of the WTO system. A growing question of some observers is whether the WTO would flounder for lack of U.S. leadership, or whether other WTO members like the EU and China taking on larger roles would continue to make it a meaningful actor in the global trade environment.
The growing debate over the role and future direction of the WTO may be of interest to Congress. Important issues it may address include how current and future WTO agreements affect the U.S. economy, the value of U.S. membership and leadership in the WTO, whether new U.S. negotiating objectives or oversight hearings are needed to address prospects for new WTO reforms and rulemaking, and the relevant authorities and impact of potential U.S. withdrawal from the WTO on U.S. economic and foreign policy interests.


Question:
The daily order of business on the floor of the House of Representatives is governed by standing rules that make certain matters and actions privileged for consideration. On a day-to-day basis, however, the House can also decide to grant individual bills privileged access to the floor, using one of several parliamentary mechanisms.
The standing rules of the House include several different parliamentary mechanisms that the body may use to act on bills and resolutions. Which of these will be employed in a given instance usually depends on the extent to which Members want to debate and amend the legislation. In general, all of the procedures of the House permit a majority of Members to work their will without excessive delay.
The House considers most legislation by motions to suspend the rules, with limited debate and no floor amendments, with the support of at least two-thirds of the Members voting. Occasionally, the House will choose to consider a measure on the floor by the unanimous consent of Members. The Rules Committee is instrumental in recommending procedures for considering major bills and may propose restrictions on the floor amendments that Members can offer or bar them altogether. Many major bills are first considered in Committee of the Whole before being passed by a simple majority vote of the House. The Committee of the Whole is governed by more flexible procedures than the basic rules of the House, under which a majority can vote to pass a bill after only one hour of debate and with no floor amendments.
Although a quorum is supposed to be present on the floor when the House is conducting business, the House assumes a quorum is present unless a quorum call or electronically recorded vote demonstrates that it is not. However, the standing rules preclude quorum calls at most times other than when the House is voting. Questions are first decided by voice vote, although any Member may then demand a division vote. Before the final result of a voice or division vote is announced, Members can secure an electronically recorded vote instead if enough Members desire it or if a quorum is not present in the House.
The constitutional requirements for making law mean that each chamber must pass the same measure with the identical text before transmitting it to the President for his consideration. When the second chamber of Congress amends a measure sent to it by the first chamber, the two chambers must resolve legislative differences to meet this requirement. This can be accomplished by shuttling the bill back and forth between the House and Senate, with each chamber proposing amendments to the position of the other, or by establishing a conference committee to try to negotiate a compromise version of the legislation.


Question:
The Office of the National Ombudsman was created in 1996 as part of P.L. 104-121, the Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996 (Title II, the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 [SBREFA]). Housed within the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA), the office's primary purpose is to provide small businesses, small government entities (those serving populations of less than 50,000), and small nonprofit organizations that believe they have experienced unfair or excessive regulatory compliance or enforcement actions (such as repetitive audits or investigations, excessive fines, and retaliation by federal agencies) a means to comment about such actions.
The Office of the National Ombudsman is an impartial liaison that reports small business regulatory fairness matters to the appropriate federal agency for review and works across government to address those concerns and reduce regulatory burdens on small businesses.
SBREFA also created 10 Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards, one in each of the SBA's 10 regions, to advise the National Ombudsman on matters related to federal regulatory enforcement activities affecting small businesses.
Specifically, the National Ombudsman
works with each federal agency with regulatory authority over small businesses to ensure that small businesses are provided a means to comment on the federal agency's regulatory compliance and enforcement activities; receives comments from small businesses regarding actions by federal agency employees conducting small business regulatory compliance or enforcement activities; refers comments to the affected federal agency's inspector general in appropriate circumstances while maintaining the confidentiality of the person or small business making these comments; issues an annual report to Congress and affected federal agencies evaluating the agency's compliance and enforcement activities, including a rating of their responsiveness to small businesses; provides the affected federal agency with an opportunity to comment on the annual report prior to publication and includes in the report a section in which the affected federal agency may comment on issues that are not addressed by the National Ombudsman in revisions to the draft; and coordinates and reports annually on the Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards' activities, findings, and recommendations to the SBA Administrator and the heads of affected federal agencies.
This report examines the Office of the National Ombudsman's origin and history; describes its organizational structure, funding, functions, and current activities; and discusses a recent legislative effort to enhance its authority. During the 115th Congress, S. 1146, the Small Business Regulatory Relief Act of 2017, would have, among other provisions,
expanded the National Ombudsman's authority to work with federal agencies on the development of best practices for educating, training, and assisting small entities in understanding and complying with federal regulations; and authorized the National Ombudsman to evaluate federal agency regulatory compliance guides, ensure that those guides are available to small business development centers and other SBA management and training resource partners, conduct small business customer service surveys on an ongoing basis to assess the timeliness and quality of federal agency regulatory activities, and develop an outreach program to promote awareness of the National Ombudsman's activities.
This report also discusses some challenges facing the Office of the National Ombudsman
although it is generally recognized as an independent, impartial office, it is housed within the much larger SBA and remains subject to its influence; the National Ombudsman has often stayed in the position for a relatively short time. Frequent turnover can lead to continuity problems for the office; it does not have the authority to compel federal agencies to undertake specific actions to resolve disputes. As a result, although its annual rating of federal agency responsiveness to small business concerns does provide it a means to exert some influence on federal agency actions, its role in resolving disputes is somewhat constrained; and its relatively limited budget and staffing level restrict its ability to engage in outreach activities that could increase small business awareness of its existence and services.


Question:
Many interns serve Congress, assisting individual Members, committees, and other offices or support services. Interns serve the House or Senate in a temporary capacity, primarily for an educational benefit, although some interns may receive pay for their service. Like many aspects of congressional operations, individual House or Senate offices can make many of their own rules and guidelines for interns, if they choose to operate an internship program. Additional institutional rules, however, may also apply. In the House, policies set by the Committee on Ethics or the Committee on House Administration may also affect congressional offices and interns, and in the Senate, additional relevant policies may be set by the Senate Select Committee on Ethics or the Committee on Rules and Administration.
This report addresses frequently asked questions (FAQs) about congressional interns and internships. It is intended to provide information to congressional offices about the role of interns and to provide a summary of some of the policies and guidance provided by the House and the Senate related to internships. It addresses the House and Senate rules that apply to congressional internships, factors that may affect an office's selection process and an individual's eligibility to serve in an internship, and some of the congressional resources and training opportunities available for interns. For additional information about internship opportunities, refer to CRS Report 98-654, Internships, Fellowships, and Other Work Experience Opportunities in the Federal Government .


Question:
The Small Business Administration's (SBA's) Microloan program provides direct loans to qualified nonprofit intermediary lenders who, in turn, provide "microloans" of up to $50,000 to small businesses and nonprofit child care centers. It also provides marketing, management, and technical assistance to microloan borrowers and potential borrowers. Authorized in 1991 as a five-year demonstration project, it became operational in 1992, and was made permanent, subject to reauthorization, in 1997.
The Microloan program is designed to assist women, low-income, veteran, and minority entrepreneurs and small business owners by providing them small-scale loans for working capital or the acquisition of materials, supplies, or equipment. In FY2018, Microloan intermediaries provided 5,459 microloans totaling $76.8 million. The average Microloan was $14,071 and had a 7.6% interest rate.
Critics of the SBA's Microloan program argue that it is expensive relative to alternative programs, duplicative of the SBA's 7(a) loan guaranty program, and subject to administrative shortfalls. The program's advocates argue that it assists many who otherwise would not be served by the private sector and is an important source of capital and training assistance for low-income, women, and minority business owners.
Congressional interest in the Microloan program has increased in recent years, primarily because microloans are viewed as a means to assist very small businesses, especially women- and minority-owned startups, to get loans that enable them to create and retain jobs. Job creation, always a congressional interest, has taken on increased importance given continuing concerns about job growth during the current economic recovery.
This report opens with a discussion of the rationale provided for having a Microloan program, describes the program's eligibility standards and operating requirements for lenders and borrowers, and examines the arguments presented by the program's critics and advocates. It then discusses P.L. 111-240, the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which increased the Microloan program's loan limit for borrowers from $35,000 to $50,000, and the aggregate loan limit for intermediaries after their first year of participation in the program from $3.5 million to $5 million.
It also discusses P.L. 115-141, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, which, among other provisions, relaxed requirements on Microloan intermediaries that prohibited them from spending more than 25% of their technical assistance grant funds on prospective borrowers and more than 25% of those grant funds on contracts with third parties to provide that technical assistance. The act increased those percentages to 50% (originally in H.R. 2056, the Microloan Modernization Act of 2017, and S. 526, its companion bill in the Senate). In addition, P.L. 115-232, the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, among other provisions, increased the Microloan program's aggregate loan limit for intermediaries after their first year of participation in the program from $5 million to $6 million.


Question:
The Agriculture appropriations bill—formally known as the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act—funds the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) except for the Forest Service. This includes funding for certain U.S. international food aid programs.
In March 2018, President Trump signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (P.L. 115-141), an omnibus appropriations act for FY2018, into law. In February 2019, President Trump signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 (P.L. 116-6), an omnibus appropriations act for FY2019, into law. The FY2018 and FY2019 Agriculture Appropriations Acts—Division A of P.L. 115-141 and Division B of P.L. 116-6, respectively—include funding for certain U.S. international food aid programs, such as the Food for Peace (FFP) Title II Program and the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program. Other international food aid programs receive mandatory funding and do not rely on discretionary funding provided through annual appropriations. Congress authorizes discretionary and mandatory funding levels for international food aid programs in periodic farm bills, most recently the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-334).
This analysis covers appropriations for U.S. international food aid programs that Congress funds through agriculture appropriations bills. It does not cover appropriations for international food assistance or agricultural development programs that Congress funds in State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs (SFOPS) appropriations bills, such as the Emergency Food Security Program (EFSP) or the Feed the Future Program.
In FY2018, Congress provided a total of $1.924 billion in funding for U.S. international food aid programs, a 7% increase from the $1.802 billion provided in FY2017. In FY2019, Congress provided $1.942 billion in funding for U.S. international food aid programs, a 1% increase from FY2018 enacted levels.
In addition to providing funding for U.S. international food aid programs, agriculture appropriations bills may also include policy-related provisions that direct how the executive branch should carry out certain appropriations. The FY2018 and FY2019 Agriculture Appropriations Acts, as well as House and Senate Agriculture appropriations bills for those fiscal years, include policy provisions related to international food aid programs. For example, one provision directs that a certain amount of the funds appropriated for the McGovern-Dole Program be used to provide locally and regionally procured food assistance—food assistance purchased in the country or region where it is to be distributed rather than in the United States.


Question:
The Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill contains funding for more than 30 agencies and entities. They include most of the Department of the Interior (DOI) as well as agencies within other departments, such as the Forest Service within the Department of Agriculture and the Indian Health Service within the Department of Health and Human Services. The bill also provides funding for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), arts and cultural agencies, and other organizations and entities. Issues for Congress included determining the amount, terms, and conditions of funding for agencies and programs.
For FY2019, the enacted appropriation for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies was $35.61 billion. This total was composed of $13.02 billion for DOI agencies in Title I, $8.06 billion for EPA in Title II, $13.74 billion for the 23 "related agencies" in Title III, and $791.0 million in Title IV for certain EPA activities.
The FY2019 appropriation was $300.0 million (0.8%) more than the FY2018 regular appropriation of $35.31 billion (in P.L. 115-141), but $975.4 million (2.7%) less than the FY2018 total appropriation of $36.59 billion, including $1.28 billion in emergency supplemental appropriations for disaster relief (in P.L. 115-72 and P.L. 115-123). The FY2019 appropriation was $7.28 billion (25.7%) more than the President's request ($28.34 billion), $305.5 million (0.9%) more than the House-passed level ($35.31 billion), and $301.0 million (0.8%) less than the Senate-passed amount ($35.91 billion).
Because the FY2019 appropriation was not enacted until February 15, 2019, agencies received continuing appropriations for certain periods before that date. Specifically, from October 1, 2018, through December 21, 2018, and again from January 25, 2019, through February 15, 2019, appropriations were provided under a continuing resolution (CR) at the FY2018 level (in Division G of P.L. 115-141). Due to a lapse in funds after December 21, 2018, until January 25, 2019, a partial government shutdown went into effect. Agencies in the Interior bill generally operated under "contingency" plans that summarize activities that would cease and activities that would continue during a lapse in appropriations.
In earlier action, President Trump's request of $28.34 billion for FY2019 for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies included $10.59 billion for DOI agencies, $6.19 billion for EPA, and $11.56 billion for related agencies. The versions of H.R. 6147 (115th Congress) passed by the House on July 19, 2018, and by the Senate on August 1, 2018, contained higher FY2019 appropriations overall, and for each title of the bill, than requested. The President's request also contained a legislative proposal for a $1.52 billion cap adjustment to the discretionary spending limits in law for certain wildland fire suppression activities. This cap adjustment was not approved by the chambers or enacted for FY2019. However, Congress enacted a similar proposal (in P.L. 115-141), under which the adjustment becomes available in FY2020.
The President, House, and Senate each proposed less funding for FY2019 relative to the FY2018 total of $36.59 billion (including emergency supplemental appropriations), proposing 22.5%, 3.5%, and 1.8% less, respectively. In contrast, relative to the regular FY2018 appropriation of $35.31 billion, the President would have reduced funding (19.8%), the House would have provided nearly level appropriations (<0.1% decrease), and the Senate would have increased funding (1.7%) for FY2019.
For individual agencies and programs in the bill, there are many differences among the funding levels enacted for FY2019 and those supported by the President, House, and Senate for FY2019 and enacted for FY2018. This report highlights funding for selected agencies and programs that have been among the many of interest to Congress, stakeholders, and the public.


Question:
The Agriculture appropriations bill funds the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) except for the Forest Service. It also funds the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and—in even-numbered fiscal years—the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).
Agriculture appropriations include both mandatory and discretionary spending. Discretionary amounts, though, are the primary focus during the bill's development. The largest discretionary spending items are the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC); agricultural research; rural development; FDA; foreign food aid and trade; farm assistance program salaries and loans; food safety inspection; animal and plant health programs; and salaries and expenses for administering conservation programs.
On February 15, 2019, Congress passed and the President signed the FY2019 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 116-6, H.Rept. 116-9). This action, more than four months into the fiscal year, followed three continuing resolutions and a 34-day partial government shutdown.
The official discretionary total of the enacted FY2019 Agriculture appropriation is $23.03 billion, which is $35 million more than enacted in FY2018 (+0.2%) on a comparable basis that excludes the CFTC. The enacted total is $6.3 billion more than the Administration requested (+38%), $55 million more than was proposed in the House-reported bill (+0.2%), but $194 million less than in the Senate-passed bill (-0.8%).
Among the primary differences that account for the overall $35 million discretionary increase for FY2019 over FY2018 are an increase in agricultural research (mostly for construction) by $387 million (+13%) to $3.4 billion, an increase in FDA appropriations by $269 million (+10%) to $3.1 billion, an increase in WIC funding by a net $200 million (accounting for changes in the amount of carryover balances rescinded and in the base appropriation), an increase in five other program areas by a combined $78 million, and a decrease in rural development by reducing extra appropriations that were made in FY2018 for water and wastewater programs (-$425 million) and rural broadband (-$475 million).
The appropriation also carries $129 billion of mandatory spending that is largely determined in separate authorizing laws. The mandatory spending increased by $6 billion not because of congressional action this year but because of changing economic and program conditions. The annual change was mostly due to higher costs for crop insurance (+$6.5 billion), greater reimbursement for the Commodity Credit Corporation (+1.1 billion), and lower outlays for child nutrition (-$1.1 billion) and SNAP (-$0.5 billion). With mandatory and discretionary spending appropriations combined, the FY2019 agriculture total is nearly $152 billion.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act and its underlying bills also contain policy provisions that affect how the appropriation is delivered. These provisions affect disaster programs, rural definitions, industrial hemp, animal regulations, nutrition programs, dietary guidelines, CFTC, and tobacco products.
Sequestration on mandatory accounts—a process that reduces federal spending through automatic across-the-board reductions—also continues to affect agriculture spending.


Question:
The U.S. Constitution grants authority to Congress to lay and collect duties and regulate foreign commerce. Congress exercises this authority in numerous ways, including through oversight of trade policy and consideration of legislation to implement trade agreements and authorize trade programs. Policy issues cover areas such as U.S. trade negotiations, U.S. trade and economic relations with specific regions and countries, international institutions focused on trade, tariff and nontariff barriers, worker dislocation due to trade liberalization, enforcement of trade laws and trade agreement commitments, import and export policies, international investment, economic sanctions, and other trade-related functions of the federal government. Congress also has authority over U.S. financial commitments to international financial institutions and oversight responsibilities for trade- and finance-related agencies of the U.S. government.
Issues in the 116th Congress
During his first two years in office, President Trump has focused on reevaluating many U.S. international trade and economic policies and relationships. The President's focus on these issues could continue over the next two years. Broad policy debates during the 116th Congress may include the impact of trade and trade agreements on the U.S. economy, including U.S. jobs; the causes and consequences of the U.S. trade deficit; the implications of technological developments for U.S. trade policy; and the intersection of economics and national security. Among many others, the potentially more prominent issues in this area that the 116th Congress may consider are
the use and impact of unilateral tariffs imposed by the Trump Administration under various U.S. trade laws, as well as potential legislation that alters the authority granted by Congress to the President to do so; legislation to implement the proposed United States-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement (USMCA), which would revise and modernize the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA); the Administration's launch of bilateral trade negotiations with the European Union, Japan, and the United Kingdom, as well as key provisions in trade agreements, including on intellectual property rights, labor, the environment, and dispute settlement; U.S. engagement with the World Trade Organization (WTO), proposals for WTO reform, and the future direction of the multilateral trading system; U.S.-China trade relations, including investment issues, intellectual property rights protection, forced technology transfer, currency issues, and market access liberalization; the future of U.S.-Asia trade and economic relations, given President Trump's withdrawal of the United States from the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and China's expanding Belt and Road Initiative; the Administration's use of quotas to achieve some of its trade objectives, and whether these actions represent a shift in U.S. policy towards "managed trade"; monitoring the implementation of legislation passed by the 115th Congress, including changes to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CIFUS) and export controls, as well as the creation of a new U.S. International Development Finance Corporation; re-authorization of the Export-Import Bank, the U.S. export credit agency that helps finance U.S. exports; oversight of international trade and finance policies to support foreign policy goals, including sanctions on Iran, North Korea, Russia, and other countries; shifts in U.S. leadership of international economic policy coordination at the Group of 7 (G-7) and the Group of 20 (G-20) under the Trump Administration; legislation to fund the Administration's commitment to increase U.S. contributions to the World Bank, as well as potential U.S.-led reforms to the institution; and major developments in financial markets, including the impact of other countries' exchange rate polices on the U.S. economy, high levels of debt in emerging markets, potential economic crises, and the role of the U.S. dollar in the global economy.


Question:
Banks play a critical role in the United States economy, channeling money from savers to borrowers and facilitating productive investment. While the nature of lawmakers' interest in bank regulation has shifted over time, most bank regulations fall into one of three general categories. First, banks must abide by a variety of safety-and-soundness requirements designed to minimize the risk of their failure and maintain macroeconomic stability. Second, banks must comply with consumer protection rules intended to deter abusive practices and provide consumers with complete information about financial products and services. Third, banks are subject to various reporting, recordkeeping, and anti-money laundering requirements designed to assist law enforcement in investigating criminal activity.
The substantive content of these requirements remains the subject of intense debate. However, the division of regulatory authority over banks between the federal government and the states plays a key role in shaping that content. In some cases, federal law displaces (or "preempts") state bank regulations. In other cases, states are permitted to supplement federal regulations with different, sometimes stricter requirements. Because of its substantive implications, federal preemption has recently become a flashpoint in debates surrounding bank regulation.
In the American "dual banking system," banks can apply for a national charter from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) or a state charter from a state's banking authority. A bank's choice of chartering authority is also a choice of primary regulator, as the OCC serves as the primary regulator of national banks and state regulatory agencies serve as the primary regulators of state-chartered banks. However, the Federal Reserve and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) also play an important role in bank regulation. The Federal Reserve supervises all national banks and state-chartered banks that become members of the Federal Reserve System (FRS), while the FDIC supervises all state banks that do not become members of the FRS. This complex regulatory architecture has resulted in a "symbiotic system" with both federal regulation of state banks and state regulation of national banks. In the modern dual banking system, national banks are often subject to generally applicable state laws, and state banks are subject to both generally applicable federal laws and regulations imposed by their federal regulators. The evolution of this system during the 20th century caused the regulation of national banks and state banks to converge in a number of important ways.
However, despite this convergence, federal preemption provides national banks with certain unique advantages. In Barnett Bank of Marion County, N.A. v. Nelson, the Supreme Court held that the National Bank Act (NBA) preempts state laws that "significantly interfere" with the powers of national banks. The Court has also issued two decisions on the preemptive scope of a provision of the NBA limiting states' "visitorial powers" over national banks. Finally, OCC rules have taken a broad view of the preemptive effects of the NBA, limiting the ways in which states can regulate national banks.
Courts, regulators, and legislators have recently confronted a number of issues involving banking preemption and related federalism questions. Specifically, Congress has considered legislation that would overturn a line of judicial decisions concerning the circumstances in which non-banks can benefit from federal preemption of state usury laws. The OCC has also announced its intention to grant national bank charters to certain financial technology (FinTech) companies—a decision that is currently being litigated. Finally, Congress has recently turned its attention to the banking industry's response to state efforts to legalize and regulate marijuana.


Question:
The United States Constitution (Article 1, Section 5, clause 1) provides each House of Congress with the sole authority to establish rules, judge membership requirements, and punish and expel Members. From 1789 to 1967, the House of Representatives dealt with disciplinary action against Members on a case-by-case basis, often forming ad-hoc committees to investigate and make recommendations when acts of wrongdoing were brought to the chamber's attention. Events of the 1960s, including the investigation of Representative Adam Clayton Powell for alleged misuse of Education and Labor Committee funds, prompted the creation of a permanent ethics committee and the writing of a Code of Conduct for Members, officers, and staff of the House.
Begun as a select committee in the 89th Congress (1965-1966), the House created a 12-member panel to "recommend to the House … such … rules or regulations … necessary or desirable to insure proper standards of conduct by Members of the House and by officers and employees of the House, in the performance of their duties and the discharge of their responsibilities." Acting on the select committee's recommendations, the House created a permanent Committee on Standards of Official Conduct in the 90th Congress (1967-1968). In the 112th Congress (2011-2012), the committee was renamed the Committee on Ethics.
This report briefly outlines the background of ethics enforcement in the House of Representatives, including the creation of both the Select Committee on Ethics and the Committee on Ethics. The report also focuses on various jurisdictional and procedural changes that the committee has experienced since 1967 and discusses the committee's current jurisdiction and procedures.
For additional information on ethics in the House of Representatives, please refer to CRS Report R40760, House Office of Congressional Ethics: History, Authority, and Procedures, by Jacob R. Straus; CRS Report RL30764, Enforcement of Congressional Rules of Conduct: A Historical Overview, by Jacob R. Straus; and CRS Report R44213, Altering House Ethics Committee Sanction Recommendations on the Floor: Past Precedent and Options for Action, by Jacob R. Straus and James V. Saturno.


Question:
The diminishment of Arctic sea ice has led to increased human activities in the Arctic, and has heightened interest in, and concerns about, the region's future. The United States, by virtue of Alaska, is an Arctic country and has substantial interests in the region.
Record low extents of Arctic sea ice over the past decade have focused scientific and policy attention on links to global climate change and projected ice-free seasons in the Arctic within decades. These changes have potential consequences for weather in the United States, access to mineral and biological resources in the Arctic, the economies and cultures of peoples in the region, and national security.
The five Arctic coastal states—the United States, Canada, Russia, Norway, and Denmark (of which Greenland is a territory)—have made or are in the process of preparing submissions to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf regarding the outer limits of their extended continental shelves. The Russian submission includes the underwater Lomonosov Ridge, a feature that spans a considerable distance across the center of the Arctic Ocean.
The diminishment of Arctic ice could lead in coming years to increased commercial shipping on two trans-Arctic sea routes—the Northern Sea Route close to Russia, and the Northwest Passage—though the rate of increase in the use of these routes might not be as great as sometimes anticipated in press accounts. International guidelines for ships operating in Arctic waters have been recently updated.
Changes to the Arctic brought about by warming temperatures will likely allow more exploration for oil, gas, and minerals. Warming that causes permafrost to melt could pose challenges to onshore exploration activities. Increased oil and gas exploration and tourism (cruise ships) in the Arctic increase the risk of pollution in the region. Cleaning up oil spills in ice-covered waters will be more difficult than in other areas, primarily because effective strategies for cleaning up oil spills in ice-covered waters have yet to be developed.
Large commercial fisheries exist in the Arctic. The United States is currently meeting with other countries regarding the management of Arctic fish stocks. Changes in the Arctic could affect threatened and endangered species, and could result in migration of fish stocks to new waters. Under the Endangered Species Act, the polar bear was listed as threatened on May 15, 2008. Arctic climate change is also expected to affect the economies, health, and cultures of Arctic indigenous peoples.
Two of the Coast Guard's three polar icebreakers—Polar Star and Polar Sea—have exceeded their intended 30-year service lives, and Polar Sea is not operational. The Coast Guard has initiated a project to build up to three new heavy polar icebreakers. On May 12, 2011, representatives from the member states of the Arctic Council signed an agreement on cooperation on search and rescue in the Arctic.
Although there is significant international cooperation on Arctic issues, the Arctic is increasingly being viewed by some observers as a potential emerging security issue. Some of the Arctic coastal states, particularly Russia, have announced an intention or taken actions to enhance their military presences in the high north. U.S. military forces, particularly the Navy and Coast Guard, have begun to pay more attention to the region in their planning and operations.