20 years), and those with medical disabilities. A majority of these members pursue a post-service career; veterans account for about 6% of the civilian labor force. In the past few decades, Congress has enacted legislation and appropriated funds in support of programs that help servicemembers prepare for transition to civilian life by providing them with counseling, resources, and tools for accessing veteran benefits and leveraging their skills, education, and training gained in the service for post-service education and employment opportunities.","Some DOD programs are the Transition Assistance Program (TAP); Credentialing Opportunities Online (COOL); and the DOD Skillbridge program, which is also known as the Job Training, Employment Skills Training, Apprenticeships, and Internships (JTEST-AI) program. There are also DOD programs to help servicemembers in pursuit of post-secondary degrees, for example, tuition assistance (TA) for off-duty education and the Defense Activity for Non-Traditional Education Support (DANTES). Discussion: Congressional concerns about the transition of servicemembers to civilian employment are evident in the number of provisions seeking to enhance or expand transition services, education support, and other transition-related programs. Section 558 of the enacted bill extends the availability of Military OneSource services to members and their families for a minimum period of one year following separation from the military. A broad range of information resources and training programs are available online in an open source format on Military OneSource; however, previously, some counseling and support services were only available to veterans for a period of 180 days following separation.","Other House provisions seeking to improve outreach to recently separated veterans through the addition of email addresses to discharge paperwork (Section 525), allowing for discharge information to be transmitted to country veteran service officers (Section 560B), and follow-up phone calls to check on status (Section 560D) were not adopted. A Government Accountability Office (GAO) report released in November 2017 found that fewer than half of all eligible servicemembers completed TAP before the statutory deadline of 90 days prior to separation. In addition, the report found that relatively few members were participating in DOD's optional two-day classes on (1) Accessing Higher Education, (2) Career Technical Training, and (3) Entrepreneurship. The SASC raised concerns in its committee report that, \"requiring transitioning servicemembers to opt into a two-day workshop signals to both servicemembers and their commanders that the workshops may be superfluous, thereby discouraging participation,\" and encourages DOD to mandate member participation in one of the workshops. Section 552 of the enacted bill requires that TAP counseling begin no later than 365 days before transition.","This provision requires the development of tailored transition pathways depending on the characteristics or needs of different member groups (e.g., rank, term of service, or gender), and would mandate certain elements of the TAP curriculum. Another requirement in this section is that transitioning members and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs are provided with a copy of their Joint Service Transcript upon separation. Congress also requires GAO and DOD reports on the implementation of this law. Section 556 of the enacted bill removes the requirement that credentials earned under the authority in 10 U.S.C. §2015 be \"related to military training.\" This will potentially expand a member's ability to use COOL funds to pursue nonmilitary-related credentials. Section 560A of the House bill would have required DOD to report on TAP participants who met with academic or technical training advisors and would also request specific information on equivalent college credit and technical certifications for members of the armed forces. This provision was not adopted. The American Council on Education (ACE), as funded by DOD, provides a military guide with credit recommendations for formal military courses and occupations.","This information may be provided to servicemembers and veterans as part of a Joint Service Transcript (JST) or Verification of Military Experience and Training (VMET). The COOL program provides an online resource that translates military service occupations and experience to civilian credentials. Currently servicemembers' spouses are authorized to participate in certain elements of TAP under 10 U.S.C. §§1142 and 1144. Section 575 of the Senate bill would have required a pilot program for spouse participation in TAP regardless of whether the member is also participating in TAP at the same time. This provision was not adopted. Finally, Section 559 of the House bill would have required that DOD provide members with information about apprenticeship programs as part of pre-separation counseling. While this provision was not adopted, the conferees noted that, \"apprenticeships provide a valuable career option for separating servicemembers and encourage the Department of Defense to ensure information on apprenticeship programs, and appropriate funding options, is easily accessible to those servicemembers who may be interested in pursuing an apprenticeship upon separating from the military.\" References: CRS In Focus IF10347, Military Transition Assistance Program (TAP): An Overview , by Kristy N.","Kamarck, CRS In Focus IF10850, DOD's Troops to Teachers Program (TTT) , by Kristy N. Kamarck and Eva G. McKinsey, CRS In Focus IF10490, Veterans' Employment , coordinated by Benjamin Collins, and CRS Report R42790, Employment for Veterans: Trends and Programs , coordinated by Benjamin Collins. CRS Video WVB00223, Service Member-to-Veteran Transitions: Education and Employment , by Kristy N. Kamarck, Benjamin Collins, and Cassandria Dortch. CRS Point of Contact : Kristy N. Kamarck. Background : Under the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP), a military retiree may have a portion of his or her monthly retired pay withheld in order to provide, after his or her death, a monthly benefit to a surviving spouse or other eligible recipients. When an active duty servicemember dies, his or her survivor's payment through the SBP is usually 55% of the retired base pay that the member would otherwise have been eligible to receive. By law, surviving spouses who receive both an annuity from DOD as a beneficiary of the SBP and from the Department of Veterans Affairs' Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) must have their SBP payments reduced by the amount of DIC they receive.","This offset has sometimes been referred to as a widows' tax . Congress first authorized a payment to such surviving spouses to offset that reduction in the FY2008 NDAA. This benefit is called the Special Survivor Indemnity Allowance (SSIA). Monthly SSIA payments are currently capped at $310 and are taxable. Section 621 of the FY2018 NDAA ( P.L. 115-91 ) amended 10 U.S.C. §1450 to permanently extend the authority to pay the SSIA and requires inflation adjustments to that allowance by the amount of the military retired pay COLA for each calendar year beginning in 2019. Section 622 of the FY2018 NDAA modified 10 U.S.C. §§1447 and 1452 to ensure equitable treatment under the SBP of members of the uniformed services covered by the modernized retirement system who elect to receive a lump sum of retired pay, as authorized under 10 U.S.C. §1415. Discussion: Section 621 of the Senate bill would make technical corrections in calculation and publication of special survivor indemnity allowance (SSIA) cost of living adjustments. This provision was adopted in Section 622 of the enacted bill.","A provision not included in the enacted bill was House Section 607, which expressed a sense of Congress that the widows' tax be eliminated. While the SSIA alleviates the gap in benefits, Section 607 states \"the whole Congress must work together to find a way to eliminate the widows' tax entirely. There was no similar provision in the Senate bill. Another House provision that was not adopted was Section 626, which would amend 10 U.S.C. §1448(b)(1), by allowing designation of a new beneficiary by a terminally ill participant. Any such beneficiary must be a natural person with an insurable interest in the participant. Such an election would be effective the first day of the first month following the month in which the election is received by the Secretary concerned. There was no similar provision in the Senate bill. References: Previously discussed in CRS Report R44923, FY2018 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues , by Kristy N. Kamarck, Lawrence Kapp, and Barbara Salazar Torreon; CRS Report R40757, Veterans' Benefits: Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) for Survivors , by Scott D. Szymendera; CRS Report RL34751, Military Retirement: Background and Recent Developments , by Kristy N.","Kamarck; and CRS Report R40589, Concurrent Receipt: Background and Issues for Congress , by Kristy N. Kamarck. CRS Point of Contact : Barbara Salazar Torreon. Background: TRICARE is a DOD-administered health insurance-like program for uniformed servicemembers, uniformed service retirees, their family members, and survivors. With the exception of active duty servicemembers (who are assigned to the TRICARE Prime option and pay no out-of-pocket costs for TRICARE coverage), DOD beneficiaries may have a choice of TRICARE plan options depending on their status (e.g., active duty family members, retiree, reservist, child under age 26 ineligible for family coverage, Medicare-eligible, etc.) and geographic location. Each of the three major plan options has different beneficiary cost-sharing features: TRICARE Prime, TRICARE Select, and TRICARE for Life. Since 1966, Congress has enacted legislation to deliver a robust health care benefit to eligible beneficiaries. TRICARE now accounts for approximately 52% (or $15.3 billion) of the total cost of care delivered through the military health system.","In FY2017 and FY2018, Congress directed numerous TRICARE reforms including replacing TRICARE options with new plans featuring an annual enrollment period and a new benefit structure with enrollment fees, annual deductibles, co-payments, and annual catastrophic caps; changes to the delivery of the TRICARE dental benefit for uniformed services retirees and their family members; and increased pharmacy co-pays for retirees and military family members. The Administration's FY2019 Budget request did not include any cost-share reforms or programmatic changes to TRICARE. Discussion: The enacted bill does not include any changes to TRICARE's cost-sharing requirements. It focuses on administration and delivery of certain health benefits. Section 737 of the enacted bill directs the Comptroller General to assess, report, and brief Congress on the Defense Health Agency's guidance and oversight provided to outgoing and incoming managed care support contractors during the recent TRICARE contract transition. This reporting requirement will also be in effect for future TRICARE contract transitions. Section 713 adopts Senate Section 702 directing DOD to administer the TRICARE dental benefit for uniformed services dependents and reserve component members through the Office of Personnel Management's Federal Employee Dental and Vision Insurance Program (FEDVIP) no earlier than January 1, 2022.","Section 734 adopts House Section 739 directing a study on how beneficiaries desiring to remain in the workforce are affected by the current requirement to participate in Medicare Part B, as a condition to participate in TRICARE for Life. References: CRS In Focus IF10530, Defense Primer: Military Health System , by Bryce H. P. Mendez; CRS Insight IN10922, TRICARE Modernization: Eligibility for the Federal Employee Dental and Vision Insurance Program , by Bryce H. P. Mendez. CRS Point of Contact: Bryce H. P. Mendez."],"string":"[\n \"Each year, the House and Senate armed services committees take up national defense authorization bills. The House of Representatives passed the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (NDAA; H.R. 5515 ) on May 24, 2018. The Senate passed its version of the NDAA ( H.R. 5515 ) on June 18, 2018. These bills contain numerous provisions that affect military personnel, retirees, and their family members. Provisions in one version are sometimes not included in the other, are treated differently, or are identical in both versions. Following passage of each chamber's bill, a conference committee typically convenes to resolve the differences between the respective chambers' versions of the bill. The FY2019 NDAA conference report was passed by the House on July 26, 2018, and the Senate on August 1, 2018. On August 13, 2018, President Donald J. Trump signed the bill into law ( P.L. 115-232 ). This report highlights selected personnel-related issues that may generate high levels of congressional and constituent interest. CRS will update this report to reflect enacted legislation. Related CRS products are identified in each section to provide more detailed background information and analysis of the issues. For\",\n \"each issue, a CRS analyst is identified.\",\n \"Some issues discussed in this report were previously addressed in the FY18 NDAA ( P.L. 115-91 ) and discussed in CRS Report R44923, FY2018 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues , by Kristy N. Kamarck, Lawrence Kapp, and Barbara Salazar Torreon, or other reports. Those issues that were considered previously are designated with an asterisk in the relevant section titles of this report. Background: The authorized active duty end-strengths for FY2001, enacted in the year prior to the September 11 terrorist attacks, were as follows: Army (480,000), Navy (372,642), Marine Corps (172,600), and Air Force (357,000). Over the next decade, in response to the demands of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, Congress substantially increased the authorized personnel strength of the Army and Marine Corps. Congress began reversing those increases in light of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq in 2011, the drawdown of U.S. forces in Afghanistan beginning in 2012, and budgetary constraints. Congress halted further reductions in Army and Marine Corps end-strength in FY2017, providing slight end-strength increases that year and more substantial increases in FY2018. End-strength for the Air Force generally declined from 2004-2015, but increased from 2016-2018.\",\n \"End-strength for the Navy declined from 2002-2012, increased in 2013, and remained essentially stable through 2017 with a modest increase in 2018. Authorized end-strengths for FY2018 and FY2019 are in Figure 1 . Discussion: In comparison to FY2018 authorized end-strengths, the Administration's FY2019 budget proposed increases for the Army (+4,000), Navy (+7,500), Marine Corps (+100) and Air Force (+4,000). Section 401 of the enacted bill approved end-strengths identical to the Administration request. The enacted bill also adopted Section 402 of the House bill which adjusts the minimum end-strengths required by 10 U.S.C. §619 to a level equal to the authorized end-strengths set in Section 401. References: Previously discussed in CRS Report R44923, FY2018 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues , by Kristy N. Kamarck, Lawrence Kapp, and Barbara Salazar Torreon, and similar reports from earlier years. CRS Point of Contact: Lawrence Kapp. Background: The overall authorized end-strength of the Selected Reserves has declined by about 6% over the past 16 years (874,664 in FY2001 versus 823,900 in FY2018). Much of this can be attributed to the reductions in Navy Reserve strength during this period. There were also modest shifts in strength for some other\",\n \"components of the Selected Reserve.\",\n \"Authorized end-strengths for FY2018 and FY2019 are in Figure 2 . Discussion: Relative to FY2018 authorized end-strengths, the Administration's FY2019 budget proposed increases for the Navy Reserve (+100), Air Force Reserve (+200), and Air National Guard (+500); and no change for the Army National Guard, Army Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve, and Coast Guard Reserve. Section 411 of the enacted bill specified end-strengths identical to the Administration request. References: Previously discussed in CRS Report R44923, FY2018 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues , by Kristy N. Kamarck, Lawrence Kapp, and Barbara Salazar Torreon, and similar reports from earlier years. CRS Point of Contact: Lawrence Kapp. Background: DOD operates a health care delivery system that serves approximately 9.4 million beneficiaries. The military health system (MHS) provides care through DOD-operated and staffed medical and dental facilities (collectively referred to as military treatment facilities ) or through care from civilian providers purchased through an insurance-like program known as TRICARE. Currently, military treatment facilities (MTFs) are administered by each respective service surgeon general and provide a wide range of clinical services depending on its size, mission, and level of capabilities.\",\n \"TRICARE is administered by the Defense Health Agency (DHA), a combat support agency that enables the Army, Navy, and Air Force medical services to provide a medically ready force and ready medical force to combatant commands in both peacetime and wartime. The DHA also operates six MTFs in the Washington DC metropolitan area. In 2016, Congress found that the organizational structure of the MHS could be streamlined to sustain the \\\"medical readiness of the Armed Forces, improve beneficiaries' access to care and the experience of care, improve health outcomes, and lower the total management cost.\\\" Section 702 of the FY2017 NDAA ( P.L. 114-328 ) directed significant reform to the MHS and administration of MTFs by October 1, 2018. This reform includes transfer of administration and management of MTFs from each respective service surgeon to the Director, DHA; reorganization of DHA's internal structure; and redesignation of the Service Surgeons General as principal advisors for their respective military service, and as service chief medical advisor to the DHA. In June 2018, DOD submitted its final implementation plan to Congress.\",\n \"The implementation plan details how DOD will reform the MHS to a \\\"streamlined organizational model that standardizes the delivery of care across the MHS with less overhead, more timely policy-making, and a transparent process for oversight and measurement of performance.\\\" DOD also included recommendations on legislative actions to assist with executing its implementation plan, which includes ability to implement 10 U.S.C. §1073c using a three-year phased-in approach; and authority for the Secretary of Defense to waive specific requirements in 10 U.S.C. §1073c if necessary for implementation feasibility or military health readiness. Discussion: Section 711 of the enacted bill incorporates DOD's recommendation for a three-year, phased-in approach to implementing 10 U.S.C. §1073c. The provision requires the DHA Director to assume responsibility for administration and management of each MTF no later than September 30, 2021. However, there are no authorities included in Section 711 to allow the Secretary of Defense to waive requirements in 10 U.S.C. §1073c. Section 711 also requires limitation on MTF closures and downsizing in connection with implementation of 10 U.S.C.\",\n \"§§1073c-1073d; establishment of a DHA subordinate organization for research and development; establishment of a DHA subordinate organization for public health; feasibility study on establishing a DHA subordinate organization for education and training; and feasibility study on establishing a Defense Health Command as a superseding organization to DHA. Section 712 of the enacted bill directs the Director of the DHA, by October 1, 2018, to implement an \\\"organizational framework\\\" that effectively delivers DOD health benefits, maximizes interoperability of military medical capabilities, and integrates those capabilities to support combatant commander requirements. As part of the organizational framework, Section 712 also requires DOD to establish four \\\"defense health regions,\\\" two in the continental United States and two outside of the continental United States. Additionally, the service surgeons general are assigned new responsibilities focusing on manning, training, and equipping medical forces to meet MTF or combatant commander requirements. References: CRS In Focus IF10530, Defense Primer: Military Health System , by Bryce H. P. Mendez. CRS Point of Contact: Bryce H. P. Mendez. Background : According to Arlington National Cemetery (ANC) news, in about 25 years, the cemetery will run out of space as an active cemetery that would allow for\",\n \"future burials.\",\n \"Section 2 of Public Law 114-158 called for the Secretary of the Army in consultation with the Secretary of Defense (SECDEF), to submit a report to Congress on the capacity of ANC. The Secretary of the Army's report, The Future of Arlington National Cemetery: Report on the Cemetery's Internment and Inurnment Capacity , February 14, 2017, identified the current status of ANC and provided future options, including restricting eligibility; expanding the geographical footprint of the cemetery; and other hybrid solutions. In July 2017, the cemetery conducted a survey in partnership with several military and veteran service organizations. Among the findings from this preliminary survey: 94% of the respondents want Arlington Cemetery to stay active well into the future; and nearly 50% who favor expansion also recognize the need to modify eligibility. The survey had more than 28,000 respondents who indicated that—if eligibility at ANC is limited—those killed in action, Medal of Honor (MoH) and other high award recipients, former POWs, and those active duty servicemembers who die on operational missions should have a place at Arlington.\",\n \"ANC launched a second survey in April 2018 and encouraged the public and its various stakeholders to continue to share their thoughts on the future of Arlington. ANC shared the results of the second survey that was similar to the first with 96% of the 230,000 respondents wanting Arlington to remain an active cemetery. The Advisory Committee on Arlington National Cemetery (ACANC) is expected to make recommendations on future eligibility criteria, capacity issues, and expansion plans in the committee's annual report to the Secretary of the Army. Discussion : Section 582 of the enacted bill adopts House Section 582 requiring the Secretary of the Army in consultation with the Secretary of Defense (SECDEF), to prescribe revised criteria for interment at ANC that would preserve Arlington Cemetery as an active burial ground ''well into the future.'' The SECDEF is required to establish the revised criteria no later than September 30, 2019. Section 1070 of the enacted bill adopts House Section 1062, with an amendment requiring the Secretary of Defense and the Administrator of the FAA to jointly submit a report on unmanned aircraft in Arlington National Cemetery to preserve the sanctity of the cemetery as a national\",\n \"shrine.\",\n \"This report for Congress will discuss how to prevent the flight of unmanned aircraft over Arlington to preserve the sacred atmosphere of the national cemetery; and restrict all flights of unmanned aircraft during the execution of funeral services, except in emergency situations or if requested by the family as part of the service. The report is due not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. Section 2852 of the enacted bill adopts a Senate provision that would commemorate the southern expansion of Arlington Cemetery and grant permanent easement of approximately 0.1 acres of land in Arlington County for the purpose of commemorating Freedman's Village and Gate. In the event ANC subsequently acquires the property used for the commemoration for burial purposes, the Army shall relocate any commemoration of Freedman's Village to an appropriate location. Section 2830B of the House bill had a similar provision. Section 2105 of the Senate bill would have extended an authorization of $30 million for certain FY2016 military construction projects including Arlington National Cemetery Southern Expansion. Section 2105 of the enacted bill increased the authorization to $60 million for Arlington extension projects.\",\n \"Section 4601 of the enacted bill adopts Senate Section 4601, which authorizes $30 million for ANC military construction in FY2019. CRS Point of Contact : Barbara Salazar Torreon. Background: Over the past few years, Congress has been concerned with improving the Defense Commissary Agency (DeCA) system, mandating several studies and reports on the topic. Recent reform proposals have sought to reduce DeCA's reliance on appropriated funds without compromising patrons' commissary benefits or by reducing the revenue generated by DOD's nonappropriated fund (NAF) entities (military exchanges) that fund morale, welfare, and recreation (MWR) facilities on military installations. An option to consolidate commissaries and military exchanges has been the subject of numerous studies in the last several years. In 2015, the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission (MCRMC) recommended consolidating the commissary and three exchange systems into one entity to be called the Defense Resale Activity (DeRA). Other options discussed include expanding commissary and exchange access to all eligible veterans to increase patronage and sales revenue. However, Congress has stopped short of major changes that would significantly reduce or eliminate the commissary subsidy.\",\n \"In the FY2018 NDAA, Congress authorized $1.4 billion for commissary operations and an additional $40 million for the construction of a new commissary in Stuttgart, Germany. Approximately $800 million of DeCA's annual operating budget is spent on pay and benefits for the commissary workforce. The President's FY2019 budget request for $1.3 billion included funding for DeCA to operate 237 commissaries on military installations worldwide and employ a workforce of over 14,000 civilian full-time equivalent (FTE) employees. Discussion : Section 579 of the enacted bill adopts Senate Section 576, which requires the Secretary of Defense (SECDEF) to submit a report to Congress assessing the feasibility and advisability of permitting small business activities of military spouses on military installations in the United States including partnership with commissaries, exchanges, and other morale, welfare, and recreation (MWR) facilities of the U.S. Armed Forces.\",\n \"Elements of this report would include (1) taking into account the usage by military spouses of installation facilities, utilities, and other resources in the conduct of small business activities on military installations in the United States, and other matters in connection with the business activities by military spouses as the SECDEF considers appropriate; and (2) seeking to identify mechanisms to ensure that costs and fees associated with the usage by military spouses of such facilities, utilities, and other resources in connection with such business activities does not curtail or eliminate the opportunity for military spouses to profit reasonably from such business activities. The report is due to the House and Senate Armed Services Committees no later than March 1, 2019. Section 621 of the enacted bill adopts House Section 629, which extends eligibility of certain MWR and commissary privileges to certain veterans and their caregivers. Eligible veterans include recipients of the Purple Heart and Medal of Honor; veterans with service-connected disabilities; former Prisoners of War (POWs); and the caregivers for eligible veterans.\",\n \"A fee, to be determined by the SECDEF, for purchases by these newly eligible individuals will offset any increase in expenses arising from this provision associated with the use of credit or debit cards for customer purchases, including expenses related to card network use and related transaction processing fees. This provision will take effect on January 1, 2020, after a briefing by the SECDEF to the House and Senate Armed Services Committees not later October 1, 2019. Section 627 of the enacted bill adopts House Section 625, which requires the SECDEF to conduct a study to determine the feasibility of consolidating military commissaries under DeCA and NAF exchange entities (i.e., Army and Air Force Exchange Service, Navy Exchange, and Marine Corps Exchange) into a single defense resale system. The report is to be submitted to the defense congressional committees no later than January 1, 2019.\",\n \"It shall contain the following: (1) details of the internal and external organizational structures of a consolidated defense resale system; (2) recommendations of the Secretaries of each of the military departments regarding the plan to consolidate the military resale entities; (3) the costs and associated plan for the merger of technologies or implementation of new technology from a third-party provider to standardize financial management and accounting processes of a consolidated defense resale system; (4) best practices to maximize reductions in costs associated with back-office retail payment processing for a consolidated defense resale system; (5) a timeline for converting DeCA into a NAF under Section 2484(j) of Title 10, United States Code; (6) a determination whether the business case analysis supports consolidation of the military resale entities; (7) recommendations of the SECDEF for legislation related to consolidation of the military resale entities; and (8) any other elements the SECDEF determines are necessary for a successful evaluation of a consolidation of the military resale entities. Section 4501 of the enacted bill authorizes $1,266,200,000 for commissary operations in FY2019. References: CRS Report R44923, FY2018 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues , by Kristy N.\",\n \"Kamarck, Lawrence Kapp, and Barbara Salazar Torreon; and similar reports from earlier years. CRS Point of Contact : Barbara Salazar Torreon. Background : The Family Advocacy Program (FAP) is the congressionally-mandated program within DOD devoted to \\\"clinical assessment, supportive services, and treatment in response to domestic abuse and child abuse and neglect in military families.\\\" As required by law, the FAP provides an annual report to Congress on child abuse and neglect and domestic abuse in military families. Approximately half of military servicemembers are married and there are approximately 1.6 million dependent children across the active and reserve components. According to DOD statistics, in FY2017, the rate of child abuse or neglect in military homes was 13.7 per 1,000 children. This is a decrease from the previous year's rate of 14.4 per 1,000 children. There were 17 child abuse-related fatalities in the same year, 65% of which were 1 year old or younger. The rate of reported spousal abuse in FY2017 was 24.5 per 1,000 military couples, an increase to the FY2016 rate of 23.4 per 1,000 couples. Since FY2006, DOD has been collecting data on intimate partner abuse.\",\n \"In FY2017, there were 916 incidents of intimate partner abuse involving 756 victims and five fatalities. Discussion: The FY2019 NDAA (Sec. 532) adds a punitive article to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for domestic violence. Previously, domestic violence could be prosecuted under UCMJ punitive articles for assault (Article 28), cruelty and maltreatment (Article 93), and rape and sexual assault (Article 20) among other articles. While these crimes may be perpetrated against any individual, the new punitive article criminalizes certain acts committed against a spouse, intimate partner, or immediate family member. Two provisions in the Senate bill would have authorized victims of domestic violence to receive the same services that are currently available to victims of sexual assault. These include Special Victims' Counsel (SVC) services (Sec. 545), and expedited transfer eligibility for servicemember victims (Sec. 547). Section 536 of the enacted bill requires the SECDEF to standardize expedited transfer procedures for servicemembers who are victims of sexual assault or physical domestic violence. The Administration objected to Section 545 of the Senate bill which would expand SVC services to victims of other violent crimes, arguing that SVC representation is focused on legal issues specifically related to\",\n \"sexual assault.\",\n \"The enacted bill does not authorize victims of domestic violence to have access to SVC services; however, Section 534 requires DOD to study and report on the feasibility and advisability of expanding services. Section 577 requires service secretaries to establish and maintain multidisciplinary teams to enhance collaboration and cooperation among specialists in the response to domestic violence and child abuse on military installations. Section 578 requires a maximum two-year pilot program on no less than five installations for information on the risk factors for child abuse and training on safe childcare practices for military families. In 2018, an investigative report on juvenile sex offense cases on military installations drew congressional concern about gaps in the response, investigation, tracking, and prosecution of such cases. Section 1089 seeks to improve the response to juvenile-on-juvenile problematic sexual behavior on military installations by requiring DOD to establish a formal policy for such incidents, and to create a confidential database for tracking substantiated and unsubstantiated incidents. Section 1035 of the Senate bill would have removed the military's exclusive jurisdiction over criminal offenses committed by juveniles on military installations.\",\n \"This provision was not adopted in the enacted bill; however, the conferees noted concern \\\"about the lack of State or local criminal jurisdiction over offenses committed on those portions of military installations with exclusive Federal jurisdiction by individuals not subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice,\\\" and directed the service secretaries to seek to relinquish jurisdiction (pursuant to 10 U.S.C. §2683). A report to the armed services committees is required by the service secretaries on the relinquishment of jurisdiction no later than 15 months after the enactment date of this act. References: For information on expedited transfers and Special Victims' Counsel, see CRS Report R44944, Military Sexual Assault: A Framework for Congressional Oversight , by Kristy N. Kamarck and Barbara Salazar Torreon. CRS Point of Contact : Kristy N. Kamarck. Background: In accordance with 10 U.S.C. §502(b), U.S. citizens, noncitizen nationals (individuals born in American Samoa and Swains Island), legal permanent residents, and persons from Micronesia, Marshall Islands, and Palau are eligible to enlist in the U.S. Armed Forces.\",\n \"Subparagraph (b)(2) of this law also allows individuals who do not meet those requirements to enlist if the Service Secretary \\\"determines that such enlistment is vital to the national interest.\\\" This is the statutory basis for the Military Accessions Vital to the National Interest (MAVNI) program. As implemented by DOD, the MAVNI program allowed the military services to recruit certain legally present aliens whose skills were deemed vital to the national interest. Those skills included medical specialties and expertise in certain languages. Applicants at the time of enlistment had to be either asylees, refugees, holders of Temporary Protected Status (TPS), beneficiaries of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy, or in any one of a range of nonimmigrant categories. DOD established new security screening requirements for MAVNI personnel in a memorandum published on September 30, 2016. Among other things, it prohibited certain personnel enlisted under MAVNI from commencing with basic training until the military service certified in writing that the individuals could meet the administrative, security, and suitability protocols mandated in the memo. Subsequently, the military services stopped accepting new applicants to the MAVNI program. It is not known if or when DOD will reactivate\",\n \"the program.\",\n \"Discussion: The provision in the enacted bill tightens requirements on the skills required for an enlistee's admission under the MAVNI program and mandates that those skills be used in the individual's primary daily duties as a member of the Armed Forces. It codifies DOD's prohibition on MAVNI enlistees attending initial military training until they complete required background checks and security and screening requirements. It also places a cap on MAVNI accessions for each military department that may be exceeded if the Secretary of Defense notifies Congress and a period of 30 days elapses ( notify and wait ). The Joint Explanatory Statement noted \\\"The conferees believe the Military Accessions Vital to National Interest, or MAVNI, program continues to be an important option for the acquisition of certain critical skills for military service.\\\" References: CRS In Focus IF10884, Expedited Citizenship through Military Service , by William A. Kandel and Lawrence Kapp. CRS Point of Contact: Lawrence Kapp. Background: Over the past decade, the issues of sexual assault and sexual harassment in the military have generated sustained congressional and media attention. In 2005, DOD issued its first department-wide sexual assault policies and procedures.\",\n \"These policy documents were built on recommendations from the Joint Task Force for Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) and on congressional requirements specified in the FY2005 NDAA ( P.L. 108-375 ). In the same year, DOD established the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office (SAPRO), its primary oversight body for all service-level programs. Sexual harassment policy and oversight is separately handled by DOD's Office of Diversity and Military Equal Opportunity. Between 2012 and 2018, DOD took a number of steps to implement its own strategic initiatives as well as dozens of congressionally mandated actions related to sexual assault prevention and response, victim services, reporting and accountability, and military justice. In FY2016, estimated sexual assault prevalence rates across the DOD's active duty population were 4.3% for women and 0.6% for men. These estimated prevalence rates were slightly lower than the reported prevalence rates in 2014 (4.9% and 0.9%, respectively). Discussion: Section 546 of the FY2015 NDAA ( P.L.\",\n \"113-291 ) called for the establishment of a 20-member Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces (DAC-IPAD) to \\\"review, on an ongoing basis, cases involving allegations of rape, forcible sodomy, sexual assault, and other sexual misconduct involving members of the Armed Forces.\\\" Section 533 in the enacted bill gives the committee additional authority to require DOD and other Federal agencies to provide information relevant to the committee's scope as requested. One of the DAC-IPAD's findings in its March 2018 annual report was that DOD policies and standards for expedited transfer apply \\\"only to active duty victims whose sexual assault reports are handled by the SAPR program and expressly excludes victims covered under FAP from the expedited transfer policy.\\\" Expedited transfer policies have been in place since 2011 and allow victims to request transfer to a new unit or installation in order to separate themselves from an alleged perpetrator. Section 536 of the enacted bill requires DOD to modify policies related to expedited transfers in order to standardize processes for all sexual assault victims and extend the transfer policy to a servicemember's dependent when the dependent is a victim.\",\n \"Section 542 of the House bill would have allowed cadets and midshipmen from the military service academies who are victims of sexual assault to apply for a transfer to one of the other service academies. This was not adopted; however, the conference report noted, \\\"The Conferees believe that providing an option for a cadet or midshipman, who was sexually assaulted, to request a transfer to another academy should be explored,\\\" and directs DOD to study the feasibility of establishing such a process. The Administration objected to Section 544 of the Senate bill which would have authorized military judges to issue and enforce domestic protective orders, stating that this would, \\\"strain the military judiciary's limited resources and greatly expand the authority of military judges into an area that has been reserved to civil courts.\\\" This provision was not adopted. Military protective orders (MPOs) may currently be issued by commanding officers having full force and effect on military installations, but are not enforceable by civilian law authorities. DOD is required to produce an annual report for Congress on sex-related offenses. Section 547 of the enacted bill requires DOD to also report information on collateral misconduct of victims of\",\n \"sexual assault.\",\n \"Collateral misconduct by the victim is considered to be one barrier to reporting assault due to the victim's fear of punishment for offenses such as underage drinking or fraternization. Psychological trauma following a sexual assault incident has been associated with negative behavioral changes in the victim such as increased drug or alcohol use, poor work performance, or other disciplinary issues. The Department of Veterans Affairs defines psychological trauma related to sexual assault or harassment as military sexual trauma (MST). DOD's policies recognize psychological trauma related to sexual assault and defines it as trauma-informed care. Section 547 of the House bill would have required DOD and VA to develop a joint definition of military sexual trauma. This section was not adopted. Section 702 of the enacted bill requires DOD to carry out a pilot program to treat servicemembers suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) resulting from military sexual trauma. Behaviors associated with sexual trauma may affect the nature of a victim's discharge from the Armed Forces. Discharges that are not under \\\"honorable\\\" conditions affect servicemember eligibility for certain veterans' benefits. Under certain circumstances, servicemembers may appeal these decisions through Discharge Review Boards or Boards of Correction for\",\n \"Military Records.\",\n \"Senate Section 536 was not adopted, but would have amended 10 U.S.C. §1552 and §1553 with respect to the correction of military records to ensure that the claimants receive \\\"liberal consideration\\\" that the sexual trauma contributed to the circumstances surrounding discharge or dismissal. Following a sexual assault investigation in the military, the investigator will provide recommendations for legal or other actions to a disposition authority – typically a military commander in the accused's chain of command. Section 535 of the enacted bill adopts Senate Section 548, requiring the SECDEF to establish a uniform command action form for reporting the final disposition of certain sexual assault cases. Section 544 of the enacted bill seeks to improve compliance with sex offender reporting requirements by establishing a single entity within DOD for the oversight of the registered sex offender management program. Finally, Section 542 of the enacted bill requires security clearance reinvestigations under expedited procedures for flag officers and DOD Senior Executive Service personnel who are convicted of certain offenses, including sexual assault and sexual harassment. Not adopted was House Section 531, which would have imposed mandatory penalties for those convicted of sex-related offenses.\",\n \"References: See also CRS Report R44944, Military Sexual Assault: A Framework for Congressional Oversight , by Kristy N. Kamarck and Barbara Salazar Torreon, CRS Report R43168, Military Sexual Assault: Chronology of Activity in Congress and Related Resources , by Barbara Salazar Torreon, CRS Report R43928, Veterans' Benefits: The Impact of Military Discharges on Basic Eligibility , by Umar Moulta-Ali and Sidath Viranga Panangala. Previously discussed in CRS Report R44923, FY2018 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues , by Kristy N. Kamarck, Lawrence Kapp, and Barbara Salazar Torreon, and similar reports from earlier years. CRS Point of Contact : Kristy N. Kamarck. Background: There is long-standing congressional interest on the military pay raise in relation to the overall cost of military personnel and recruitment and retention of high-quality personnel to serve in the all-volunteer military. Section 1009 of Title 37 of the U.S. Code provides a permanent formula for an automatic annual increase in basic pay that is indexed to the annual increase in the Employment Cost Index (ECI).\",\n \"The statutory formula stipulates that the increase in basic pay for 2019 will be 2.6% unless either (1) Congress passes a law to provide otherwise; or (2) the President specifies an alternative pay adjustment under subsection (e) of 37 U.S.C. §1009. Increases in basic pay are typically effective at the start of the calendar year, rather than the fiscal year. The FY2019 President's Budget requested a 2.6% military pay raise, equal to the statutory formula. Discussion: The enacted bill contained no provision relating to a general increase in basic pay, thereby leaving the automatic adjustment of 37 U.S.C. §1009 in place. According to the Joint Explanatory Statement, \\\"The conferees note that current law authorizes automatic military pay raises consistent with the Economic Cost Index, which for calendar year 2019 amounts to a 2.6 percent raise in basic pay for all members of the uniformed services.\\\" Reference(s): For an explanation of the pay raise process and historical increases, see CRS In Focus IF10260, Defense Primer: Military Pay Raise , by Lawrence Kapp. Previously discussed in CRS Report R44577, FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues , by Kristy N. Kamarck et al., and similar reports\",\n \"from earlier years.\",\n \"CRS Point of Contact: Lawrence Kapp. Background: Since 1998, DOD and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) have pursued numerous efforts to increase interoperability between each department's electronic health records (EHR). The lack of EHR interoperability, or bi-directional communication, has been a historical barrier to access and continuity of care for both DOD and VA beneficiaries. Congress has expressed significant interest in DOD and VA efforts to develop an interoperable or joint EHR. Section 1635 of the FY2008 National Defense Authorization Act directed DOD and VA to develop an interoperable EHR, accelerate the exchange of health care information between the two departments by September 30, 2009, and create an interagency program office to facilitate these efforts. As directed by law, the DOD/VA Interagency Program Office was established in 2011 to jointly develop an integrated EHR that would replace each department's legacy systems. As an interim solution, the Joint Legacy Viewer (JLV) was developed to facilitate health care data sharing between each department's legacy systems. While the JLV provides read-only access, it continues to be the primary platform for DOD and VA clinicians to review a patient's medical history and care delivered in both health systems.\",\n \"In 2012, DOD and VA committed to developing a new integrated EHR that would be fully operational by 2017. In 2013, DOD and VA announced that they would no longer pursue the development of an integrated EHR; rather, they would invest in separate systems that could meet interoperability requirements. DOD opted to pursue a commercial alternative, while VA decided to modernize VistA. On August 25, 2014, DOD issued a request for proposals for a new EHR to replace its legacy systems. In July 2015, DOD awarded a $4.3 billion EHR contract, also known as MHS Genesis , to the Leidos Partnership for Defense Health (LPDH), comprised of the following vendors: Leidos (prime vendor), Cerner, Accenture Federal Services, and Henry Schein, Inc. On June 5, 2017, VA announced its decision to adopt the same EHR platform as MHS Genesis as its replacement to VistA and awarded a $10 billion contract to Cerner. On April 9, 2018, the Coast Guard announced its intent to partner with DOD and adopt MHS Genesis. Adding the Coast Guard to DOD's contract with LPDH increased the award ceiling to $5.5 billion. DOD intends to deploy MHS Genesis at all military treatment facilities\",\n \"(MTFs) by 2022.\",\n \"The VA intends to start with three operational sites by 2020. Discussion: While there are no provisions in the enacted bill relating to DOD's new electronic health record, House Section 718 was incorporated into the conference report. DOD is directed to \\\"submit a letter report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives describing the corrective actions taken, as a result of the findings in the initial operational and test evaluation report, prior to fielding MHS Genesis to additional military medical treatment facilities.\\\" Currently, there are six congressional committees that may exercise jurisdiction in oversight of this program. As DOD, VA, and the Coast Guard implement a new, common EHR over the next four years, Congress may consider additional or streamlined oversight activities to ensure successful deployment of MHS Genesis. CRS Point of Contact: Bryce H. P. Mendez. Background: In 2017, four incidents involving Navy ships in the Western Pacific resulted in serious damage and the deaths of 17 sailors. These incidents prompted Congressional inquiry into possible root causes of such accidents.\",\n \"Experts and investigators have pointed to various issues in the Surface Warfare community, including fleet and unit readiness, the seamanship training and qualification processes, ship-board workloads, and operational/personnel tempo. In response to these concerns, the FY2019 NDAA includes several provisions related to Navy training and personnel management issues. Discussion: In 2018, a 3-year internal Navy review of junior surface warfare officer (SWO) competency uncovered gaps in basic seamanship and navigation skills. The enacted bill includes provisions that seek to improve training, as well as qualification standards and processes for Navy watchstanders. Section 334 encourages the Secretary of the Navy to establish a comprehensive proficiency assessment process for SWOs and to more closely align watchstander qualification standards with the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping (STCW). This section would also require a report to Congress on the training curriculum and assessment process for surface warfare watchstanders by March 1, 2019. Section 527 requires reporting on Navy training and qualification standards. The Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) report also includes language with respect to surface warfare officer initial training, stating, The committee believes SWO candidates lack sufficient at-sea training before reporting to their first ships.\",\n \"The committee is concerned that the lack of practical at-sea experience before reporting to their first ships may result in SWOs having gaps in their foundational safety, seamanship, and navigation knowledge, skills, and experience. The SASC report further directs the Secretary of the Navy to conduct a review of the adequacy and appropriate balance of training methods, to include the feasibility of expanding use of yard patrol craft as training vessels, and to report to Congress by October 1, 2018. The Comptroller General is directed to provide a review of the Secretary's report within 120 days of the Navy report. Finally, Section 526 of the enacted bill requires the Navy to maintain a career record of watchstanding hours. It is current practice for military pilots to log flight hours; however, this has not been a common practice for surface warfare watchstanders. Section 502 of the House bill sought to increase specialization for SWOs by establishing two career paths: (1) ship engineering systems; and (2) ship operations and combat systems. While some foreign navies use this approach for SWO career management (e.g., the British Royal Navy), there is ongoing debate within the U.S.\",\n \"surface warfare community about whether specialization would improve performance and resolve existing problems. The Administration objected to this section, stating that \\\"Separating SWOs into two career paths would limit mastery of core skillsets that are fundamental in developing a warfighter to lead, fight, and operate complex U.S. Navy warships.\\\" The enacted bill does not require the Navy to establish separate career paths, but instead requires GAO to conduct a review of SWO career paths and to brief congressional committees by March 1, 2019. Another area of concern is that high shipboard workload and personnel tempo could lead to higher risk of human error due to fatigue. A 2017 GAO report found that, The Navy's process to determine manpower requirements—the number and skill mix of sailors needed for its ships—does not fully account for all ship workload. The Navy continues to use an outdated standard workweek that may overstate the amount of sailor time available for productive work. Although the Navy has updated some of its manpower factors, its instruction does not require reassessing factors to ensure they remain valid or require measuring workload while ships are in port.\",\n \"Current and analytically based manpower requirements are essential to ensuring that crews can maintain readiness and prevent overwork that can affect safety, morale, and retention. Section 525 of the enacted bill requires the Navy to ensure that manning levels on forward deployed ships are consistent with requirements for the ship class and to notify Congress in writing when manning fill for a covered ship falls below 90% and manning fit falls below 87%. CRS Point of Contact : Kristy N. Kamarck. Background: Congress has taken an interest in understanding federal efforts and identifying options to address overall substance abuse issues, particularly in the context of the opioid crisis . According to DOD's 2011 Health Related Behaviors Survey of Active Duty Military Personnel, servicemembers reported using or misusing the following substances within the 12 months prior to the study at the following rates: illicit drugs (1.4%), prescription drugs (0.8%), and heavy alcohol amounts (8.4%). Other than heavy alcohol use, the prevalence of substance abuse is lower than in the general U.S. population. Since 2009, the number of new alcohol or substance abuse diagnoses per year has been on a declining trend for active duty servicemembers.\",\n \"However, opioid medications are prescribed at a higher rate for servicemembers than the general U.S. population. This higher prescription rate may be attributable to deployment-related effects such as combat exposure and injuries. However, the incidence rate for dependence or abuse among servicemembers declined by 38% between 2012 and 2016. When adjusted for demographics, the opioid death rate among servicemembers is significantly lower than the U.S. population at 2.7 per 100,000 and 10.4 per 100,000, respectively. DOD attributes these trends to its extensive education, prevention, and treatment programs developed over the past decade. Discussion: DOD currently operates a prescription drug monitoring program that identifies at-risk beneficiaries and restricts patients from receiving multiple prescriptions for opioids outside of their primary care manager. However, the data exchange that occurs between various TRICARE contractors and military treatment facilities is not shared with state prescription drug monitoring programs. Section 715 of the enacted bill directs DOD to establish a Military Health System Prescription Drug Monitoring Program. The program would allow for bi-directional sharing of patient-specific information regarding prescriptions for controlled substances with state prescription drug monitoring programs.\",\n \"Section 715 also clarifies that the patient-specific information is an authorized disclosure under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ( P.L. 104-191 ). Section 716 of the enacted bill adopts House Section 736 and Senate Section 704, directing DOD to implement an opioid safety pilot program for a period of no more than three years. The pilot program must address: opioid safety for patients, physicians, dentists, and pharmacists; identify potential misuse or abuse of opioid medications within military, retail, or home delivery pharmacies; beneficiary education on opioid misuse or abuse; and use of predictive analytics to identify at-risk beneficiaries. Not adopted were provisions to require DOD to distribute in-home prescription drug disposal kits to beneficiaries and a report on historical prescribing practices that were inconsistent with the DOD-VA clinical practice guidelines for post-traumatic stress disorder. Congress is also considering at least 20 separate legislative proposals to address the opioid crisis , primarily through authorities, programs, and services directed by the Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Homeland Security, and the Drug Enforcement Agency. These proposals do not explicitly address opioid abuse, prevention, treatment, or research within DOD.\",\n \"References: CRS In Focus IF10951, Substance Abuse Prevention, Treatment, and Research Efforts in the Military , by Bryce H. P. Mendez, CRS In Focus IF10219, Opioid Treatment Programs and Related Federal Regulations , by Johnathan H. Duff, and CRS Report R42593, Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs , by Lisa N. Sacco, Johnathan H. Duff, and Amanda K. Sarata. CRS Point of Contact: Bryce H. P. Mendez. Background: Approximately 200,000 servicemembers are discharged from the Armed Forces every year. This is a diverse group including, for example, enlistees completing their first-term (typically 4-6 years), mid-career members, retirees (>20 years), and those with medical disabilities. A majority of these members pursue a post-service career; veterans account for about 6% of the civilian labor force. In the past few decades, Congress has enacted legislation and appropriated funds in support of programs that help servicemembers prepare for transition to civilian life by providing them with counseling, resources, and tools for accessing veteran benefits and leveraging their skills, education, and training gained in the service for post-service education and employment opportunities.\",\n \"Some DOD programs are the Transition Assistance Program (TAP); Credentialing Opportunities Online (COOL); and the DOD Skillbridge program, which is also known as the Job Training, Employment Skills Training, Apprenticeships, and Internships (JTEST-AI) program. There are also DOD programs to help servicemembers in pursuit of post-secondary degrees, for example, tuition assistance (TA) for off-duty education and the Defense Activity for Non-Traditional Education Support (DANTES). Discussion: Congressional concerns about the transition of servicemembers to civilian employment are evident in the number of provisions seeking to enhance or expand transition services, education support, and other transition-related programs. Section 558 of the enacted bill extends the availability of Military OneSource services to members and their families for a minimum period of one year following separation from the military. A broad range of information resources and training programs are available online in an open source format on Military OneSource; however, previously, some counseling and support services were only available to veterans for a period of 180 days following separation.\",\n \"Other House provisions seeking to improve outreach to recently separated veterans through the addition of email addresses to discharge paperwork (Section 525), allowing for discharge information to be transmitted to country veteran service officers (Section 560B), and follow-up phone calls to check on status (Section 560D) were not adopted. A Government Accountability Office (GAO) report released in November 2017 found that fewer than half of all eligible servicemembers completed TAP before the statutory deadline of 90 days prior to separation. In addition, the report found that relatively few members were participating in DOD's optional two-day classes on (1) Accessing Higher Education, (2) Career Technical Training, and (3) Entrepreneurship. The SASC raised concerns in its committee report that, \\\"requiring transitioning servicemembers to opt into a two-day workshop signals to both servicemembers and their commanders that the workshops may be superfluous, thereby discouraging participation,\\\" and encourages DOD to mandate member participation in one of the workshops. Section 552 of the enacted bill requires that TAP counseling begin no later than 365 days before transition.\",\n \"This provision requires the development of tailored transition pathways depending on the characteristics or needs of different member groups (e.g., rank, term of service, or gender), and would mandate certain elements of the TAP curriculum. Another requirement in this section is that transitioning members and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs are provided with a copy of their Joint Service Transcript upon separation. Congress also requires GAO and DOD reports on the implementation of this law. Section 556 of the enacted bill removes the requirement that credentials earned under the authority in 10 U.S.C. §2015 be \\\"related to military training.\\\" This will potentially expand a member's ability to use COOL funds to pursue nonmilitary-related credentials. Section 560A of the House bill would have required DOD to report on TAP participants who met with academic or technical training advisors and would also request specific information on equivalent college credit and technical certifications for members of the armed forces. This provision was not adopted. The American Council on Education (ACE), as funded by DOD, provides a military guide with credit recommendations for formal military courses and occupations.\",\n \"This information may be provided to servicemembers and veterans as part of a Joint Service Transcript (JST) or Verification of Military Experience and Training (VMET). The COOL program provides an online resource that translates military service occupations and experience to civilian credentials. Currently servicemembers' spouses are authorized to participate in certain elements of TAP under 10 U.S.C. §§1142 and 1144. Section 575 of the Senate bill would have required a pilot program for spouse participation in TAP regardless of whether the member is also participating in TAP at the same time. This provision was not adopted. Finally, Section 559 of the House bill would have required that DOD provide members with information about apprenticeship programs as part of pre-separation counseling. While this provision was not adopted, the conferees noted that, \\\"apprenticeships provide a valuable career option for separating servicemembers and encourage the Department of Defense to ensure information on apprenticeship programs, and appropriate funding options, is easily accessible to those servicemembers who may be interested in pursuing an apprenticeship upon separating from the military.\\\" References: CRS In Focus IF10347, Military Transition Assistance Program (TAP): An Overview , by Kristy N.\",\n \"Kamarck, CRS In Focus IF10850, DOD's Troops to Teachers Program (TTT) , by Kristy N. Kamarck and Eva G. McKinsey, CRS In Focus IF10490, Veterans' Employment , coordinated by Benjamin Collins, and CRS Report R42790, Employment for Veterans: Trends and Programs , coordinated by Benjamin Collins. CRS Video WVB00223, Service Member-to-Veteran Transitions: Education and Employment , by Kristy N. Kamarck, Benjamin Collins, and Cassandria Dortch. CRS Point of Contact : Kristy N. Kamarck. Background : Under the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP), a military retiree may have a portion of his or her monthly retired pay withheld in order to provide, after his or her death, a monthly benefit to a surviving spouse or other eligible recipients. When an active duty servicemember dies, his or her survivor's payment through the SBP is usually 55% of the retired base pay that the member would otherwise have been eligible to receive. By law, surviving spouses who receive both an annuity from DOD as a beneficiary of the SBP and from the Department of Veterans Affairs' Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) must have their SBP payments reduced by the amount of DIC they receive.\",\n \"This offset has sometimes been referred to as a widows' tax . Congress first authorized a payment to such surviving spouses to offset that reduction in the FY2008 NDAA. This benefit is called the Special Survivor Indemnity Allowance (SSIA). Monthly SSIA payments are currently capped at $310 and are taxable. Section 621 of the FY2018 NDAA ( P.L. 115-91 ) amended 10 U.S.C. §1450 to permanently extend the authority to pay the SSIA and requires inflation adjustments to that allowance by the amount of the military retired pay COLA for each calendar year beginning in 2019. Section 622 of the FY2018 NDAA modified 10 U.S.C. §§1447 and 1452 to ensure equitable treatment under the SBP of members of the uniformed services covered by the modernized retirement system who elect to receive a lump sum of retired pay, as authorized under 10 U.S.C. §1415. Discussion: Section 621 of the Senate bill would make technical corrections in calculation and publication of special survivor indemnity allowance (SSIA) cost of living adjustments. This provision was adopted in Section 622 of the enacted bill.\",\n \"A provision not included in the enacted bill was House Section 607, which expressed a sense of Congress that the widows' tax be eliminated. While the SSIA alleviates the gap in benefits, Section 607 states \\\"the whole Congress must work together to find a way to eliminate the widows' tax entirely. There was no similar provision in the Senate bill. Another House provision that was not adopted was Section 626, which would amend 10 U.S.C. §1448(b)(1), by allowing designation of a new beneficiary by a terminally ill participant. Any such beneficiary must be a natural person with an insurable interest in the participant. Such an election would be effective the first day of the first month following the month in which the election is received by the Secretary concerned. There was no similar provision in the Senate bill. References: Previously discussed in CRS Report R44923, FY2018 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues , by Kristy N. Kamarck, Lawrence Kapp, and Barbara Salazar Torreon; CRS Report R40757, Veterans' Benefits: Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) for Survivors , by Scott D. Szymendera; CRS Report RL34751, Military Retirement: Background and Recent Developments , by Kristy N.\",\n \"Kamarck; and CRS Report R40589, Concurrent Receipt: Background and Issues for Congress , by Kristy N. Kamarck. CRS Point of Contact : Barbara Salazar Torreon. Background: TRICARE is a DOD-administered health insurance-like program for uniformed servicemembers, uniformed service retirees, their family members, and survivors. With the exception of active duty servicemembers (who are assigned to the TRICARE Prime option and pay no out-of-pocket costs for TRICARE coverage), DOD beneficiaries may have a choice of TRICARE plan options depending on their status (e.g., active duty family members, retiree, reservist, child under age 26 ineligible for family coverage, Medicare-eligible, etc.) and geographic location. Each of the three major plan options has different beneficiary cost-sharing features: TRICARE Prime, TRICARE Select, and TRICARE for Life. Since 1966, Congress has enacted legislation to deliver a robust health care benefit to eligible beneficiaries. TRICARE now accounts for approximately 52% (or $15.3 billion) of the total cost of care delivered through the military health system.\",\n \"In FY2017 and FY2018, Congress directed numerous TRICARE reforms including replacing TRICARE options with new plans featuring an annual enrollment period and a new benefit structure with enrollment fees, annual deductibles, co-payments, and annual catastrophic caps; changes to the delivery of the TRICARE dental benefit for uniformed services retirees and their family members; and increased pharmacy co-pays for retirees and military family members. The Administration's FY2019 Budget request did not include any cost-share reforms or programmatic changes to TRICARE. Discussion: The enacted bill does not include any changes to TRICARE's cost-sharing requirements. It focuses on administration and delivery of certain health benefits. Section 737 of the enacted bill directs the Comptroller General to assess, report, and brief Congress on the Defense Health Agency's guidance and oversight provided to outgoing and incoming managed care support contractors during the recent TRICARE contract transition. This reporting requirement will also be in effect for future TRICARE contract transitions. Section 713 adopts Senate Section 702 directing DOD to administer the TRICARE dental benefit for uniformed services dependents and reserve component members through the Office of Personnel Management's Federal Employee Dental and Vision Insurance Program (FEDVIP) no earlier than January 1, 2022.\",\n \"Section 734 adopts House Section 739 directing a study on how beneficiaries desiring to remain in the workforce are affected by the current requirement to participate in Medicare Part B, as a condition to participate in TRICARE for Life. References: CRS In Focus IF10530, Defense Primer: Military Health System , by Bryce H. P. Mendez; CRS Insight IN10922, TRICARE Modernization: Eligibility for the Federal Employee Dental and Vision Insurance Program , by Bryce H. P. Mendez. CRS Point of Contact: Bryce H. P. Mendez.\"\n]","isConversational":false}}},{"rowIdx":16986,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"string","value":"train_16986"},"question":{"kind":"string","value":"Write a detailed summary of the following government report."},"answer":{"kind":"string","value":"All of the Navy's aircraft carriers, but none of its other surface ships, are nuclear-powered. Some Members of Congress, particularly on the House Armed Services Committee, have expressed interest in expanding the use of nuclear power to a wider array of Navy surface ships, starting with the CG(X), a planned new cruiser that the Navy had wanted to start procuring around FY2017. Section 1012 of the FY2008 Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4986/P.L. 110-181 of January 28, 2008) made it U.S. policy to construct the major combatant ships of the Navy, including ships like the CG(X), with integrated nuclear power systems, unless the Secretary of Defense submits a notification to Congress that the inclusion of an integrated nuclear power system in a given class of ship is not in the national interest. The Navy studied nuclear power as a design option for the CG(X), but did not announce whether it would prefer to build the CG(X) as a nuclear-powered ship. The Navy's FY2011 budget proposed canceling the CG(X) program and instead building an improved version of the conventionally powered Arleigh Burke (DDG-51) class Aegis destroyer. The cancellation of the CG(X) program would appear to leave no near-term shipbuilding program opportunities for expanding the application of nuclear power to Navy surface ships other than aircraft carriers. A 2006 Navy study on the potential for applying nuclear-power to Navy surface ships other than aircraft carriers concluded the following, among other things: In constant FY2007 dollars, building a Navy surface combatant or amphibious ship with nuclear power rather than conventional power would add roughly $600 million to $800 million to its procurement cost. The total life-cycle cost of a nuclear-powered medium-size surface combatant would equal that of a conventionally powered medium-size surface combatant if the cost of crude oil averages $70 per barrel to $225 per barrel over the life of the ship. Nuclear-power should be considered for near-term applications for medium-size surface combatants. Compared to conventionally powered ships, nuclear-powered ships have advantages in terms of both time needed to surge to a distant theater of operation for a contingency, and in terms of operational presence (time on station) in the theater of operation."},"documents":{"kind":"list like","value":["All of the Navy's aircraft carriers, but none of its other surface ships, are nuclear-powered. Some Members of Congress, particularly on the House Armed Services Committee, have expressed interest in expanding the use of nuclear power to a wider array of Navy surface ships, starting with the CG(X), a planned new cruiser that the Navy had wanted to start procuring around FY2017. Section 1012 of the FY2008 Defense Authorization Act ( H.R. 4986 / P.L. 110-181 of January 28, 2008) made it U.S. policy to construct the major combatant ships of the Navy, including ships like the CG(X), with integrated nuclear power systems, unless the Secretary of Defense submits a notification to Congress that the inclusion of an integrated nuclear power system in a given class of ship is not in the national interest. The Navy studied nuclear power as a design option for the CG(X), but did not announce whether it would prefer to build the CG(X) as a nuclear-powered ship. The Navy's FY2011 budget proposed canceling the CG(X) program and instead building an improved version of the conventionally powered Arleigh Burke (DDG-51) class Aegis destroyer.","The cancellation of the CG(X) program would appear to leave no near-term shipbuilding program opportunities for expanding the application of nuclear power to Navy surface ships other than aircraft carriers. Most military ships and large commercial ships are conventionally powered, meaning that they burn a petroleum-based fuel, such as marine diesel, to generate power for propulsion and for operating shipboard equipment. Conventionally powered ships are sometimes called fossil fuel ships. Some military ships are nuclear-powered, meaning that they use an on-board nuclear reactor to generate power for propulsion and shipboard equipment. Nuclear-powered military ships are operated today by the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, China, and India. Some other countries have expressed interest in, or conducted research and development work on, nuclear-powered military ships. A military ship's use of nuclear power is not an indication of whether it carries nuclear weapons—a nuclear-powered military ship can lack nuclear weapons, and a conventionally powered military ship can be armed with nuclear weapons. For a surface combatant like a cruiser, using nuclear power rather than conventional power eliminates the need for the ship to periodically refuel during extended operations at sea.","Refueling a ship during a long-distance transit can reduce its average transit speed. Refueling a ship that is located in a theater of operations can temporarily reduce its ability to perform its missions. A nuclear-powered surface combatant can steam at sustained high speeds to a distant theater of operations, commence operations in the theater immediately upon arrival, and continue operating in the theater over time, all without a need for refueling. In contrast, a conventionally powered surface combatant might need to slow down for at-sea refueling at least once during a high-speed, long-distance transit; might need to refuel again upon arriving at the theater of operations; and might need to refuel periodically while in the theater of operations, particularly if the ship's operations in theater require frequent or continuous movement. Table 1 shows the unrefueled cruising ranges of the Navy's existing conventionally powered cruisers and destroyers at a speed of 20 knots, along with transit distances from major U.S. Navy home ports to potential U.S. Navy operating areas. Navy surface combatants have maximum sustained speeds of more than 30 knots. A speed of 20 knots is a moderately fast long-distance transit speed for a Navy surface","combatant.","For a higher transit speed, such as 25 knots, the unrefueled cruising ranges would be less than those shown in the table, because the amount of fuel needed to travel a certain distance rises with ship speed, particularly as speeds increase above about 15 knots. During extended operations at sea, a nuclear-powered surface combatant, like a conventionally powered one, might need to be resupplied with food, weapons (if sufficient numbers are expended in combat), and other supplies. These resupply operations can temporarily reduce the ship's ability to perform its missions. The Navy's nuclear propulsion program began in 1948. The Navy's first nuclear-powered ship, the submarine Nautilus (SSN-571), was commissioned into service on September 30, 1954, and went to sea for the first time on January 17, 1955. The Navy's first nuclear-powered surface ships, the cruiser Long Beach (CGN-9) and the aircraft carrier Enterprise (CVN-65), were commissioned into service on September 9, 1961, and November 25, 1961, respectively.","The Navy's nuclear propulsion program is overseen and directed by an office called Naval Reactors (NR), which exists simultaneously as a part of both the Navy (where it forms a part of the Naval Sea Systems Command) and the Department of Energy (where it forms a part of the National Nuclear Security Administration). NR has broad, cradle-to-grave responsibility for the Navy's nuclear-propulsion program. This responsibility is set forth in Executive Order 12344 of February 1, 1982, the text of which was effectively incorporated into the U.S. Code (at 50 USC 2511) by Section 1634 of the FY1985 defense authorization act ( H.R. 5167 / P.L. 98-525 of October 19, 1984) and again by section 3216 of the FY2000 defense authorization act ( S. 1059 / P.L. 106-65 of October 5, 1999). NR has established a reputation for maintaining very high safety standards for engineering and operating Navy nuclear power plants. The first director of NR was Admiral Hyman Rickover, who served in the position from 1948 until 1982. Rickover is sometimes referred to as the father of the nuclear Navy. The current director is Admiral Kirkland Donald, who became director in November 2004. He is the","fifth person to hold the position.","All of the Navy's submarines and all of its aircraft carriers are nuclear-powered. No other Navy ships are currently nuclear-powered. The Navy's combat submarine force has been entirely nuclear-powered since 1990. The Navy's aircraft carrier force became entirely nuclear-powered on May 12, 2009, with the retirement of the Kitty Hawk (CV-63), the Navy's last remaining conventionally powered carrier. Although no Navy surface ships other than aircraft carriers are currently nuclear-powered, the Navy in the past built and operated nine nuclear-powered cruisers (CGNs). The nine ships, which are shown in Table 2 , include three one-of-a-kind designs (CGNs 9, 25, and 35) followed by the two-ship California (CGN-36) class and the four-ship Virginia (CGN-38) class. All nine ships were decommissioned in the 1990s. The nuclear-powered cruisers shown in Table 2 were procured to provide nuclear-powered escorts for the Navy's nuclear-powered carriers. Procurement of nuclear-powered cruisers was halted after FY1975 largely due to a desire to constrain the procurement costs of future cruisers.","In deciding in the late 1970s on the design for the new cruiser that would carry the Aegis defense system, two nuclear-powered Aegis-equipped options—a 17,200-ton nuclear-powered strike cruiser (CSGN) and a 12,100-ton derivative of the CGN-38 class design—were rejected in favor of a third option of placing the Aegis system onto the smaller, conventionally powered hull originally developed for the Spruance (DD-963) class destroyer. The CSGN was estimated to have a procurement cost twice that of the DD-963-based option, while the CGN-42 was estimated to have a procurement cost 30%-50% greater than that of the DD-963-based option. The DD-963-based option became the 9,500-ton Ticonderoga (CG-47) class Aegis cruiser. The first Aegis cruiser was procured in FY1978. The initial fuel core for a Navy nuclear-powered ship is installed during the construction of the ship. The procurement cost of the fuel core is included in the total procurement cost of the ship, which is funded in the Navy's shipbuilding budget, known formally as the Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN) appropriation account.","In constant FY2007 dollars, the initial fuel core for a Virginia (SSN-774) class submarine cost about $170 million, and the initial fuel cores for an aircraft carrier (which uses two reactors and therefore has two fuel cores) had a combined cost of about $660 million. The procurement cost of a conventionally powered Navy ship, in contrast, does not include the cost of petroleum-based fuel needed to operate the ship, and this fuel is procured largely through the Operation and Maintenance, Navy (OMN) appropriation account. Section 1012 of the FY2008 Defense Authorization Act ( H.R. 4986 / P.L. 110-181 of January 28, 2008) made it U.S. policy to construct the major combatant ships of the Navy, including ships like the CG(X), with integrated nuclear power systems, unless the Secretary of Defense submits a notification to Congress that the inclusion of an integrated nuclear power system in a given class of ship is not in the national interest. The FY2010 defense authorization bill ( S. 1390 ) as reported by the Senate Armed Services Committee ( S.Rept. 111-35 of July 2, 2009) contained a provision (Section 1012) that would repeal Section 1012 of the FY2008 defense authorization act.","The House Armed Services Committee, in its report ( H.Rept. 111-166 of June 18, 2009) on the FY2010 defense authorization bill ( H.R. 2647 ), stated that it \"remains committed to the direction\" of Section 1012 of the FY2008 defense authorization act. The conference report ( H.Rept. 111-288 of October 7, 2009) on the FY2010 defense authorization act ( H.R. 2647 / P.L. 111-84 of October 28, 2009) did not contain a provision repealing or amending Section 1012 of the FY2008 defense authorization act. The CG(X) cruiser was a planned replacement for the Navy's 22 Aegis cruisers, which are projected to reach retirement age between 2021 and 2029. The Navy originally wanted to build as many as 19 CG(X)s, with the first to be procured around FY2017. The Navy assessed CG(X) design options in a large study called the CG(X) Analysis of Alternatives (AOA), known more formally as the Maritime Air and Missile Defense of Joint Forces (MAMDJF) AOA. The Navy did not announce whether it would prefer to build the CG(X) as a nuclear-powered ship. The Navy stated that it wanted to equip the CG(X) with a combat system featuring a powerful radar capable of","supporting ballistic missile defense (BMD) operations.","The Navy testified that this combat system was to have a power output of 30 or 31 megawatts, which is several times the power output of the combat system on the Navy's existing cruisers and destroyers. This suggested that in terms of power used for combat system operations, the CG(X) might have used substantially more energy over the course of its life than the Navy's existing cruisers and destroyers. As discussed later in this report, a ship's life-cycle energy use is a factor in evaluating the economic competitiveness of nuclear power compared to conventional power. The Navy testified in 2007 that in the Navy's 2006 study on alternative ship propulsion systems (see \" 2006 Navy Alternative Propulsion Study \" below), the notional medium-sized surface combatant in the study (which the study defined as a ship with a displacement between 21,000 metric tons and 26,000 metric tons) used a modified version of one-half of the reactor plant that the Navy has developed for its new Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) class aircraft carriers, also called the CVN-21 class.","The Ford-class reactor plant, like the reactor plant on the Navy's existing Nimitz (CVN-68) class aircraft carriers, is a twin reactor plant that includes two nuclear reactors. The medium-sized surface combatant employed a modified version of one-half of this plant, with a single reactor. This suggested that if the CG(X) were a ship with a displacement of 21,000 or more metric tons, its reactor plant could have been a modified version of one-half of the Ford-class reactor plant. This approach would minimize the time and cost of developing a reactor plant for a nuclear-powered CG(X). In the Ford class, the initial nuclear fuel cores in the two reactors are to be sufficient to power the ship for one-half of its expected life of 40 to 50 years. In a nuclear-powered CG(X), the Navy said, the initial fuel core in the single reactor would be sufficient to power the ship for its entire expected life of 30 to 35 years.","Since the two fuel cores for an aircraft carrier cost about $660 million in constant FY2007 dollars (see previous section on initial fuel cores), the cost of a single fuel core for a CG(X) might be about $330 million in constant FY2007 dollars. The Navy's FY2011 budget proposed canceling the CG(X) program and instead building an improved version of the conventionally powered Arleigh Burke (DDG-51) class Aegis destroyer. The cancellation of the CG(X) program would appear to leave no near-term shipbuilding program opportunities for expanding the application of nuclear power to Navy surface ships other than aircraft carriers. Two U.S. shipyards are currently certified to build nuclear-powered ships—Newport news Shipbuilding of Newport News, VA, which forms part of Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding (NGSB); and General Dynamics' Electric Boat Division (GD/EB) of Groton, CT, and Quonset Point, RI. Newport News can build nuclear-powered surface ships and nuclear-powered submarines. GD/EB can build nuclear-powered submarines. Newport News built all the Navy's nuclear-powered aircraft carriers. Newport News also built the final six nuclear-powered cruisers shown in Table 2 . Newport News and GD/EB together have built every Navy nuclear-powered submarine procured since FY1969. Although Newport News and GD/EB are the only","U.S.","shipyards that currently build nuclear-powered ships for the Navy, five other U.S. shipyards once did so as well. These five yards built 44 of the 107 nuclear-powered submarines that were procured for the Navy through FY1968. Two of these five yards built the first three nuclear-powered cruisers shown in Table 2 . All cruisers and destroyers procured for the Navy since FY1978 have been built at two shipyards—General Dynamics' Bath Iron Works (GD/BIW) of Bath, ME, and the Ingalls shipyard at Pascagoula, MS, that forms part of NGSB. GD/BIW has never built nuclear-powered ships. Ingalls is one of the five U.S. yards other than Newport News and GD/EB that once built nuclear-powered ships. Ingalls built 12 nuclear-powered submarines, the last being the Parche (SSN-683), which was procured in FY1968, entered service in 1974, and retired in 2005. Ingalls also overhauled or refueled 11 nuclear-powered submarines. Ingalls' nuclear facility was decommissioned in 1980, and Ingalls is not certified to build nuclear-powered ships. The Navy in recent years has conducted two studies for Congress on the potential cost-effectiveness of expanding the use of nuclear power to a wider array of surface ships.","These studies are the 2005 Naval Reactors quick look analysis, and the more comprehensive and detailed 2006 Navy alternative propulsion study. Each of these is discussed below. The 2005 NR quick look analysis was conducted at the request of Representative Roscoe Bartlett, who was then chairman of the Projection Forces Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee (since renamed the Seapower and Expeditionary Forces Subcommittee). The analysis concluded that the total life-cycle cost (meaning the sum of procurement cost, life-cycle operating and support cost, and post-retirement disposal cost) of a nuclear-powered version of a large-deck (LHA-type) amphibious assault ship would equal that of a conventionally powered version of such a ship if the cost of crude oil over the life of the ship averaged about $70 per barrel. The study concluded that the total life-cycle cost of a nuclear-powered surface combatant would equal that of a conventionally powered version if the cost of crude oil over the life of the ship averaged about $178 per barrel. This kind of calculation is called a life-cycle cost break-even analysis. The study noted but did not attempt to quantify the mobility-related operational advantages of nuclear propulsion for a surface","ship.","The more comprehensive and detailed 2006 Navy alternative propulsion study was conducted in response to Section 130 of the FY2006 defense authorization act ( H.R. 1815 , P.L. 109-163 of January 6, 2006), which called for such a study (see \" Prior-Year Legislative Activity \"). The study reached a number of conclusions, including the following: In constant FY2007 dollars, building a Navy surface combatant or amphibious ship with nuclear power rather than conventional power would add roughly $600 million to $800 million to its procurement cost. —For a small surface combatant, the procurement-cost increase was about $600 million. —For a medium-size combatant (defined as a ship with a displacement between 21,000 metric tons and 26,000 metric tons), the increase was about $600 million to about $700 million. —For an amphibious ship, the increase was about $800 million. Although nuclear-powered ships have higher procurement costs than conventionally powered ships, they have lower operating and support costs when fuel costs are taken into account. A ship's operational tempo and resulting level of energy use significantly influences the life-cycle cost break-even analysis.","The higher the operational tempo and resulting level of energy use assumed for the ship, lower the cost of crude oil needed to break even on a life-cycle cost basis, and the more competitive nuclear power becomes in terms of total life-cycle cost. The newly calculated life-cycle cost break-even cost-ranges, which supercede the break-even cost figures from the 2005 NR quick look analysis, are as follows: —$210 per barrel to $670 per barrel for a small surface combatant; —$70 per barrel to $225 per barrel for a medium-size surface combatant; and —$210 per barrel to $290 per barrel for an amphibious ship. In each case, the lower dollar figure is for a high ship operating tempo, and the higher dollar figure is for a low ship operating tempo. At a crude oil cost of $74.15 per barrel (which was a market price at certain points in 2006), the life-cycle cost premium of nuclear power is: —17% to 37% for a small surface combatant; —0% to 10% for a medium sized surface combatant; and —7% to 8% for an amphibious ship.","The life-cycle cost break-even analysis indicates that nuclear-power should be considered for near-term applications for medium-size surface combatants, and that life-cycle cost will not drive the selection of nuclear power for small surface combatants or amphibious ships. A nuclear-powered medium-size surface combatant is the most likely of the three ship types studied to prove economical, depending on the operating tempo that the ship actually experiences over its lifetime. Compared to conventionally powered ships, nuclear-powered ships have advantages in terms of both time needed to surge to a distant theater of operation for a contingency, and operational presence (time on station) in the theater of operation. The cancellation of the CG(X) program would appear to leave no near-term shipbuilding program opportunities for expanding the application of nuclear power to Navy surface ships other than aircraft carriers. In assessing whether any future classes of Navy surface ships (in addition to aircraft carriers) should be nuclear-powered, Congress may consider a number of issues, including cost, operational effectiveness, ship construction, ship maintenance and repair, crew training, ports calls and forward homeporting, and environmental impact. Each of these is discussed below.","The cost calculations presented in the 2006 Navy alternative propulsion study do not include the additional up-front design and development costs, if any, for a nuclear-powered surface ship. As discussed in the \" Background \" section, if the CG(X) were to displace 21,000 or more metric tons, the Navy could have the option of fitting the CG(X) with a modified version of one-half of the Ford (CVN-78) class aircraft carrier nuclear power plant. This could minimize the up-front development cost of the CG(X) nuclear power plant. If the CG(X) were not large enough to accommodate a modified version of one-half of the Ford-class plant, then a new nuclear plant would need to be designed for the CG(X). Although this new plant could use components common to the Ford-class plant or other existing Navy nuclear plants, the cost of developing this new plant would likely be greater than the cost of modifying the Ford-class plant design. For the CG(X) . The Navy originally stated a preference for basing the design of the CG(X) on the design of its new Zumwalt (DDG-1000) class destroyer, which is a conventionally powered ship.","This approach could result in a conventionally powered CG(X) design with a procurement cost similar to that of the DDG-1000. If a conventionally powered CG(X) were to have a procurement cost equal to that of the DDG-1000 design, then a nuclear-powered CG(X) might cost roughly 32% to 37% more than a conventionally powered CG(X). If a conventionally powered CG(X) were to have a procurement cost greater than that of the DDG-1000, then the percentage procurement cost premium for nuclear power for the CG(X) would be less than 32% to 37%. The 2006 Navy study states that for a medium-size surface combatant that is larger than the DDG-1000, an additional cost of about $600 million to $700 million would equate to a procurement cost increase of about 22%. In more recent years, however, the Navy appeared to back away from the idea of basing the design of the CG(X) on the design of the DDG-1000.","If building a Navy surface combatant or amphibious ship with nuclear power rather than conventional power would add roughly $600 million to $700 million to its procurement cost, then procuring one or two nuclear-powered CG(X)s per year, as called for in the Navy's 30-year shipbuilding plan, would cost roughly $600 million to $1,400 million more per year than procuring one or two conventionally powered CG(X)s per year, and procuring a force of 19 nuclear-powered CG(X)s would cost roughly $11.4 billion to $13.3 billion more than procuring a force of 19 conventionally powered CG(X)s. A figure of $13.3 is comparable to the total amount of funding in the Navy's shipbuilding budget in certain recent years. For Submarines and Aircraft Carriers . The Navy in 2007 estimated that building the CG(X) or other future Navy surface ships with nuclear power could reduce the production cost of nuclear-propulsion components for submarines and aircraft carriers by 5% to 9%, depending on the number of nuclear-powered surface ships that are built. Building one nuclear-powered cruiser every two years, the Navy has testified, might reduce nuclear-propulsion component costs by about 7%.","In a steady-state production environment, the Navy testified in 2007, the savings might equate to about $115 million for each aircraft carrier, and about $35 million for each submarine. The Navy stated that this \"is probably the most optimistic estimate.\" The Navy states that these savings were not included in the cost calculations presented in the 2006 Navy study. BWXT, a principal maker of nuclear-propulsion components for Navy ships, estimated in 2007 that increasing Virginia-class submarine procurement from one boat per year to two boats per year would reduce the cost of nuclear propulsion components 9% for submarines and 8% for aircraft carriers, and that \"Adding a nuclear[-powered] cruiser or [nuclear-powered] large-deck amphibious ship would significantly drive down nuclear power plant costs across the fleet, even beyond the savings associated with the second Virginia-class [submarine per year].\" As suggested by the 2006 Navy study, the total-life-cycle cost break-even analysis can be affected by projections of future oil prices and ship operating tempo. Future Oil Prices . Views on potential future oil prices vary.","Some supporters of using nuclear power for the CG(X) and other future Navy surface ships, such as Representative Roscoe Bartlett, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, believe that oil in coming decades may become increasingly expensive, or that guaranteed access to oil may become more problematic, and that this is a central reason for making the CG(X) or other future Navy surface ships nuclear-powered. Ship Operating Tempo . A ship's average lifetime operating tempo can be affected by the number of wars, crises, and other contingency operations that it participates in over its lifetime, because such events can involve operating tempos that are higher than those of \"normal\" day-to-day operations. Ship operating tempo can also be affected by the size of the Navy. The lower the number of ships in the Navy, for example, the higher the operating tempo each a ship might be required to sustain for the fleet to accomplish a given set of missions. CG(X) vs. Medium-Size Surface Combatant . If the CG(X) were based on the hull design of the 14,500-ton DDG-1000 destroyer, the CG(X) may be smaller the 21,000- to 26,000-ton medium-size surface combatant in the 2006 Navy study.","What difference that might create between the CG(X) and the medium-size surface combatant in terms of life-cycle energy use, and thus life-cycle cost break-even range, is not clear. The Navy has testified that the medium sized surface combatant in the 2006 study was modeled with a radar requiring 30 or 31 megawatts of power, like the radar the Navy wants to install on the CG(X). What is the operational value of increased ship mobility? How much better can a ship perform its missions as a result of this increased mobility? And is there some way to translate the mobility advantages of nuclear power into dollar terms? One potential way to translate the value of increased ship mobility into dollar terms would be to determine how much aggregate capability a force of 19 conventionally powered CG(X)s would have for surging to distant theaters and for maintaining on-station presence in theater, then determine how many nuclear-powered CG(X)s would be required to provide the same aggregate capability, and then compare the total cost of the 19 conventionally powered CG(X)s to the total cost of the nuclear-powered CG(X) force.","Are there operational advantages of nuclear power for a surface ship other than increased ship mobility? One possibility concerns ship detectability. A nuclear-powered ship does not require an exhaust stack as part of its deckhouse, and does not emit hot exhaust gases. Other things held equal, this might make a nuclear-powered surface ship less detectible than a conventionally powered ship, particularly to infrared sensors. This possible advantage for the nuclear-powered ship might be either offset or reinforced by possible differences between the nuclear-powered ship and the conventionally powered ship in other areas, such as the temperature of the engine compartment (which again might affect infrared detectability) or the level of machinery noise (which might affect acoustic detectability). Some supporters of building future Navy surface ships with nuclear power have argued that an additional operational advantage of nuclear power for surface ships would be to reduce the Navy's dependence on its relatively small force of refueling oilers, and thus the potential impact on fleet operations of an enemy attack on those oilers.","The Navy acknowledges that potential attacks on oilers are a concern, but argues that the fleet's vulnerability to such attacks is recognized and that oilers consequently are treated as high-value ships in terms of measures taken to protect them from attack. Another potential advantage of nuclear power postulated by some observers is that a nuclear-powered ship can use its reactor to provide electrical power for use ashore for extended periods of time, particularly to help localities that are experiencing brownouts during peak use periods or whose access to electrical power from the grid has been disrupted by a significant natural disaster or terrorist attack. The Navy stated that the CG(X) was to have a total power-generating capacity of about 80 megawatts (MW). Some portion of that would be needed to operate the reactor plant itself and other essential equipment aboard the ship. Much of the rest might be available for transfer off the ship. For purposes of comparison, a typical U.S. commercial power plant might have a capacity of 300 MW to 1000 MW. A single megawatt can be enough to meet the needs of several hundred U.S. homes, depending on the region of the country","and other factors.","Skeptics of the idea of using nuclear-powered ships to generate electrical power for use ashore could argue that if the local transmission system has been disrupted, the ship's generation capacity may be of limited use in restoring electric power. If the local transmission system is intact, they could argue, onshore infrastructure would be required to transmit the ship's power into the local system. The military or a local utility, they could argue, would likely bear the cost for this infrastructure, which would be used only on a sporadic basis. Skeptics could argue that a Navy ship would be helpful only if the power emergency lasts longer than the time it would take for the ship to reach the connection point. If the nearest available Navy ship is several steaming days away from the connection point when the power emergency occurs, they could argue, the ship might not be able arrive before local power is partially or fully restored. Skeptics could argue that critical facilities in the area of the power emergency, such as hospitals, would likely be equipped with emergency back-up diesel generators to respond to short-term loss of power.","Another potential issue for Congress to consider in weighing whether future Navy surface ships (in addition to aircraft carriers) should be nuclear-powered concerns the shipyards that would be used to build the ships. There are at least three potential approaches for building a nuclear-powered version of a major surface combatant like the CG(X): Build them at Newport News, with GD/EB possibly contributing to the construction of the ships' nuclear portions. Certify Ingalls and/or GD/BIW to build nuclear-powered ships, and then build the CG(X)s at those yards. Build the nuclear portions of the CG(X)s at Newport News and/or GD/EB, the non-nuclear portions at Ingalls and/or GD/BIW, and perform final assembly, integration, and test work for the ships at either —Newport News and/or GD/EB, or —Ingalls and/or GD/BIW. These options have significant potential implications for workloads and employment levels at each of these shipyards.","On the question of what would be needed to certify Ingalls and/or GD/BIW to build nuclear-powered ships, the director of NR testified that: Just the basics of what it takes to have a nuclear-certified yard, to build one from scratch, or even if one existed once upon a time as it did at Pasacagoula, and we shut it down, first and foremost you have to have the facilities to do that. What that includes, and I have just some notes here, but such things as you have to have the docks and the dry-docks and the pier capability to support nuclear ships, whatever that would entail. You would have to have lifting and handling equipment, cranes, that type of thing; construction facilities to build the special nuclear components, and to store those components and protect them in the way that would be required. The construction facilities would be necessary for handling fuel and doing the fueling operations that would be necessary on the ship—those types of things.","And then the second piece is, and probably the harder piece other than just kind of the brick-and-mortar type, is building the structures, the organizations in place to do that work, for instance, nuclear testing, specialized nuclear engineering, nuclear production work. If you look, for instance, at Northrop Grumman Newport News, right now, just to give you a perspective of the people you are talking about in those departments, it is on the order of 769 people in nuclear engineering; 308 people in the major lines of control department; 225 in nuclear quality assurance; and then almost 2,500 people who do nuclear production work. So all of those would have to be, you would have to find that workforce, certify and qualify them, to be able to do that.","The director of NR testified that Newport News and GD/BIW \"have sufficient capacity to accommodate nuclear-powered surface ship construction, and therefore there is no need to make the substantial investment in time and dollars necessary to generate additional excess capacity.\" In light of this, the Navy testified, only the first and third options above are \"viable.\" The director of NR testified that: my view of this is we have some additional capacity at both Electric Boat and at Northrop Grumman Newport News. My primary concern is if we are serious about building another nuclear-powered warship, a new class of warship, cost is obviously going to be some degree of concern, and certainly this additional costs, which would be—and I don't have a number to give you right now, but I think you can see it would be substantial to do it even if you could. It probably doesn't help our case to move down the path toward building another nuclear-powered case, when we have the capability existing already in those existing yards.","With regard to the third option of building the nuclear portions of the ships at Newport News and/or GD/EB, and the non-nuclear portions at Ingalls and/or GD/BIW, the Navy testified that the \"Location of final ship erection would require additional analysis.\" One Navy official, however, expressed a potential preference for performing final assembly, integration, and test work at Newport News or GD/EB, stating that: we are building warships in modular sections now. So if we were going to [ask], \"Could you assemble this [ship], could you build modules of this ship in different yards and put it together in a nuclear-certified yard?\", the answer is yes, definitely, and we do that today with the Virginia Class [submarine program]. As you know, we are barging modules of [that type of] submarine up and down the coast. What I would want is, and sort of following along with what [NR director] Admiral [Kirkland] Donald said, you would want the delivering yard to be the yard where the reactor plant was built, tooled, and tested, because they have the expertise to run through all of that nuclear work and test and certify the ship and take it out on","sea trials.","But the modules of the non-reactor plant, which is the rest of the ship, could be built theoretically at other yards and barged or transported in other fashion to the delivering shipyard. If I had to do it ideally, that is where I would probably start talking to my industry partners, because although we have six [large] shipyards [for building large navy ships], it is really two corporations [that own them], and those two corporations each own what is now a surface combatant shipyard and they each own a nuclear-capable shipyard. I would say if we were going to go do this, we would sit down with them and say, you know, from a corporation standpoint, what would be the best work flow? What would be the best place to construct modules? And how would you do the final assembly and testing of a nuclear-powered warship? A related issue that Congress may consider in weighing whether future Navy surface ships (in addition to aircraft carriers) should be nuclear-powered is whether there is sufficient capacity at the firms that make nuclear-propulsion components to accommodate the increase in production volume that would result from building such ships with","nuclear power.","On this question, the Navy has testified: Right now, as I look across the industrial base that provides [for nuclear-powered ships], let's just talk about the components, for instance, and I just look across that base, because we have been asserting earlier that we were going to go to [a procurement rate of two Virginia-class submarines per year] earlier [than the currently planned year of FY2012], we had facilitized and have sustained an over-capacity in those facilities to support construction of those additional components. So right now, it depends on the vendor and which one is doing what, the capacity is running right now at probably about 65 percent of what it could be doing, on the order of that. Again, it varies depending on the vendor specifically. So there is additional capacity in there, and even with the addition of a second Virginia-class submarine, there is still a margin in there, if you are talking about a single cruiser in the early phases of design, we still have margin in there that I believe we can sustain that work in addition to the submarine work within the industrial base.","We would have to look at that in more detail once we determine what the design looks like and the degree to which we can use existing components. If you had to design new components, that would add a little bit more complexity to it, but that is a rough estimate of what I would provide for you now. Building future Navy surface ships (in addition to aircraft carriers) with nuclear power could affect the future distribution of Navy ship maintenance and repair work, because only certain U.S. shipyards are qualified for performing certain kinds of work on nuclear-powered ships. Much of the maintenance and repair work done on nuclear-powered ships is done at the country's four government-operated naval shipyards (NSYs)—Portsmouth NSY at Kittery, ME, Norfolk NSY at Norfolk, VA; Puget Sound NSY at Bremerton, WA; and Pearl Harbor NSY at Pearl Harbor, HI. Newport News and GD/EB also perform some maintenance and repair work on nuclear-powered ships. Would the Navy have the capacity to train the additional nuclear-qualified sailors that would be needed to crew additional nuclear-powered ships?","On this question, the director of NR testified that \"My training pipeline does have the capacity without further infrastructure investment to produce the additional personnel required by future classes of [nuclear-powered] ships.\" He also stated: We, in looking at the training pipeline, there are a couple of dynamics that are in work right now. First off, the [nuclear-powered aircraft carrier] Enterprise is going to be going away [in 2013], and that is a pretty significant training load just to keep that crew operating. And also, there as the CVN-21 [carrier class] comes on, [that is, as] the Ford-class carriers come on, and the [Nimitz-class nuclear-powered carriers] start to go away, [the number of people required to crew carriers will decrease, because with the] Ford class, we are targeting a 50 percent reduction in the reactor department sizing over there [compared to the Nimitz class]. So for the foreseeable future, the training infrastructure that we have right now will meet the needs to sustain this [additional] class [of nuclear-powered ship], if you choose to do it. A nuclear-powered ship might be less welcome than a conventionally powered ship in the ports of countries with strong anti-nuclear sentiments.","The Navy works to minimize this issue in connection with its nuclear-powered submarines and aircraft carriers, and states that \"U.S. nuclear-powered warships are welcome today in over 150 ports in more than 50 countries worldwide, thus allowing our warships to carry out their mission without constraint.\" Some Navy ships are forward-homeported, meaning that they are homeported in foreign countries that are close to potential U.S. Navy operating areas overseas. Forward-homeported Navy ships have occasional need for access to maintenance facilities near their home ports, and foreign shipyards are not qualified to perform certain kinds of maintenance work on nuclear-powered Navy ships. Building Navy surface ships (in addition to aircraft carriers) with nuclear power might thus affect the number of potentially suitable locations for forward-homeporting the ships, should the Navy decide that forward homeporting them would be desirable for purposes of shortening transit times to and from potential operating areas. Conventionally powered ships exhaust greenhouse gases and other pollutants that are created through combustion of petroleum-based fuel. They can also leak fuel into the water, particularly if they are damaged in an accident (such as a collision) or by enemy attack.","Other environmental impacts of conventionally powered ships include those associated with extracting oil from the ground, transporting it to a refinery, refining it into fuel, and transporting that fuel to the ship. Most of these activities produce additional greenhouse gases and other pollutants. Nuclear-powered ships do not exhaust greenhouse gases and other pollutants created through conventional combustion. The environmental impacts of nuclear-powered ships include those associated with mining and processing uranium to fuel reactors, and with storing and disposing of spent nuclear fuel cores, radioactive waste water from reactors, and the reactors and other radioactive components of retired nuclear-powered ships. As mentioned in the \" Background \" section, NR has established a reputation for maintaining very high safety standards for engineering and operating Navy nuclear power plants. In addition, Navy combat ships are built to withstand significant shock and battle damage. It is possible, however, that a very serious accident involving a nuclear-powered Navy ship (such as a major collision) or a major enemy attack on a nuclear-powered Navy ship might damage the ship's hull and reactor compartment enough to cause a release of radioactivity, which may have adverse effects on the environment.","The House Armed Services Committee, in its report ( H.Rept. 111-491 of May 21, 2010) on the FY2011 defense authorization bill ( H.R. 5136 ), stated the following in its discussion of the Navy's request for FY2011 funding for its research and development account: Future integrated nuclear power systems The budget request contained $366.5 million in PE 63570N for advanced nuclear power systems, but contained no funds for development of small scale pressurized water reactors suitable for destroyer-sized vessels or for alternative nuclear power systems using thorium liquid salt technology. The committee remains committed to an all nuclear powered naval battle force. The committee notes that significant challenges in size and weight of nuclear technology make inclusion of integrated nuclear power systems on destroyer sized vessels currently impossible. Therefore, the committee believes that additional funding in engineering research and development is needed to design a smaller scale version of a naval pressurized water reactor, or to design a new reactor type potentially using a thorium liquid salt reactor developed for maritime use.","The committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million in PE 63570N for research and design efforts to develop an integrated nuclear power system capable of use on destroyer-sized vessels either using a pressurized water reactor or a thorium liquid salt reactor. (Page 158) The Senate Armed Services Committee, in its report ( S.Rept. 111-201 of June 4, 2010) on the FY2011 defense authorization bill ( S. 3454 ), did not discuss the issue of nuclear power for surface ships other than aircraft carriers. The joint explanatory statement for the FY2011 defense authorization act ( H.R. 6523 / P.L. 111-383 of January 7, 2011) did not discuss the issue of nuclear power for surface ships other than aircraft carriers. The Senate Appropriations Committee, in its report ( S.Rept. 111-295 of September 16, 2010) on S. 3800 , did not discuss the issue of nuclear power for surface ships other than aircraft carriers. The House Armed Services Committee, in its report ( H.Rept. 111-166 of June 18, 2009) on H.R.","2647 , stated: The committee believes that the next generation [CG(X)] cruiser must meet the challenge of emerging ballistic missile technology and that an integrated nuclear power system is required to achieve maximum capability of the vessel. (Page 72) The report also stated: The committee remains committed to the direction of section 1012 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181), which requires the use of an integrated nuclear propulsion system for the CGN(X) [cruiser]. (Page 75) Section 246 of H.R. 2647 would require the Department of Defense (DOD) to submit to the congressional defense committees a study on the use of thorium-liquid fueled nuclear reactors for Navy surface ships. The text of Section 246 is as follows: SEC. 246. STUDY ON THORIUM-LIQUID FUELED REACTORS FOR NAVAL FORCES. (a) Study Required- The Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff shall jointly carry out a study on the use of thorium-liquid fueled nuclear reactors for naval power needs pursuant to section 1012, of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 ( P.L. 110-181 ; 122 Stat. 303).","(b) Contents of Study- In carrying out the study required under subsection (a), the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff shall, with respect to naval power requirements for the Navy strike and amphibious force— (1) compare and contrast thorium-liquid fueled reactor concept to the 2005 Quick Look, 2006 Navy Alternative Propulsion Study, and the navy CG(X) Analysis of Alternatives study; (2) identify the benefits to naval operations which thorium-liquid fueled nuclear reactors or uranium reactors would provide to major surface combatants compared to conventionally fueled ships, including such benefits with respect to— (A) fuel cycle, from mining to waste disposal; (B) security of fuel supply; (C) power needs for advanced weapons and sensors; (D) safety of operation, waste handling and disposal, and proliferation issues compared to uranium reactors; (E) no requirement to refuel and reduced logistics; (F) ship upgrades and retrofitting; (G) reduced manning; (H) global range at flank speed, greater forward presence, and extended combat operations; (I) power for advanced sensors and weapons, including electromagnetic guns and lasers; (J) survivability due to increased performance and reduced signatures; (K) high power density propulsion; (L) operational tempo; (M) operational effectiveness; and","(N) estimated cost-effectiveness; and (3) conduct a ROM cost-effectiveness comparison of nuclear reactors in use by the Navy as of the date of the enactment of this Act, thorium-liquid fueled reactors, and conventional fueled major surface combatants, which shall include a comparison of— (A) security, safety, and infrastructure costs of fuel supplies; (B) nuclear proliferation issues; (C) reactor safety; (D) nuclear fuel safety, waste handling, and storage; (E) power requirements and distribution for sensors, weapons, and propulsion; and (F) capabilities to fully execute the Navy Maritime Strategic Concept.","(c) Report- Not later than February 1, 2011, the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff shall jointly submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the results of the study required under subsection (a). Section 1012 of the FY2010 defense authorization bill ( S. 1390 ) as reported by the Senate Armed Services Committee ( S.Rept. 111-35 of July 2, 2009) would repeal Section 1012 of the FY2008 defense authorization act ( H.R. 4986 / P.L. 110-181 of January 28, 2008). The committee's report stated: The committee recommends a provision [Section 1012] that would repeal section 1012 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 ( P.L. 110-181 ). Section 1012 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 ( P.L. 110-181 ), as amended by section 1015 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 ( P.L.","110-417 ), would require that all new classes of surface combatants and all new amphibious assault ships larger than 15,000 deadweight ton light ship displacement have integrated nuclear power systems, unless the Secretary of Defense determines that the inclusion of an integrated nuclear power system in such vessel is not in the national interest. The committee believes that the Navy is already having too much difficulty in achieving the goal of a 313-ship fleet without adding a substantial increment to the acquisition price of a significant portion of the fleet. Moreover, current acquisition law and the Weapon System Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 ( P.L. 111-23 ) emphasize the need to start acquisition programs on a sure footing as a central mechanism by which the Department of Defense (DOD) can get control of cost growth and schedule slippage on major defense acquisition programs. Therefore, Congress should be loathe to dictate a particular outcome of a requirements process before the Department has conducted the normal requirements review.","The committee expects that the Navy will continue to evaluate the integrated nuclear power alternative for any new class of major surface combatants, but would prefer that any Navy requirements analysis not be skewed toward a particular outcome. (Page 170) The conference report ( H.Rept. 111-288 of October 7, 2009) on H.R. 2647 / P.L. 111-84 of October 28, 2009, stated: Repeal of policy relating to the major combatant vessels of the Unites States Navy The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 1012) that would repeal section 1012 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181). Section 1012, as amended, would require that all new classes of surface combatants and all new amphibious assault ships larger than 15,000 deadweight ton light ship displacement have integrated nuclear power systems, unless the Secretary of Defense determines that the inclusion of an integrated nuclear power system in such vessel is not in the national interest. The House bill contained no similar provision. The Senate recedes. (Page 822) The report also stated: Study on thorium-liquid fueled reactors for Naval forces The House bill contained a provision (sec.","246) that would have directed the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to carry out jointly a study on the use of thorium-liquid fueled nuclear reactors for naval propulsion. The Senate amendment contained no similar provision. The House recedes. The conferees note that while there may be credible research initiatives to explore the use of molten salt reactors for commercial power generation, the use of molten salt reactors on naval vessels is not currently technically feasible and a requirement to perform a study on the use of molten salt reactors is premature. This is due to technology challenges with material construction (molten salt reactors are inherently corrosive to metals), storage of the liquid fuel, and radiation shielding for the crew from a non-solid fuel reactor. The conferees recommend that the Navy continue to monitor the progress of technology development in commercial application of molten salt reactors, including licensing, for potential future application. (Page 708) The House-reported version of H.R.","5658 contained a provision (Section 1013) that would amend Section 1012 of the FY2008 defense authorization act (see discussion below) to include amphibious ships and amphibious command ships of a certain minimum size as among the types of ships to be built in the future with nuclear power unless the Secretary of Defense notifies Congress that nuclear power for a given class of ship would not be in the national interest. Section 1013 stated: SEC. 1013. POLICY RELATING TO MAJOR COMBATANT VESSELS OF THE STRIKE FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES NAVY. Section 1012(c)(1) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 ( P.L. 110-181 ) is amended by adding at the end the following: '(D) Amphibious assault ships, including dock landing ships (LSD), amphibious transport-dock ships (LPD), helicopter assault ships (LHA/LHD), and amphibious command ships (LCC), if such vessels exceed 15,000 dead weight ton light ship displacement.' In its report ( H.Rept. 110-652 of May 16, 2008) on H.R. 5658 , the House Armed Services Committee stated: This section would amend section 1012 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 ( P.L.","110-181 ) by requiring that in addition to future ship classes of aircraft carriers, major surface combatants, and submarines, that assault echelon amphibious ships also must be constructed with integrated nuclear power systems if the ship's light weight displacement is greater than 15 thousand tons. The committee believes the future naval force should not be reliant on the availability of fossil fuel for fleet operations. Removing the need for access to fossil fuel sources significantly multiplies the effectiveness of the entire battle force and eliminates the dependence on foreign nation support of deployed naval forces. (Pages 428-429) The report of the Senate Armed Services Committee ( S.Rept. 110-335 of May 12, 2008) on the FY2009 defense authorization bill ( S. 3001 ) stated, with regard to the CG(X) cruiser, that: The John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 ( P.L. 109-364 ) required that the Navy include nuclear power in its Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) for the CG(X) propulsion system. Section 1012 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 ( P.L.","110-181 ) further requires that CG(X) be nuclear powered, unless the Secretary of Defense submits a notification that inclusion of an integrated nuclear power system is not in the national interest. The statement of managers accompanying that act directed the Secretary of the Navy to submit a report with the budget request for fiscal year 2009 providing information regarding CG(X) design, cost, schedule, industrial base considerations, and risk assessment; that would reflect the results of the CG(X) AoA and provide evidence that the Navy is on schedule for procuring the first ship of the class in 2011. The Secretary of the Navy has delayed submission of the CG(X) report because the CG(X) AoA, which was scheduled to be complete by third quarter fiscal year 2007, remains under review by the Navy. Fundamental considerations regarding the cruiser's requirements, characteristics, technology readiness levels, and affordability continue to be studied, making it likely that milestone A, which was targeted for September 2007, will slip into 2009. By all measures, there is no reasonable path for the next-generation cruiser to meet the current schedule for milestone B and award of a ship construction contract in 2011.","Pending completion of the AoA, determination of radar requirements, ship characteristics, propulsion system, and an executable program schedule, and in view of the delay to program major milestones, the activities planned for fiscal years 2008 and 2009 cannot be executed per the schedule reflected in the fiscal year 2009 budget request. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease [in the Navy's request for FY2009 research and development funding] of $87.2 million in PE 64300N and a decrease of $33.6 million in PE 64501N. These recommended decreases would maintain the cruiser development activities at the same level as was funded in fiscal year 2008. (Page 195) In lieu of a conference report, there was a compromise version of S. 3001 that was accompanied by a joint explanatory statement. Section 4 of S. 3001 states that the joint explanatory statement \"shall have the same effect with respect to the implementation of this Act as if it were a joint explanatory statement of a committee of conference.\" S. 3001 was signed into law as P.L. 110-417 on October 14, 2008. Section 1015 of S. 3001 / P.L.","110-417 amended Section 1012 of the FY2008 defense authorization act (see discussion below) to include amphibious ships and amphibious command ships of a certain minimum size as among the types of ships to be built in the future with nuclear power unless the Secretary of Defense notifies Congress that nuclear power for a given class of ship would not be in the national interest. Section 1015 states: SEC. 1015. POLICY RELATING TO MAJOR COMBATANT VESSELS OF THE STRIKE FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES NAVY. Section 1012(c)(1) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 ( P.L. 110-181 ) is amended by adding at the end the following: \"(D) Amphibious assault ships, including dock landing ships (LSD), amphibious trans port—dock ships (LPD), helicopter assault ships (LHA/LHD), and amphibious command ships (LCC), if such vessels exceed 15,000 dead weight ton light ship displacement.\" The House-reported version of the FY2008 defense authorization bill (originally H.R. 1585 , a bill that was succeeded by H.R. 4986 following a presidential veto of H.R. 1585 ) contained a provision (Section 1012) that would make it U.S.","policy to build submarines, aircraft carriers, cruisers, and other large surface combatants with nuclear power unless the Secretary of Defense notifies Congress that nuclear power for a given class of ship would not be in the national interest. The provision stated: SEC. 1012. POLICY RELATING TO MAJOR COMBATANT VESSELS OF THE STRIKE FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES NAVY. (a) Integrated Nuclear Power Systems- It is the policy of the United States to construct the major combatant vessels of the strike forces of the United States Navy, including all new classes of such vessels, with integrated nuclear power systems. (b) Requirement to Request Nuclear Vessels- If a request is submitted to Congress in the budget for a fiscal year for construction of a new class of major combatant vessel for the strike forces of the United States, the request shall be for such a vessel with an integrated nuclear power system, unless the Secretary of Defense submits with the request a notification to Congress that the inclusion of an integrated nuclear power system in such vessel is not in the national interest.","(c) Definitions- In this section: (1) MAJOR COMBATANT VESSELS OF THE STRIKE FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES NAVY- The term `major combatant vessels of the strike forces of the United States Navy' means the following: (A) Submarines. (B) Aircraft carriers. (C) Cruisers, battleships, or other large surface combatants whose primary mission includes protection of carrier strike groups, expeditionary strike groups, and vessels comprising a sea base. (2) INTEGRATED NUCLEAR POWER SYSTEM- The term `integrated nuclear power system' means a ship engineering system that uses a naval nuclear reactor as its energy source and generates sufficient electric energy to provide power to the ship's electrical loads, including its combat systems and propulsion motors. (3) BUDGET- The term `budget' means the budget that is submitted to Congress by the President under section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code. The House Armed Services Committee, in its report ( H.Rept. 110-146 of May 11, 2007) on H.R.","1585 , stated the following in regard to Section 1012: This section would require that all new ship classes of submarines, cruisers, and aircraft carriers be built with nuclear power systems unless the Secretary of Defense notifies the committee that it is not in the national interest to do so. The committee believes that the mobility, endurance, and electric power generation capability of nuclear powered warships is essential to the next generation of Navy cruisers. The Navy's report to Congress on alternative propulsion methods for surface combatants and amphibious warfare ships, required by section 130 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 ( P.L. 109-163 ), indicated that the total lifecycle cost for medium-sized nuclear surface combatants is equivalent to conventionally powered ships. The committee notes that this study only compared acquisition and maintenance costs and did not analyze the increased speed and endurance capability of nuclear powered vessels. The committee believes that the primary escort vessels for the Navy's fleet of aircraft carriers should have the same speed and endurance capability as the aircraft carrier.","The committee also notes that surface combatants with nuclear propulsion systems would be more capable during independent operations because there would be no need for underway fuel replenishment. (Page 387) The Senate-reported version of the FY2008 defense authorization bill ( S. 1547 ) did not contain a provision analogous to Section 1012 of the House-reported version of H.R. 1585 . The report of the Senate Armed Services Committee on S. 1547 ( S.Rept. 110-77 of June 5, 2007) did not comment directly on the issue of nuclear power for Navy ships other than submarines and aircraft carriers. Section 1012 of the conference report ( H.Rept. 110-477 of December 6, 2007) on H.R. 1585 is the same as Section 1012 of the House-reported version of H.R. 1585 (see discussion above). In discussing Section 1012, the conference report stated: The Navy's next opportunity to apply this guidance will be the next generation cruiser, or \"CG(X)\". Under the current future-years defense program (FYDP), the Navy plans to award the construction contract for CG(X) in fiscal year 2011. Under this provision, the next cruiser would be identified as \"CGN(X)\" to designate the ship as nuclear powered.","Under the Navy's normal shipbuilding schedule for the two programs that already have nuclear power systems (aircraft carriers and submarines), the Navy seeks authorization and appropriations for long lead time nuclear components for ships 2 years prior to full authorization and appropriation for construction. The conferees recognize that the milestone decision for the Navy's CG(X) is only months away. After that milestone decision, the Navy and its contractors will begin a significant design effort, and, in that process, will be making significant tradeoff decisions and discarding major options (such as propulsion alternatives). This is the normal process for the Navy and the Department of Defense (DOD) to make choices that will lead to producing a contract design that will be the basis for awarding the construction contract for the lead ship in 2011.","In order for the Navy to live by the spirit of this guidance, the conferees agree that: (1) the Navy would be required to proceed through the contract design phase of the program with a comprehensive effort to design a CGN(X) independent of the outcome of decisions that the Navy or the DOD will make at the next milestone decision point regarding any preferred propulsion system for the next generation cruiser; (2) if the Navy intends to maintain the schedule in the current FYDP and award a vessel in fiscal year 2011, the Navy would need to request advance procurement for nuclear components in the fiscal year 2009 budget request; and (3) the Navy must consider options for: (a) maintaining the segment of the industrial base that currently produces the conventionally powered destroyer and amphibious forces of the Navy; (b) certifying yards which comprise that segment of the industrial base to build nuclear-powered vessels; or (c) seeking other alternatives for building non-nuclear ships in the future if the Navy is only building nuclear-powered surface combatant ships for some period of time as it builds CGN(X) vessels; and (d) identifying sources of funds to pay for the","additional near-term costs of the integrated nuclear power system, either from offsets within the Navy's budget, from elsewhere within the Department's resources, or from gaining additional funds for DOD overall.","The conferees recognize that these considerations will require significant additional near-term investment by the Navy. Some in the Navy have asserted that, despite such added investment, the Navy would not be ready to award a shipbuilding contract for a CGN(X) in fiscal year 2011 as in the current FYDP. Section 128 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364) required that the Navy include nuclear power in its Analysis of Alternatives (AOA) for the CG(X) propulsion system. The conferees are aware that the CG(X) AOA is nearing completion, in which case the Navy should have some indications of what it will require to design and construct a CGN(X) class.","Accordingly, the conferees direct the Secretary of the Navy to submit a report to the congressional defense committees with the budget request for fiscal year 2009 providing the following information: (1) the set of next generation cruiser characteristics, such as displacement and manning, which would be affected by the requirement for including an integrated nuclear power system; (2) the Navy's estimate for additional costs to develop, design, and construct a CGN(X) to fill the requirement for the next generation cruiser, and the optimal phasing of those costs in order to deliver CGN(X) most affordably; (3) the Navy's assessment of any effects on the delivery schedule for the first ship of the next generation cruiser class that would be associated with shifting the design to incorporate an integrated nuclear propulsion system, options for reducing or eliminating those schedule effects, and alternatives for meeting next generation cruiser requirements during any intervening period if the cruiser's full operational capability were delayed; (4) the Navy's estimate for the cost associated with certifying those shipyards that currently produce conventionally powered surface combatants, to be capable of constructing and integrating a nuclear-powered combatant; (5) any other potential effects on the Navy's 30-year","shipbuilding plan as a result of implementing these factors; (6) such other considerations that would need to be addressed in parallel with design and construction of a CGN(X) class, including any unique test and training facilities, facilities and infrastructure requirements for potential CGN(X) homeports, and environmental assessments that may require long-term coordination and planning; and (7) an assessment of the highest risk areas associated with meeting this requirement, and the Navy's alternatives for mitigating such risk.","(Pages 984-986) H.R. 1585 was vetoed by the President on December 28, 2007. In response, Congress passed a modified bill, H.R. 4986 , that took into account the President's objections to H.R. 1585 . The modifications incorporated into H.R. 4986 did not affect the provisions discussed here, and for these and other unmodified parts of the bill, H.Rept. 110-477 in effect serves as the conference report for H.R. 4986 . H.R. 4986 was signed into law as P.L. 110-181 on January 28, 2008. Section 1012 of the conference report is similar in some respects to the so-called Title VIII legislation of the 1970s that required future Navy ships of certain kinds to be nuclear-powered. Section 130 of the conference report ( H.Rept. 109-360 of December 18, 2005) on the FY2006 defense authorization act ( H.R. 1815 / P.L. 109-163 of January 6, 2006) required the Navy to submit a report by November 1, 2006, on alternative propulsion methods for surface combatants and amphibious warfare ships. The Navy submitted the report to Congress in January 2007. Section 130 states: SEC. 130. REPORT ON ALTERNATIVE PROPULSION METHODS FOR SURFACE COMBATANTS AND AMPHIBIOUS WARFARE SHIPS.","(a) ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES.—The Secretary of the Navy shall conduct an analysis of alternative propulsion methods for surface combatant vessels and amphibious warfare ships of the Navy. (b) REPORT.—The Secretary shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the analysis of alternative propulsion systems carried out under subsection (a). The report shall be submitted not later than November 1, 2006. (c) MATTERS TO BE INCLUDED.—The report under subsection (b) shall include the following: (1) The key assumptions used in carrying out the analysis under subsection (a). (2) The methodology and techniques used in conducting the analysis. (3) A description of current and future technology relating to propulsion that has been incorporated in recently-designed surface combatant vessels and amphibious warfare ships or that is expected to be available for those types of vessels within the next 10-to-20 years. (4) A description of each propulsion alternative for surface combatant vessels and amphibious warfare ships that was considered under the study and an analysis and evaluation of each such alternative from an operational and cost-effectiveness standpoint. (5) A comparison of the life-cycle costs of each propulsion alternative.","(6) For each nuclear propulsion alternative, an analysis of when that nuclear propulsion alternative becomes cost effective as the price of a barrel of crude oil increases for each type of ship. (7) The conclusions and recommendations of the study, including those conclusions and recommendations that could impact the design of future ships or lead to modifications of existing ships. (8) The Secretary's intended actions, if any, for implementation of the conclusions and recommendations of the study. (d) LIFE-CYCLE COSTS.—For purposes of this section, the term \"life-cycle costs\" includes those elements of cost that would be considered for a life-cycle cost analysis for a major defense acquisition program."],"string":"[\n \"All of the Navy's aircraft carriers, but none of its other surface ships, are nuclear-powered. Some Members of Congress, particularly on the House Armed Services Committee, have expressed interest in expanding the use of nuclear power to a wider array of Navy surface ships, starting with the CG(X), a planned new cruiser that the Navy had wanted to start procuring around FY2017. Section 1012 of the FY2008 Defense Authorization Act ( H.R. 4986 / P.L. 110-181 of January 28, 2008) made it U.S. policy to construct the major combatant ships of the Navy, including ships like the CG(X), with integrated nuclear power systems, unless the Secretary of Defense submits a notification to Congress that the inclusion of an integrated nuclear power system in a given class of ship is not in the national interest. The Navy studied nuclear power as a design option for the CG(X), but did not announce whether it would prefer to build the CG(X) as a nuclear-powered ship. The Navy's FY2011 budget proposed canceling the CG(X) program and instead building an improved version of the conventionally powered Arleigh Burke (DDG-51) class Aegis destroyer.\",\n \"The cancellation of the CG(X) program would appear to leave no near-term shipbuilding program opportunities for expanding the application of nuclear power to Navy surface ships other than aircraft carriers. Most military ships and large commercial ships are conventionally powered, meaning that they burn a petroleum-based fuel, such as marine diesel, to generate power for propulsion and for operating shipboard equipment. Conventionally powered ships are sometimes called fossil fuel ships. Some military ships are nuclear-powered, meaning that they use an on-board nuclear reactor to generate power for propulsion and shipboard equipment. Nuclear-powered military ships are operated today by the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, China, and India. Some other countries have expressed interest in, or conducted research and development work on, nuclear-powered military ships. A military ship's use of nuclear power is not an indication of whether it carries nuclear weapons—a nuclear-powered military ship can lack nuclear weapons, and a conventionally powered military ship can be armed with nuclear weapons. For a surface combatant like a cruiser, using nuclear power rather than conventional power eliminates the need for the ship to periodically refuel during extended operations at sea.\",\n \"Refueling a ship during a long-distance transit can reduce its average transit speed. Refueling a ship that is located in a theater of operations can temporarily reduce its ability to perform its missions. A nuclear-powered surface combatant can steam at sustained high speeds to a distant theater of operations, commence operations in the theater immediately upon arrival, and continue operating in the theater over time, all without a need for refueling. In contrast, a conventionally powered surface combatant might need to slow down for at-sea refueling at least once during a high-speed, long-distance transit; might need to refuel again upon arriving at the theater of operations; and might need to refuel periodically while in the theater of operations, particularly if the ship's operations in theater require frequent or continuous movement. Table 1 shows the unrefueled cruising ranges of the Navy's existing conventionally powered cruisers and destroyers at a speed of 20 knots, along with transit distances from major U.S. Navy home ports to potential U.S. Navy operating areas. Navy surface combatants have maximum sustained speeds of more than 30 knots. A speed of 20 knots is a moderately fast long-distance transit speed for a Navy surface\",\n \"combatant.\",\n \"For a higher transit speed, such as 25 knots, the unrefueled cruising ranges would be less than those shown in the table, because the amount of fuel needed to travel a certain distance rises with ship speed, particularly as speeds increase above about 15 knots. During extended operations at sea, a nuclear-powered surface combatant, like a conventionally powered one, might need to be resupplied with food, weapons (if sufficient numbers are expended in combat), and other supplies. These resupply operations can temporarily reduce the ship's ability to perform its missions. The Navy's nuclear propulsion program began in 1948. The Navy's first nuclear-powered ship, the submarine Nautilus (SSN-571), was commissioned into service on September 30, 1954, and went to sea for the first time on January 17, 1955. The Navy's first nuclear-powered surface ships, the cruiser Long Beach (CGN-9) and the aircraft carrier Enterprise (CVN-65), were commissioned into service on September 9, 1961, and November 25, 1961, respectively.\",\n \"The Navy's nuclear propulsion program is overseen and directed by an office called Naval Reactors (NR), which exists simultaneously as a part of both the Navy (where it forms a part of the Naval Sea Systems Command) and the Department of Energy (where it forms a part of the National Nuclear Security Administration). NR has broad, cradle-to-grave responsibility for the Navy's nuclear-propulsion program. This responsibility is set forth in Executive Order 12344 of February 1, 1982, the text of which was effectively incorporated into the U.S. Code (at 50 USC 2511) by Section 1634 of the FY1985 defense authorization act ( H.R. 5167 / P.L. 98-525 of October 19, 1984) and again by section 3216 of the FY2000 defense authorization act ( S. 1059 / P.L. 106-65 of October 5, 1999). NR has established a reputation for maintaining very high safety standards for engineering and operating Navy nuclear power plants. The first director of NR was Admiral Hyman Rickover, who served in the position from 1948 until 1982. Rickover is sometimes referred to as the father of the nuclear Navy. The current director is Admiral Kirkland Donald, who became director in November 2004. He is the\",\n \"fifth person to hold the position.\",\n \"All of the Navy's submarines and all of its aircraft carriers are nuclear-powered. No other Navy ships are currently nuclear-powered. The Navy's combat submarine force has been entirely nuclear-powered since 1990. The Navy's aircraft carrier force became entirely nuclear-powered on May 12, 2009, with the retirement of the Kitty Hawk (CV-63), the Navy's last remaining conventionally powered carrier. Although no Navy surface ships other than aircraft carriers are currently nuclear-powered, the Navy in the past built and operated nine nuclear-powered cruisers (CGNs). The nine ships, which are shown in Table 2 , include three one-of-a-kind designs (CGNs 9, 25, and 35) followed by the two-ship California (CGN-36) class and the four-ship Virginia (CGN-38) class. All nine ships were decommissioned in the 1990s. The nuclear-powered cruisers shown in Table 2 were procured to provide nuclear-powered escorts for the Navy's nuclear-powered carriers. Procurement of nuclear-powered cruisers was halted after FY1975 largely due to a desire to constrain the procurement costs of future cruisers.\",\n \"In deciding in the late 1970s on the design for the new cruiser that would carry the Aegis defense system, two nuclear-powered Aegis-equipped options—a 17,200-ton nuclear-powered strike cruiser (CSGN) and a 12,100-ton derivative of the CGN-38 class design—were rejected in favor of a third option of placing the Aegis system onto the smaller, conventionally powered hull originally developed for the Spruance (DD-963) class destroyer. The CSGN was estimated to have a procurement cost twice that of the DD-963-based option, while the CGN-42 was estimated to have a procurement cost 30%-50% greater than that of the DD-963-based option. The DD-963-based option became the 9,500-ton Ticonderoga (CG-47) class Aegis cruiser. The first Aegis cruiser was procured in FY1978. The initial fuel core for a Navy nuclear-powered ship is installed during the construction of the ship. The procurement cost of the fuel core is included in the total procurement cost of the ship, which is funded in the Navy's shipbuilding budget, known formally as the Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN) appropriation account.\",\n \"In constant FY2007 dollars, the initial fuel core for a Virginia (SSN-774) class submarine cost about $170 million, and the initial fuel cores for an aircraft carrier (which uses two reactors and therefore has two fuel cores) had a combined cost of about $660 million. The procurement cost of a conventionally powered Navy ship, in contrast, does not include the cost of petroleum-based fuel needed to operate the ship, and this fuel is procured largely through the Operation and Maintenance, Navy (OMN) appropriation account. Section 1012 of the FY2008 Defense Authorization Act ( H.R. 4986 / P.L. 110-181 of January 28, 2008) made it U.S. policy to construct the major combatant ships of the Navy, including ships like the CG(X), with integrated nuclear power systems, unless the Secretary of Defense submits a notification to Congress that the inclusion of an integrated nuclear power system in a given class of ship is not in the national interest. The FY2010 defense authorization bill ( S. 1390 ) as reported by the Senate Armed Services Committee ( S.Rept. 111-35 of July 2, 2009) contained a provision (Section 1012) that would repeal Section 1012 of the FY2008 defense authorization act.\",\n \"The House Armed Services Committee, in its report ( H.Rept. 111-166 of June 18, 2009) on the FY2010 defense authorization bill ( H.R. 2647 ), stated that it \\\"remains committed to the direction\\\" of Section 1012 of the FY2008 defense authorization act. The conference report ( H.Rept. 111-288 of October 7, 2009) on the FY2010 defense authorization act ( H.R. 2647 / P.L. 111-84 of October 28, 2009) did not contain a provision repealing or amending Section 1012 of the FY2008 defense authorization act. The CG(X) cruiser was a planned replacement for the Navy's 22 Aegis cruisers, which are projected to reach retirement age between 2021 and 2029. The Navy originally wanted to build as many as 19 CG(X)s, with the first to be procured around FY2017. The Navy assessed CG(X) design options in a large study called the CG(X) Analysis of Alternatives (AOA), known more formally as the Maritime Air and Missile Defense of Joint Forces (MAMDJF) AOA. The Navy did not announce whether it would prefer to build the CG(X) as a nuclear-powered ship. The Navy stated that it wanted to equip the CG(X) with a combat system featuring a powerful radar capable of\",\n \"supporting ballistic missile defense (BMD) operations.\",\n \"The Navy testified that this combat system was to have a power output of 30 or 31 megawatts, which is several times the power output of the combat system on the Navy's existing cruisers and destroyers. This suggested that in terms of power used for combat system operations, the CG(X) might have used substantially more energy over the course of its life than the Navy's existing cruisers and destroyers. As discussed later in this report, a ship's life-cycle energy use is a factor in evaluating the economic competitiveness of nuclear power compared to conventional power. The Navy testified in 2007 that in the Navy's 2006 study on alternative ship propulsion systems (see \\\" 2006 Navy Alternative Propulsion Study \\\" below), the notional medium-sized surface combatant in the study (which the study defined as a ship with a displacement between 21,000 metric tons and 26,000 metric tons) used a modified version of one-half of the reactor plant that the Navy has developed for its new Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) class aircraft carriers, also called the CVN-21 class.\",\n \"The Ford-class reactor plant, like the reactor plant on the Navy's existing Nimitz (CVN-68) class aircraft carriers, is a twin reactor plant that includes two nuclear reactors. The medium-sized surface combatant employed a modified version of one-half of this plant, with a single reactor. This suggested that if the CG(X) were a ship with a displacement of 21,000 or more metric tons, its reactor plant could have been a modified version of one-half of the Ford-class reactor plant. This approach would minimize the time and cost of developing a reactor plant for a nuclear-powered CG(X). In the Ford class, the initial nuclear fuel cores in the two reactors are to be sufficient to power the ship for one-half of its expected life of 40 to 50 years. In a nuclear-powered CG(X), the Navy said, the initial fuel core in the single reactor would be sufficient to power the ship for its entire expected life of 30 to 35 years.\",\n \"Since the two fuel cores for an aircraft carrier cost about $660 million in constant FY2007 dollars (see previous section on initial fuel cores), the cost of a single fuel core for a CG(X) might be about $330 million in constant FY2007 dollars. The Navy's FY2011 budget proposed canceling the CG(X) program and instead building an improved version of the conventionally powered Arleigh Burke (DDG-51) class Aegis destroyer. The cancellation of the CG(X) program would appear to leave no near-term shipbuilding program opportunities for expanding the application of nuclear power to Navy surface ships other than aircraft carriers. Two U.S. shipyards are currently certified to build nuclear-powered ships—Newport news Shipbuilding of Newport News, VA, which forms part of Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding (NGSB); and General Dynamics' Electric Boat Division (GD/EB) of Groton, CT, and Quonset Point, RI. Newport News can build nuclear-powered surface ships and nuclear-powered submarines. GD/EB can build nuclear-powered submarines. Newport News built all the Navy's nuclear-powered aircraft carriers. Newport News also built the final six nuclear-powered cruisers shown in Table 2 . Newport News and GD/EB together have built every Navy nuclear-powered submarine procured since FY1969. Although Newport News and GD/EB are the only\",\n \"U.S.\",\n \"shipyards that currently build nuclear-powered ships for the Navy, five other U.S. shipyards once did so as well. These five yards built 44 of the 107 nuclear-powered submarines that were procured for the Navy through FY1968. Two of these five yards built the first three nuclear-powered cruisers shown in Table 2 . All cruisers and destroyers procured for the Navy since FY1978 have been built at two shipyards—General Dynamics' Bath Iron Works (GD/BIW) of Bath, ME, and the Ingalls shipyard at Pascagoula, MS, that forms part of NGSB. GD/BIW has never built nuclear-powered ships. Ingalls is one of the five U.S. yards other than Newport News and GD/EB that once built nuclear-powered ships. Ingalls built 12 nuclear-powered submarines, the last being the Parche (SSN-683), which was procured in FY1968, entered service in 1974, and retired in 2005. Ingalls also overhauled or refueled 11 nuclear-powered submarines. Ingalls' nuclear facility was decommissioned in 1980, and Ingalls is not certified to build nuclear-powered ships. The Navy in recent years has conducted two studies for Congress on the potential cost-effectiveness of expanding the use of nuclear power to a wider array of surface ships.\",\n \"These studies are the 2005 Naval Reactors quick look analysis, and the more comprehensive and detailed 2006 Navy alternative propulsion study. Each of these is discussed below. The 2005 NR quick look analysis was conducted at the request of Representative Roscoe Bartlett, who was then chairman of the Projection Forces Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee (since renamed the Seapower and Expeditionary Forces Subcommittee). The analysis concluded that the total life-cycle cost (meaning the sum of procurement cost, life-cycle operating and support cost, and post-retirement disposal cost) of a nuclear-powered version of a large-deck (LHA-type) amphibious assault ship would equal that of a conventionally powered version of such a ship if the cost of crude oil over the life of the ship averaged about $70 per barrel. The study concluded that the total life-cycle cost of a nuclear-powered surface combatant would equal that of a conventionally powered version if the cost of crude oil over the life of the ship averaged about $178 per barrel. This kind of calculation is called a life-cycle cost break-even analysis. The study noted but did not attempt to quantify the mobility-related operational advantages of nuclear propulsion for a surface\",\n \"ship.\",\n \"The more comprehensive and detailed 2006 Navy alternative propulsion study was conducted in response to Section 130 of the FY2006 defense authorization act ( H.R. 1815 , P.L. 109-163 of January 6, 2006), which called for such a study (see \\\" Prior-Year Legislative Activity \\\"). The study reached a number of conclusions, including the following: In constant FY2007 dollars, building a Navy surface combatant or amphibious ship with nuclear power rather than conventional power would add roughly $600 million to $800 million to its procurement cost. —For a small surface combatant, the procurement-cost increase was about $600 million. —For a medium-size combatant (defined as a ship with a displacement between 21,000 metric tons and 26,000 metric tons), the increase was about $600 million to about $700 million. —For an amphibious ship, the increase was about $800 million. Although nuclear-powered ships have higher procurement costs than conventionally powered ships, they have lower operating and support costs when fuel costs are taken into account. A ship's operational tempo and resulting level of energy use significantly influences the life-cycle cost break-even analysis.\",\n \"The higher the operational tempo and resulting level of energy use assumed for the ship, lower the cost of crude oil needed to break even on a life-cycle cost basis, and the more competitive nuclear power becomes in terms of total life-cycle cost. The newly calculated life-cycle cost break-even cost-ranges, which supercede the break-even cost figures from the 2005 NR quick look analysis, are as follows: —$210 per barrel to $670 per barrel for a small surface combatant; —$70 per barrel to $225 per barrel for a medium-size surface combatant; and —$210 per barrel to $290 per barrel for an amphibious ship. In each case, the lower dollar figure is for a high ship operating tempo, and the higher dollar figure is for a low ship operating tempo. At a crude oil cost of $74.15 per barrel (which was a market price at certain points in 2006), the life-cycle cost premium of nuclear power is: —17% to 37% for a small surface combatant; —0% to 10% for a medium sized surface combatant; and —7% to 8% for an amphibious ship.\",\n \"The life-cycle cost break-even analysis indicates that nuclear-power should be considered for near-term applications for medium-size surface combatants, and that life-cycle cost will not drive the selection of nuclear power for small surface combatants or amphibious ships. A nuclear-powered medium-size surface combatant is the most likely of the three ship types studied to prove economical, depending on the operating tempo that the ship actually experiences over its lifetime. Compared to conventionally powered ships, nuclear-powered ships have advantages in terms of both time needed to surge to a distant theater of operation for a contingency, and operational presence (time on station) in the theater of operation. The cancellation of the CG(X) program would appear to leave no near-term shipbuilding program opportunities for expanding the application of nuclear power to Navy surface ships other than aircraft carriers. In assessing whether any future classes of Navy surface ships (in addition to aircraft carriers) should be nuclear-powered, Congress may consider a number of issues, including cost, operational effectiveness, ship construction, ship maintenance and repair, crew training, ports calls and forward homeporting, and environmental impact. Each of these is discussed below.\",\n \"The cost calculations presented in the 2006 Navy alternative propulsion study do not include the additional up-front design and development costs, if any, for a nuclear-powered surface ship. As discussed in the \\\" Background \\\" section, if the CG(X) were to displace 21,000 or more metric tons, the Navy could have the option of fitting the CG(X) with a modified version of one-half of the Ford (CVN-78) class aircraft carrier nuclear power plant. This could minimize the up-front development cost of the CG(X) nuclear power plant. If the CG(X) were not large enough to accommodate a modified version of one-half of the Ford-class plant, then a new nuclear plant would need to be designed for the CG(X). Although this new plant could use components common to the Ford-class plant or other existing Navy nuclear plants, the cost of developing this new plant would likely be greater than the cost of modifying the Ford-class plant design. For the CG(X) . The Navy originally stated a preference for basing the design of the CG(X) on the design of its new Zumwalt (DDG-1000) class destroyer, which is a conventionally powered ship.\",\n \"This approach could result in a conventionally powered CG(X) design with a procurement cost similar to that of the DDG-1000. If a conventionally powered CG(X) were to have a procurement cost equal to that of the DDG-1000 design, then a nuclear-powered CG(X) might cost roughly 32% to 37% more than a conventionally powered CG(X). If a conventionally powered CG(X) were to have a procurement cost greater than that of the DDG-1000, then the percentage procurement cost premium for nuclear power for the CG(X) would be less than 32% to 37%. The 2006 Navy study states that for a medium-size surface combatant that is larger than the DDG-1000, an additional cost of about $600 million to $700 million would equate to a procurement cost increase of about 22%. In more recent years, however, the Navy appeared to back away from the idea of basing the design of the CG(X) on the design of the DDG-1000.\",\n \"If building a Navy surface combatant or amphibious ship with nuclear power rather than conventional power would add roughly $600 million to $700 million to its procurement cost, then procuring one or two nuclear-powered CG(X)s per year, as called for in the Navy's 30-year shipbuilding plan, would cost roughly $600 million to $1,400 million more per year than procuring one or two conventionally powered CG(X)s per year, and procuring a force of 19 nuclear-powered CG(X)s would cost roughly $11.4 billion to $13.3 billion more than procuring a force of 19 conventionally powered CG(X)s. A figure of $13.3 is comparable to the total amount of funding in the Navy's shipbuilding budget in certain recent years. For Submarines and Aircraft Carriers . The Navy in 2007 estimated that building the CG(X) or other future Navy surface ships with nuclear power could reduce the production cost of nuclear-propulsion components for submarines and aircraft carriers by 5% to 9%, depending on the number of nuclear-powered surface ships that are built. Building one nuclear-powered cruiser every two years, the Navy has testified, might reduce nuclear-propulsion component costs by about 7%.\",\n \"In a steady-state production environment, the Navy testified in 2007, the savings might equate to about $115 million for each aircraft carrier, and about $35 million for each submarine. The Navy stated that this \\\"is probably the most optimistic estimate.\\\" The Navy states that these savings were not included in the cost calculations presented in the 2006 Navy study. BWXT, a principal maker of nuclear-propulsion components for Navy ships, estimated in 2007 that increasing Virginia-class submarine procurement from one boat per year to two boats per year would reduce the cost of nuclear propulsion components 9% for submarines and 8% for aircraft carriers, and that \\\"Adding a nuclear[-powered] cruiser or [nuclear-powered] large-deck amphibious ship would significantly drive down nuclear power plant costs across the fleet, even beyond the savings associated with the second Virginia-class [submarine per year].\\\" As suggested by the 2006 Navy study, the total-life-cycle cost break-even analysis can be affected by projections of future oil prices and ship operating tempo. Future Oil Prices . Views on potential future oil prices vary.\",\n \"Some supporters of using nuclear power for the CG(X) and other future Navy surface ships, such as Representative Roscoe Bartlett, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, believe that oil in coming decades may become increasingly expensive, or that guaranteed access to oil may become more problematic, and that this is a central reason for making the CG(X) or other future Navy surface ships nuclear-powered. Ship Operating Tempo . A ship's average lifetime operating tempo can be affected by the number of wars, crises, and other contingency operations that it participates in over its lifetime, because such events can involve operating tempos that are higher than those of \\\"normal\\\" day-to-day operations. Ship operating tempo can also be affected by the size of the Navy. The lower the number of ships in the Navy, for example, the higher the operating tempo each a ship might be required to sustain for the fleet to accomplish a given set of missions. CG(X) vs. Medium-Size Surface Combatant . If the CG(X) were based on the hull design of the 14,500-ton DDG-1000 destroyer, the CG(X) may be smaller the 21,000- to 26,000-ton medium-size surface combatant in the 2006 Navy study.\",\n \"What difference that might create between the CG(X) and the medium-size surface combatant in terms of life-cycle energy use, and thus life-cycle cost break-even range, is not clear. The Navy has testified that the medium sized surface combatant in the 2006 study was modeled with a radar requiring 30 or 31 megawatts of power, like the radar the Navy wants to install on the CG(X). What is the operational value of increased ship mobility? How much better can a ship perform its missions as a result of this increased mobility? And is there some way to translate the mobility advantages of nuclear power into dollar terms? One potential way to translate the value of increased ship mobility into dollar terms would be to determine how much aggregate capability a force of 19 conventionally powered CG(X)s would have for surging to distant theaters and for maintaining on-station presence in theater, then determine how many nuclear-powered CG(X)s would be required to provide the same aggregate capability, and then compare the total cost of the 19 conventionally powered CG(X)s to the total cost of the nuclear-powered CG(X) force.\",\n \"Are there operational advantages of nuclear power for a surface ship other than increased ship mobility? One possibility concerns ship detectability. A nuclear-powered ship does not require an exhaust stack as part of its deckhouse, and does not emit hot exhaust gases. Other things held equal, this might make a nuclear-powered surface ship less detectible than a conventionally powered ship, particularly to infrared sensors. This possible advantage for the nuclear-powered ship might be either offset or reinforced by possible differences between the nuclear-powered ship and the conventionally powered ship in other areas, such as the temperature of the engine compartment (which again might affect infrared detectability) or the level of machinery noise (which might affect acoustic detectability). Some supporters of building future Navy surface ships with nuclear power have argued that an additional operational advantage of nuclear power for surface ships would be to reduce the Navy's dependence on its relatively small force of refueling oilers, and thus the potential impact on fleet operations of an enemy attack on those oilers.\",\n \"The Navy acknowledges that potential attacks on oilers are a concern, but argues that the fleet's vulnerability to such attacks is recognized and that oilers consequently are treated as high-value ships in terms of measures taken to protect them from attack. Another potential advantage of nuclear power postulated by some observers is that a nuclear-powered ship can use its reactor to provide electrical power for use ashore for extended periods of time, particularly to help localities that are experiencing brownouts during peak use periods or whose access to electrical power from the grid has been disrupted by a significant natural disaster or terrorist attack. The Navy stated that the CG(X) was to have a total power-generating capacity of about 80 megawatts (MW). Some portion of that would be needed to operate the reactor plant itself and other essential equipment aboard the ship. Much of the rest might be available for transfer off the ship. For purposes of comparison, a typical U.S. commercial power plant might have a capacity of 300 MW to 1000 MW. A single megawatt can be enough to meet the needs of several hundred U.S. homes, depending on the region of the country\",\n \"and other factors.\",\n \"Skeptics of the idea of using nuclear-powered ships to generate electrical power for use ashore could argue that if the local transmission system has been disrupted, the ship's generation capacity may be of limited use in restoring electric power. If the local transmission system is intact, they could argue, onshore infrastructure would be required to transmit the ship's power into the local system. The military or a local utility, they could argue, would likely bear the cost for this infrastructure, which would be used only on a sporadic basis. Skeptics could argue that a Navy ship would be helpful only if the power emergency lasts longer than the time it would take for the ship to reach the connection point. If the nearest available Navy ship is several steaming days away from the connection point when the power emergency occurs, they could argue, the ship might not be able arrive before local power is partially or fully restored. Skeptics could argue that critical facilities in the area of the power emergency, such as hospitals, would likely be equipped with emergency back-up diesel generators to respond to short-term loss of power.\",\n \"Another potential issue for Congress to consider in weighing whether future Navy surface ships (in addition to aircraft carriers) should be nuclear-powered concerns the shipyards that would be used to build the ships. There are at least three potential approaches for building a nuclear-powered version of a major surface combatant like the CG(X): Build them at Newport News, with GD/EB possibly contributing to the construction of the ships' nuclear portions. Certify Ingalls and/or GD/BIW to build nuclear-powered ships, and then build the CG(X)s at those yards. Build the nuclear portions of the CG(X)s at Newport News and/or GD/EB, the non-nuclear portions at Ingalls and/or GD/BIW, and perform final assembly, integration, and test work for the ships at either —Newport News and/or GD/EB, or —Ingalls and/or GD/BIW. These options have significant potential implications for workloads and employment levels at each of these shipyards.\",\n \"On the question of what would be needed to certify Ingalls and/or GD/BIW to build nuclear-powered ships, the director of NR testified that: Just the basics of what it takes to have a nuclear-certified yard, to build one from scratch, or even if one existed once upon a time as it did at Pasacagoula, and we shut it down, first and foremost you have to have the facilities to do that. What that includes, and I have just some notes here, but such things as you have to have the docks and the dry-docks and the pier capability to support nuclear ships, whatever that would entail. You would have to have lifting and handling equipment, cranes, that type of thing; construction facilities to build the special nuclear components, and to store those components and protect them in the way that would be required. The construction facilities would be necessary for handling fuel and doing the fueling operations that would be necessary on the ship—those types of things.\",\n \"And then the second piece is, and probably the harder piece other than just kind of the brick-and-mortar type, is building the structures, the organizations in place to do that work, for instance, nuclear testing, specialized nuclear engineering, nuclear production work. If you look, for instance, at Northrop Grumman Newport News, right now, just to give you a perspective of the people you are talking about in those departments, it is on the order of 769 people in nuclear engineering; 308 people in the major lines of control department; 225 in nuclear quality assurance; and then almost 2,500 people who do nuclear production work. So all of those would have to be, you would have to find that workforce, certify and qualify them, to be able to do that.\",\n \"The director of NR testified that Newport News and GD/BIW \\\"have sufficient capacity to accommodate nuclear-powered surface ship construction, and therefore there is no need to make the substantial investment in time and dollars necessary to generate additional excess capacity.\\\" In light of this, the Navy testified, only the first and third options above are \\\"viable.\\\" The director of NR testified that: my view of this is we have some additional capacity at both Electric Boat and at Northrop Grumman Newport News. My primary concern is if we are serious about building another nuclear-powered warship, a new class of warship, cost is obviously going to be some degree of concern, and certainly this additional costs, which would be—and I don't have a number to give you right now, but I think you can see it would be substantial to do it even if you could. It probably doesn't help our case to move down the path toward building another nuclear-powered case, when we have the capability existing already in those existing yards.\",\n \"With regard to the third option of building the nuclear portions of the ships at Newport News and/or GD/EB, and the non-nuclear portions at Ingalls and/or GD/BIW, the Navy testified that the \\\"Location of final ship erection would require additional analysis.\\\" One Navy official, however, expressed a potential preference for performing final assembly, integration, and test work at Newport News or GD/EB, stating that: we are building warships in modular sections now. So if we were going to [ask], \\\"Could you assemble this [ship], could you build modules of this ship in different yards and put it together in a nuclear-certified yard?\\\", the answer is yes, definitely, and we do that today with the Virginia Class [submarine program]. As you know, we are barging modules of [that type of] submarine up and down the coast. What I would want is, and sort of following along with what [NR director] Admiral [Kirkland] Donald said, you would want the delivering yard to be the yard where the reactor plant was built, tooled, and tested, because they have the expertise to run through all of that nuclear work and test and certify the ship and take it out on\",\n \"sea trials.\",\n \"But the modules of the non-reactor plant, which is the rest of the ship, could be built theoretically at other yards and barged or transported in other fashion to the delivering shipyard. If I had to do it ideally, that is where I would probably start talking to my industry partners, because although we have six [large] shipyards [for building large navy ships], it is really two corporations [that own them], and those two corporations each own what is now a surface combatant shipyard and they each own a nuclear-capable shipyard. I would say if we were going to go do this, we would sit down with them and say, you know, from a corporation standpoint, what would be the best work flow? What would be the best place to construct modules? And how would you do the final assembly and testing of a nuclear-powered warship? A related issue that Congress may consider in weighing whether future Navy surface ships (in addition to aircraft carriers) should be nuclear-powered is whether there is sufficient capacity at the firms that make nuclear-propulsion components to accommodate the increase in production volume that would result from building such ships with\",\n \"nuclear power.\",\n \"On this question, the Navy has testified: Right now, as I look across the industrial base that provides [for nuclear-powered ships], let's just talk about the components, for instance, and I just look across that base, because we have been asserting earlier that we were going to go to [a procurement rate of two Virginia-class submarines per year] earlier [than the currently planned year of FY2012], we had facilitized and have sustained an over-capacity in those facilities to support construction of those additional components. So right now, it depends on the vendor and which one is doing what, the capacity is running right now at probably about 65 percent of what it could be doing, on the order of that. Again, it varies depending on the vendor specifically. So there is additional capacity in there, and even with the addition of a second Virginia-class submarine, there is still a margin in there, if you are talking about a single cruiser in the early phases of design, we still have margin in there that I believe we can sustain that work in addition to the submarine work within the industrial base.\",\n \"We would have to look at that in more detail once we determine what the design looks like and the degree to which we can use existing components. If you had to design new components, that would add a little bit more complexity to it, but that is a rough estimate of what I would provide for you now. Building future Navy surface ships (in addition to aircraft carriers) with nuclear power could affect the future distribution of Navy ship maintenance and repair work, because only certain U.S. shipyards are qualified for performing certain kinds of work on nuclear-powered ships. Much of the maintenance and repair work done on nuclear-powered ships is done at the country's four government-operated naval shipyards (NSYs)—Portsmouth NSY at Kittery, ME, Norfolk NSY at Norfolk, VA; Puget Sound NSY at Bremerton, WA; and Pearl Harbor NSY at Pearl Harbor, HI. Newport News and GD/EB also perform some maintenance and repair work on nuclear-powered ships. Would the Navy have the capacity to train the additional nuclear-qualified sailors that would be needed to crew additional nuclear-powered ships?\",\n \"On this question, the director of NR testified that \\\"My training pipeline does have the capacity without further infrastructure investment to produce the additional personnel required by future classes of [nuclear-powered] ships.\\\" He also stated: We, in looking at the training pipeline, there are a couple of dynamics that are in work right now. First off, the [nuclear-powered aircraft carrier] Enterprise is going to be going away [in 2013], and that is a pretty significant training load just to keep that crew operating. And also, there as the CVN-21 [carrier class] comes on, [that is, as] the Ford-class carriers come on, and the [Nimitz-class nuclear-powered carriers] start to go away, [the number of people required to crew carriers will decrease, because with the] Ford class, we are targeting a 50 percent reduction in the reactor department sizing over there [compared to the Nimitz class]. So for the foreseeable future, the training infrastructure that we have right now will meet the needs to sustain this [additional] class [of nuclear-powered ship], if you choose to do it. A nuclear-powered ship might be less welcome than a conventionally powered ship in the ports of countries with strong anti-nuclear sentiments.\",\n \"The Navy works to minimize this issue in connection with its nuclear-powered submarines and aircraft carriers, and states that \\\"U.S. nuclear-powered warships are welcome today in over 150 ports in more than 50 countries worldwide, thus allowing our warships to carry out their mission without constraint.\\\" Some Navy ships are forward-homeported, meaning that they are homeported in foreign countries that are close to potential U.S. Navy operating areas overseas. Forward-homeported Navy ships have occasional need for access to maintenance facilities near their home ports, and foreign shipyards are not qualified to perform certain kinds of maintenance work on nuclear-powered Navy ships. Building Navy surface ships (in addition to aircraft carriers) with nuclear power might thus affect the number of potentially suitable locations for forward-homeporting the ships, should the Navy decide that forward homeporting them would be desirable for purposes of shortening transit times to and from potential operating areas. Conventionally powered ships exhaust greenhouse gases and other pollutants that are created through combustion of petroleum-based fuel. They can also leak fuel into the water, particularly if they are damaged in an accident (such as a collision) or by enemy attack.\",\n \"Other environmental impacts of conventionally powered ships include those associated with extracting oil from the ground, transporting it to a refinery, refining it into fuel, and transporting that fuel to the ship. Most of these activities produce additional greenhouse gases and other pollutants. Nuclear-powered ships do not exhaust greenhouse gases and other pollutants created through conventional combustion. The environmental impacts of nuclear-powered ships include those associated with mining and processing uranium to fuel reactors, and with storing and disposing of spent nuclear fuel cores, radioactive waste water from reactors, and the reactors and other radioactive components of retired nuclear-powered ships. As mentioned in the \\\" Background \\\" section, NR has established a reputation for maintaining very high safety standards for engineering and operating Navy nuclear power plants. In addition, Navy combat ships are built to withstand significant shock and battle damage. It is possible, however, that a very serious accident involving a nuclear-powered Navy ship (such as a major collision) or a major enemy attack on a nuclear-powered Navy ship might damage the ship's hull and reactor compartment enough to cause a release of radioactivity, which may have adverse effects on the environment.\",\n \"The House Armed Services Committee, in its report ( H.Rept. 111-491 of May 21, 2010) on the FY2011 defense authorization bill ( H.R. 5136 ), stated the following in its discussion of the Navy's request for FY2011 funding for its research and development account: Future integrated nuclear power systems The budget request contained $366.5 million in PE 63570N for advanced nuclear power systems, but contained no funds for development of small scale pressurized water reactors suitable for destroyer-sized vessels or for alternative nuclear power systems using thorium liquid salt technology. The committee remains committed to an all nuclear powered naval battle force. The committee notes that significant challenges in size and weight of nuclear technology make inclusion of integrated nuclear power systems on destroyer sized vessels currently impossible. Therefore, the committee believes that additional funding in engineering research and development is needed to design a smaller scale version of a naval pressurized water reactor, or to design a new reactor type potentially using a thorium liquid salt reactor developed for maritime use.\",\n \"The committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million in PE 63570N for research and design efforts to develop an integrated nuclear power system capable of use on destroyer-sized vessels either using a pressurized water reactor or a thorium liquid salt reactor. (Page 158) The Senate Armed Services Committee, in its report ( S.Rept. 111-201 of June 4, 2010) on the FY2011 defense authorization bill ( S. 3454 ), did not discuss the issue of nuclear power for surface ships other than aircraft carriers. The joint explanatory statement for the FY2011 defense authorization act ( H.R. 6523 / P.L. 111-383 of January 7, 2011) did not discuss the issue of nuclear power for surface ships other than aircraft carriers. The Senate Appropriations Committee, in its report ( S.Rept. 111-295 of September 16, 2010) on S. 3800 , did not discuss the issue of nuclear power for surface ships other than aircraft carriers. The House Armed Services Committee, in its report ( H.Rept. 111-166 of June 18, 2009) on H.R.\",\n \"2647 , stated: The committee believes that the next generation [CG(X)] cruiser must meet the challenge of emerging ballistic missile technology and that an integrated nuclear power system is required to achieve maximum capability of the vessel. (Page 72) The report also stated: The committee remains committed to the direction of section 1012 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181), which requires the use of an integrated nuclear propulsion system for the CGN(X) [cruiser]. (Page 75) Section 246 of H.R. 2647 would require the Department of Defense (DOD) to submit to the congressional defense committees a study on the use of thorium-liquid fueled nuclear reactors for Navy surface ships. The text of Section 246 is as follows: SEC. 246. STUDY ON THORIUM-LIQUID FUELED REACTORS FOR NAVAL FORCES. (a) Study Required- The Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff shall jointly carry out a study on the use of thorium-liquid fueled nuclear reactors for naval power needs pursuant to section 1012, of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 ( P.L. 110-181 ; 122 Stat. 303).\",\n \"(b) Contents of Study- In carrying out the study required under subsection (a), the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff shall, with respect to naval power requirements for the Navy strike and amphibious force— (1) compare and contrast thorium-liquid fueled reactor concept to the 2005 Quick Look, 2006 Navy Alternative Propulsion Study, and the navy CG(X) Analysis of Alternatives study; (2) identify the benefits to naval operations which thorium-liquid fueled nuclear reactors or uranium reactors would provide to major surface combatants compared to conventionally fueled ships, including such benefits with respect to— (A) fuel cycle, from mining to waste disposal; (B) security of fuel supply; (C) power needs for advanced weapons and sensors; (D) safety of operation, waste handling and disposal, and proliferation issues compared to uranium reactors; (E) no requirement to refuel and reduced logistics; (F) ship upgrades and retrofitting; (G) reduced manning; (H) global range at flank speed, greater forward presence, and extended combat operations; (I) power for advanced sensors and weapons, including electromagnetic guns and lasers; (J) survivability due to increased performance and reduced signatures; (K) high power density propulsion; (L) operational tempo; (M) operational effectiveness; and\",\n \"(N) estimated cost-effectiveness; and (3) conduct a ROM cost-effectiveness comparison of nuclear reactors in use by the Navy as of the date of the enactment of this Act, thorium-liquid fueled reactors, and conventional fueled major surface combatants, which shall include a comparison of— (A) security, safety, and infrastructure costs of fuel supplies; (B) nuclear proliferation issues; (C) reactor safety; (D) nuclear fuel safety, waste handling, and storage; (E) power requirements and distribution for sensors, weapons, and propulsion; and (F) capabilities to fully execute the Navy Maritime Strategic Concept.\",\n \"(c) Report- Not later than February 1, 2011, the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff shall jointly submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the results of the study required under subsection (a). Section 1012 of the FY2010 defense authorization bill ( S. 1390 ) as reported by the Senate Armed Services Committee ( S.Rept. 111-35 of July 2, 2009) would repeal Section 1012 of the FY2008 defense authorization act ( H.R. 4986 / P.L. 110-181 of January 28, 2008). The committee's report stated: The committee recommends a provision [Section 1012] that would repeal section 1012 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 ( P.L. 110-181 ). Section 1012 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 ( P.L. 110-181 ), as amended by section 1015 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 ( P.L.\",\n \"110-417 ), would require that all new classes of surface combatants and all new amphibious assault ships larger than 15,000 deadweight ton light ship displacement have integrated nuclear power systems, unless the Secretary of Defense determines that the inclusion of an integrated nuclear power system in such vessel is not in the national interest. The committee believes that the Navy is already having too much difficulty in achieving the goal of a 313-ship fleet without adding a substantial increment to the acquisition price of a significant portion of the fleet. Moreover, current acquisition law and the Weapon System Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 ( P.L. 111-23 ) emphasize the need to start acquisition programs on a sure footing as a central mechanism by which the Department of Defense (DOD) can get control of cost growth and schedule slippage on major defense acquisition programs. Therefore, Congress should be loathe to dictate a particular outcome of a requirements process before the Department has conducted the normal requirements review.\",\n \"The committee expects that the Navy will continue to evaluate the integrated nuclear power alternative for any new class of major surface combatants, but would prefer that any Navy requirements analysis not be skewed toward a particular outcome. (Page 170) The conference report ( H.Rept. 111-288 of October 7, 2009) on H.R. 2647 / P.L. 111-84 of October 28, 2009, stated: Repeal of policy relating to the major combatant vessels of the Unites States Navy The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 1012) that would repeal section 1012 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181). Section 1012, as amended, would require that all new classes of surface combatants and all new amphibious assault ships larger than 15,000 deadweight ton light ship displacement have integrated nuclear power systems, unless the Secretary of Defense determines that the inclusion of an integrated nuclear power system in such vessel is not in the national interest. The House bill contained no similar provision. The Senate recedes. (Page 822) The report also stated: Study on thorium-liquid fueled reactors for Naval forces The House bill contained a provision (sec.\",\n \"246) that would have directed the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to carry out jointly a study on the use of thorium-liquid fueled nuclear reactors for naval propulsion. The Senate amendment contained no similar provision. The House recedes. The conferees note that while there may be credible research initiatives to explore the use of molten salt reactors for commercial power generation, the use of molten salt reactors on naval vessels is not currently technically feasible and a requirement to perform a study on the use of molten salt reactors is premature. This is due to technology challenges with material construction (molten salt reactors are inherently corrosive to metals), storage of the liquid fuel, and radiation shielding for the crew from a non-solid fuel reactor. The conferees recommend that the Navy continue to monitor the progress of technology development in commercial application of molten salt reactors, including licensing, for potential future application. (Page 708) The House-reported version of H.R.\",\n \"5658 contained a provision (Section 1013) that would amend Section 1012 of the FY2008 defense authorization act (see discussion below) to include amphibious ships and amphibious command ships of a certain minimum size as among the types of ships to be built in the future with nuclear power unless the Secretary of Defense notifies Congress that nuclear power for a given class of ship would not be in the national interest. Section 1013 stated: SEC. 1013. POLICY RELATING TO MAJOR COMBATANT VESSELS OF THE STRIKE FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES NAVY. Section 1012(c)(1) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 ( P.L. 110-181 ) is amended by adding at the end the following: '(D) Amphibious assault ships, including dock landing ships (LSD), amphibious transport-dock ships (LPD), helicopter assault ships (LHA/LHD), and amphibious command ships (LCC), if such vessels exceed 15,000 dead weight ton light ship displacement.' In its report ( H.Rept. 110-652 of May 16, 2008) on H.R. 5658 , the House Armed Services Committee stated: This section would amend section 1012 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 ( P.L.\",\n \"110-181 ) by requiring that in addition to future ship classes of aircraft carriers, major surface combatants, and submarines, that assault echelon amphibious ships also must be constructed with integrated nuclear power systems if the ship's light weight displacement is greater than 15 thousand tons. The committee believes the future naval force should not be reliant on the availability of fossil fuel for fleet operations. Removing the need for access to fossil fuel sources significantly multiplies the effectiveness of the entire battle force and eliminates the dependence on foreign nation support of deployed naval forces. (Pages 428-429) The report of the Senate Armed Services Committee ( S.Rept. 110-335 of May 12, 2008) on the FY2009 defense authorization bill ( S. 3001 ) stated, with regard to the CG(X) cruiser, that: The John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 ( P.L. 109-364 ) required that the Navy include nuclear power in its Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) for the CG(X) propulsion system. Section 1012 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 ( P.L.\",\n \"110-181 ) further requires that CG(X) be nuclear powered, unless the Secretary of Defense submits a notification that inclusion of an integrated nuclear power system is not in the national interest. The statement of managers accompanying that act directed the Secretary of the Navy to submit a report with the budget request for fiscal year 2009 providing information regarding CG(X) design, cost, schedule, industrial base considerations, and risk assessment; that would reflect the results of the CG(X) AoA and provide evidence that the Navy is on schedule for procuring the first ship of the class in 2011. The Secretary of the Navy has delayed submission of the CG(X) report because the CG(X) AoA, which was scheduled to be complete by third quarter fiscal year 2007, remains under review by the Navy. Fundamental considerations regarding the cruiser's requirements, characteristics, technology readiness levels, and affordability continue to be studied, making it likely that milestone A, which was targeted for September 2007, will slip into 2009. By all measures, there is no reasonable path for the next-generation cruiser to meet the current schedule for milestone B and award of a ship construction contract in 2011.\",\n \"Pending completion of the AoA, determination of radar requirements, ship characteristics, propulsion system, and an executable program schedule, and in view of the delay to program major milestones, the activities planned for fiscal years 2008 and 2009 cannot be executed per the schedule reflected in the fiscal year 2009 budget request. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease [in the Navy's request for FY2009 research and development funding] of $87.2 million in PE 64300N and a decrease of $33.6 million in PE 64501N. These recommended decreases would maintain the cruiser development activities at the same level as was funded in fiscal year 2008. (Page 195) In lieu of a conference report, there was a compromise version of S. 3001 that was accompanied by a joint explanatory statement. Section 4 of S. 3001 states that the joint explanatory statement \\\"shall have the same effect with respect to the implementation of this Act as if it were a joint explanatory statement of a committee of conference.\\\" S. 3001 was signed into law as P.L. 110-417 on October 14, 2008. Section 1015 of S. 3001 / P.L.\",\n \"110-417 amended Section 1012 of the FY2008 defense authorization act (see discussion below) to include amphibious ships and amphibious command ships of a certain minimum size as among the types of ships to be built in the future with nuclear power unless the Secretary of Defense notifies Congress that nuclear power for a given class of ship would not be in the national interest. Section 1015 states: SEC. 1015. POLICY RELATING TO MAJOR COMBATANT VESSELS OF THE STRIKE FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES NAVY. Section 1012(c)(1) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 ( P.L. 110-181 ) is amended by adding at the end the following: \\\"(D) Amphibious assault ships, including dock landing ships (LSD), amphibious trans port—dock ships (LPD), helicopter assault ships (LHA/LHD), and amphibious command ships (LCC), if such vessels exceed 15,000 dead weight ton light ship displacement.\\\" The House-reported version of the FY2008 defense authorization bill (originally H.R. 1585 , a bill that was succeeded by H.R. 4986 following a presidential veto of H.R. 1585 ) contained a provision (Section 1012) that would make it U.S.\",\n \"policy to build submarines, aircraft carriers, cruisers, and other large surface combatants with nuclear power unless the Secretary of Defense notifies Congress that nuclear power for a given class of ship would not be in the national interest. The provision stated: SEC. 1012. POLICY RELATING TO MAJOR COMBATANT VESSELS OF THE STRIKE FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES NAVY. (a) Integrated Nuclear Power Systems- It is the policy of the United States to construct the major combatant vessels of the strike forces of the United States Navy, including all new classes of such vessels, with integrated nuclear power systems. (b) Requirement to Request Nuclear Vessels- If a request is submitted to Congress in the budget for a fiscal year for construction of a new class of major combatant vessel for the strike forces of the United States, the request shall be for such a vessel with an integrated nuclear power system, unless the Secretary of Defense submits with the request a notification to Congress that the inclusion of an integrated nuclear power system in such vessel is not in the national interest.\",\n \"(c) Definitions- In this section: (1) MAJOR COMBATANT VESSELS OF THE STRIKE FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES NAVY- The term `major combatant vessels of the strike forces of the United States Navy' means the following: (A) Submarines. (B) Aircraft carriers. (C) Cruisers, battleships, or other large surface combatants whose primary mission includes protection of carrier strike groups, expeditionary strike groups, and vessels comprising a sea base. (2) INTEGRATED NUCLEAR POWER SYSTEM- The term `integrated nuclear power system' means a ship engineering system that uses a naval nuclear reactor as its energy source and generates sufficient electric energy to provide power to the ship's electrical loads, including its combat systems and propulsion motors. (3) BUDGET- The term `budget' means the budget that is submitted to Congress by the President under section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code. The House Armed Services Committee, in its report ( H.Rept. 110-146 of May 11, 2007) on H.R.\",\n \"1585 , stated the following in regard to Section 1012: This section would require that all new ship classes of submarines, cruisers, and aircraft carriers be built with nuclear power systems unless the Secretary of Defense notifies the committee that it is not in the national interest to do so. The committee believes that the mobility, endurance, and electric power generation capability of nuclear powered warships is essential to the next generation of Navy cruisers. The Navy's report to Congress on alternative propulsion methods for surface combatants and amphibious warfare ships, required by section 130 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 ( P.L. 109-163 ), indicated that the total lifecycle cost for medium-sized nuclear surface combatants is equivalent to conventionally powered ships. The committee notes that this study only compared acquisition and maintenance costs and did not analyze the increased speed and endurance capability of nuclear powered vessels. The committee believes that the primary escort vessels for the Navy's fleet of aircraft carriers should have the same speed and endurance capability as the aircraft carrier.\",\n \"The committee also notes that surface combatants with nuclear propulsion systems would be more capable during independent operations because there would be no need for underway fuel replenishment. (Page 387) The Senate-reported version of the FY2008 defense authorization bill ( S. 1547 ) did not contain a provision analogous to Section 1012 of the House-reported version of H.R. 1585 . The report of the Senate Armed Services Committee on S. 1547 ( S.Rept. 110-77 of June 5, 2007) did not comment directly on the issue of nuclear power for Navy ships other than submarines and aircraft carriers. Section 1012 of the conference report ( H.Rept. 110-477 of December 6, 2007) on H.R. 1585 is the same as Section 1012 of the House-reported version of H.R. 1585 (see discussion above). In discussing Section 1012, the conference report stated: The Navy's next opportunity to apply this guidance will be the next generation cruiser, or \\\"CG(X)\\\". Under the current future-years defense program (FYDP), the Navy plans to award the construction contract for CG(X) in fiscal year 2011. Under this provision, the next cruiser would be identified as \\\"CGN(X)\\\" to designate the ship as nuclear powered.\",\n \"Under the Navy's normal shipbuilding schedule for the two programs that already have nuclear power systems (aircraft carriers and submarines), the Navy seeks authorization and appropriations for long lead time nuclear components for ships 2 years prior to full authorization and appropriation for construction. The conferees recognize that the milestone decision for the Navy's CG(X) is only months away. After that milestone decision, the Navy and its contractors will begin a significant design effort, and, in that process, will be making significant tradeoff decisions and discarding major options (such as propulsion alternatives). This is the normal process for the Navy and the Department of Defense (DOD) to make choices that will lead to producing a contract design that will be the basis for awarding the construction contract for the lead ship in 2011.\",\n \"In order for the Navy to live by the spirit of this guidance, the conferees agree that: (1) the Navy would be required to proceed through the contract design phase of the program with a comprehensive effort to design a CGN(X) independent of the outcome of decisions that the Navy or the DOD will make at the next milestone decision point regarding any preferred propulsion system for the next generation cruiser; (2) if the Navy intends to maintain the schedule in the current FYDP and award a vessel in fiscal year 2011, the Navy would need to request advance procurement for nuclear components in the fiscal year 2009 budget request; and (3) the Navy must consider options for: (a) maintaining the segment of the industrial base that currently produces the conventionally powered destroyer and amphibious forces of the Navy; (b) certifying yards which comprise that segment of the industrial base to build nuclear-powered vessels; or (c) seeking other alternatives for building non-nuclear ships in the future if the Navy is only building nuclear-powered surface combatant ships for some period of time as it builds CGN(X) vessels; and (d) identifying sources of funds to pay for the\",\n \"additional near-term costs of the integrated nuclear power system, either from offsets within the Navy's budget, from elsewhere within the Department's resources, or from gaining additional funds for DOD overall.\",\n \"The conferees recognize that these considerations will require significant additional near-term investment by the Navy. Some in the Navy have asserted that, despite such added investment, the Navy would not be ready to award a shipbuilding contract for a CGN(X) in fiscal year 2011 as in the current FYDP. Section 128 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364) required that the Navy include nuclear power in its Analysis of Alternatives (AOA) for the CG(X) propulsion system. The conferees are aware that the CG(X) AOA is nearing completion, in which case the Navy should have some indications of what it will require to design and construct a CGN(X) class.\",\n \"Accordingly, the conferees direct the Secretary of the Navy to submit a report to the congressional defense committees with the budget request for fiscal year 2009 providing the following information: (1) the set of next generation cruiser characteristics, such as displacement and manning, which would be affected by the requirement for including an integrated nuclear power system; (2) the Navy's estimate for additional costs to develop, design, and construct a CGN(X) to fill the requirement for the next generation cruiser, and the optimal phasing of those costs in order to deliver CGN(X) most affordably; (3) the Navy's assessment of any effects on the delivery schedule for the first ship of the next generation cruiser class that would be associated with shifting the design to incorporate an integrated nuclear propulsion system, options for reducing or eliminating those schedule effects, and alternatives for meeting next generation cruiser requirements during any intervening period if the cruiser's full operational capability were delayed; (4) the Navy's estimate for the cost associated with certifying those shipyards that currently produce conventionally powered surface combatants, to be capable of constructing and integrating a nuclear-powered combatant; (5) any other potential effects on the Navy's 30-year\",\n \"shipbuilding plan as a result of implementing these factors; (6) such other considerations that would need to be addressed in parallel with design and construction of a CGN(X) class, including any unique test and training facilities, facilities and infrastructure requirements for potential CGN(X) homeports, and environmental assessments that may require long-term coordination and planning; and (7) an assessment of the highest risk areas associated with meeting this requirement, and the Navy's alternatives for mitigating such risk.\",\n \"(Pages 984-986) H.R. 1585 was vetoed by the President on December 28, 2007. In response, Congress passed a modified bill, H.R. 4986 , that took into account the President's objections to H.R. 1585 . The modifications incorporated into H.R. 4986 did not affect the provisions discussed here, and for these and other unmodified parts of the bill, H.Rept. 110-477 in effect serves as the conference report for H.R. 4986 . H.R. 4986 was signed into law as P.L. 110-181 on January 28, 2008. Section 1012 of the conference report is similar in some respects to the so-called Title VIII legislation of the 1970s that required future Navy ships of certain kinds to be nuclear-powered. Section 130 of the conference report ( H.Rept. 109-360 of December 18, 2005) on the FY2006 defense authorization act ( H.R. 1815 / P.L. 109-163 of January 6, 2006) required the Navy to submit a report by November 1, 2006, on alternative propulsion methods for surface combatants and amphibious warfare ships. The Navy submitted the report to Congress in January 2007. Section 130 states: SEC. 130. REPORT ON ALTERNATIVE PROPULSION METHODS FOR SURFACE COMBATANTS AND AMPHIBIOUS WARFARE SHIPS.\",\n \"(a) ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES.—The Secretary of the Navy shall conduct an analysis of alternative propulsion methods for surface combatant vessels and amphibious warfare ships of the Navy. (b) REPORT.—The Secretary shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the analysis of alternative propulsion systems carried out under subsection (a). The report shall be submitted not later than November 1, 2006. (c) MATTERS TO BE INCLUDED.—The report under subsection (b) shall include the following: (1) The key assumptions used in carrying out the analysis under subsection (a). (2) The methodology and techniques used in conducting the analysis. (3) A description of current and future technology relating to propulsion that has been incorporated in recently-designed surface combatant vessels and amphibious warfare ships or that is expected to be available for those types of vessels within the next 10-to-20 years. (4) A description of each propulsion alternative for surface combatant vessels and amphibious warfare ships that was considered under the study and an analysis and evaluation of each such alternative from an operational and cost-effectiveness standpoint. (5) A comparison of the life-cycle costs of each propulsion alternative.\",\n \"(6) For each nuclear propulsion alternative, an analysis of when that nuclear propulsion alternative becomes cost effective as the price of a barrel of crude oil increases for each type of ship. (7) The conclusions and recommendations of the study, including those conclusions and recommendations that could impact the design of future ships or lead to modifications of existing ships. (8) The Secretary's intended actions, if any, for implementation of the conclusions and recommendations of the study. (d) LIFE-CYCLE COSTS.—For purposes of this section, the term \\\"life-cycle costs\\\" includes those elements of cost that would be considered for a life-cycle cost analysis for a major defense acquisition program.\"\n]","isConversational":false}}},{"rowIdx":16987,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"string","value":"train_16987"},"question":{"kind":"string","value":"Write a detailed summary of the following government report."},"answer":{"kind":"string","value":"In the 113th Congress, there has been renewed congressional interest in gun control legislation. On January 16, 2013, President Obama announced his support for legislation on gun control, including a ban on certain semiautomatic assault firearms and large capacity ammunition feeding devices. Senator Dianne Feinstein introduced S. 150, the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013, which would prohibit, subject to certain exceptions, the sale, transfer, possession, manufacturing, and importation of specifically named firearms and other firearms that have certain features, as well as the transfer and possession of large capacity ammunition feeding devices. Representative Carolyn McCarthy introduced a companion measure, H.R. 437, in the House of Representatives. S. 150 is similar to the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 (P.L. 103-322) that was in effect through September 13, 2004. The Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 was challenged in the courts for violating, among other things, the Equal Protection Clause and the Commerce Clause. This report reviews the disposition of these challenges. It also discusses Second Amendment jurisprudence in light of the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller and how lower courts have evaluated state and local assault weapons bans post-Heller."},"documents":{"kind":"list like","value":["At the outset of the 113 th Congress, there has been renewed congressional interest in gun control legislation. Senator Dianne Feinstein introduced S. 150 , the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013, which would prohibit, subject to certain exceptions, the sale, transfer, possession, manufacturing, and importation of specifically named firearms and other firearms that have certain features, as well as the transfer and possession of large capacity ammunition feeding devices. Representative Carolyn McCarthy introduced a companion measure, H.R. 437 , in the House of Representatives. S. 150 is similar to the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 that was in effect through September 13, 2004. As Congress considers S. 150 and other gun control measures, it may be useful to review the 1994 law and its relation to federal firearms law, as well as the disposition of the legal challenges to the ban.","Congress enacted the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA or Act) to \"keep firearms out of the hands of those not legally entitled to possess them because of age, criminal background, or incompetency, and to assist law enforcement authorities in the states and their subdivisions in combating the increasing prevalence of crime in the United States.\" The GCA establishes a comprehensive statutory scheme that regulates the manufacture, sale, transfer, and possession of firearms and ammunition. In particular, the GCA establishes nine classes of individuals who are prohibited from shipping, transporting, possessing, or receiving firearms and ammunition.","The individuals targeted by this provision include (1) persons convicted of a crime punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year; (2) fugitives from justice; (3) individuals who are unlawful users or addicts of any controlled substance; (4) persons legally determined to be mentally defective, or who have been committed to a mental institution; (5) aliens illegally or unlawfully in the United States, as well as those who have been admitted pursuant to a nonimmigrant visa; (6) individuals who have been discharged dishonorably from the Armed Forces; (7) persons who have renounced United States citizenship; (8) individuals subject to a pertinent court order; and, finally, (9) persons who have been convicted of a misdemeanor domestic violence offense. When the GCA was enacted, the transfer and sale of ammunition appear to have been regulated in the same manner as firearms. In 1986, Congress passed the Firearm Owners' Protection Act (FOPA), which repealed many of the regulations regarding ammunition. Consequently, the transfer and sale of ammunition is not as strictly regulated as the transfer and sale of firearms. In order to effectuate the general prohibitions outlined above, the GCA imposes significant requirements on the transfer of firearms.","Pursuant to the Act, any person who is \"engaged in the business\" of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in firearms must apply and be approved as a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL). FFLs are subject to several requirements designed to ensure that a firearm is not transferred to an individual disqualified from possession under the Act. For example, FFLs must verify the identity of a transferee by examining a government-issued identification document bearing a photograph of the transferee, such as a driver's license; conduct a background check on the transferee using the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS); maintain records of the acquisition and disposition of firearms; report multiple sales of handguns to the Attorney General; respond to an official request for information contained in the licensee's records within 24 hours of receipt; and comply with all other relevant state and local regulations. Not all sellers of firearms are required to be approved FFLs, however.","The GCA contains a specific exemption for any person who makes \"occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms.\" Although private sellers are not required to conduct a background check or maintain official records of transactions under federal law, they are prohibited from transferring a firearm if they know or have reasonable cause to believe that the transferee is a disqualified person. In addition to the requirements imposed upon the sale of firearms by FFLs and non-FFLs (or private individuals) generally, federal law also places significant limitations on the actual interstate transfer of weapons. Although FFLs have the ability to sell and ship firearms in interstate or foreign commerce, the GCA places several restrictions on the manner in which a transfer may occur. Specifically, while FFLs may make an in-person, over-the-counter sale of a long gun (i.e., shotgun or rifle) to any qualified individual regardless of her state of residence, they may only sell a handgun to a person who is a resident of the state in which the dealer's premises are located.","Relatedly, FFLs are prohibited from shipping firearms, both handguns and long guns, directly to consumers in other states. Instead, FFLs making a firearm sale to a non-resident must transfer the weapon to another FFL that is licensed in the transferee's state of residence and from whom the transferee may obtain the firearm after passing the required NICS background check. Firearm transfers between non-FFL sellers are also strictly regulated. Specifically, whereas FFLs may transfer a long gun to any individual regardless of her state of residence in an over-the-counter sale, the GCA specifically bars a non-FFL from directly selling or transferring any firearm to any person who is not a resident of the state in which the non-FFL resides. Instead, interstate transactions between non-FFLs result in the transferring party shipping the firearm to an FFL located in the transferee's state of residence. Congress enacted, as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Act (referred to as the \"Assault Weapons Ban\"), which established a 10-year prohibition on the manufacture, transfer, or possession of \"semiautomatic assault weapons,\" as defined by the act, as well as large capacity ammunition","feeding devices.","The act contained several exceptions, including a \"grandfather clause\" allowing for the possession of such items that were otherwise lawfully possessed on the date of enactment. The Assault Weapons Ban expired on September 13, 2004. Generally speaking, an \"assault weapon\" is considered to be a military style weapon capable of providing by a selector switch either semiautomatic—that is, the firearm discharges one round, then loads a new round, each time the trigger is pulled until the magazine is exhausted—or a fully automatic firearm—that is, continuous discharge of rounds while the trigger is depressed until all rounds are discharged. Under federal law, a fully automatic firearm falls under the definition \"machinegun,\" which is defined as \"any weapon that shoots ...","automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.\" Semiautomatic firearms, including semiautomatic assault weapons, are \"produced with semiautomatic fire capability only.\" The 1994 act made it \"unlawful for a person to manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon.\" Weapons banned were identified either by specific make or model (including copies or duplicates thereof, in any caliber), or by specific characteristics that slightly varied according to whether the weapon was a pistol, rifle, or shotgun. The act also made it unlawful to transfer and possess large capacity ammunition feeding devices (LCAFD). An LCAFD was defined as \"any magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device manufactured after the date [of the act] that has the capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition.\" LCAFDs manufactured after the date of enactment were required to have a serial number that \"clearly shows\" that they were manufactured after such date, as well as other markings prescribed by regulation.","The 1994 act included a grandfather clause and therefore allowed for the transfer of any \"semiautomatic assault weapon\" or LCAFD that was otherwise lawfully possessed on the date of enactment. Additionally, Congress exempted roughly 650 types or models of firearms, such as various models of Browning, Remington, and Berettas, deemed mainly suitable for target practice, match competition, hunting, and similar sporting purposes. This list was not exhaustive and the act provided that the absence of a firearm from the exempted list did not mean it was banned unless it met the definition of \"semiautomatic assault weapon.\" The act also exempted any firearm that (1) is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action; (2) has been rendered permanently inoperable; or (3) is an antique firearm. The act also did not apply to any semiautomatic rifle that cannot accept a detachable magazine that holds more than five rounds of ammunition nor any semiautomatic shotgun that cannot hold more than five rounds of ammunition in a fixed or detachable magazine. Furthermore, there were exemptions that permitted semiautomatic assault weapons and LCAFDs to be manufactured for, transferred to, and possessed by law enforcement and for authorized testing or","experimentation purposes.","The other exemptions included a transfer for purposes of federal security pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act, as well as possession by retired law enforcement officers who are not otherwise a prohibited possessor under law. The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban did not address the importation of semiautomatic assault weapons, rather Section 925(d)(3) of the GCA provides that the Attorney General shall authorize a firearm or ammunition to be imported or brought into the United States if it does not meet the definition of a firearm under the National Firearms Act, and is \"generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes, excluding surplus military rifles.\" Notably, the statute does not specifically describe or list any criteria that the Attorney General is required to take into consideration when determining what constitutes \"suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes.\" This provision permitting the importation of firearms is generally known as \"the sporting purposes test,\" and its implementation appears to be left to the Attorney General's discretion.","Prior to the implementation of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) identified several semiautomatic assault rifles that it determined did not meet the sporting suitability standard of Section 925(d)(3). On July 6, 1989, ATF prohibited importation of these rifles. This decision was, in part, based on ATF's finding that \"these rifles have certain characteristics that are common to modern military assault rifles and that distinguish them from traditional sporting rifles.\" Subsequent to this decision, domestic manufacturing of semiautomatic assault weapons reportedly increased, and foreign manufacturers reportedly \"circumvented the strictures of the [1989] ban [under President Bush] by reconfiguring their weapons and shipping them out under different models,\" as well as attempting to give the weapons a sporting appearance. The enactment of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban addressed these developments to a certain degree; however, ATF subsequently determined in 1997 that certain semiautomatic assault rifles could no longer be imported even though they were permitted to be imported under the 1989 \"sporting purposes test\" because they had been modified to remove all of their military features other than the ability to accept a detachable magazine.","Accordingly, on April 6, 1998, ATF prohibited the importation of 56 such rifles, determining that they did not meet the \"sporting purposes test.\" S. 150 , the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013, was introduced by Senator Dianne Feinstein in the 113 th Congress. A companion measure, H.R. 437 , was introduced by Representative Carolyn McCarthy in the House of Representatives. S. 150 would establish a regulatory scheme for \"semiautomatic assault weapons\" similar to the 1994 law with a few differences. First, it would ban approximately 157 specifically named firearms and any copies, duplicates, or variants thereof. It differs from the 1994 law because a semiautomatic firearm would be considered a \"semiautomatic assault weapon\" if it accepts a detachable magazine and has any one of five features (compared to two of five features in the 1994 law). The features listed in S. 150 are slightly different than those listed in the 1994 law. The bill also further provides definitions for each of the features listed. Second, the bill would prohibit the importation of—in addition to the sale, manufacture, transfer, and possession of—such weapons and LCAFDs.","The bill's exemptions are similar to the 1994 law; however, it would exempt more hunting and sporting rifles and shotguns by make and model (approximately 2,258), and prohibit the transfer of grandfathered semiautomatic assault weapons to other private individuals unless a background check is conducted through an FFL. Other differences from the 1994 law include an absence of a sunset provision; requirements for safe storage of semiautomatic assault weapons by any private persons; and a requirement for the Attorney General to establish, maintain, and annually report to Congress the make, model, and if available, the date of manufacture of any semiautomatic assault weapon which the Attorney General is made aware has been used in relation to a crime under federal or state law. The Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 was unsuccessfully challenged as violating several constitutional provisions. While arguments that the act constituted an impermissible Bill of Attainder, is unconstitutionally vague, and is contrary to the Ninth Amendment were readily dismissed by the courts, challenges to the ban based on the Commerce Clause and the Equal Protection Clause received more measured consideration. The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was challenged on the basis that it violated the","Commerce Clause.","The ban was evaluated under the factors delineated by the Supreme Court in United States v. Lopez , which held that Congress had exceeded its constitutional authority under the Commerce Clause by passing the Gun Free School Zone Act of 1990 (School Zone Act). The Court in Lopez clarified the judiciary's traditional approach to Commerce Clause analysis and identified three broad categories of activity that Congress may regulate under its commerce power. These are (1) the channels of commerce; (2) the instrumentalities of commerce in interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce; and (3) activities which \"substantially affect\" interstate commerce. In examining the School Zone Act, the Court concluded that possession of a gun in a school zone was neither a regulation of the channels nor the instrumentalities of interstate commerce. Because the conduct regulated was considered to be a wholly intrastate activity, the Court concluded that Congress could only regulate if it fell within the third category and \"substantially affect[ed]\" interstate commerce.","The Court indicated that intrastate activities have been, and could be, regulated by Congress where the activities \"arise out of or are connected with a commercial transaction\" and are \"part of a larger regulation of economic activity, in which the regulatory scheme could be undercut unless the intrastate activity were regulated.\" With respect to the School Zone Act, the Court declared that the intrastate activity was not a part of the larger firearms regulatory scheme. Moreover, the Court found it significant that the act did not require that interstate commerce be affected, such as by requiring the gun to be transported in interstate commerce. Commerce Clause challenges to the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban were evaluated under the framework provided by the Lopez decision, and lower courts readily determined that the act met minimum constitutional requirements under the Commerce Clause. For example, in Navegar, Inc. v. United States , the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) addressed the question of whether the act fell within one of the three categories of activity identified in Lopez . Like the Court in Lopez , the D.C.","Circuit determined that it was not required to analyze the act under the first or second categories because the \"[it] readily falls within category 3 as a regulation of activities having a substantial [e]ffect on interstate commerce.\" The court analyzed individually the act's prohibitions on manufacture, transfer, and possession. Regarding the manufacturing prohibition, the D.C. Circuit declared that \"[t]he Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the manufacture of goods which may ultimately never leave the state can still be activity which substantially affects interstate commerce.\" Regarding the prohibition on transfers, the court similarly remarked that \"the Supreme Court precedent makes clear that the transfer of goods, even as part of an intrastate transaction, can be an activity which substantially affects interstate commerce.\" Based on these maxims, the court held that \"it is not even arguable that the manufacture and transfer of 'semiautomatic assault weapons' for a national market cannot be regulated as activity substantially affecting interstate commerce.\" However, with respect to the possession of a semiautomatic assault weapon, the court in Navegar noted that the Lopez decision raised a question of whether \"mere possession\" can substantially affect interstate commerce.","The court proceeded to analyze the purposes behind the act to determine whether \"it was aimed at regulating activities which substantially affect interstate commerce.\" Analyzing the congressional hearings, the court determined that the ban on possession was \"conceived to control and restrict the interstate commerce in 'semiautomatic assault weapons,'\" and that the \"ban on possession is a measure intended to reduce the demand for such weapons.\" The D.C. Circuit stated that the ban on possession was \"necessary to allow law enforcement to effectively regulate the manufacture and transfers where the product comes to rest, in the possession of the receiver.\" Based on these factors, the court held that the \"purpose of the ban on possession has an 'evident commercial nexus.'\" Although the Supreme Court further clarified its Commerce Clause jurisprudence in later decisions, such as Gonzales v. Raich , it appears that the Commerce Clause analysis applicable to the ability of Congress to regulate or ban certain semiautomatic assault weapons would not be fundamentally altered by these later developments.","The Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 was also challenged on Equal Protection Clause grounds, with opponents arguing that it prohibited weapons that were the functional equivalents of weapons exempted under the Act, and because the prohibition of other semiautomatic assault weapons based upon their characteristics served no legitimate governmental interest. A court must employ one of the three levels of judicial scrutiny in an Equal Protection Clause analysis to determine whether a law negatively impacts a suspect class or a fundamental right. If there is such an impact, the law is subjected to strict scrutiny, requiring the government to prove that the law is necessary to satisfy a compelling governmental interest. If a law does not affect a suspect class or a fundamental right, the court engages in a \"rational basis\" review, requiring only that the law be rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest. Applying these standards, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (Sixth Circuit) held that the provisions of the 1994 law did not violate the Equal Protection Clause. In Olympic Arms v.","Buckles , the Sixth Circuit first noted that the lower court had held that the plaintiffs' claim was non-cognizable, given that the \"Equal Protection Clause protects against inappropriate classifications of people, rather than things.\" However, the court stated that other rulings have held that since persons may have an interest in things, their classification may be challenged on equal protection grounds. Rather than resolve this disparity on the scope of the Equal Protection Clause, the Sixth Circuit went on to declare that \"even if we were to assume that equal protection analysis is appropriate here, we would have to conclude that the semi-automatic assault weapons ban meets all equal protection requirements.\" The court first addressed the argument \"that variations in the specificity of weapon descriptions and lack of common characteristics in the list of weapons outlawed destroy the constitutional legitimacy of the 1994 Act.\" The Sixth Circuit found this argument to be without merit for several reasons. First, the court found it significant that the list of prohibited firearms was developed to target weapons commonly used in the commission of violent crimes.","Additionally, the court found that the prohibition on copies or duplicates of listed firearms was incorporated to prevent manufacturers from circumventing the act's terms \"by simply changing the name of the specified weapons.\" Finally, the court noted that the list of exempted weapons was based on the determination that they were particularly suited to sporting purposes. Taking these factors together, the Sixth Circuit held that it was \"entirely rational for Congress ... to choose to ban those weapons commonly used for criminal purposes and to exempt those weapons commonly used for recreational purposes.\" The fact that many of the protected weapons were somewhat similar in function to those that were banned does not destroy the rationality of the congressional choice. The Sixth Circuit next addressed whether prohibiting weapons based upon having two or more qualifying features was irrational, given that the act allowed a weapon to possess one such feature and that the individual features did not operate in tandem with one another.","The court also rejected this argument, explaining that each characteristic served to make the weapon \"potentially more dangerous,\" and were not \"commonly used on weapons designed solely for hunting.\" The court also explained that \"Congress could have easily determined that the greater the number of dangerous add-ons on a semi-automatic weapon, the greater the likelihood that the weapon may be used for dangerous purposes.\" Accordingly, the Sixth Circuit concluded that the plaintiffs had \"failed to meet the heavy burden required to show that the 1994 Act violates equal protection.\" Notably, the Sixth Circuit reviewed the equal protection claim under the rational basis test finding that \"precedent does not recognize a fundamental right to individual weapon ownership or manufacture, and the plaintiffs, gun retailers and owners, are not a suspect class.\" While the latter is still accurate, precedent regarding a fundamental right to individual weapon ownership has changed with the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller . As discussed below, the full nature of the right guaranteed by the Second Amendment has yet to be determined by the courts.","Therefore, a court considering an equal protection claim in the context of a semiautomatic assault weapons ban could conceivably determine that it is necessary to first address the fundamental issue of whether assault weapons are protected by the Second Amendment. If enacted, an assault weapons ban could also be challenged on Second Amendment grounds in light of the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller . In Heller , the Court recognized that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms for lawful purposes such as self-defense within the home. The decision was not an exhaustive analysis of the full scope of the right guaranteed by the Second Amendment, but the Court stated that \"[l]ike most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.\" One limitation upon the Second Amendment the Court addressed is that it \"does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.\" The Court found that its prior 1939 decision in United States v. Miller supported this conclusion.","Relying on Miller , the Court acknowledged that this limitation is supported by the \"historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons'\" and that the \"sorts of weapons protected were those 'in common use at the time'\" because those capable of service in the militia at the time of ratification would have brought \"the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty.\" Since Heller , cases that have evaluated the constitutionality of state assault weapons bans have generally found them to be valid under the Second Amendment. In 2009, the California Court of Appeals decided People v. James , which held that possession of an assault weapon in California remains unlawful and is not protected by the Second Amendment.","California's Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989, like the 1994 federal assault weapons ban, defines \"assault weapons\" by providing a list of proscribed weapons and through characteristics \"which render these weapons more dangerous than ordinary weapons typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.\" Relying on Heller 's brief discussion that the Second Amendment does not protect a military weapon, such as an M16 rifle, the court in James declared that the prohibited weapons on the state's list \"are not the types of weapons that are typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes such as sport hunting or self-defense; rather these are weapons of war.\" It concluded that the relevant portion of the act did not prohibit conduct protected by the Second Amendment as defined in Heller and therefore the state was within its ability to prohibit the types of dangerous and unusual weapons an individual can use. The District of Columbia amended its firearms regulations after the Heller decision and enacted new firearms regulations including an assault weapons ban that is similar to California's. In 2011, the D.C. Circuit issued its decision in Heller v.","District of Columbia ( Heller II ) which upheld the District's ban on certain semiautomatic rifles and LCAFDs. Under the \"common use\" factor delineated in Heller , the D.C. Circuit acknowledged that \"it was clear enough in the record that certain semi-automatic rifles and magazines holding more than 10 rounds are indeed in 'common use.'\" However, the court could not conclude definitely whether the weapons are \"commonly used or are useful specifically for self-defense or hunting\" such that they \"meaningfully affect the right to keep and bear arms.\" Therefore, the court went on to analyze the bans under a two-stepped approach to determine their validity under the Second Amendment. Under this approach, the court first asks whether a particular provision impinges upon a right protected by the Second Amendment as historically understood. If it does, then it goes on to determine whether the provision passes muster under the appropriate level of constitutional scrutiny.","Assuming that the ban impinged on the right protected under Heller (i.e., to possess certain arms for lawful purposes such as individual self-defense or hunting), the court found that such regulations should be reviewed under intermediate scrutiny because the prohibition \"does not effectively disarm individuals or substantially affect their ability to defend themselves.\" Under intermediate scrutiny, the government has the burden of showing that there is a substantial relationship or reasonable \"fit\" between the regulation and the important governmental interest \"in protecting police officers and controlling crime.\" The D.C. Circuit held that the District carried this burden and that the evidence demonstrated that a ban on both semiautomatic assault rifles and LCAFDs \"is likely to promote the Government's interest in crime control in the densely populated urban area that is the District of Columbia.\" In 2012, the Supreme Court of Illinois decided Wilson v. Cook County , a case that evaluated the constitutionality of the Blair Holt Assault Weapons Ban of Cook County, a long-standing ordinance that was amended to similarly reflect provisions of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. The plaintiffs argued that the ordinance violates the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the U.S.","Constitution as well as the Second Amendment. Regarding the due process claim, the court concluded that the ordinance is not unconstitutionally vague such that it \"fails to provide people of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to understand what conduct it prohibits.\" The court also dismissed the plaintiff's equal protection claim, finding that the \"[o]rdinance does not arbitrarily differentiate between two owners with similar firearms because the banned firearms are either listed, a copy or duplicate, or fall under the characteristics-based test.\" With respect to the Second Amendment claim, the court indicated that it would follow the two-step approach similar to the Heller II court. While the court acknowledged that the ordinance banned only a subset of weapons with particular characteristics similar to other jurisdictions, it found that it could not \"conclusively say ...","that assault weapons as defined in the [o]rdinance categorically fall outside the scope of the rights protected by the [S]econd [A]mendment.\" The court ultimately remanded the Second Amendment claim to the trial court for further proceedings, because unlike the James and Heller II decisions, the county did not have an opportunity to present evidence to justify the nexus between the ordinance and the governmental interest it seeks to protect. These cases demonstrate that courts evaluating various assault weapons bans, and to a limited extent LCAFD bans, have looked to the Heller decision and the general framework that has developed in the lower courts for analyzing claims under the Second Amendment.","Based on the Heller decision where the Supreme Court indicated that certain weapons fall outside the protection of the Second Amendment, lower courts have examined whether the prohibited weapons are considered in \"common use\" or \"commonly used\" for lawful purposes or \"dangerous and unusual.\" It is uncertain whether, to be protected under the Second Amendment, the weapon must be in \"common use\" by the people and if so, must it be in \"common use\" for self-defense or hunting, or what constitutes \"dangerous and unusual.\" Heller could arguably be taken to indicate that if the prohibited weapons do not meet these criteria then they are not protected by the Second Amendment, in which case no heighted judicial scrutiny would be applied. Courts also could evaluate such measures under the two-step approach laid out by the lower courts. This asks whether a ban on certain weapons and firearm accessories imposes a burden on conduct falling within the scope of the Second Amendment. If so, then a heightened level of judicial scrutiny will be applied to determine the ban's constitutionality.","How the \"common use\" and \"dangerous and unusual\" criteria should be read, if at all, in connection with the two-step approach remains unclear. Neither the James , Heller II , nor Wilson courts appear to have fully explained the connection between the two approaches. Lastly, while it appeared that constitutional claims under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses were largely dismissed when the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was in effect, the Wilson case demonstrates that they are claims challengers may still consider raising."],"string":"[\n \"At the outset of the 113 th Congress, there has been renewed congressional interest in gun control legislation. Senator Dianne Feinstein introduced S. 150 , the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013, which would prohibit, subject to certain exceptions, the sale, transfer, possession, manufacturing, and importation of specifically named firearms and other firearms that have certain features, as well as the transfer and possession of large capacity ammunition feeding devices. Representative Carolyn McCarthy introduced a companion measure, H.R. 437 , in the House of Representatives. S. 150 is similar to the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 that was in effect through September 13, 2004. As Congress considers S. 150 and other gun control measures, it may be useful to review the 1994 law and its relation to federal firearms law, as well as the disposition of the legal challenges to the ban.\",\n \"Congress enacted the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA or Act) to \\\"keep firearms out of the hands of those not legally entitled to possess them because of age, criminal background, or incompetency, and to assist law enforcement authorities in the states and their subdivisions in combating the increasing prevalence of crime in the United States.\\\" The GCA establishes a comprehensive statutory scheme that regulates the manufacture, sale, transfer, and possession of firearms and ammunition. In particular, the GCA establishes nine classes of individuals who are prohibited from shipping, transporting, possessing, or receiving firearms and ammunition.\",\n \"The individuals targeted by this provision include (1) persons convicted of a crime punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year; (2) fugitives from justice; (3) individuals who are unlawful users or addicts of any controlled substance; (4) persons legally determined to be mentally defective, or who have been committed to a mental institution; (5) aliens illegally or unlawfully in the United States, as well as those who have been admitted pursuant to a nonimmigrant visa; (6) individuals who have been discharged dishonorably from the Armed Forces; (7) persons who have renounced United States citizenship; (8) individuals subject to a pertinent court order; and, finally, (9) persons who have been convicted of a misdemeanor domestic violence offense. When the GCA was enacted, the transfer and sale of ammunition appear to have been regulated in the same manner as firearms. In 1986, Congress passed the Firearm Owners' Protection Act (FOPA), which repealed many of the regulations regarding ammunition. Consequently, the transfer and sale of ammunition is not as strictly regulated as the transfer and sale of firearms. In order to effectuate the general prohibitions outlined above, the GCA imposes significant requirements on the transfer of firearms.\",\n \"Pursuant to the Act, any person who is \\\"engaged in the business\\\" of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in firearms must apply and be approved as a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL). FFLs are subject to several requirements designed to ensure that a firearm is not transferred to an individual disqualified from possession under the Act. For example, FFLs must verify the identity of a transferee by examining a government-issued identification document bearing a photograph of the transferee, such as a driver's license; conduct a background check on the transferee using the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS); maintain records of the acquisition and disposition of firearms; report multiple sales of handguns to the Attorney General; respond to an official request for information contained in the licensee's records within 24 hours of receipt; and comply with all other relevant state and local regulations. Not all sellers of firearms are required to be approved FFLs, however.\",\n \"The GCA contains a specific exemption for any person who makes \\\"occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms.\\\" Although private sellers are not required to conduct a background check or maintain official records of transactions under federal law, they are prohibited from transferring a firearm if they know or have reasonable cause to believe that the transferee is a disqualified person. In addition to the requirements imposed upon the sale of firearms by FFLs and non-FFLs (or private individuals) generally, federal law also places significant limitations on the actual interstate transfer of weapons. Although FFLs have the ability to sell and ship firearms in interstate or foreign commerce, the GCA places several restrictions on the manner in which a transfer may occur. Specifically, while FFLs may make an in-person, over-the-counter sale of a long gun (i.e., shotgun or rifle) to any qualified individual regardless of her state of residence, they may only sell a handgun to a person who is a resident of the state in which the dealer's premises are located.\",\n \"Relatedly, FFLs are prohibited from shipping firearms, both handguns and long guns, directly to consumers in other states. Instead, FFLs making a firearm sale to a non-resident must transfer the weapon to another FFL that is licensed in the transferee's state of residence and from whom the transferee may obtain the firearm after passing the required NICS background check. Firearm transfers between non-FFL sellers are also strictly regulated. Specifically, whereas FFLs may transfer a long gun to any individual regardless of her state of residence in an over-the-counter sale, the GCA specifically bars a non-FFL from directly selling or transferring any firearm to any person who is not a resident of the state in which the non-FFL resides. Instead, interstate transactions between non-FFLs result in the transferring party shipping the firearm to an FFL located in the transferee's state of residence. Congress enacted, as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Act (referred to as the \\\"Assault Weapons Ban\\\"), which established a 10-year prohibition on the manufacture, transfer, or possession of \\\"semiautomatic assault weapons,\\\" as defined by the act, as well as large capacity ammunition\",\n \"feeding devices.\",\n \"The act contained several exceptions, including a \\\"grandfather clause\\\" allowing for the possession of such items that were otherwise lawfully possessed on the date of enactment. The Assault Weapons Ban expired on September 13, 2004. Generally speaking, an \\\"assault weapon\\\" is considered to be a military style weapon capable of providing by a selector switch either semiautomatic—that is, the firearm discharges one round, then loads a new round, each time the trigger is pulled until the magazine is exhausted—or a fully automatic firearm—that is, continuous discharge of rounds while the trigger is depressed until all rounds are discharged. Under federal law, a fully automatic firearm falls under the definition \\\"machinegun,\\\" which is defined as \\\"any weapon that shoots ...\",\n \"automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.\\\" Semiautomatic firearms, including semiautomatic assault weapons, are \\\"produced with semiautomatic fire capability only.\\\" The 1994 act made it \\\"unlawful for a person to manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon.\\\" Weapons banned were identified either by specific make or model (including copies or duplicates thereof, in any caliber), or by specific characteristics that slightly varied according to whether the weapon was a pistol, rifle, or shotgun. The act also made it unlawful to transfer and possess large capacity ammunition feeding devices (LCAFD). An LCAFD was defined as \\\"any magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device manufactured after the date [of the act] that has the capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition.\\\" LCAFDs manufactured after the date of enactment were required to have a serial number that \\\"clearly shows\\\" that they were manufactured after such date, as well as other markings prescribed by regulation.\",\n \"The 1994 act included a grandfather clause and therefore allowed for the transfer of any \\\"semiautomatic assault weapon\\\" or LCAFD that was otherwise lawfully possessed on the date of enactment. Additionally, Congress exempted roughly 650 types or models of firearms, such as various models of Browning, Remington, and Berettas, deemed mainly suitable for target practice, match competition, hunting, and similar sporting purposes. This list was not exhaustive and the act provided that the absence of a firearm from the exempted list did not mean it was banned unless it met the definition of \\\"semiautomatic assault weapon.\\\" The act also exempted any firearm that (1) is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action; (2) has been rendered permanently inoperable; or (3) is an antique firearm. The act also did not apply to any semiautomatic rifle that cannot accept a detachable magazine that holds more than five rounds of ammunition nor any semiautomatic shotgun that cannot hold more than five rounds of ammunition in a fixed or detachable magazine. Furthermore, there were exemptions that permitted semiautomatic assault weapons and LCAFDs to be manufactured for, transferred to, and possessed by law enforcement and for authorized testing or\",\n \"experimentation purposes.\",\n \"The other exemptions included a transfer for purposes of federal security pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act, as well as possession by retired law enforcement officers who are not otherwise a prohibited possessor under law. The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban did not address the importation of semiautomatic assault weapons, rather Section 925(d)(3) of the GCA provides that the Attorney General shall authorize a firearm or ammunition to be imported or brought into the United States if it does not meet the definition of a firearm under the National Firearms Act, and is \\\"generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes, excluding surplus military rifles.\\\" Notably, the statute does not specifically describe or list any criteria that the Attorney General is required to take into consideration when determining what constitutes \\\"suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes.\\\" This provision permitting the importation of firearms is generally known as \\\"the sporting purposes test,\\\" and its implementation appears to be left to the Attorney General's discretion.\",\n \"Prior to the implementation of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) identified several semiautomatic assault rifles that it determined did not meet the sporting suitability standard of Section 925(d)(3). On July 6, 1989, ATF prohibited importation of these rifles. This decision was, in part, based on ATF's finding that \\\"these rifles have certain characteristics that are common to modern military assault rifles and that distinguish them from traditional sporting rifles.\\\" Subsequent to this decision, domestic manufacturing of semiautomatic assault weapons reportedly increased, and foreign manufacturers reportedly \\\"circumvented the strictures of the [1989] ban [under President Bush] by reconfiguring their weapons and shipping them out under different models,\\\" as well as attempting to give the weapons a sporting appearance. The enactment of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban addressed these developments to a certain degree; however, ATF subsequently determined in 1997 that certain semiautomatic assault rifles could no longer be imported even though they were permitted to be imported under the 1989 \\\"sporting purposes test\\\" because they had been modified to remove all of their military features other than the ability to accept a detachable magazine.\",\n \"Accordingly, on April 6, 1998, ATF prohibited the importation of 56 such rifles, determining that they did not meet the \\\"sporting purposes test.\\\" S. 150 , the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013, was introduced by Senator Dianne Feinstein in the 113 th Congress. A companion measure, H.R. 437 , was introduced by Representative Carolyn McCarthy in the House of Representatives. S. 150 would establish a regulatory scheme for \\\"semiautomatic assault weapons\\\" similar to the 1994 law with a few differences. First, it would ban approximately 157 specifically named firearms and any copies, duplicates, or variants thereof. It differs from the 1994 law because a semiautomatic firearm would be considered a \\\"semiautomatic assault weapon\\\" if it accepts a detachable magazine and has any one of five features (compared to two of five features in the 1994 law). The features listed in S. 150 are slightly different than those listed in the 1994 law. The bill also further provides definitions for each of the features listed. Second, the bill would prohibit the importation of—in addition to the sale, manufacture, transfer, and possession of—such weapons and LCAFDs.\",\n \"The bill's exemptions are similar to the 1994 law; however, it would exempt more hunting and sporting rifles and shotguns by make and model (approximately 2,258), and prohibit the transfer of grandfathered semiautomatic assault weapons to other private individuals unless a background check is conducted through an FFL. Other differences from the 1994 law include an absence of a sunset provision; requirements for safe storage of semiautomatic assault weapons by any private persons; and a requirement for the Attorney General to establish, maintain, and annually report to Congress the make, model, and if available, the date of manufacture of any semiautomatic assault weapon which the Attorney General is made aware has been used in relation to a crime under federal or state law. The Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 was unsuccessfully challenged as violating several constitutional provisions. While arguments that the act constituted an impermissible Bill of Attainder, is unconstitutionally vague, and is contrary to the Ninth Amendment were readily dismissed by the courts, challenges to the ban based on the Commerce Clause and the Equal Protection Clause received more measured consideration. The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was challenged on the basis that it violated the\",\n \"Commerce Clause.\",\n \"The ban was evaluated under the factors delineated by the Supreme Court in United States v. Lopez , which held that Congress had exceeded its constitutional authority under the Commerce Clause by passing the Gun Free School Zone Act of 1990 (School Zone Act). The Court in Lopez clarified the judiciary's traditional approach to Commerce Clause analysis and identified three broad categories of activity that Congress may regulate under its commerce power. These are (1) the channels of commerce; (2) the instrumentalities of commerce in interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce; and (3) activities which \\\"substantially affect\\\" interstate commerce. In examining the School Zone Act, the Court concluded that possession of a gun in a school zone was neither a regulation of the channels nor the instrumentalities of interstate commerce. Because the conduct regulated was considered to be a wholly intrastate activity, the Court concluded that Congress could only regulate if it fell within the third category and \\\"substantially affect[ed]\\\" interstate commerce.\",\n \"The Court indicated that intrastate activities have been, and could be, regulated by Congress where the activities \\\"arise out of or are connected with a commercial transaction\\\" and are \\\"part of a larger regulation of economic activity, in which the regulatory scheme could be undercut unless the intrastate activity were regulated.\\\" With respect to the School Zone Act, the Court declared that the intrastate activity was not a part of the larger firearms regulatory scheme. Moreover, the Court found it significant that the act did not require that interstate commerce be affected, such as by requiring the gun to be transported in interstate commerce. Commerce Clause challenges to the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban were evaluated under the framework provided by the Lopez decision, and lower courts readily determined that the act met minimum constitutional requirements under the Commerce Clause. For example, in Navegar, Inc. v. United States , the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) addressed the question of whether the act fell within one of the three categories of activity identified in Lopez . Like the Court in Lopez , the D.C.\",\n \"Circuit determined that it was not required to analyze the act under the first or second categories because the \\\"[it] readily falls within category 3 as a regulation of activities having a substantial [e]ffect on interstate commerce.\\\" The court analyzed individually the act's prohibitions on manufacture, transfer, and possession. Regarding the manufacturing prohibition, the D.C. Circuit declared that \\\"[t]he Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the manufacture of goods which may ultimately never leave the state can still be activity which substantially affects interstate commerce.\\\" Regarding the prohibition on transfers, the court similarly remarked that \\\"the Supreme Court precedent makes clear that the transfer of goods, even as part of an intrastate transaction, can be an activity which substantially affects interstate commerce.\\\" Based on these maxims, the court held that \\\"it is not even arguable that the manufacture and transfer of 'semiautomatic assault weapons' for a national market cannot be regulated as activity substantially affecting interstate commerce.\\\" However, with respect to the possession of a semiautomatic assault weapon, the court in Navegar noted that the Lopez decision raised a question of whether \\\"mere possession\\\" can substantially affect interstate commerce.\",\n \"The court proceeded to analyze the purposes behind the act to determine whether \\\"it was aimed at regulating activities which substantially affect interstate commerce.\\\" Analyzing the congressional hearings, the court determined that the ban on possession was \\\"conceived to control and restrict the interstate commerce in 'semiautomatic assault weapons,'\\\" and that the \\\"ban on possession is a measure intended to reduce the demand for such weapons.\\\" The D.C. Circuit stated that the ban on possession was \\\"necessary to allow law enforcement to effectively regulate the manufacture and transfers where the product comes to rest, in the possession of the receiver.\\\" Based on these factors, the court held that the \\\"purpose of the ban on possession has an 'evident commercial nexus.'\\\" Although the Supreme Court further clarified its Commerce Clause jurisprudence in later decisions, such as Gonzales v. Raich , it appears that the Commerce Clause analysis applicable to the ability of Congress to regulate or ban certain semiautomatic assault weapons would not be fundamentally altered by these later developments.\",\n \"The Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 was also challenged on Equal Protection Clause grounds, with opponents arguing that it prohibited weapons that were the functional equivalents of weapons exempted under the Act, and because the prohibition of other semiautomatic assault weapons based upon their characteristics served no legitimate governmental interest. A court must employ one of the three levels of judicial scrutiny in an Equal Protection Clause analysis to determine whether a law negatively impacts a suspect class or a fundamental right. If there is such an impact, the law is subjected to strict scrutiny, requiring the government to prove that the law is necessary to satisfy a compelling governmental interest. If a law does not affect a suspect class or a fundamental right, the court engages in a \\\"rational basis\\\" review, requiring only that the law be rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest. Applying these standards, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (Sixth Circuit) held that the provisions of the 1994 law did not violate the Equal Protection Clause. In Olympic Arms v.\",\n \"Buckles , the Sixth Circuit first noted that the lower court had held that the plaintiffs' claim was non-cognizable, given that the \\\"Equal Protection Clause protects against inappropriate classifications of people, rather than things.\\\" However, the court stated that other rulings have held that since persons may have an interest in things, their classification may be challenged on equal protection grounds. Rather than resolve this disparity on the scope of the Equal Protection Clause, the Sixth Circuit went on to declare that \\\"even if we were to assume that equal protection analysis is appropriate here, we would have to conclude that the semi-automatic assault weapons ban meets all equal protection requirements.\\\" The court first addressed the argument \\\"that variations in the specificity of weapon descriptions and lack of common characteristics in the list of weapons outlawed destroy the constitutional legitimacy of the 1994 Act.\\\" The Sixth Circuit found this argument to be without merit for several reasons. First, the court found it significant that the list of prohibited firearms was developed to target weapons commonly used in the commission of violent crimes.\",\n \"Additionally, the court found that the prohibition on copies or duplicates of listed firearms was incorporated to prevent manufacturers from circumventing the act's terms \\\"by simply changing the name of the specified weapons.\\\" Finally, the court noted that the list of exempted weapons was based on the determination that they were particularly suited to sporting purposes. Taking these factors together, the Sixth Circuit held that it was \\\"entirely rational for Congress ... to choose to ban those weapons commonly used for criminal purposes and to exempt those weapons commonly used for recreational purposes.\\\" The fact that many of the protected weapons were somewhat similar in function to those that were banned does not destroy the rationality of the congressional choice. The Sixth Circuit next addressed whether prohibiting weapons based upon having two or more qualifying features was irrational, given that the act allowed a weapon to possess one such feature and that the individual features did not operate in tandem with one another.\",\n \"The court also rejected this argument, explaining that each characteristic served to make the weapon \\\"potentially more dangerous,\\\" and were not \\\"commonly used on weapons designed solely for hunting.\\\" The court also explained that \\\"Congress could have easily determined that the greater the number of dangerous add-ons on a semi-automatic weapon, the greater the likelihood that the weapon may be used for dangerous purposes.\\\" Accordingly, the Sixth Circuit concluded that the plaintiffs had \\\"failed to meet the heavy burden required to show that the 1994 Act violates equal protection.\\\" Notably, the Sixth Circuit reviewed the equal protection claim under the rational basis test finding that \\\"precedent does not recognize a fundamental right to individual weapon ownership or manufacture, and the plaintiffs, gun retailers and owners, are not a suspect class.\\\" While the latter is still accurate, precedent regarding a fundamental right to individual weapon ownership has changed with the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller . As discussed below, the full nature of the right guaranteed by the Second Amendment has yet to be determined by the courts.\",\n \"Therefore, a court considering an equal protection claim in the context of a semiautomatic assault weapons ban could conceivably determine that it is necessary to first address the fundamental issue of whether assault weapons are protected by the Second Amendment. If enacted, an assault weapons ban could also be challenged on Second Amendment grounds in light of the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller . In Heller , the Court recognized that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms for lawful purposes such as self-defense within the home. The decision was not an exhaustive analysis of the full scope of the right guaranteed by the Second Amendment, but the Court stated that \\\"[l]ike most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.\\\" One limitation upon the Second Amendment the Court addressed is that it \\\"does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.\\\" The Court found that its prior 1939 decision in United States v. Miller supported this conclusion.\",\n \"Relying on Miller , the Court acknowledged that this limitation is supported by the \\\"historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons'\\\" and that the \\\"sorts of weapons protected were those 'in common use at the time'\\\" because those capable of service in the militia at the time of ratification would have brought \\\"the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty.\\\" Since Heller , cases that have evaluated the constitutionality of state assault weapons bans have generally found them to be valid under the Second Amendment. In 2009, the California Court of Appeals decided People v. James , which held that possession of an assault weapon in California remains unlawful and is not protected by the Second Amendment.\",\n \"California's Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989, like the 1994 federal assault weapons ban, defines \\\"assault weapons\\\" by providing a list of proscribed weapons and through characteristics \\\"which render these weapons more dangerous than ordinary weapons typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.\\\" Relying on Heller 's brief discussion that the Second Amendment does not protect a military weapon, such as an M16 rifle, the court in James declared that the prohibited weapons on the state's list \\\"are not the types of weapons that are typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes such as sport hunting or self-defense; rather these are weapons of war.\\\" It concluded that the relevant portion of the act did not prohibit conduct protected by the Second Amendment as defined in Heller and therefore the state was within its ability to prohibit the types of dangerous and unusual weapons an individual can use. The District of Columbia amended its firearms regulations after the Heller decision and enacted new firearms regulations including an assault weapons ban that is similar to California's. In 2011, the D.C. Circuit issued its decision in Heller v.\",\n \"District of Columbia ( Heller II ) which upheld the District's ban on certain semiautomatic rifles and LCAFDs. Under the \\\"common use\\\" factor delineated in Heller , the D.C. Circuit acknowledged that \\\"it was clear enough in the record that certain semi-automatic rifles and magazines holding more than 10 rounds are indeed in 'common use.'\\\" However, the court could not conclude definitely whether the weapons are \\\"commonly used or are useful specifically for self-defense or hunting\\\" such that they \\\"meaningfully affect the right to keep and bear arms.\\\" Therefore, the court went on to analyze the bans under a two-stepped approach to determine their validity under the Second Amendment. Under this approach, the court first asks whether a particular provision impinges upon a right protected by the Second Amendment as historically understood. If it does, then it goes on to determine whether the provision passes muster under the appropriate level of constitutional scrutiny.\",\n \"Assuming that the ban impinged on the right protected under Heller (i.e., to possess certain arms for lawful purposes such as individual self-defense or hunting), the court found that such regulations should be reviewed under intermediate scrutiny because the prohibition \\\"does not effectively disarm individuals or substantially affect their ability to defend themselves.\\\" Under intermediate scrutiny, the government has the burden of showing that there is a substantial relationship or reasonable \\\"fit\\\" between the regulation and the important governmental interest \\\"in protecting police officers and controlling crime.\\\" The D.C. Circuit held that the District carried this burden and that the evidence demonstrated that a ban on both semiautomatic assault rifles and LCAFDs \\\"is likely to promote the Government's interest in crime control in the densely populated urban area that is the District of Columbia.\\\" In 2012, the Supreme Court of Illinois decided Wilson v. Cook County , a case that evaluated the constitutionality of the Blair Holt Assault Weapons Ban of Cook County, a long-standing ordinance that was amended to similarly reflect provisions of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. The plaintiffs argued that the ordinance violates the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the U.S.\",\n \"Constitution as well as the Second Amendment. Regarding the due process claim, the court concluded that the ordinance is not unconstitutionally vague such that it \\\"fails to provide people of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to understand what conduct it prohibits.\\\" The court also dismissed the plaintiff's equal protection claim, finding that the \\\"[o]rdinance does not arbitrarily differentiate between two owners with similar firearms because the banned firearms are either listed, a copy or duplicate, or fall under the characteristics-based test.\\\" With respect to the Second Amendment claim, the court indicated that it would follow the two-step approach similar to the Heller II court. While the court acknowledged that the ordinance banned only a subset of weapons with particular characteristics similar to other jurisdictions, it found that it could not \\\"conclusively say ...\",\n \"that assault weapons as defined in the [o]rdinance categorically fall outside the scope of the rights protected by the [S]econd [A]mendment.\\\" The court ultimately remanded the Second Amendment claim to the trial court for further proceedings, because unlike the James and Heller II decisions, the county did not have an opportunity to present evidence to justify the nexus between the ordinance and the governmental interest it seeks to protect. These cases demonstrate that courts evaluating various assault weapons bans, and to a limited extent LCAFD bans, have looked to the Heller decision and the general framework that has developed in the lower courts for analyzing claims under the Second Amendment.\",\n \"Based on the Heller decision where the Supreme Court indicated that certain weapons fall outside the protection of the Second Amendment, lower courts have examined whether the prohibited weapons are considered in \\\"common use\\\" or \\\"commonly used\\\" for lawful purposes or \\\"dangerous and unusual.\\\" It is uncertain whether, to be protected under the Second Amendment, the weapon must be in \\\"common use\\\" by the people and if so, must it be in \\\"common use\\\" for self-defense or hunting, or what constitutes \\\"dangerous and unusual.\\\" Heller could arguably be taken to indicate that if the prohibited weapons do not meet these criteria then they are not protected by the Second Amendment, in which case no heighted judicial scrutiny would be applied. Courts also could evaluate such measures under the two-step approach laid out by the lower courts. This asks whether a ban on certain weapons and firearm accessories imposes a burden on conduct falling within the scope of the Second Amendment. If so, then a heightened level of judicial scrutiny will be applied to determine the ban's constitutionality.\",\n \"How the \\\"common use\\\" and \\\"dangerous and unusual\\\" criteria should be read, if at all, in connection with the two-step approach remains unclear. Neither the James , Heller II , nor Wilson courts appear to have fully explained the connection between the two approaches. Lastly, while it appeared that constitutional claims under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses were largely dismissed when the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was in effect, the Wilson case demonstrates that they are claims challengers may still consider raising.\"\n]","isConversational":false}}},{"rowIdx":16988,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"string","value":"train_16988"},"question":{"kind":"string","value":"Write a detailed summary of the following government report."},"answer":{"kind":"string","value":"Unanimous consent agreements are fundamental to the operation of the Senate. The institution frequently dispenses with its formal rules and instead follows negotiated agreements submitted on the floor for lawmakers' unanimous approval. Once entered into, unanimous consent agreements can only be changed by unanimous consent. Their objectives are to waive Senate rules and to expedite floor action on measures or matters. Typically, these accords (sometimes called time-limitation agreements) restrict debate and structure chamber consideration of amendments. Given their importance to chamber operations, it is worthwhile to understand the background, or origin, of unanimous consent agreements. The purpose of this report is to examine how and why these informal agreements became special orders of the Senate enforceable by the presiding officer. This report will be updated as circumstances warrant. Further information on unanimous consent agreements can be found in CRS Report 98-225, Unanimous Consent Agreements in the Senate, by [author name scrubbed]; CRS Report RS20594, How Unanimous Consent Agreements Regulate Senate Floor Action, by [author name scrubbed]; and CRS Report 98-310, Senate Unanimous Consent Agreements: Potential Effects on the Amendment Process, by [author name scrubbed]."},"documents":{"kind":"list like","value":["Unanimous consent agreements are special orders of the Senate that are agreed to without objection by the chamber's membership. Fundamental to the management of the contemporary Senate, these devices are typically employed to structure floor proceedings and to expedite the chamber's business. Two general types of unanimous consent permeate Senate operations: \"simple\" and \"complex.\" Both types set aside the rules, precedents, or orders of the Senate via the unanimous concurrence of all Senators. A simple unanimous consent request addresses routine matters, such as dispensing with quorum calls or requesting that certain staff aides have floor privileges. To be sure, there are occasions when a simple unanimous consent request can have policy consequences, such as an objection to setting aside an amendment or dispensing with the reading of an amendment. Simple unanimous consent requests have been used since the First Congress. For example, a Senate rule adopted on April 16, 1789, stated: Every bill shall receive three readings [prior] to its being passed; and the President [of the Senate] shall give notice at each, whether it be first, second, or third; which readings shall be on three different days, unless the Senate unanimously directs otherwise.","The focus of this report is on the complex variety: their historical origin, some benchmarks in their evolution, and how they came to be reflected in the Senate's rulebook. Complex agreements establish a tailor-made procedure for virtually anything taken up by the Senate, such as bills, joint resolutions, concurrent resolutions, simple resolutions, amendments, nominations, treaties, or conference reports. As two Senate parliamentarians wrote: There is a fundamental difference between the Senate operating under a unanimous consent agreement and the Senate operating under the Standing Rules. Whereas the Senate Rules permit virtually unlimited debate, and very few restrictions on the right to offer amendments, these agreements usually limit time for debate and the right of Senators to offer amendments. Senators generally accept the debate and amendment restrictions common to most unanimous consent agreements largely for two overlapping reasons: they facilitate the processing of the Senate's workload, and they serve the interests of individual lawmakers. Based on trust, and reached after often protracted negotiations, unanimous consent agreements are the equivalent of \"binding contracts\" that can only be changed or modified by unanimous consent.","It is not clear when the Senate actually began to employ unanimous consent agreements to limit debate or to fix a time for a vote on a measure. Perhaps the first instance occurred in the mid-1840s. On March 24, 1846, Senator William Allen, D-OH, stated that the Senate had been debating a joint resolution concerning the Oregon Territory for more than two months, and it was now time to proceed to a final vote on the matter. Noting that the Senate neither allowed for the previous question (a motion employed in the House to end debate) nor adopted resolutions directing that a vote should occur at a specific time, Senator Allen pointed out that it was the Senate's habit to have \"a conversational understanding that an end would be put to a protracted debate at a particular time.\" A Senate colleague suggested that Allen delay several days before making such a request. Two days later Senator Allen again asked that the Senate informally agree to fix \"a definite day on which the vote might be taken.\" The Senate, he said, should simply refuse to adjourn until there is a final vote. No action occurred on Allen's","recommendation.","On April 13, 1846, however, a consensus developed among Senators that a final vote on the joint resolution should occur three days later. Finally, after spending around 65 days debating the matter, the Senate on April 16 enacted the joint resolution. Indeed, if this was the first time that the Senate employed something like a unanimous consent agreement to end debate and precipitate a vote on a measure, there is little question that these accords became both more commonly used and more sophisticated in their procedural features. By 1870, noted two scholars, unanimous consent agreements \"were being used with some frequency.\" These early unanimous consent agreements were, \"as they are today, time-limitation agreements that provided for the disposal of a measure by a specified time.\" An April 24, 1879, exchange illustrates the practical use of these accords for limiting debate and setting the time for a vote. The exchange is reminiscent of what occurs in today's Senate. The President pro tempore . The Chair will once more state the proposition and again ask the Senate whether there be any objection to it.","The proposition is, that at three o'clock to-morrow, all debate on this bill shall cease, and the Senate shall then proceed to vote upon the pending amendment or amendments that may be offered, and finally on the bill itself without debate. Mr. Conkling . That is right. The President pro tempore . Is there objection to that understanding. The Chair hears none, and it is agreed to. Bill managers apparently took the initiative in propounding unanimous consent agreements. Their increasing use in subsequent decades led one Senator, Roger Mills, D-TX, to complain that the Senate \"reaches its vote on all questions like the historic Diet of Poland, by the unanimous agreement of the whole, and not by the act of the majority.\" Other issues associated with these early accords also sowed confusion among the membership. Many of the complaints stemmed from the fact that the early unanimous consent agreements were often viewed \"as an arrangement simply between gentlemen\" and could, as a president pro tempore once said, be \"violated with impunity by any member of the Senate.\" To reduce the confusion, the Senate adopted a new rule.","The fundamental objective of Rule XII was to clarify several uncertainties associated with these senatorial contracts. In the early 1900s, the Senate took modest steps to reduce some of the confusion associated with unanimous consent agreements, such as requiring these accords to be submitted in writing to the desk, read to the chamber, and \"printed on the title page of the daily calendar of business as long as they were operative.\" More changes were in the offing, however. Two overlapping factors explain why the Senate agreed to a formal rules change to govern these accords. First, there were a couple of ambiguities associated with these accords that continued to arouse contention and confusion. Past precedents simply did not adequately address these recurring problems. Second, a riveting event—a Senator was caught by \"surprise\" when a unanimous consent agreement was entered into—underscored the need for a formal rule (Rule XII) to clear up issues associated with these \"gentlemen's agreements.\" On the matter of ambiguity, there were two principal issues. First, could these agreements be changed or modified by another unanimous consent agreement? Second, could the presiding officer enforce these accords?","Today, both principles are accepted as procedural \"givens.\" Not so several decades ago. For example, on March 3, 1897, Senator George Hoar, R-MA, stated: \"I think it is very serious, indeed, under any circumstances, to set the precedent of revoking a unanimous-consent agreement by other unanimous-consent agreements.\" As another example, one of the Senate's institutional leaders, Henry Cabot Lodge, R-MA., argued: \"If it is to be supposed that unanimous-consent agreements are to be modified, we shall soon find it impossible to get a unanimous-consent agreement. I think nothing is more important than the rigidity with which the Senate preserves unanimous-consent agreements.\" Or as Senator Joseph O'Gorman, D-NY, stated: \"Has it not been established by the precedents of this body that a unanimous-consent agreement could not be impaired or modified either by another unanimous-consent agreement or by an order of the Senate?\" To be sure, other Senators contended that these compacts could be modified by another unanimous consent agreement. As to the enforcement of these accords, presiding officers took different positions.","As one presiding officer observed, \"it has been the universal ruling of the Chair that the Chair can not enforce a unanimous-consent agreement, but that it must rest with the honor of Senators themselves.\" On another occasion, the president of the Senate asked: \"[W]hat is the pleasure of the Senate, whether he shall enforce the agreements entered into by unanimous consent or not?\" Senator John Sherman, R-OH, replied that the chair should \"enforce the agreement with respect to the bill under consideration.\" The chair then asked, \"In similar cases, what is the pleasure of the Senate?\" Senator Eugene Hale, R-ME, provided this answer: \"We'll cross that bridge when we reach it.\" Contrarily, \"Vice Presidents Charles Fairbanks and James Sherman were not timid about enforcing [unanimous consent agreements] at times.\" Sundry other issues were also associated with these compacts. For example, Senators argued about whether a motion to recommit a bill violated a unanimous consent agreement to vote on the bill. Some Senators said that if they were not present when a unanimous consent agreement was proposed, colleagues could object for them.","In response, Senator Thomas Martin, VA, the ostensible Democratic floor leader, stated: \"When unanimous consent is asked, unless objection is made from the floor of the Senate by a Senator who is present, he can not leave his vote here to be recorded against it. The Senate can not do business by proxy that way.\" Senator Reed Smoot, R-UT, was caught off-guard when a unanimous consent agreement he opposed was agreed to. The issue involved a 1913 bill (S. 4043) to prohibit interstate commerce in intoxicating liquors. A unanimous consent agreement was properly made and announced by the presiding officer. Senator Smoot, who was present in the chamber, had planned to object but was momentarily distracted and failed to lodge a timely dissent. For the next two days the Senate debated the legitimacy of the unanimous consent agreement and whether it could be modified by another unanimous consent agreement. In the end, the presiding officer submitted the question of legitimacy to the Senate, which voted 40 to 17 (with 37 Members not voting) to instruct the chair to resubmit the unanimous consent agreement to the Senate. When this was done, Senator Smoot objected to the accord.","Quickly, another unanimous consent agreement on the liquor bill was propounded by Senator Jacob Gallinger, R-NH, and it was accepted by the Senate. In short, uncertainties and controversies influenced the Senate on January 16, 1914, to adopt a formal rule to govern unanimous consent agreements. There was relatively little debate on Rule XII. The major controversy involved whether these compacts could be modified by another unanimous consent agreement. Unsurprisingly, Senator Lodge argued against the new rule on the ground that to permit any subsequent changes to unanimous consent agreements would only lead to delays in expediting the Senate's business. Senator Charles Thomas, D-CO, responded: \"It seems to me the most illogical thing in the world to say that the Senate of the United States can unanimously agree to something and by that act deprive itself of the power to agree unanimously to undo it.\" By a vote of 51 to 8, the Senate adopted Rule XII. Two critical portions of the rule stipulate that (1) unanimous consent agreements are orders of the Senate, which means that the presiding officer is charged with enforcing their terms; and (2) the Senate, by unanimous consent, could change a unanimous","consent agreement.","As orders of the Senate, unanimous consent agreements are now printed in the Senate Journal . (They are also printed in the Senate's daily Calendar of Business , as noted earlier, and the Congressional Record .) In subsequent decades, the Senate witnessed increasing use of unanimous consent agreements. The contemporary Senate regularly operates via the terms of unanimous consent agreements. They are used on every type of measure or matter that comes before the Senate, and at least since the post-World War II period, all party leaders and floor managers have extensively relied on them to process the chamber's business. During the majority leadership of Senator Lyndon Johnson, D-TX (1955-1960), unanimous consent agreements were often comprehensive in scope (e.g., identifying when a measure is to be taken up, when it is to be voted upon for final passage, and what procedures apply in-between these two stages). Today, in a period of heightened individualism and partisanship, unanimous consent agreements tend to be piecemeal, such as establishing debate limits on a number of discrete amendments without limiting the number of amendments or specifying a time or date for final passage of the legislation.","Still, compared with the compacts promulgated during the early 1900s, today's accords are often broader in scope, more complex, and involve more procedural detail. A large body of precedents has even evolved to govern \"how [unanimous consent agreements] are to be interpreted and applied in various situations.\" In short, unanimous consent agreements are essential to the processing of the Senate's workload and protecting the procedural prerogatives of individual senators."],"string":"[\n \"Unanimous consent agreements are special orders of the Senate that are agreed to without objection by the chamber's membership. Fundamental to the management of the contemporary Senate, these devices are typically employed to structure floor proceedings and to expedite the chamber's business. Two general types of unanimous consent permeate Senate operations: \\\"simple\\\" and \\\"complex.\\\" Both types set aside the rules, precedents, or orders of the Senate via the unanimous concurrence of all Senators. A simple unanimous consent request addresses routine matters, such as dispensing with quorum calls or requesting that certain staff aides have floor privileges. To be sure, there are occasions when a simple unanimous consent request can have policy consequences, such as an objection to setting aside an amendment or dispensing with the reading of an amendment. Simple unanimous consent requests have been used since the First Congress. For example, a Senate rule adopted on April 16, 1789, stated: Every bill shall receive three readings [prior] to its being passed; and the President [of the Senate] shall give notice at each, whether it be first, second, or third; which readings shall be on three different days, unless the Senate unanimously directs otherwise.\",\n \"The focus of this report is on the complex variety: their historical origin, some benchmarks in their evolution, and how they came to be reflected in the Senate's rulebook. Complex agreements establish a tailor-made procedure for virtually anything taken up by the Senate, such as bills, joint resolutions, concurrent resolutions, simple resolutions, amendments, nominations, treaties, or conference reports. As two Senate parliamentarians wrote: There is a fundamental difference between the Senate operating under a unanimous consent agreement and the Senate operating under the Standing Rules. Whereas the Senate Rules permit virtually unlimited debate, and very few restrictions on the right to offer amendments, these agreements usually limit time for debate and the right of Senators to offer amendments. Senators generally accept the debate and amendment restrictions common to most unanimous consent agreements largely for two overlapping reasons: they facilitate the processing of the Senate's workload, and they serve the interests of individual lawmakers. Based on trust, and reached after often protracted negotiations, unanimous consent agreements are the equivalent of \\\"binding contracts\\\" that can only be changed or modified by unanimous consent.\",\n \"It is not clear when the Senate actually began to employ unanimous consent agreements to limit debate or to fix a time for a vote on a measure. Perhaps the first instance occurred in the mid-1840s. On March 24, 1846, Senator William Allen, D-OH, stated that the Senate had been debating a joint resolution concerning the Oregon Territory for more than two months, and it was now time to proceed to a final vote on the matter. Noting that the Senate neither allowed for the previous question (a motion employed in the House to end debate) nor adopted resolutions directing that a vote should occur at a specific time, Senator Allen pointed out that it was the Senate's habit to have \\\"a conversational understanding that an end would be put to a protracted debate at a particular time.\\\" A Senate colleague suggested that Allen delay several days before making such a request. Two days later Senator Allen again asked that the Senate informally agree to fix \\\"a definite day on which the vote might be taken.\\\" The Senate, he said, should simply refuse to adjourn until there is a final vote. No action occurred on Allen's\",\n \"recommendation.\",\n \"On April 13, 1846, however, a consensus developed among Senators that a final vote on the joint resolution should occur three days later. Finally, after spending around 65 days debating the matter, the Senate on April 16 enacted the joint resolution. Indeed, if this was the first time that the Senate employed something like a unanimous consent agreement to end debate and precipitate a vote on a measure, there is little question that these accords became both more commonly used and more sophisticated in their procedural features. By 1870, noted two scholars, unanimous consent agreements \\\"were being used with some frequency.\\\" These early unanimous consent agreements were, \\\"as they are today, time-limitation agreements that provided for the disposal of a measure by a specified time.\\\" An April 24, 1879, exchange illustrates the practical use of these accords for limiting debate and setting the time for a vote. The exchange is reminiscent of what occurs in today's Senate. The President pro tempore . The Chair will once more state the proposition and again ask the Senate whether there be any objection to it.\",\n \"The proposition is, that at three o'clock to-morrow, all debate on this bill shall cease, and the Senate shall then proceed to vote upon the pending amendment or amendments that may be offered, and finally on the bill itself without debate. Mr. Conkling . That is right. The President pro tempore . Is there objection to that understanding. The Chair hears none, and it is agreed to. Bill managers apparently took the initiative in propounding unanimous consent agreements. Their increasing use in subsequent decades led one Senator, Roger Mills, D-TX, to complain that the Senate \\\"reaches its vote on all questions like the historic Diet of Poland, by the unanimous agreement of the whole, and not by the act of the majority.\\\" Other issues associated with these early accords also sowed confusion among the membership. Many of the complaints stemmed from the fact that the early unanimous consent agreements were often viewed \\\"as an arrangement simply between gentlemen\\\" and could, as a president pro tempore once said, be \\\"violated with impunity by any member of the Senate.\\\" To reduce the confusion, the Senate adopted a new rule.\",\n \"The fundamental objective of Rule XII was to clarify several uncertainties associated with these senatorial contracts. In the early 1900s, the Senate took modest steps to reduce some of the confusion associated with unanimous consent agreements, such as requiring these accords to be submitted in writing to the desk, read to the chamber, and \\\"printed on the title page of the daily calendar of business as long as they were operative.\\\" More changes were in the offing, however. Two overlapping factors explain why the Senate agreed to a formal rules change to govern these accords. First, there were a couple of ambiguities associated with these accords that continued to arouse contention and confusion. Past precedents simply did not adequately address these recurring problems. Second, a riveting event—a Senator was caught by \\\"surprise\\\" when a unanimous consent agreement was entered into—underscored the need for a formal rule (Rule XII) to clear up issues associated with these \\\"gentlemen's agreements.\\\" On the matter of ambiguity, there were two principal issues. First, could these agreements be changed or modified by another unanimous consent agreement? Second, could the presiding officer enforce these accords?\",\n \"Today, both principles are accepted as procedural \\\"givens.\\\" Not so several decades ago. For example, on March 3, 1897, Senator George Hoar, R-MA, stated: \\\"I think it is very serious, indeed, under any circumstances, to set the precedent of revoking a unanimous-consent agreement by other unanimous-consent agreements.\\\" As another example, one of the Senate's institutional leaders, Henry Cabot Lodge, R-MA., argued: \\\"If it is to be supposed that unanimous-consent agreements are to be modified, we shall soon find it impossible to get a unanimous-consent agreement. I think nothing is more important than the rigidity with which the Senate preserves unanimous-consent agreements.\\\" Or as Senator Joseph O'Gorman, D-NY, stated: \\\"Has it not been established by the precedents of this body that a unanimous-consent agreement could not be impaired or modified either by another unanimous-consent agreement or by an order of the Senate?\\\" To be sure, other Senators contended that these compacts could be modified by another unanimous consent agreement. As to the enforcement of these accords, presiding officers took different positions.\",\n \"As one presiding officer observed, \\\"it has been the universal ruling of the Chair that the Chair can not enforce a unanimous-consent agreement, but that it must rest with the honor of Senators themselves.\\\" On another occasion, the president of the Senate asked: \\\"[W]hat is the pleasure of the Senate, whether he shall enforce the agreements entered into by unanimous consent or not?\\\" Senator John Sherman, R-OH, replied that the chair should \\\"enforce the agreement with respect to the bill under consideration.\\\" The chair then asked, \\\"In similar cases, what is the pleasure of the Senate?\\\" Senator Eugene Hale, R-ME, provided this answer: \\\"We'll cross that bridge when we reach it.\\\" Contrarily, \\\"Vice Presidents Charles Fairbanks and James Sherman were not timid about enforcing [unanimous consent agreements] at times.\\\" Sundry other issues were also associated with these compacts. For example, Senators argued about whether a motion to recommit a bill violated a unanimous consent agreement to vote on the bill. Some Senators said that if they were not present when a unanimous consent agreement was proposed, colleagues could object for them.\",\n \"In response, Senator Thomas Martin, VA, the ostensible Democratic floor leader, stated: \\\"When unanimous consent is asked, unless objection is made from the floor of the Senate by a Senator who is present, he can not leave his vote here to be recorded against it. The Senate can not do business by proxy that way.\\\" Senator Reed Smoot, R-UT, was caught off-guard when a unanimous consent agreement he opposed was agreed to. The issue involved a 1913 bill (S. 4043) to prohibit interstate commerce in intoxicating liquors. A unanimous consent agreement was properly made and announced by the presiding officer. Senator Smoot, who was present in the chamber, had planned to object but was momentarily distracted and failed to lodge a timely dissent. For the next two days the Senate debated the legitimacy of the unanimous consent agreement and whether it could be modified by another unanimous consent agreement. In the end, the presiding officer submitted the question of legitimacy to the Senate, which voted 40 to 17 (with 37 Members not voting) to instruct the chair to resubmit the unanimous consent agreement to the Senate. When this was done, Senator Smoot objected to the accord.\",\n \"Quickly, another unanimous consent agreement on the liquor bill was propounded by Senator Jacob Gallinger, R-NH, and it was accepted by the Senate. In short, uncertainties and controversies influenced the Senate on January 16, 1914, to adopt a formal rule to govern unanimous consent agreements. There was relatively little debate on Rule XII. The major controversy involved whether these compacts could be modified by another unanimous consent agreement. Unsurprisingly, Senator Lodge argued against the new rule on the ground that to permit any subsequent changes to unanimous consent agreements would only lead to delays in expediting the Senate's business. Senator Charles Thomas, D-CO, responded: \\\"It seems to me the most illogical thing in the world to say that the Senate of the United States can unanimously agree to something and by that act deprive itself of the power to agree unanimously to undo it.\\\" By a vote of 51 to 8, the Senate adopted Rule XII. Two critical portions of the rule stipulate that (1) unanimous consent agreements are orders of the Senate, which means that the presiding officer is charged with enforcing their terms; and (2) the Senate, by unanimous consent, could change a unanimous\",\n \"consent agreement.\",\n \"As orders of the Senate, unanimous consent agreements are now printed in the Senate Journal . (They are also printed in the Senate's daily Calendar of Business , as noted earlier, and the Congressional Record .) In subsequent decades, the Senate witnessed increasing use of unanimous consent agreements. The contemporary Senate regularly operates via the terms of unanimous consent agreements. They are used on every type of measure or matter that comes before the Senate, and at least since the post-World War II period, all party leaders and floor managers have extensively relied on them to process the chamber's business. During the majority leadership of Senator Lyndon Johnson, D-TX (1955-1960), unanimous consent agreements were often comprehensive in scope (e.g., identifying when a measure is to be taken up, when it is to be voted upon for final passage, and what procedures apply in-between these two stages). Today, in a period of heightened individualism and partisanship, unanimous consent agreements tend to be piecemeal, such as establishing debate limits on a number of discrete amendments without limiting the number of amendments or specifying a time or date for final passage of the legislation.\",\n \"Still, compared with the compacts promulgated during the early 1900s, today's accords are often broader in scope, more complex, and involve more procedural detail. A large body of precedents has even evolved to govern \\\"how [unanimous consent agreements] are to be interpreted and applied in various situations.\\\" In short, unanimous consent agreements are essential to the processing of the Senate's workload and protecting the procedural prerogatives of individual senators.\"\n]","isConversational":false}}},{"rowIdx":16989,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"string","value":"train_16989"},"question":{"kind":"string","value":"Write a detailed summary of the following government report."},"answer":{"kind":"string","value":"As households and taxpayers, Americans have a large stake in the future of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Homeowners and potential homeowners indirectly depend on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which in recent years backed and guaranteed home loans accounting for nearly half of the outstanding home mortgages in the nation. Taxpayers have a large investment in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The Department of the Treasury kept the two insolvent companies in business by providing more than $175 billion in support. Based on past performance, it is not clear how the enterprises will be able to repay Treasury out of future earnings. In addition to the $175 billion in direct support, Treasury and the Federal Reserve (the Fed) purchased nearly $1.4 trillion in GSE-issued and guaranteed mortgage-backed securities (MBS). These two entities are stockholder-owned, congressionally chartered companies that purchase home mortgages, commonly called government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs). In 2008, increasing mortgage delinquencies and the general financial crisis weakened the two enterprises to the point that they agreed to a voluntary takeover by the federal government known as conservatorship. This report summarizes and analyzes bills introduced in the 112th Congress that seek to enhance the public accountability of the two enterprises. The bills covered are H.R. 31, H.R. 408, H.R. 463, H.R. 1182, H.R. 1221, H.R. 1222, H.R. 1223, H.R. 1224, H.R. 1225, H.R. 1226, H.R. 1227, H.R. 1859, H.R. 2413, H.R. 2425, H.R. 2428, H.R. 2436, H.R. 2439, H.R. 2440, H.R. 2441, H.R. 2462, S. 178, and S. 693. Some seek to reduce the cost to the government, while others seek to change the enterprises' charters if or when they leave conservatorship. None of the above bills introduced proposes government actions to replace the two enterprises. To date, two bills, H.R. 1859 and H.R. 2413, propose creating a replacement for the two enterprises. H.R. 1859 would authorize the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) to charter special purpose associations to support the secondary mortgage market by issuing MBS with an explicit federal catastrophic guarantee. The associations would be charged for this guarantee. H.R. 1859 would require FHFA to develop a plan to transition from enterprise support for the secondary mortgage market to support by these new associations. The second bill, H.R. 2413, would create a government corporation (the Secondary Market Facility for Residential Mortgages) to purchase and to securitize mortgages. Those selling mortgages to the facility would be required to pay guarantee and reinsurance fees for an explicit federal guarantee on the securities. Because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are under conservatorship, Congress has unusual leverage to direct FHFA, which is both their regulator and conservator, to implement policy changes. Currently, FHFA has unusual control in that it both regulates and manages Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This report will be updated as warranted."},"documents":{"kind":"list like","value":["The 112 th Congress is considering legislative proposals to limit the government's present and future risk from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The two entities are government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs)—congressionally chartered, stockholder-owned companies with special legal privileges and special obligations to facilitate the flow of mortgage funds. Their basic business includes purchasing mortgages that have been issued by others, pooling and guaranteeing the mortgages into mortgage-backed securities (MBS), and either selling the MBS to investors or holding the MBS \"in portfolio\" as an investment. In recent years, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac together were responsible for nearly half of the nation's outstanding residential mortgage debt. In 2008, the enterprises' capital proved to be inadequate as mortgage defaults and foreclosures increased more than anticipated, and the cost of borrowing to finance their investment portfolios increased. To support the mortgage markets during the financial crisis of 2008-2009 and to keep these enterprises in business, the U.S. Department of the Treasury has purchased more than $175 billion of special preferred stock. In addition, Treasury and the Federal Reserve (the Fed) have provided mortgage market support by purchasing nearly $1.4 trillion in MBS from investors in the open market.","Treasury's purchase of more than $175 billion in preferred stock is one element in contracts that require the enterprises to pay an annual 10% cash dividend on the Treasury funds. Based on their past histories, it is not clear that the enterprises could survive without Treasury's continued support. Some of the bills that have been introduced are likely to reduce the enterprises' future size by reducing or eliminating certain advantages conferred by their charters. More specifically, one category of proposed legislation would increase their cost of doing business (e.g., H.R. 1222 ). It is likely that the increased costs would be passed onto the enterprises' business partners in the form of lower prices for mortgages and higher interest rates to borrowers. This would potentially allow other securitizers to compete more effectively with the enterprises. A second group of bills would impose new limitations on the types of mortgages that the enterprises can purchase, leaving more of the mortgage market to their competition (e.g., H.R. 1227 ). A third category of changes contained in some of the bills would increase regulatory oversight and disclosure (e.g., H.R. 31 and H.R. 1225 ).","The proposed increased capital requirements would be another source of increased costs, but would also reduce risks. New requirements to file with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) would eliminate a competitive advantage enjoyed by the enterprises and require them to adhere to some of the same rules as their competitors. A fourth category of legislative proposals would set a deadline for the enterprises to return to stockholder control or to be dissolved; in the event they were to return to stockholder control, the bills would phase out their charters (e.g., two pairs of companion bills H.R. 408 / S. 178 and H.R. 1182 / S. 693 ). A fifth category of legislative proposals would make provisions for replacing the enterprises in the secondary mortgage markets (e.g. H.R. 1859 and H.R. 2413 ). Table 1 summarizes and illustrates differences in provisions of the various bills introduced in the 112 th Congress. The enterprises came to their current financial difficulties following a period of increasing losses due to mortgage delinquencies, coupled with inadequate capital.","In September 2008, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac separately agreed to enter voluntary conservatorship, which entailed giving their regulator, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), management and control of the enterprises. At the same time, the Treasury signed separate contracts with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to provide whatever financial support might be needed to keep them solvent. Homeowners and potential homeowners indirectly depend on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as a source of mortgage money. The enterprises are prohibited from making loans directly to borrowers; instead, they purchase mortgages that lenders have already made. They package the mortgages into MBS and either keep them \"in portfolio\" or sell them to institutional investors. Sometimes the originator \"swaps\" the mortgages for an MBS backed by the same loans. The advantage of a swap is the addition of the enterprise's guarantee that the loans will be repaid. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac back almost half of the home mortgages in the nation. The Obama Administration's report on the future of the enterprises and the housing finance system presents three broad alternatives: a privatized system with existing government mortgage programs (Federal Housing Authority, Veterans Affairs, and U.S.","Department of Agriculture) more narrowly targeted toward groups based on income or first-time homebuyer status; a privatized system with a government guarantee only during a crisis; and a privatized system with backup government reinsurance of private mortgage insurance. As of this writing, no legislation has been introduced to implement any of the Administration's proposals; therefore, they are not discussed further in this report. If and when legislation is introduced, it will be incorporated into this report. More detail on the proposals is contained in CRS Report R41719, The Obama Administration's Report on \"Reforming America's Housing Finance Market\": Implications for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac , by [author name scrubbed]. This report continues with summaries of legislation that has been introduced in the 112 th Congress. Most of the bills address individual areas of concern, such as executive compensation, but two pairs of companion bills would reform a number of areas. This section analyzes legislation that has been introduced and that would make changes to a single area of the enterprises' operations. H.R.","31 , Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Accountability and Transparency for Taxpayers Act of 2011, would require the director of FHFA to make quarterly reports on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 12 specific areas: 1. total liabilities and the risk to the federal government; 2. executive compensation and bonuses; 3. the impact of reducing the conforming loan limits at the end of FY2011; 4. foreclosure mitigation efforts; 5. mortgage fraud prevention efforts; 6. communications with the Federal Reserve and Treasury regarding the purchase or sale of enterprise securities; 7. enterprise investments outside of their mission; 8. reasons for equity (preferred stock) investments by Treasury; 9. capital levels, portfolio size and their impacts on the safety and soundness of the enterprises; 10. underwriting standards; 11. mortgage buyback policies; and 12. the enterprises' actions that affected enterprise securities, in particular, preferred stock issued before September 6, 2008. The director could include additional information that he \"considers relevant or important with respect to the enterprise, and the activities and condition of the enterprise.\" The FHFA inspector general (IG) would be required to review the reports and inform Congress of his findings.","The bill would require both the reports and the IG's comments to be posted on the FHFA website. The bill would also require the IG to examine FHFA's loss mitigation policies, including the impact of principal reduction on the enterprises' financial condition and the nationwide foreclosure rate. There is some overlap between these reporting requirements and current reports. For example, the FHFA's quarterly Report on the Enterprises' Financial Performance covers capital, investments, and loss mitigation activities. The FHFA's monthly Foreclosure Prevention and Refinance Report also covers loss mitigation efforts. FHFA has issued a report on the effect of reducing the conforming loan limit. On April 5 and 6, 2011, the House Subcommittee on Capital Markets and Government-Sponsored Enterprises of the Committee on Financial Services marked up H.R. 31 and forwarded it to the full committee. Even without this legislation, FHFA could send such quarterly reports to Congress, and the IG could review the reports. The bill indicates to FHFA and the FHFA IG that Congress attaches particular importance to these areas of oversight. H.R.","463 , Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Transparency Act of 2011, would make the enterprises subject to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests by making them federal agencies for the purpose of FOIA compliance. No action has been taken on H.R. 463 . H.R. 1221 , Equity in Government Compensation Act of 2011, would limit the pay of the enterprises' employees. Current executive compensation packages, previously approved by FHFA, would be suspended and declared to be the sense of Congress that any pay in 2010 exceeding Level I of the Executive Schedule ($199,700) or the Senior Executive Service ($179,700) should be turned over to the Treasury. Other employees of the enterprises would be paid according to the federal government's general schedule (GS), with a maximum pay in the Washington, DC, area in 2011 of $155,500. Executive compensation would be based in part on the enterprise's profitability. The enterprises would be covered by Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) provisions on executive compensation and corporate governance. The bill states that enterprise employees shall not be considered federal employees. On November 15, 2011, the House Financial Services Committee ordered the bill to be reported as amended.","As conservator, FHFA currently has the authority to reject enterprise salaries without this legislation, but this bill would remove FHFA's discretion. As regulator, 12 U.S.C. 4518 authorizes FHFA to prohibit and order an enterprise to withhold executive compensation that is \"not reasonable and comparable\" to that provided by similar companies. The same section prohibits FHFA from actually setting salaries or salary ranges. H.R. 1222 , GSE Subsidy Elimination Act of 2011, would require the enterprises to charge a guarantee fee that reflects the risk of the mortgages purchased and the cost of capital that a totally private company would charge. FHFA would have the option to either phase in the higher fee over two years or to impose it at the higher level two years after enactment. On April 5 and 6, 2011, the House Subcommittee on Capital Markets and Government-Sponsored Enterprises of the Committee on Financial Services marked up H.R. 1222 and forwarded it to the full committee. As conservator or receiver, FHFA has the authority to implement these provisions. As regulator, it appears that FHFA could not require guarantee fees consistent with the provisions of H.R. 1222 unless necessary for the safety and soundness","of the enterprises. H.R.","1223 , GSE Credit Risk Equitable Treatment Act of 2011, would prohibit treating mortgage-backed securities issued by the enterprises differently from similar MBS issued by an otherwise identical company. The bill would require that regulatory determinations as to what is a mortgage with a low risk of default, called a \"qualified residential mortgage\" (QRM) in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, \"Dodd-Frank,\" ( P.L. 111-203 , 124 Stat. 1376 et seq.), not be based solely on the enterprises' role in the securitization. Dodd-Frank requires the federal banking regulators, the SEC, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and FHFA to issue joint regulations to implement the act's risk retention requirements for mortgages included in MBS. Under Dodd-Frank, QRMs would be exempt from this risk retention requirement. On April 5 and 6, 2011, the House Subcommittee on Capital Markets and Government-Sponsored Enterprises of the Committee on Financial Services marked up H.R. 1223 and forwarded it to the full committee. Scott G.","Alvarez, the Federal Reserve's general counsel, has testified that Dodd-Frank does not exempt the enterprises from the risk retention requirement, and that their 100% guarantee of timely payment of principal and interest on their MBS is \"generally in the form of an unfunded guarantee, which would not satisfy the risk retention requirements of the proposed rules.\" Nevertheless, he said that the proposed rules would allow the enterprises' guarantees to satisfy the risk retention requirements as long as the enterprises were in conservatorship or receivership. H.R. 1224 , GSE Portfolio Risk Reduction Act of 2011, would require the enterprises to accelerate the reduction of their portfolios over five years to $250 billion each. At the end of 2010, Fannie Mae's portfolio was $789 billion and Freddie Mac's was $697 billion. The financial support agreements between Treasury and the GSEs require the GSEs to reduce their mortgage portfolios to stay within a cap that started at $900 billion at the end of 2009 and decreases 10% annually reaching $250 billion in 2022. The companion bills H.R. 1182 and S. 693 would reduce the enterprises' portfolios on the same five-year schedule as H.R. 1224 . The companion bills H.R.","408 and S.","178 would reduce the portfolios over four years. Table 2 compares the portfolio caps under the current agreement, H.R. 1224 , and the pairs of companion bills. H.R. 1224 would not count delinquent mortgages that were repurchased to fulfill an enterprise's guarantee against the portfolio limits. On April 5 and 6, 2011, the House Subcommittee on Capital Markets and Government-Sponsored Enterprises of the Committee on Financial Services marked up H.R. 1224 and forwarded it to the full committee. As regulator, FHFA could order the enterprises to reduce their risk by reducing their portfolios more rapidly than the current contract provides. H.R. 1225 , GSE Debt Issuance Approval Act of 2011, would require the enterprises to request in writing permission from the Secretary of the Treasury to issue new debt. The Secretary would announce his decision and reasons in writing to the enterprise, FHFA, and Congress. There would be a seven-day waiting period following Treasury's approval before the enterprise could issue the debt. On April 5 and 6, 2011, the House Subcommittee on Capital Markets and Government-Sponsored Enterprises of the Committee on Financial Services marked up H.R. 1225 and forwarded it to the full committee.","Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's charters currently provide the Secretary of the Treasury this authority. According to FHFA staff, it was used in the past to prevent the enterprises from issuing large amounts of debt too close to Treasury debt sales, but this practice fell into disuse. Former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Emil Henry has written that there was a more formal process until the mid-1990s. Arguably, the Secretary of the Treasury could assert the existing review authority contained in the enterprises' charters. The requirements that the enterprises make the requests for approval in writing, that the secretary publish his decision, and that there be a seven-day waiting period would formalize the process. H.R. 1226 , GSE Mission Improvement Act, would repeal the affordable housing goals first established by the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 ( P.L. 102-550 , 106 Stat. 3672 et seq.) and amended by the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 ( P.L. 110-289 , 122 Stat. 2654 et seq.). It would repeal, also, the duty to serve underserved markets, and funding for both the housing trust fund and the capital magnet fund.","FHFA would have six months to submit a report to Congress on this bill's effect on multifamily properties, loans to low-income borrowers, and loans to borrowers in rural areas. The report would contain recommendations on increasing mortgage credit in these areas. On April 5 and 6, 2011, the House Subcommittee on Capital Markets and Government-Sponsored Enterprises of the Committee on Financial Services marked up H.R. 1226 and forwarded it to the full committee. Unless the housing goals are repealed, the enterprises will continue to be required to meet them. H.R. 1227 , GSE Risk and Activities Limitation Act of 2011, would prohibit FHFA from approving any new products while an enterprise is in conservatorship or receivership unless FHFA determined the new products were necessary to preserve the enterprises' assets or reduce losses. When the enterprises are not in conservatorship or receivership, the FHFA would retain its existing new product approval authority. On April 5 and 6, 2011, the House Subcommittee on Capital Markets and Government-Sponsored Enterprises of the Committee on Financial Services marked up H.R. 1227 and forwarded it to the full committee.","Arguably, FHFA could announce a new policy that would restrict new product approvals while the GSEs are in conservatorship. H.R. 2425 , Transparency and Security in Mortgage Registration Act of 2011, would prohibit Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Ginnie Mae from purchasing or securitizing a mortgage that is registered with the Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS). MERS is a centralized mortgage registration system that bypasses state laws requiring local registration of mortgages and other liens on real estate. MERS is involved in legal challenges questioning its authority to participate in foreclosures and its ability to maintain a clear history of ownership of real estate. Some of the employment contracts between the enterprises and employees and former employees provide that the appropriate enterprise shall pay legal expenses incurred as a result of the employment. H.R. 2428 , GSE Legal Fee Reduction Act of 2011, would require the enterprises to propose to FHFA a methodology to determine \"reasonable\" legal expenses of an employee or former employee. Under HERA the conservator, FHFA, can repudiate any contracts (including employment contracts) entered into prior to the conservatorship. H.R.","2436 , Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Taxpayer Payback Act of 2011, would prevent a reduction in the annual dividend rates of 10% in cash or 12% in preferred stock paid by the enterprises to Treasury. H.R. 2439 , Removing GSEs Charters During Receivership Act of 2011, would empower FHFA to revoke an enterprise's charter and requires the charter to be revoked at the termination of a limited-life entity created as part of the receivership process. Presently only Congress can terminate an enterprise's charter. H.R. 2441 , Housing Trust Fund Elimination Act of 2011, would terminate the Housing Trust Fund, the Capital Magnet Fund, and the Hope Reserve Fund, which were established by the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 ( P.L. 110-289 ) and were to be funded by the enterprises. The enterprises financial conditions precluded any contributions, but $80 million was appropriated in the FY2010 budget for the Capital Magnet Fund. H.R. 2440 , Market Transparency and Taxpayer Protection Act of 2011, would direct FHFA to identify non-mission critical assets held by the enterprises. Patents and mortgage data are specifically identified as possibly non-mission critical assets. FHFA would submit to Congress a plan","to sell these assets.","It would, also, require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to release loan and appraisal data in a manner that would not disclose personally identifiable information. H.R. 2462 , Cap the GSE Bailout Act of 2011, would set in statute the maximum amount of support that Treasury has contracted to provide each enterprise in the Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements (PSPA), although an amendment to this bill would allow the director of FHFA to supply additional financial support if the private secondary mortgage market were not viable. To keep each of the enterprises solvent, Treasury has contracted to purchase preferred stock subject to certain limits. Initially, the limit was $100 billion for each GSE, but this amount was raised to $200 billion each. In late 2009, the PSPA were amended to provide for unlimited support in calendar years 2010 through 2012. Outside of 2010-2012, the $200 billion limits apply. For more information of the enterprises' financial condition, see CRS Report RL34661, Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's Financial Problems , by [author name scrubbed]. Two pairs of broader companion bills have been introduced in the 112 th Congress. The first pair is Title VI of H.R. 408 and Title","VI of S.","178 ; the second pair is H.R. 1182 and S. 693 . The two sets of companion legislation have some different provisions pertaining to the enterprises and include some, but not all, of the provisions of H.R. 1221 through H.R. 1227 . In addition, H.R. 1859 and H.R. 2413 would replace the enterprises. H.R. 408 and S. 178 , both titled the Spending Reduction Act of 2011, are identical and address many other issues besides reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These unrelated concerns are not addressed in this report. Title VI, the GSE Bailout Elimination and Taxpayer Protection Act, of these two bills would terminate the enterprises' conservatorships in 24 months (or six months later if FHFA determines that financial markets would be adversely affected by the termination and so notifies Congress). At the end of the conservatorship, the enterprises would either go into receivership and be dissolved or would continue under revised charters. These revisions would impose the following changes: Starting one year after leaving conservatorship, the enterprises would have to reduce their portfolios to $250 billion each over four years; H.R. 1224 provides for five years, starting one year after enactment.","(Section 604(2)) The enterprises would no longer have housing goals (including the housing trust fund and the magnet fund contributions). This is similar to H.R. 1226 . (Section 604(1)) Certain provisions in H.R. 408 and S. 178 are not included in the more narrowly focused bills: The enterprises would leave conservatorship 24-30 months after enactment. They would either be returned to stockholder control or be dissolved under receivership. (Section 603) Three years after the enterprises return to stockholder control, their charters would be repealed as applied to new business. There would be a 10-year wind-down period followed by their dissolution, which would make provisions for continued payment of each enterprise's financial obligations such as debts and MBS. (Section 606) FHFA would have strengthened authority to set and to enforce minimum capital levels. (Section 604(3)) The conforming loan limit would be set at $417,000 nationwide with no high-cost exceptions and the enterprises could not purchase homes selling for more than the area median home price. The conforming loan limit would only increase in future years to reflect increasing house prices. The conforming loan limit is currently $417,000, except in high-cost areas where the limit is higher with","a maximum of $625,500.","(Section 604(4)) The enterprises would be prohibited from purchasing mortgages greater than the area median home price. (Section 604(4)(F)) The minimum downpayment for mortgages purchased by the enterprises would be 5% during the 12 months after leaving conservatorship, 7.5% during the second 12 months and 10% afterward. Currently, the required downpayment is flexible as part of the mortgage underwriting process and may affect the interest rate paid by the borrower. (Section 604(5)) The enterprises would be required to pay all state and local taxes. Currently, they pay only state and local property taxes. (Section 604(6)) The enterprises would be required to register all stocks and public offerings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). (Section 604(7)) FHFA would charge each enterprise for the value of the benefits provided by the government. (Section 604(8)) The other pair of companion bills ( H.R. 1182 and S. 693 ) contains all the provisions of H.R. 408 and S. 178 (except for the recovery of the value of the federal guarantee), and has two additional provisions. More specifically, compared with H.R. 408 and S. 178 , H.R. 1182 and S. 693 would add the guarantee fee increase also contained in","H.R.","1222 (Section 4(a)(4)); require the enterprises to reduce their portfolios to $250 billion each over five years like H.R. 1224 , but unlike the four years in H.R. 408 and S. 178 (Section 4(a)(2)); and repeal the affordable housing goals like H.R. 1226 and the other pair of companion bills (Section 4(a)(1)). Provisions in H.R. 1182 and S. 693 not contained in any of the narrowly focused bills but contained in H.R. 408 and S. 178 would end the enterprises' conservatorship in 24 months (without the option for FHFA to grant a six month extension) (Section 3); start the phase-out the enterprises' charters as pertains to new business three years after they leave conservatorship (Section 5); repeal the enterprises' exemption from SEC registration as pertains to MBS and subordinated debt (Section 4(b)(4)); lower the conforming loan limit to $417,000, eliminate the high-cost areas limit, and increase in future years to reflect increasing house prices (Section 4(a)(3)); direct FHFA to increase the minimum capital required of the enterprises (Section 4(b)(1)); increase borrower downpayment requirements (Section 4(b)(2)); and require the enterprises to pay all state and local taxes (Section 4(b)(3)). In addition, H.R. 1182 and S.","693 would prohibit a reduction in the 10% annual cash dividend paid to Treasury under terms of the support contracts with the enterprises (Section 4(a)(5)). H.R. 1859 , Housing Finance Reform Act of 2011 , would authorize FHFA to charter housing finance guaranty associations to pool and to securitize single-family and multifamily mortgages (Section 3). The associations would guarantee the timely payment of principal and interest to investors, and the federal government would provide (and charge for) a backup guarantee. The associations would be restricted to purchasing and securitizing existing mortgages, and they could specialize in particular markets such as community banks and multifamily mortgages. The maximum mortgage size would be the greater of 150% of the national average home price or 150% of the area median price. Using the National Association of Realtor's median single-family house sales data, the nationwide mortgage limit would be $256,000 compared to $417,000 presently. The highest area limits would be Honolulu at $897,300 (currently $721,050) and San Jose at $886,500 (currently, $625,500).","Mortgages on one-to-four family dwelling units (usually called single family), could be purchased only if the loan-to-value ratio is 80% or less, unless the seller retains a 10% participation, the seller agrees to repurchase the mortgages in default according to terms approved by FHFA, or the unpaid principal balance in excess of 80% is guaranteed. FHFA would regulate the associations and could place them into conservatorship or receivership. FHFA would create a plan to wind down the enterprises as the associations were chartered (Section 4). During the transition, the enterprises would not have affordable housing goals and would be required to pay state and local taxes. Currently, the only state and local taxes that they pay are property taxes. H.R. 2413 , Secondary Market Facility for Residential Mortgages Act of 2011, would create a federal corporation to purchase and securitize mortgages that meet certain underwriting standards. The facility would be prohibited from originating mortgages and would charge a guarantee fee and a reinsurance fee for purchasing mortgages. The fees would be adjusted to keep the facility's market share under 50%, except in unusual circumstances.","The goal of the guarantee fee would be to cover the payment of mortgages during normal times. The reinsurance fee would compensate Treasury for the backup federal guarantee. The fees would be based on the quality of the mortgages, regardless of the location of the home, the volume of mortgages provided by the seller, or any reduction in homeownership costs proved to the owner. Mortgages eligible for purchase would be for 30 years or less, be for no more that 80% of the sales price of the house (or 90% of the sales price if the seller retains a 10% participation, or the homeowner purchases private mortgage insurance). The maximum mortgage size would be based on the formula most recently used in FY2011 that provides for a $729,750 maximum in high-cost areas. A reorganized FHFA would oversee the facility."],"string":"[\n \"The 112 th Congress is considering legislative proposals to limit the government's present and future risk from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The two entities are government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs)—congressionally chartered, stockholder-owned companies with special legal privileges and special obligations to facilitate the flow of mortgage funds. Their basic business includes purchasing mortgages that have been issued by others, pooling and guaranteeing the mortgages into mortgage-backed securities (MBS), and either selling the MBS to investors or holding the MBS \\\"in portfolio\\\" as an investment. In recent years, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac together were responsible for nearly half of the nation's outstanding residential mortgage debt. In 2008, the enterprises' capital proved to be inadequate as mortgage defaults and foreclosures increased more than anticipated, and the cost of borrowing to finance their investment portfolios increased. To support the mortgage markets during the financial crisis of 2008-2009 and to keep these enterprises in business, the U.S. Department of the Treasury has purchased more than $175 billion of special preferred stock. In addition, Treasury and the Federal Reserve (the Fed) have provided mortgage market support by purchasing nearly $1.4 trillion in MBS from investors in the open market.\",\n \"Treasury's purchase of more than $175 billion in preferred stock is one element in contracts that require the enterprises to pay an annual 10% cash dividend on the Treasury funds. Based on their past histories, it is not clear that the enterprises could survive without Treasury's continued support. Some of the bills that have been introduced are likely to reduce the enterprises' future size by reducing or eliminating certain advantages conferred by their charters. More specifically, one category of proposed legislation would increase their cost of doing business (e.g., H.R. 1222 ). It is likely that the increased costs would be passed onto the enterprises' business partners in the form of lower prices for mortgages and higher interest rates to borrowers. This would potentially allow other securitizers to compete more effectively with the enterprises. A second group of bills would impose new limitations on the types of mortgages that the enterprises can purchase, leaving more of the mortgage market to their competition (e.g., H.R. 1227 ). A third category of changes contained in some of the bills would increase regulatory oversight and disclosure (e.g., H.R. 31 and H.R. 1225 ).\",\n \"The proposed increased capital requirements would be another source of increased costs, but would also reduce risks. New requirements to file with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) would eliminate a competitive advantage enjoyed by the enterprises and require them to adhere to some of the same rules as their competitors. A fourth category of legislative proposals would set a deadline for the enterprises to return to stockholder control or to be dissolved; in the event they were to return to stockholder control, the bills would phase out their charters (e.g., two pairs of companion bills H.R. 408 / S. 178 and H.R. 1182 / S. 693 ). A fifth category of legislative proposals would make provisions for replacing the enterprises in the secondary mortgage markets (e.g. H.R. 1859 and H.R. 2413 ). Table 1 summarizes and illustrates differences in provisions of the various bills introduced in the 112 th Congress. The enterprises came to their current financial difficulties following a period of increasing losses due to mortgage delinquencies, coupled with inadequate capital.\",\n \"In September 2008, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac separately agreed to enter voluntary conservatorship, which entailed giving their regulator, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), management and control of the enterprises. At the same time, the Treasury signed separate contracts with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to provide whatever financial support might be needed to keep them solvent. Homeowners and potential homeowners indirectly depend on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as a source of mortgage money. The enterprises are prohibited from making loans directly to borrowers; instead, they purchase mortgages that lenders have already made. They package the mortgages into MBS and either keep them \\\"in portfolio\\\" or sell them to institutional investors. Sometimes the originator \\\"swaps\\\" the mortgages for an MBS backed by the same loans. The advantage of a swap is the addition of the enterprise's guarantee that the loans will be repaid. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac back almost half of the home mortgages in the nation. The Obama Administration's report on the future of the enterprises and the housing finance system presents three broad alternatives: a privatized system with existing government mortgage programs (Federal Housing Authority, Veterans Affairs, and U.S.\",\n \"Department of Agriculture) more narrowly targeted toward groups based on income or first-time homebuyer status; a privatized system with a government guarantee only during a crisis; and a privatized system with backup government reinsurance of private mortgage insurance. As of this writing, no legislation has been introduced to implement any of the Administration's proposals; therefore, they are not discussed further in this report. If and when legislation is introduced, it will be incorporated into this report. More detail on the proposals is contained in CRS Report R41719, The Obama Administration's Report on \\\"Reforming America's Housing Finance Market\\\": Implications for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac , by [author name scrubbed]. This report continues with summaries of legislation that has been introduced in the 112 th Congress. Most of the bills address individual areas of concern, such as executive compensation, but two pairs of companion bills would reform a number of areas. This section analyzes legislation that has been introduced and that would make changes to a single area of the enterprises' operations. H.R.\",\n \"31 , Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Accountability and Transparency for Taxpayers Act of 2011, would require the director of FHFA to make quarterly reports on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 12 specific areas: 1. total liabilities and the risk to the federal government; 2. executive compensation and bonuses; 3. the impact of reducing the conforming loan limits at the end of FY2011; 4. foreclosure mitigation efforts; 5. mortgage fraud prevention efforts; 6. communications with the Federal Reserve and Treasury regarding the purchase or sale of enterprise securities; 7. enterprise investments outside of their mission; 8. reasons for equity (preferred stock) investments by Treasury; 9. capital levels, portfolio size and their impacts on the safety and soundness of the enterprises; 10. underwriting standards; 11. mortgage buyback policies; and 12. the enterprises' actions that affected enterprise securities, in particular, preferred stock issued before September 6, 2008. The director could include additional information that he \\\"considers relevant or important with respect to the enterprise, and the activities and condition of the enterprise.\\\" The FHFA inspector general (IG) would be required to review the reports and inform Congress of his findings.\",\n \"The bill would require both the reports and the IG's comments to be posted on the FHFA website. The bill would also require the IG to examine FHFA's loss mitigation policies, including the impact of principal reduction on the enterprises' financial condition and the nationwide foreclosure rate. There is some overlap between these reporting requirements and current reports. For example, the FHFA's quarterly Report on the Enterprises' Financial Performance covers capital, investments, and loss mitigation activities. The FHFA's monthly Foreclosure Prevention and Refinance Report also covers loss mitigation efforts. FHFA has issued a report on the effect of reducing the conforming loan limit. On April 5 and 6, 2011, the House Subcommittee on Capital Markets and Government-Sponsored Enterprises of the Committee on Financial Services marked up H.R. 31 and forwarded it to the full committee. Even without this legislation, FHFA could send such quarterly reports to Congress, and the IG could review the reports. The bill indicates to FHFA and the FHFA IG that Congress attaches particular importance to these areas of oversight. H.R.\",\n \"463 , Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Transparency Act of 2011, would make the enterprises subject to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests by making them federal agencies for the purpose of FOIA compliance. No action has been taken on H.R. 463 . H.R. 1221 , Equity in Government Compensation Act of 2011, would limit the pay of the enterprises' employees. Current executive compensation packages, previously approved by FHFA, would be suspended and declared to be the sense of Congress that any pay in 2010 exceeding Level I of the Executive Schedule ($199,700) or the Senior Executive Service ($179,700) should be turned over to the Treasury. Other employees of the enterprises would be paid according to the federal government's general schedule (GS), with a maximum pay in the Washington, DC, area in 2011 of $155,500. Executive compensation would be based in part on the enterprise's profitability. The enterprises would be covered by Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) provisions on executive compensation and corporate governance. The bill states that enterprise employees shall not be considered federal employees. On November 15, 2011, the House Financial Services Committee ordered the bill to be reported as amended.\",\n \"As conservator, FHFA currently has the authority to reject enterprise salaries without this legislation, but this bill would remove FHFA's discretion. As regulator, 12 U.S.C. 4518 authorizes FHFA to prohibit and order an enterprise to withhold executive compensation that is \\\"not reasonable and comparable\\\" to that provided by similar companies. The same section prohibits FHFA from actually setting salaries or salary ranges. H.R. 1222 , GSE Subsidy Elimination Act of 2011, would require the enterprises to charge a guarantee fee that reflects the risk of the mortgages purchased and the cost of capital that a totally private company would charge. FHFA would have the option to either phase in the higher fee over two years or to impose it at the higher level two years after enactment. On April 5 and 6, 2011, the House Subcommittee on Capital Markets and Government-Sponsored Enterprises of the Committee on Financial Services marked up H.R. 1222 and forwarded it to the full committee. As conservator or receiver, FHFA has the authority to implement these provisions. As regulator, it appears that FHFA could not require guarantee fees consistent with the provisions of H.R. 1222 unless necessary for the safety and soundness\",\n \"of the enterprises. H.R.\",\n \"1223 , GSE Credit Risk Equitable Treatment Act of 2011, would prohibit treating mortgage-backed securities issued by the enterprises differently from similar MBS issued by an otherwise identical company. The bill would require that regulatory determinations as to what is a mortgage with a low risk of default, called a \\\"qualified residential mortgage\\\" (QRM) in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, \\\"Dodd-Frank,\\\" ( P.L. 111-203 , 124 Stat. 1376 et seq.), not be based solely on the enterprises' role in the securitization. Dodd-Frank requires the federal banking regulators, the SEC, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and FHFA to issue joint regulations to implement the act's risk retention requirements for mortgages included in MBS. Under Dodd-Frank, QRMs would be exempt from this risk retention requirement. On April 5 and 6, 2011, the House Subcommittee on Capital Markets and Government-Sponsored Enterprises of the Committee on Financial Services marked up H.R. 1223 and forwarded it to the full committee. Scott G.\",\n \"Alvarez, the Federal Reserve's general counsel, has testified that Dodd-Frank does not exempt the enterprises from the risk retention requirement, and that their 100% guarantee of timely payment of principal and interest on their MBS is \\\"generally in the form of an unfunded guarantee, which would not satisfy the risk retention requirements of the proposed rules.\\\" Nevertheless, he said that the proposed rules would allow the enterprises' guarantees to satisfy the risk retention requirements as long as the enterprises were in conservatorship or receivership. H.R. 1224 , GSE Portfolio Risk Reduction Act of 2011, would require the enterprises to accelerate the reduction of their portfolios over five years to $250 billion each. At the end of 2010, Fannie Mae's portfolio was $789 billion and Freddie Mac's was $697 billion. The financial support agreements between Treasury and the GSEs require the GSEs to reduce their mortgage portfolios to stay within a cap that started at $900 billion at the end of 2009 and decreases 10% annually reaching $250 billion in 2022. The companion bills H.R. 1182 and S. 693 would reduce the enterprises' portfolios on the same five-year schedule as H.R. 1224 . The companion bills H.R.\",\n \"408 and S.\",\n \"178 would reduce the portfolios over four years. Table 2 compares the portfolio caps under the current agreement, H.R. 1224 , and the pairs of companion bills. H.R. 1224 would not count delinquent mortgages that were repurchased to fulfill an enterprise's guarantee against the portfolio limits. On April 5 and 6, 2011, the House Subcommittee on Capital Markets and Government-Sponsored Enterprises of the Committee on Financial Services marked up H.R. 1224 and forwarded it to the full committee. As regulator, FHFA could order the enterprises to reduce their risk by reducing their portfolios more rapidly than the current contract provides. H.R. 1225 , GSE Debt Issuance Approval Act of 2011, would require the enterprises to request in writing permission from the Secretary of the Treasury to issue new debt. The Secretary would announce his decision and reasons in writing to the enterprise, FHFA, and Congress. There would be a seven-day waiting period following Treasury's approval before the enterprise could issue the debt. On April 5 and 6, 2011, the House Subcommittee on Capital Markets and Government-Sponsored Enterprises of the Committee on Financial Services marked up H.R. 1225 and forwarded it to the full committee.\",\n \"Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's charters currently provide the Secretary of the Treasury this authority. According to FHFA staff, it was used in the past to prevent the enterprises from issuing large amounts of debt too close to Treasury debt sales, but this practice fell into disuse. Former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Emil Henry has written that there was a more formal process until the mid-1990s. Arguably, the Secretary of the Treasury could assert the existing review authority contained in the enterprises' charters. The requirements that the enterprises make the requests for approval in writing, that the secretary publish his decision, and that there be a seven-day waiting period would formalize the process. H.R. 1226 , GSE Mission Improvement Act, would repeal the affordable housing goals first established by the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 ( P.L. 102-550 , 106 Stat. 3672 et seq.) and amended by the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 ( P.L. 110-289 , 122 Stat. 2654 et seq.). It would repeal, also, the duty to serve underserved markets, and funding for both the housing trust fund and the capital magnet fund.\",\n \"FHFA would have six months to submit a report to Congress on this bill's effect on multifamily properties, loans to low-income borrowers, and loans to borrowers in rural areas. The report would contain recommendations on increasing mortgage credit in these areas. On April 5 and 6, 2011, the House Subcommittee on Capital Markets and Government-Sponsored Enterprises of the Committee on Financial Services marked up H.R. 1226 and forwarded it to the full committee. Unless the housing goals are repealed, the enterprises will continue to be required to meet them. H.R. 1227 , GSE Risk and Activities Limitation Act of 2011, would prohibit FHFA from approving any new products while an enterprise is in conservatorship or receivership unless FHFA determined the new products were necessary to preserve the enterprises' assets or reduce losses. When the enterprises are not in conservatorship or receivership, the FHFA would retain its existing new product approval authority. On April 5 and 6, 2011, the House Subcommittee on Capital Markets and Government-Sponsored Enterprises of the Committee on Financial Services marked up H.R. 1227 and forwarded it to the full committee.\",\n \"Arguably, FHFA could announce a new policy that would restrict new product approvals while the GSEs are in conservatorship. H.R. 2425 , Transparency and Security in Mortgage Registration Act of 2011, would prohibit Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Ginnie Mae from purchasing or securitizing a mortgage that is registered with the Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS). MERS is a centralized mortgage registration system that bypasses state laws requiring local registration of mortgages and other liens on real estate. MERS is involved in legal challenges questioning its authority to participate in foreclosures and its ability to maintain a clear history of ownership of real estate. Some of the employment contracts between the enterprises and employees and former employees provide that the appropriate enterprise shall pay legal expenses incurred as a result of the employment. H.R. 2428 , GSE Legal Fee Reduction Act of 2011, would require the enterprises to propose to FHFA a methodology to determine \\\"reasonable\\\" legal expenses of an employee or former employee. Under HERA the conservator, FHFA, can repudiate any contracts (including employment contracts) entered into prior to the conservatorship. H.R.\",\n \"2436 , Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Taxpayer Payback Act of 2011, would prevent a reduction in the annual dividend rates of 10% in cash or 12% in preferred stock paid by the enterprises to Treasury. H.R. 2439 , Removing GSEs Charters During Receivership Act of 2011, would empower FHFA to revoke an enterprise's charter and requires the charter to be revoked at the termination of a limited-life entity created as part of the receivership process. Presently only Congress can terminate an enterprise's charter. H.R. 2441 , Housing Trust Fund Elimination Act of 2011, would terminate the Housing Trust Fund, the Capital Magnet Fund, and the Hope Reserve Fund, which were established by the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 ( P.L. 110-289 ) and were to be funded by the enterprises. The enterprises financial conditions precluded any contributions, but $80 million was appropriated in the FY2010 budget for the Capital Magnet Fund. H.R. 2440 , Market Transparency and Taxpayer Protection Act of 2011, would direct FHFA to identify non-mission critical assets held by the enterprises. Patents and mortgage data are specifically identified as possibly non-mission critical assets. FHFA would submit to Congress a plan\",\n \"to sell these assets.\",\n \"It would, also, require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to release loan and appraisal data in a manner that would not disclose personally identifiable information. H.R. 2462 , Cap the GSE Bailout Act of 2011, would set in statute the maximum amount of support that Treasury has contracted to provide each enterprise in the Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements (PSPA), although an amendment to this bill would allow the director of FHFA to supply additional financial support if the private secondary mortgage market were not viable. To keep each of the enterprises solvent, Treasury has contracted to purchase preferred stock subject to certain limits. Initially, the limit was $100 billion for each GSE, but this amount was raised to $200 billion each. In late 2009, the PSPA were amended to provide for unlimited support in calendar years 2010 through 2012. Outside of 2010-2012, the $200 billion limits apply. For more information of the enterprises' financial condition, see CRS Report RL34661, Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's Financial Problems , by [author name scrubbed]. Two pairs of broader companion bills have been introduced in the 112 th Congress. The first pair is Title VI of H.R. 408 and Title\",\n \"VI of S.\",\n \"178 ; the second pair is H.R. 1182 and S. 693 . The two sets of companion legislation have some different provisions pertaining to the enterprises and include some, but not all, of the provisions of H.R. 1221 through H.R. 1227 . In addition, H.R. 1859 and H.R. 2413 would replace the enterprises. H.R. 408 and S. 178 , both titled the Spending Reduction Act of 2011, are identical and address many other issues besides reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These unrelated concerns are not addressed in this report. Title VI, the GSE Bailout Elimination and Taxpayer Protection Act, of these two bills would terminate the enterprises' conservatorships in 24 months (or six months later if FHFA determines that financial markets would be adversely affected by the termination and so notifies Congress). At the end of the conservatorship, the enterprises would either go into receivership and be dissolved or would continue under revised charters. These revisions would impose the following changes: Starting one year after leaving conservatorship, the enterprises would have to reduce their portfolios to $250 billion each over four years; H.R. 1224 provides for five years, starting one year after enactment.\",\n \"(Section 604(2)) The enterprises would no longer have housing goals (including the housing trust fund and the magnet fund contributions). This is similar to H.R. 1226 . (Section 604(1)) Certain provisions in H.R. 408 and S. 178 are not included in the more narrowly focused bills: The enterprises would leave conservatorship 24-30 months after enactment. They would either be returned to stockholder control or be dissolved under receivership. (Section 603) Three years after the enterprises return to stockholder control, their charters would be repealed as applied to new business. There would be a 10-year wind-down period followed by their dissolution, which would make provisions for continued payment of each enterprise's financial obligations such as debts and MBS. (Section 606) FHFA would have strengthened authority to set and to enforce minimum capital levels. (Section 604(3)) The conforming loan limit would be set at $417,000 nationwide with no high-cost exceptions and the enterprises could not purchase homes selling for more than the area median home price. The conforming loan limit would only increase in future years to reflect increasing house prices. The conforming loan limit is currently $417,000, except in high-cost areas where the limit is higher with\",\n \"a maximum of $625,500.\",\n \"(Section 604(4)) The enterprises would be prohibited from purchasing mortgages greater than the area median home price. (Section 604(4)(F)) The minimum downpayment for mortgages purchased by the enterprises would be 5% during the 12 months after leaving conservatorship, 7.5% during the second 12 months and 10% afterward. Currently, the required downpayment is flexible as part of the mortgage underwriting process and may affect the interest rate paid by the borrower. (Section 604(5)) The enterprises would be required to pay all state and local taxes. Currently, they pay only state and local property taxes. (Section 604(6)) The enterprises would be required to register all stocks and public offerings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). (Section 604(7)) FHFA would charge each enterprise for the value of the benefits provided by the government. (Section 604(8)) The other pair of companion bills ( H.R. 1182 and S. 693 ) contains all the provisions of H.R. 408 and S. 178 (except for the recovery of the value of the federal guarantee), and has two additional provisions. More specifically, compared with H.R. 408 and S. 178 , H.R. 1182 and S. 693 would add the guarantee fee increase also contained in\",\n \"H.R.\",\n \"1222 (Section 4(a)(4)); require the enterprises to reduce their portfolios to $250 billion each over five years like H.R. 1224 , but unlike the four years in H.R. 408 and S. 178 (Section 4(a)(2)); and repeal the affordable housing goals like H.R. 1226 and the other pair of companion bills (Section 4(a)(1)). Provisions in H.R. 1182 and S. 693 not contained in any of the narrowly focused bills but contained in H.R. 408 and S. 178 would end the enterprises' conservatorship in 24 months (without the option for FHFA to grant a six month extension) (Section 3); start the phase-out the enterprises' charters as pertains to new business three years after they leave conservatorship (Section 5); repeal the enterprises' exemption from SEC registration as pertains to MBS and subordinated debt (Section 4(b)(4)); lower the conforming loan limit to $417,000, eliminate the high-cost areas limit, and increase in future years to reflect increasing house prices (Section 4(a)(3)); direct FHFA to increase the minimum capital required of the enterprises (Section 4(b)(1)); increase borrower downpayment requirements (Section 4(b)(2)); and require the enterprises to pay all state and local taxes (Section 4(b)(3)). In addition, H.R. 1182 and S.\",\n \"693 would prohibit a reduction in the 10% annual cash dividend paid to Treasury under terms of the support contracts with the enterprises (Section 4(a)(5)). H.R. 1859 , Housing Finance Reform Act of 2011 , would authorize FHFA to charter housing finance guaranty associations to pool and to securitize single-family and multifamily mortgages (Section 3). The associations would guarantee the timely payment of principal and interest to investors, and the federal government would provide (and charge for) a backup guarantee. The associations would be restricted to purchasing and securitizing existing mortgages, and they could specialize in particular markets such as community banks and multifamily mortgages. The maximum mortgage size would be the greater of 150% of the national average home price or 150% of the area median price. Using the National Association of Realtor's median single-family house sales data, the nationwide mortgage limit would be $256,000 compared to $417,000 presently. The highest area limits would be Honolulu at $897,300 (currently $721,050) and San Jose at $886,500 (currently, $625,500).\",\n \"Mortgages on one-to-four family dwelling units (usually called single family), could be purchased only if the loan-to-value ratio is 80% or less, unless the seller retains a 10% participation, the seller agrees to repurchase the mortgages in default according to terms approved by FHFA, or the unpaid principal balance in excess of 80% is guaranteed. FHFA would regulate the associations and could place them into conservatorship or receivership. FHFA would create a plan to wind down the enterprises as the associations were chartered (Section 4). During the transition, the enterprises would not have affordable housing goals and would be required to pay state and local taxes. Currently, the only state and local taxes that they pay are property taxes. H.R. 2413 , Secondary Market Facility for Residential Mortgages Act of 2011, would create a federal corporation to purchase and securitize mortgages that meet certain underwriting standards. The facility would be prohibited from originating mortgages and would charge a guarantee fee and a reinsurance fee for purchasing mortgages. The fees would be adjusted to keep the facility's market share under 50%, except in unusual circumstances.\",\n \"The goal of the guarantee fee would be to cover the payment of mortgages during normal times. The reinsurance fee would compensate Treasury for the backup federal guarantee. The fees would be based on the quality of the mortgages, regardless of the location of the home, the volume of mortgages provided by the seller, or any reduction in homeownership costs proved to the owner. Mortgages eligible for purchase would be for 30 years or less, be for no more that 80% of the sales price of the house (or 90% of the sales price if the seller retains a 10% participation, or the homeowner purchases private mortgage insurance). The maximum mortgage size would be based on the formula most recently used in FY2011 that provides for a $729,750 maximum in high-cost areas. A reorganized FHFA would oversee the facility.\"\n]","isConversational":false}}},{"rowIdx":16990,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"string","value":"train_16990"},"question":{"kind":"string","value":"Write a detailed summary of the following government report."},"answer":{"kind":"string","value":"The Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that \"[t]he Judicial Power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.\" Although the amendment appears to be focused on preventing suits against a state by non-residents in federal courts, the U.S. Supreme Court has expanded the concept of state sovereign immunity to reach much further than the literal text of the amendment, to include immunity from suits by the states' own citizens and immunity from suits under federal law within a state's own court system. As a result of two landmark Supreme Court decisions in 1999, Florida Prepaid and College Savings Bank, the Eleventh Amendment currently bars an individual from successfully seeking damages from a state for violations of federal intellectual property laws unless the state clearly consents to being sued through waiver, or Congress legitimately abrogates state sovereign immunity. Valid waiver exists only where a state has clearly submitted itself to federal jurisdiction. Courts have interpreted this rule to validate waiver in several scenarios: where a state voluntarily removes a case to federal court; where a state voluntarily initiates and participates in the litigation; where the case is part of one continuous action in which the state previously waived its immunity; where a state enacts legislation waiving its sovereign immunity; or where a state enters a contract containing a provision in which the state specifically submits to federal court jurisdiction in the case of a dispute. Absent these forms of clear waiver, a state does not relinquish its privilege of sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. Congress may limit state sovereign immunity to suit under federal intellectual property laws only by passing a law pursuant to its enforcement power under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. A valid statute passed pursuant to § 5 will be limited in scope and remedy a pervasive and unredressed constitutional violation. The Supreme Court has previously invalidated congressional attempts to abrogate state sovereign immunity in intellectual property lawsuits against state governments. Where there has been no clear waiver by the state, nor abrogation of state sovereignty by Congress, a party cannot obtain damages from a state under federal law. The injured party may, however, sue the individual official responsible for the violation for prospective injunctive relief under the Ex Parte Young doctrine . In order to obtain this kind of non-monetary relief, the party must show a continued violation of federal law and an adequate connection between the named official and the actual violation. In response to Florida Prepaid and College Savings Bank, various bills have been introduced in previous sessions of Congress in an attempt to hold states accountable for violations of intellectual property rights. These proposals, however, never made it out of committee."},"documents":{"kind":"list like","value":["In accordance with the doctrine of federalism, the American constitutional system divides privilege and power between the central national government and the individual states. Significant constitutional conflicts often arise, however, where the legitimate exercise of power at one level is incompatible with the legitimate exercise of power at the other. The convergence of state sovereign immunity and federal intellectual property law provides one example of the complicated interaction between the powers of the federal government, the state, and the individual, and the inevitable conflicts that arise as all three attempt to exercise their established powers and rights. The Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, with limited exceptions, bars an individual from suing a state under federal law without the state's consent. While states may consent to suit by waiving the privilege of sovereign immunity, in limited circumstances Congress may also abrogate, or overrule, that immunity by passing a statute pursuant to the enforcement power under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. There are times, however, when a state may decide against waiving its sovereign immunity and Congress is unable to abrogate sovereign immunity pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment.","In these situations, an individual is barred from suing a state for monetary damages for a violation of federal law. Intellectual property has emerged as one area where Congress has been unsuccessful in abrogating sovereign immunity, and states have not expressly chosen to waive their constitutionally protected privilege of immunity. Therefore, individuals may not recover damages under federal patent, copyright, or trademark law for infringements perpetrated by a state entity. Intellectual property (IP) law has several major branches, applicable to different types of subject matter, including the following: copyright (original artistic and literary works of authorship), patent (inventions of processes, machines, manufactures, and compositions of matter that are useful, new, and nonobvious), and trademark (commercial symbols and commercial names). The source of federal copyright and patent law originates with the copyright and patent clause of the U.S. Constitution, which authorizes Congress to \"promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.\" By contrast, the constitutional basis for federal trademark law is the power to regulate interstate commerce under the commerce clause.","The Copyright Act, Patent Act, and the Trademark Act of 1946 (conventionally known as the Lanham Act) provide legal protection for intellectual property against unauthorized use, theft, and other violations of the rights granted by those statutes to the IP owner. The Copyright Act provides copyright owners with the exclusive right to control reproduction, distribution, public performance, and display of their copyrighted works. The Patent Act grants patent holders the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling their patented invention throughout the United States, or importing the invention into the United States. The Lanham Act allows sellers and producers of goods and services to prevent a competitor from (1) using any counterfeit, copy, or imitation of their trademarks (that have been registered with the U.S.","Patent and Trademark Office) in connection with the sale of any goods or services in a way that is likely to cause confusion, mistake, or deception, or (2) using in commercial advertising any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any false or misleading designation of origin or false or misleading description or representation of fact, which (a) is likely to cause confusion, mistake, or deception as to affiliation, connection, or association, or as to origin, sponsorship, or approval, of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person, or (b) misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her or another person's goods, services, or commercial activities. In addition, the Lanham Act grants to owners of \"famous\" trademarks the right to seek injunctive relief against another person's use in commerce of a mark or trade name if such use causes dilution by blurring or tarnishing the distinctive quality of the famous trademark. Private individuals and organizations may own various forms of IP, either because they are the creators of such IP and have not relinquished their rights by assignment, or they have acquired legal title to the IP.","Federal, state, and local government entities also may own or claim a property interest in certain patents, copyrights, and trademarks, with the notable exception that the Copyright Act categorically excludes copyright protection for any work of the U. S. government, although the federal government may receive and hold copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise. Generally speaking, the use of a patented invention, copyrighted work, or trademark without the authorization of the IP owner constitutes infringement. The IP owner may initiate a civil action against an alleged infringer for a violation of any of the exclusive rights conferred by a patent, copyright, or trademark. If a defendant is found guilty of patent infringement in a lawsuit brought by the patent holder, the remedies available to the plaintiff include an injunction to cease and prohibit the offending activity by the defendant, damages to compensate for the infringement, and even attorney fees. Federal law only provides civil remedies in the event of patent infringement; there are no criminal sanctions.","The Copyright Act provides several civil remedies for infringement, including the possibility of obtaining injunctive relief, actual damages suffered by the copyright owner due to the infringement, statutory damages, and costs and attorney fees. The U.S. Department of Justice may also criminally prosecute particularly egregious violators of the copyright law in the case of willful infringement for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain. The usual remedy for trademark infringement is injunctive relief, although monetary relief is also available. In addition, the court may order that any infringing articles bearing the reproduction, copy, or colorable imitation of a registered trademark be destroyed. As noted above, IP owners may enforce their rights under the federal IP laws by bringing lawsuits against alleged infringers. The defendants who may be sued for infringement include private individuals, companies, and also the federal government. However, while both monetary and injunctive relief are available in the case of private entity defendants, the remedies differ when the defendant is the federal government in copyright and patent infringement cases. Federal government infringement of a copyright or patent may give rise to a cause of action that is governed by statute, 28 U.S.C. §","1498.","This law provides that if the federal government uses a patented invention without the authorization of the patent holder, or if the federal government infringes a copyright, the only remedy available to the IP owner is the right to bring suit in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims to recover \"reasonable and entire compensation\" from the federal government. However, note that the federal government remains fully liable for all forms of relief (both monetary and injunctive) that are provided under the Lanham Act in the case of trademark infringement. Yet when state governments and state institutions (such as state-owned universities) infringe copyrights, patents, or trademarks, the IP owner currently has very limited legal recourse because of the U.S. Supreme Court's jurisprudence concerning the Eleventh Amendment. This case law has produced what some consider an anomalous outcome: a state may own a copyright, patent, or trademark and sue to enforce its rights in federal court, but that state may not be held accountable for monetary damages for its own violations of others' IP rights unless the state waives its sovereign immunity and consents to be sued.","Shortly after the Revolutionary War, two citizens of South Carolina sued the state of Georgia to recover a Revolutionary War debt owed by the State. The case eventually made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, where in Chisholm v. Georgia the Court noted that Article III of the Constitution specifically granted the federal courts jurisdiction over suits \"between a state and citizens of another state.\" The authorization came as a considerable surprise to the states, which had each relied on the immunity from suit that had commonly accompanied state sovereignty. In a direct rebuke of Chisholm , Congress and the states immediately acted to protect state sovereign immunity through the ratification of the Eleventh Amendment, the first amendment to the Constitution subsequent to the Bill of Rights.","The Eleventh Amendment states, \"The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State.\" Though the language of the amendment appears to bar only suits against a state by non-residents, the Supreme Court has interpreted the doctrine of sovereign immunity to also bar suits by citizens against their own state. The Eleventh Amendment therefore protects states from being sued in federal court without their consent in both federal question and diversity cases. The Court expanded the purview of the amendment in Alden v. Maine to include immunity from suit under federal law within a state's own court system. In Hans v. Louisiana , the Court considered whether the grant of federal jurisdiction found in Article III of the Constitution negated state sovereign immunity. In holding that it did not, the Court characterized the Eleventh Amendment as a specific attempt to overturn the Court's misinterpretation in Chisholm , rather than an affirmative amendment to the original structure of the Constitution.","The Eleventh Amendment had not constituted a change in the Constitution, the Court determined, but a restoration of the original and intended constitutional design. This interpretation allowed the Court to expand sovereign immunity beyond the confines of the language of the Eleventh Amendment. It was not until 1996 that the Court attempted to define the extent to which Congress had the authority to abrogate sovereign immunity where a state refused to waive its protection. In Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, the Supreme Court reasoned that because the Eleventh Amendment was ratified after Article I of the Constitution, Congress could not abrogate state sovereign immunity pursuant to any legislative power granted under the enumerated powers of Article I, § 8. The Court did, however, suggest that Congress could abrogate sovereign immunity through a statute passed pursuant to the § 5 enforcement power of the Fourteenth Amendment because that legislative authority was granted subsequent to the ratification of the Eleventh Amendment. It became clear following Seminole Tribe that any attempt by Congress to abrogate state sovereign immunity would have to be justified under the Fourteenth Amendment.","From 1790 to 1962, no court had dismissed a suit for alleged intellectual property infringement by a state on Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity grounds. An individual was free to recover damages from a state that was guilty of copyright, patent, or trademark infringement. Then in 1962, a copyright infringement action against an Iowa school district was dismissed by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals for lack of jurisdiction under the Eleventh Amendment. The issue simmered until 1985 when the Supreme Court dismissed an employment discrimination case on sovereign immunity grounds because Congress had not provided the requisite \"unequivocal language\" in the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 necessary to abrogate state sovereign immunity. The Court in Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlon held that federal statutes purporting to abrogate state sovereign immunity must clearly express Congress's intent to provide a remedy for individuals filing suit against a state. The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals then applied Atascadero in Chew v.","California , in holding that the Patent Act did not contain the \"requisite unmistakable language of Congressional intent necessary to abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity.\" Congress, concerned about the integrity of its intellectual property laws and unwilling to accept the proposition that states could enjoy the protections of federal intellectual property law without recognizing others' interests in intellectual property protections, soon responded to the uncertainty created by the Atascadero and Chew decisions by passing the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act (CRCA), the Trademark Remedy Clarification Act (TRCA), and the Patent and Plant Variety Protection Remedy Clarification Act (PRCA). Language within these acts specifically and unequivocally abrogated state sovereign immunity and subjected the states to suits for monetary damages brought by individuals for violation of federal copyright, trademark, or patent law. In 1999, sensing a growing tension between state and federal power, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to review two companion cases out of the Third Circuit and Federal Circuit Court of Appeals dealing directly with the abrogation of state sovereign immunity under the PRCA and the TRCA.","College Savings Bank had been awarded a patent for its financing methodology, based on certificates of deposit and annuity contracts, designed to guarantee investors funds for future college expenses. The state of Florida soon adopted College Savings Bank's methodology and created the Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board (the Board) to issue similar financing options to its own residents. Consequently, College Savings Bank filed two separate actions seeking damages from the Board. In the first action, Florida Prepaid v. College Savings Bank , College Savings Bank filed a claim for patent infringement against the Board under the PRCA. In the second action, College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid , College Savings Bank filed a claim alleging false and misleading advertising by the Board under the TRCA. In defense, the Board argued that both the PRCA and the TRCA were an improper attempt by Congress to abrogate state sovereign immunity. The United States intervened in both cases in support of College Savings Bank. The principal issue in Florida Prepaid was whether the PRCA had legitimately abrogated state sovereign immunity from suit for patent infringement.","College Savings Bank argued that Congress had lawfully done so pursuant to the due process clause by ensuring an individual an adequate remedy in the case of a deprivation of property perpetrated by the state in the form of patent infringement. The Board responded that the PRCA was passed pursuant to Congress's enumerated Article I powers, rather than its powers under the Fourteenth Amendment, and therefore constituted invalid abrogation under Seminole Tribe . The district court agreed with College Savings Bank and denied the Board's motion to dismiss. The Federal Circuit Court affirmed, holding that \"Congress had clearly expressed its intent to abrogate the States' immunity ... and that Congress had the power under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to do so.\" The PRCA had specifically made \"States, instrumentalities of States, and officers and employees of States acting in their official capacity, [] subject to suit in Federal court by any person for infringements of patents.\" However, the Supreme Court overturned the Federal Circuit decision, holding that the PRCA was not a valid use of the § 5 enforcement power of the Fourteenth Amendment and therefore not a legitimate abrogation of state sovereign immunity.","In reaffirming that Congress may not abrogate state sovereign immunity pursuant to Article I powers, the Court applied its holding in City of Boerne v. Flores to determine whether the PRCA was aimed at securing property protections guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment rather than passed pursuant to Article I, § 8, clause 8. While admitting that patents were \"property\" protected by the due process clause, the Court held that because Congress had not shown sufficient evidence of a \"widespread and persisting deprivation of constitutional rights\" nor adequately considered the availability of alternative remedies under state law, the PRCA was \"so out of proportion to a supposed remedial or preventive object that [it] cannot be understood as responsive to, or designed to prevent, unconstitutional behavior.\" The principal issue in College Savings Bank was whether the state of Florida had indirectly waived sovereign immunity by electing to engage in a federally regulated activity knowing that such conduct would subject it to suit under federal law. College Savings Bank argued that Congress had lawfully abrogated state sovereign immunity in trademark infringement actions through the TRCA.","Alternatively, College Savings Bank argued that Florida had waived sovereign immunity by voluntarily engaging in the \"activity of selling and advertising a for-profit educational investment vehicle in interstate commerce after being put on notice by the clear language of the TRCA that it would be subject to ... liability for doing so.\" The district court was not swayed by College Savings Bank's arguments and dismissed the case. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, holding that Florida's actions did not constitute waiver. The Court first brushed aside the petitioner's abrogation argument, reasoning that neither of the TRCA's false or misleading advertising provisions related to interests that would qualify as property interests protected by the due process clause, and were therefore not passed pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court devoted a large part of its opinion to rejecting College Savings Bank's argument that Florida had waived sovereign immunity through its knowing participation in an activity that would subject it to suit under the TRCA.","The majority refused to recognize any form of constructive waiver in sovereign immunity; instead, waiver could only be found where the state voluntarily invoked federal jurisdiction, or where the \"state makes a clear declaration that it intends to submit itself\" to federal jurisdiction. Florida had done neither. As a result of Florida Prepaid and College Savings Bank , the Eleventh Amendment currently bars an individual from successfully seeking damages from a state for federal patentâand likely copyright and trademarkâinfringement, unless the state has clearly consented to the suit through waiver, or Congress has successfully abrogated state sovereign immunity pursuant to a valid use of its legislative power under the Fourteenth Amendment. The specifics of these two avenues that would permit a state to be suedâwaiver and abrogationâare discussed in detail below. Although state sovereign immunity is a \"personal privilege which it may waive at [its] pleasure,\" the Court will only recognize waiver in instances where the state has explicitly shown its intent to waive immunity.","The College Savings Bank Court held that waiver would only be legitimate where \"the State voluntarily invoke[d] our jurisdiction,\" or where \"the State makes a 'clear declaration' that it intends to submit itself to our [the federal court's] jurisdiction.\" For example, consent to suit in a state's own courts does not translate into a waiver of immunity in federal court because it does not constitute a clear declaration of waiver of immunity in the federal system. Illustrating the importance of state sovereign immunity, the Court equated the requirements for waiver of sovereign immunity by a state to the requirements for waiver of a protected constitutional right by an individual. In order to convey the seriousness with which the Court would approach the standard for waiver of a state's right to immunity in federal court, the majority opinion in College Savings Bank specifically overturned existing precedent relating to waiver implied by the state's actions rather than through express consent. At issue in Parden v. Terminal R. of Ala. Docks Dept. was a statute Congress had passed that authorized employment discrimination suits by employees of any employer operating a railroad in interstate commerce.","The Parden Court held, against a strong dissent, that by \"operating a railroad in interstate commerce, Alabama must be taken to have accepted that condition and thus to have consented to suit.\" By participating as a common carrier in interstate commerce the State had impliedly, or constructively, waived sovereign immunity. The petitioner in College Savings Bank used the Parden precedent to argue that Florida, \"by engaging in the ... activity of selling and advertising a for-profit educational investment vehicle in interstate commerce\" with the knowledge that doing so would subject it to suit under the TRCA, had impliedly waived its immunity. The Court refused to accept the argument. After outlining the many cases that had narrowed the legitimacy of constructive waiver under Parden , the Court expressly overruled the Parden \"anomaly\": \"There is little reason to assume actual consent based upon the State's mere presence in a field subject to congressional regulation.\" Even where a state is on notice that participation in a given field could subject it to suit under federal law, merely entering the regulated field does not amount to a voluntary decision to waive immunity.","In overruling Parden , College Savings Bank made clear that a federal court would require explicit evidence of an intent to waive sovereign immunity before allowing a case against a state to proceed. While this case barred the recognition of an implied waiver based on general state participation in a regulated field, other cases have wrestled with the extent to which states may invoke federal court jurisdiction and waive immunity by voluntarily participating in legal proceedings. The Supreme Court has held that a state voluntarily invokes a federal court's jurisdiction, and waives sovereign immunity, where the state voluntarily removes a case from state court to federal court. In Lapides v. Board of Regents, the Court clearly distinguished between the repudiated Parden -style constructive waiver, and waivers effected by affirmative litigation conduct, such as removal. Paul Lapides, a professor at the University of Georgia had brought suit against the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia for violation of state and federal civil rights law. The state of Georgia joined with their co-defendants to remove the case to federal district court and asked for a dismissal of the claims under state sovereign immunity.","The Court, limiting its holding to those situations in which a state has expressly waived immunity in the underlying state court proceedings, held that where a state voluntarily removes a case to federal court it engages in affirmative litigation conduct sufficient to waive sovereign immunity. In reaching its holding, the Court expressed concern over the \"unfair tactical advantages\" and \"selective use of immunity\" that a state would enjoy by removing a case to federal court. Lapides , however, left unclear exactly what \"affirmative litigation conduct\" would qualify as waiver. The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals entered the fray in a 2002 case, holding that a state participates in affirmative litigation conduct sufficient to waive sovereign immunity when the state initiates the legal proceedings. In Vas-Cath Inc. v. Univ. of Missouri , the University of Missouri had initiated an administrative proceeding known as an interference action within the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) to clarify a dispute with Vas-Cath over ownership of a patent. Following six years of proceedings, the PTO issued an order granting ownership of the patent to the university.","As authorized by law, Vas-Cath appealed the PTO decision to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The university had the case transferred to Missouri where the federal district court granted its motion to dismiss on the grounds of Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity. On appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court decision, holding that where a state initiates an administrative proceeding with ensuing judicial review, the state \"cannot both retain the fruits of that action and bar the losing party from its statutory right of review.\" By voluntarily commencing and participating in the PTO interference action, the state had waived its privilege of sovereign immunity with respect to judicial review of that decision in federal court.","The appellate court grounded its decision on the Supreme Court's previously expressed concern over the \"selective use of immunity to achieve litigation advantages.\" The court held it would be unfair and inconsistent to allow the state, in one continuous action, to invoke sovereign immunity \"to shield the agency decision from review.\" Where a state becomes a party in a legal proceeding that it voluntarily initiated, the state has \"submitted its rights for judicial determination\" and may not escape the proceedings under the auspices of the Eleventh Amendment until the statutorily guaranteed judicial review is exhausted. Later that year, the Federal Circuit limited its decision in Vas-Cath and refused to extend the doctrine of waiver by affirmative litigation conduct to separate lawsuits. The Court affirmed the rule that a state's waiver of immunity through litigation conduct in one case does not extend to a separate, future action. In Biomedical Patent Management Corp. v. California Dept. of Health Services, a private contractor employed by California's Department of Health Services (DHS) had sued Biomedical in 1997 in the U.S.","District Court for the Northern District of California for a declaratory judgment stating that the contractor's pregnancy screening program did not infringe a Biomedical patent. DHS intervened in that action, also seeking a declaration of non-infringement, and Biomedical responded with a counterclaim in favor of patent infringement. The 1997 case was eventually dismissed for lack of venue. Biomedical re-filed its infringement claim in 1998, but the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California dismissed the case pending the Supreme Court's determination of Florida Prepaid and College Savings Bank . Finally, in 2007, Biomedical again re-filed its claim against DHS, at which time DHS filed a motion to dismiss the case on state sovereign immunity grounds that was subsequently granted by the district court. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to grant the state's motion for dismissal under the Eleventh Amendment. The appellate court held that California had clearly waived sovereign immunity in the 1997 case and voluntarily submitted itself to the federal court's jurisdiction by intervening in the non-infringement action.","The question the court had to answer, however, was whether the waiver in the 1997 case would carry over and extend to the 2006 case involving the same parties and litigating the same subject matter. The Federal Circuit, after a thorough survey of state sovereignty waiver jurisprudence, determined that waiver could not carry over to a separate lawsuit, and that \"any waiver, including one effected by litigation conduct, must be 'clear.'\" As it had in Vas-Cath , the court recognized Biomedical's concerns of unfairness, inconsistency, and selective use of immunity, but the court would not extend waiver through litigation conduct to separate legal proceedings. The Federal Circuit clearly differentiated between waiver scenarios consisting of one continuous action and those consisting of separate actions. Biomedical looked to Lapides , Vas-Cath , and New Hampshire v. Ramsey as precedent for finding waiver through litigation conduct where a state voluntarily submits itself to the jurisdiction of a federal court. The court rejected the argument, pointing out that none of the cases Biomedical cited supported the extension of state waiver to a separate action.","Instead, all had \"involve[d] the application of a state's waiver of immunity in the same continuous proceeding.\" The court did acknowledge the existence of situations in which concerns of unfairness, inconsistency, and selective use of immunity would be so significant as to outweigh the court's policy not to extend waiver to a separate legal action. No similar concerns existed in the Biomedical case, however, that were sufficient to \"preclude\" DHS from asserting immunity. In addition to some forms of litigation conduct, state sovereign immunity may also be waived where the state specifically submits itself to the jurisdiction of a federal court through a provision of an enforceable contract. In Baum Research and Developmental Co., Inc., v. Univ. of Mass. at Lowell , a dispute arose over a contract the University of Massachusetts had entered into with Baum Research relating to the firm's patented device for testing baseball bats.","The two parties formed a \"Confidential License Agreement\" for the use of the patented device, which included a governing law provision stating that all parties \"agree to proper venue and hereby submit to jurisdiction in the appropriate State or Federal courts.\" The court held this contract provision to be \"a clear and unambiguous consent to the jurisdiction of a Michigan federal court for disagreements arising from this licensing agreement.\" Although general consent provisions are not sufficient to waive sovereign immunity, this provision was clear and unequivocal as to the obligation of the state to submit to the jurisdiction of the federal court in the case of a future dispute. However, a state that participates in the federal trademark system or that files a civil action in a federal court seeking review of a decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of the PTO does not waive its sovereign immunity, according to the federal district court in Board of Regents of the Univ. of Wisconsin System v. Phoenix Software Int ' l, Inc.","This opinion involved the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's (TTAB's) decision to cancel a federal trademark that had been registered by the Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System. A software manufacturer had filed a petition with the TTAB seeking the cancellation, asserting that the Board of Regents' mark was similar to the one that it used for its software for computers. The TTAB granted the petition, prompting the Board of Regents to appeal the decision to the federal district court. After the software manufacturer filed a counterclaim against the Board of Regents for trademark infringement related to the university's use of the mark, the university moved to dismiss the counterclaim on the grounds that the university is a branch of the State of Wisconsin and thus entitled to sovereign immunity. The federal court granted the motion and dismissed the software manufacturer's counterclaim. In reaching these decisions, the court first examined the validity of Congress's attempt to abrogate state immunity from trademark infringement suits pursuant to the Trademark Remedy Clarification Act.","Noting that the Supreme Court's decision in College Savings Bank considered only the liability of states for claims brought under the false and misleading advertisement provisions of the federal Lanham Act, and not the statute's trademark infringement provisions, the district court concluded that \"[i]t is unlikely the [Supreme] Court would reach a different conclusion in trademark litigation.\" Citing that the TRCA's legislative history had not found a pattern of trademark infringement by the states and that it had not seriously discussed Fourteenth Amendment concerns to justify abrogation, the federal court ruled that the TRCA is not \"congruent and proportional\" to any Fourteenth Amendment injury and thus the TRCA was unconstitutional and fails to abrogate state immunity from trademark infringement suits. With respect to the waiver issue, the district court explained that the State of Wisconsin has not \"constructively waive[d]\" its immunity by participating in the federal trademark system.","While acknowledging that College Savings Bank had held that Congress may condition a \"gift\" on the waiver (such as a grant of funds to the state upon waiver of immunity), the Trademark Remedy Clarification Act does not condition a state's receipt of a federal trademark registration on a waiver of sovereign immunity; rather, the court explained, the TRCA \"seeks to expose all states to liability, regardless of their participation in the federal trademark system.\" The court also determined that Wisconsin had not waived its immunity by appealing the TTAB's cancellation decision to a federal court, because its invocation of federal jurisdiction was not voluntary. Here, the software manufacturer had initiated the administrative proceedings by petitioning the TTAB to cancel the state's trademark, and the state was \"simply ...","contesting unfavorable decisions in suits brought against it.\" The Supreme Court set the standard for waiver of state sovereign immunity in College Savings Bank : \"Generally, we will find a waiver either if the State voluntarily invokes [a federal court's] jurisdiction, or else if the State makes a 'clear declaration' that it intends to submit itself to our jurisdiction.\" A state must clearly submit itself to federal jurisdiction and cannot constructively or impliedly waive its sovereign immunity. The Federal Circuit and other federal district courts have interpreted this rule to validate waiver where a state voluntarily removes a case to federal court; where a state voluntarily initiates and participates in the litigation; where the case is part of one continuous action in which the state previously waived its immunity; where a state enacts legislation waiving its sovereign immunity; or where a state enters a contract containing a provision in which the state specifically submits to federal court jurisdiction in the case of a dispute. Absent these forms of clear waiver, a state does not relinquish its privilege of sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment.","Although state sovereign immunity is a common law privilege preserved by the Eleventh Amendment, under limited situations Congress may abrogate, or override, state immunity in a given subject matter. In Seminole Tribe , the Supreme Court held that Congress could not abrogate state sovereign immunity through a statute passed pursuant to any of its Article I powers. However, the Court left the door open for abrogation by statutes passed pursuant to the § 5 legislative enforcement power of the Fourteenth Amendment. This signifies that any attempt by Congress to abrogate state sovereign immunity must find a basis in the Fourteenth Amendment. In order for a statute to be passed pursuant to Congress's § 5 power, the means adopted must be congruent and proportional to the remedy of a due process, equal protection, or privileges and immunities injury. The Court in Florida Prepaid held that the PRCA was passed pursuant to Congress's Article I powers, rather than its § 5 power, and was therefore an invalid abrogation of state sovereign immunity. Although the Court acknowledged that patents were \"property\" under the due process clause, Congress had failed to satisfy the \"congruence and proportionality\" test used in City","of Boerne v.","Flores to define the scope of the § 5 enforcement power. In considering what measures can be taken to prevent constitutional violations, the City of Boerne Court held that \"there must be a congruence and proportionality between the injury to be prevented or remedied and the means adopted to that end.\" In order to show the required proportionality, Congress must identify conduct transgressing the Fourteenth Amendment's substantive provisions, and must tailor its legislative scheme to remedying or preventing such conduct. The Florida Prepaid Court applied the City of Boerne test to the PRCA and found the evidence of patent infringements by the states to be lacking: \"Congress identified no pattern of patent infringement by the states, let alone a pattern of constitutional violations.\" The record reflected the existence of only eight patent infringement actions against the states \"in the 110 years between 1880 and 1990.\" Without evidence of widespread or pervasive infringements by the states, the Court was unwilling to justify the abrogation of state sovereign immunity under the PRCA. Additionally, Congress had failed to adequately consider the availability of state law remedies.","The Court explained that mere patent infringement by the state does not violate the due process clause; rather, \"only where the state provides no remedy, or only inadequate remedies, to injured patent owners for its infringement of their patent could a deprivation of property without due process result.\" Where the state provides an adequate remedy, or the necessary process prior to infringing a patent, there is no violation of due process. Any statute that abrogated state sovereign immunity in a situation where the patent infringement did not amount to a constitutional violation of due process would thus be overboard. The record showed Congress had \"barely considered\" the availability of state remedies to patent infringements by the state. Because Congress had not presented sufficient evidence of widespread and persisting deprivations of constitutional rights, had not adequately considered the availability of state remedies, and had not adequately tailored its legislation to cover only those patent infringements by the state that constituted constitutional violations, the PRCA was \"so out of proportion to a supposed remedial or preventive object\" as to be considered an invalid use of the § 5 enforcement power.","Thus, the abrogation provision of the PRCA was held to be invalid. In 2000, the Fifth Circuit elaborated on the Florida Prepaid abrogation standard and applied the precedent to copyright law. In Chavez v. Arte Publico Press, the plaintiff sued the University of Houston for copyright infringement under the CRCA for publishing the plaintiff's book without her consent. Relying on Florida Prepaid , the university invoked sovereign immunity as a defense. The court quickly recognized that a copyright, similar in nature to a patent, was a form of property protected by the Fourteenth Amendment and with no waiver argument made, the only question for the court was whether the abrogation provision of the CRCA was within the scope of Congress's § 5 enforcement power and therefore a valid abrogation of state sovereign immunity under Florida Prepaid. In holding that the CRCA, \"doomed in the wake of Florida Prepaid ,\" was not a valid use of Congress's § 5 power, the court gleaned a functional three-part test from the Supreme Court's Florida Prepaid decision.","First, the court must consider the nature of the injury and whether \"the state's conduct evinced a pattern of constitutional violations.\" Congress, as it had for the PRCA in Florida Prepaid , had failed to provide sufficient evidence of widespread and unremedied copyright infringement by the states. The record only contained seven instances in which a state utilized the Eleventh Amendment as a defense to copyright infringement. The legislative record demonstrated that Congress's principal concern was over the \"potential for future abuse,\" a worry not sufficient to establish the required \"pattern\" of infringement by the states. Second, the court must consider whether \"Congress studied the existence and adequacy of state remedies for injured copyright owners when a state infringes their copyright.\" In the case of the CRCA, the Fifth Circuit held that Congress had \"barely considered the availability of state remedies for infringement.\" The court noted there was little documentation by Congress of state contract or takings remedies, and Congress had refused to consider the possibility of granting states concurrent jurisdiction over copyright claims. Finally, the court must consider the breadth of coverage of the legislation. Florida Prepaid made clear that not all patent infringements violate","the Constitution.","A negligent patent infringement for instance, as opposed to an intentional violation, would not constitute a violation of due process. In Chavez , the court reasoned that because copyright infringement required no finding of an intent to infringe, any valid abrogation statute would have to limit its scope to include only intentional property infringements by the states that amounted to a violation of due process. Florida Prepaid , Chavez , and other cases have not completely closed the door on federal abrogation of state sovereign immunity in the intellectual property realm. If Congress could show a substantial increase in intentional intellectual property infringements by the states, perhaps the courts would reconsider the existence of a widespread pattern of infringement and uphold an abrogation attempt. Ten years after Florida Prepaid , however, the United States District Court for the Southern District of California ruled that, as of 2008, the frequency of state infringements still did not warrant federal abrogation of state sovereign immunity. In Marketing Information Masters v.","The Board of Trustees of the California State University , plaintiffs brought suit against the California State University for copyright infringement relating to the school's use of a community impact study for the 2004 Holiday Bowl in San Diego. The district court upheld the state's claim to sovereign immunity and granted the state's motion to dismiss. The court applied the standards of the Supreme Court's rulings in City of Boerne and Florida Prepaid, and cited the Fifth Circuit's holding in Chavez, in ruling that the CRCA was not passed pursuant to a legitimate exercise of the Fourteenth Amendment and therefore did not constitute a valid abrogation of state sovereign immunity. Although the updated record showed eight recent cases of state infringement of copyrights, the evidence \"demonstrated at most sporadic violations, not widespread violations by states.\" The district court was unable to find the \"pattern of unremedied conduct\" required under City of Boerne for a valid exercise of Congress's Fourteenth Amendment enforcement powers. The district court also found that Congress had failed to adequately consider state remedies and had not sufficiently tailored the CRCA to address only conduct that violates the due process clause.","Once again, the courts had made clear that constitutional violations relating to intellectual property infringements by the states were not so pervasive as to warrant abrogation of state sovereign immunity by Congress. With Congress unable to successfully abrogate state sovereign immunity, an individual may only recover damages where a state has \"unequivocally\" expressed its consent to suit through a clear waiver. There are, however, limited alternative remedies available for individuals in those situations where the state has not waived its immunity. While an aggrieved party may be able to recover monetary damages under state contract, conversion, or takings law, the most likely relief for a plaintiff in these situations would be to sue an individual state officer in his or her official capacity for prospective injunctive relief. The Eleventh Amendment does not bar suits for prospective injunctive relief against state officials acting in violation of federal law. Although this provides no avenue to recover monetary damages, an individual may obtain a court order forcing state officials to cease their unlawful conduct.","In Ex Parte Young , the Supreme Court established this prospective remedy in order to mitigate wrongs resulting from the state sovereign immunity defense, and to prevent continued violations of federal law by state officials. To satisfy the Ex Parte Young standard, the injured party must allege an ongoing violation of federal law, seek only prospective relief, and establish that the officer has \"some connection with the enforcement of the [illegal] act.\" Where the plaintiff satisfies this standard, a federal court may enter an injunction stopping the state official from acting in contravention of federal law. However, the Court has not made the Ex Parte Young exception available to plaintiffs in all instances of the violation of federal law by a state official. In 2006, the Federal Circuit considered the application of the Ex Parte Young approach to remedy state violations of federal patent law. In Pennington Seed v. Univ. of Arkansas , the plaintiff initially brought suit against the University of Arkansas for patent infringements related to Pennington's non-toxic feed grass. The district court dismissed the case on the basis of the university's Eleventh Amendment immunity.","Pennington subsequently amended its complaint, dropped the university as a defendant, and filed its claim for patent infringement against four individual university officials; the chairman of the university board, the president of the university, the chancellor of the university, and a professor. The district court again dismissed the amended complaint on Eleventh Amendment grounds. In affirming the district court's decision, the Federal Circuit held that the plaintiff had failed to establish a sufficient nexus between the named officials and the enforcement of the illegal act. This connection must be more than a general obligation to prevent the violation, the court explained; otherwise the individual is simply being sued as a representative of the state. Although the officials named in the complaint may have had a general obligation to oversee the university's patent policy, they themselves did not violate any federal law. Plaintiffs could not show a sufficient causal connection between the named officials and the violation of federal patent law.","Additionally, even if the officials had neglected their duty to the university to supervise the school's use of patents, a court can only enjoin activity that violates federal law; it cannot mandate that a state official \"perform his or her duty under state law.\" Although the court may stop an illegal action, it cannot mandate action unless an affirmative duty to act is created by federal law. No such duty existed in Pennington Seed . In the years following Florida Prepaid and College Savings Bank , Congress repeatedly attempted to provide individuals with ways to recover from the states for intellectual property infringement. In 1999, 2001, 2002, and 2003, Representative Lamar Smith, Senator Patrick Leahy, and Representative Howard Coble each introduced the \"Intellectual Property Protection Restoration Act\" (the Act) in their respective chambers. The proposed law presented a three-pronged approach to providing a remedy for intellectual property rights holders against states that engage in infringement.","The first prong would have amended federal copyright, patent, and trademark laws to bar a state from recovering for the infringement of a state-owned patent, trademark, or copyright unless the state had previously waived its Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity and consented to suit under federal intellectual property law. The Act would have used affirmative waiver as a condition to the state's receipt of damages under federal intellectual property law. By requiring states to first waive their Eleventh Amendment immunity in the intellectual property area before enjoying the protections of federal intellectual property law, this provision created \"reasonable incentives\" for states to waive immunity without \"oblig[ing] them to do so.\" This provision raised some constitutional concerns as to the apparent voluntariness of the states' decision to waive their sovereign immunity. Critics argued that the waiver provision was simply a veiled attempt at the same congressional abrogation of state sovereign immunity struck down by the Court in Florida Prepaid and College Savings Bank . The state's strong financial interest in protecting its intellectual property may make the option of either waiving immunity or relinquishing recovery for property infringements a forced waiver.","Critics also argued that the Act violated the doctrine of unconstitutional conditions, which at its core means \"the government may not require a person to give up a constitutional right ... in exchange for a discretionary benefit conferred by the government.\" The Act asked states to give up their constitutional right to state sovereign immunity in exchange for the benefits of federal intellectual property protections. Proponents of the Act responded by drawing a parallel to the use of Congress's spending power. Senator Leahy, who introduced the Senate companion bill, argued before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary that much like attaching a condition to the receipt of federal funds, Congress could attach a condition to the receipt of federal intellectual property benefits. The second prong of the Act would have guaranteed an individual's right to sue a state official in his individual capacity for violation of federal intellectual property law. The provision would have statutorily reinforced the rights provided in Ex Parte Young : mainly, the ability of an individual, notwithstanding the Eleventh Amendment, to obtain prospective injunctive relief, and monetary damages where applicable, against a state official.","The Act would have clarified any confusion by reviewing courts as to the applicability of Ex Parte Young to suits against a state for intellectual property infringement. The final prong of the bill would have abrogated state sovereign immunity in limited circumstances. The abrogation provision of the Act was tailored directly to the concerns presented by the Justices in Florida Prepaid and College Savings Bank . The Act specifically limited abrogation to those instances where the property infringement constitutes a violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment. The abrogation provision was narrowly tailored to only include infringements amounting to constitutional violations in an attempt to ameliorate the Supreme Court's concern over the \"scope\" of the previous abrogation provisions found in the CRCA, TRCA, and PRCA. Critics argued, however, that this provision of the Act still would not amount to a valid abrogation of state sovereign immunity, contending that regardless of the narrowly tailored statute, the instances of unremedied intellectual property infringements by the states simply do not occur with the frequency required to classify abrogation as a use of the Fourteenth Amendment enforcement power.","The Act never made it out of committee. The 1999 Senate bill was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary and never acted upon. In 2002, the Senate Committee held hearings on the issue, but the bill never came to a vote. In 2003, the House Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property again held hearings with no further action. Similar legislation has not been re-introduced in subsequent Congresses. In early 2006, the new Roberts Court issued a ruling concerning bankruptcy law that triggered renewed questions relating to the application of state sovereign immunity. In Central Virginia Community College v. Katz , the Court held that in ratifying the Constitution, the states waived sovereign immunity as a defense to bankruptcy suits. Relying on original intent and the legislative history of the bankruptcy clause, the Court reasoned that the Framers' concerns over a uniform bankruptcy system, which gave rise to the bankruptcy clause in Article I, § 8, superseded state sovereign immunity in that area. The Katz Court did not validate the abrogation of state sovereign immunity under the Article I bankruptcy clauseârelying instead on a historical waiver pertaining only to bankruptcy.","Therefore, the case's effect on intellectual property law is unclear. The case did mark, however, a limitation on the dominance of state sovereign immunity over Congress's Article I powers. The Court did not consider the legislative history behind any of the other Article I, § 8 powers, and was careful not to venture into the realm of intellectual property. In April 2008, the Supreme Court indicated a possible desire to reconsider the relationship between state sovereign immunity and intellectual property by asking for the Solicitor General's opinion in relation to an appeal in Biomedical Patent Management Corp. v. California Department of Health Services . As discussed above, Biomedical involved the potential waiver of sovereign immunity under federal patent law by a state through affirmative litigation conduct. On December 2, 2008, the Solicitor General filed a brief expressing the views of the United States as amicus curiae. According to the Solicitor General's brief, certiorari was not warranted because The [Federal Circuit's] decision is consistent with decisions of this Court and it does not conflict with any decision of any other court of appeals.","Moreover, this case presents a poor vehicle for addressing whether a State's waiver in one action extends to a subsequent action involving the same parties and the same underlying transaction or occurrence. The facts are not only unusual, but in light of the applicable limitations period, this case appears to involve alleged acts of infringe ment that occurred after the dismissal of the earlier suit. On January 12, 2009, the Supreme Court denied the petition for writ of certiorari in the Biomedical case. It thus remains to be seen whether there will be further changes by the Supreme Court in the area of state sovereign immunity and intellectual property law."],"string":"[\n \"In accordance with the doctrine of federalism, the American constitutional system divides privilege and power between the central national government and the individual states. Significant constitutional conflicts often arise, however, where the legitimate exercise of power at one level is incompatible with the legitimate exercise of power at the other. The convergence of state sovereign immunity and federal intellectual property law provides one example of the complicated interaction between the powers of the federal government, the state, and the individual, and the inevitable conflicts that arise as all three attempt to exercise their established powers and rights. The Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, with limited exceptions, bars an individual from suing a state under federal law without the state's consent. While states may consent to suit by waiving the privilege of sovereign immunity, in limited circumstances Congress may also abrogate, or overrule, that immunity by passing a statute pursuant to the enforcement power under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. There are times, however, when a state may decide against waiving its sovereign immunity and Congress is unable to abrogate sovereign immunity pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment.\",\n \"In these situations, an individual is barred from suing a state for monetary damages for a violation of federal law. Intellectual property has emerged as one area where Congress has been unsuccessful in abrogating sovereign immunity, and states have not expressly chosen to waive their constitutionally protected privilege of immunity. Therefore, individuals may not recover damages under federal patent, copyright, or trademark law for infringements perpetrated by a state entity. Intellectual property (IP) law has several major branches, applicable to different types of subject matter, including the following: copyright (original artistic and literary works of authorship), patent (inventions of processes, machines, manufactures, and compositions of matter that are useful, new, and nonobvious), and trademark (commercial symbols and commercial names). The source of federal copyright and patent law originates with the copyright and patent clause of the U.S. Constitution, which authorizes Congress to \\\"promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.\\\" By contrast, the constitutional basis for federal trademark law is the power to regulate interstate commerce under the commerce clause.\",\n \"The Copyright Act, Patent Act, and the Trademark Act of 1946 (conventionally known as the Lanham Act) provide legal protection for intellectual property against unauthorized use, theft, and other violations of the rights granted by those statutes to the IP owner. The Copyright Act provides copyright owners with the exclusive right to control reproduction, distribution, public performance, and display of their copyrighted works. The Patent Act grants patent holders the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling their patented invention throughout the United States, or importing the invention into the United States. The Lanham Act allows sellers and producers of goods and services to prevent a competitor from (1) using any counterfeit, copy, or imitation of their trademarks (that have been registered with the U.S.\",\n \"Patent and Trademark Office) in connection with the sale of any goods or services in a way that is likely to cause confusion, mistake, or deception, or (2) using in commercial advertising any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any false or misleading designation of origin or false or misleading description or representation of fact, which (a) is likely to cause confusion, mistake, or deception as to affiliation, connection, or association, or as to origin, sponsorship, or approval, of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person, or (b) misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her or another person's goods, services, or commercial activities. In addition, the Lanham Act grants to owners of \\\"famous\\\" trademarks the right to seek injunctive relief against another person's use in commerce of a mark or trade name if such use causes dilution by blurring or tarnishing the distinctive quality of the famous trademark. Private individuals and organizations may own various forms of IP, either because they are the creators of such IP and have not relinquished their rights by assignment, or they have acquired legal title to the IP.\",\n \"Federal, state, and local government entities also may own or claim a property interest in certain patents, copyrights, and trademarks, with the notable exception that the Copyright Act categorically excludes copyright protection for any work of the U. S. government, although the federal government may receive and hold copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise. Generally speaking, the use of a patented invention, copyrighted work, or trademark without the authorization of the IP owner constitutes infringement. The IP owner may initiate a civil action against an alleged infringer for a violation of any of the exclusive rights conferred by a patent, copyright, or trademark. If a defendant is found guilty of patent infringement in a lawsuit brought by the patent holder, the remedies available to the plaintiff include an injunction to cease and prohibit the offending activity by the defendant, damages to compensate for the infringement, and even attorney fees. Federal law only provides civil remedies in the event of patent infringement; there are no criminal sanctions.\",\n \"The Copyright Act provides several civil remedies for infringement, including the possibility of obtaining injunctive relief, actual damages suffered by the copyright owner due to the infringement, statutory damages, and costs and attorney fees. The U.S. Department of Justice may also criminally prosecute particularly egregious violators of the copyright law in the case of willful infringement for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain. The usual remedy for trademark infringement is injunctive relief, although monetary relief is also available. In addition, the court may order that any infringing articles bearing the reproduction, copy, or colorable imitation of a registered trademark be destroyed. As noted above, IP owners may enforce their rights under the federal IP laws by bringing lawsuits against alleged infringers. The defendants who may be sued for infringement include private individuals, companies, and also the federal government. However, while both monetary and injunctive relief are available in the case of private entity defendants, the remedies differ when the defendant is the federal government in copyright and patent infringement cases. Federal government infringement of a copyright or patent may give rise to a cause of action that is governed by statute, 28 U.S.C. §\",\n \"1498.\",\n \"This law provides that if the federal government uses a patented invention without the authorization of the patent holder, or if the federal government infringes a copyright, the only remedy available to the IP owner is the right to bring suit in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims to recover \\\"reasonable and entire compensation\\\" from the federal government. However, note that the federal government remains fully liable for all forms of relief (both monetary and injunctive) that are provided under the Lanham Act in the case of trademark infringement. Yet when state governments and state institutions (such as state-owned universities) infringe copyrights, patents, or trademarks, the IP owner currently has very limited legal recourse because of the U.S. Supreme Court's jurisprudence concerning the Eleventh Amendment. This case law has produced what some consider an anomalous outcome: a state may own a copyright, patent, or trademark and sue to enforce its rights in federal court, but that state may not be held accountable for monetary damages for its own violations of others' IP rights unless the state waives its sovereign immunity and consents to be sued.\",\n \"Shortly after the Revolutionary War, two citizens of South Carolina sued the state of Georgia to recover a Revolutionary War debt owed by the State. The case eventually made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, where in Chisholm v. Georgia the Court noted that Article III of the Constitution specifically granted the federal courts jurisdiction over suits \\\"between a state and citizens of another state.\\\" The authorization came as a considerable surprise to the states, which had each relied on the immunity from suit that had commonly accompanied state sovereignty. In a direct rebuke of Chisholm , Congress and the states immediately acted to protect state sovereign immunity through the ratification of the Eleventh Amendment, the first amendment to the Constitution subsequent to the Bill of Rights.\",\n \"The Eleventh Amendment states, \\\"The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State.\\\" Though the language of the amendment appears to bar only suits against a state by non-residents, the Supreme Court has interpreted the doctrine of sovereign immunity to also bar suits by citizens against their own state. The Eleventh Amendment therefore protects states from being sued in federal court without their consent in both federal question and diversity cases. The Court expanded the purview of the amendment in Alden v. Maine to include immunity from suit under federal law within a state's own court system. In Hans v. Louisiana , the Court considered whether the grant of federal jurisdiction found in Article III of the Constitution negated state sovereign immunity. In holding that it did not, the Court characterized the Eleventh Amendment as a specific attempt to overturn the Court's misinterpretation in Chisholm , rather than an affirmative amendment to the original structure of the Constitution.\",\n \"The Eleventh Amendment had not constituted a change in the Constitution, the Court determined, but a restoration of the original and intended constitutional design. This interpretation allowed the Court to expand sovereign immunity beyond the confines of the language of the Eleventh Amendment. It was not until 1996 that the Court attempted to define the extent to which Congress had the authority to abrogate sovereign immunity where a state refused to waive its protection. In Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, the Supreme Court reasoned that because the Eleventh Amendment was ratified after Article I of the Constitution, Congress could not abrogate state sovereign immunity pursuant to any legislative power granted under the enumerated powers of Article I, § 8. The Court did, however, suggest that Congress could abrogate sovereign immunity through a statute passed pursuant to the § 5 enforcement power of the Fourteenth Amendment because that legislative authority was granted subsequent to the ratification of the Eleventh Amendment. It became clear following Seminole Tribe that any attempt by Congress to abrogate state sovereign immunity would have to be justified under the Fourteenth Amendment.\",\n \"From 1790 to 1962, no court had dismissed a suit for alleged intellectual property infringement by a state on Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity grounds. An individual was free to recover damages from a state that was guilty of copyright, patent, or trademark infringement. Then in 1962, a copyright infringement action against an Iowa school district was dismissed by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals for lack of jurisdiction under the Eleventh Amendment. The issue simmered until 1985 when the Supreme Court dismissed an employment discrimination case on sovereign immunity grounds because Congress had not provided the requisite \\\"unequivocal language\\\" in the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 necessary to abrogate state sovereign immunity. The Court in Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlon held that federal statutes purporting to abrogate state sovereign immunity must clearly express Congress's intent to provide a remedy for individuals filing suit against a state. The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals then applied Atascadero in Chew v.\",\n \"California , in holding that the Patent Act did not contain the \\\"requisite unmistakable language of Congressional intent necessary to abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity.\\\" Congress, concerned about the integrity of its intellectual property laws and unwilling to accept the proposition that states could enjoy the protections of federal intellectual property law without recognizing others' interests in intellectual property protections, soon responded to the uncertainty created by the Atascadero and Chew decisions by passing the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act (CRCA), the Trademark Remedy Clarification Act (TRCA), and the Patent and Plant Variety Protection Remedy Clarification Act (PRCA). Language within these acts specifically and unequivocally abrogated state sovereign immunity and subjected the states to suits for monetary damages brought by individuals for violation of federal copyright, trademark, or patent law. In 1999, sensing a growing tension between state and federal power, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to review two companion cases out of the Third Circuit and Federal Circuit Court of Appeals dealing directly with the abrogation of state sovereign immunity under the PRCA and the TRCA.\",\n \"College Savings Bank had been awarded a patent for its financing methodology, based on certificates of deposit and annuity contracts, designed to guarantee investors funds for future college expenses. The state of Florida soon adopted College Savings Bank's methodology and created the Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board (the Board) to issue similar financing options to its own residents. Consequently, College Savings Bank filed two separate actions seeking damages from the Board. In the first action, Florida Prepaid v. College Savings Bank , College Savings Bank filed a claim for patent infringement against the Board under the PRCA. In the second action, College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid , College Savings Bank filed a claim alleging false and misleading advertising by the Board under the TRCA. In defense, the Board argued that both the PRCA and the TRCA were an improper attempt by Congress to abrogate state sovereign immunity. The United States intervened in both cases in support of College Savings Bank. The principal issue in Florida Prepaid was whether the PRCA had legitimately abrogated state sovereign immunity from suit for patent infringement.\",\n \"College Savings Bank argued that Congress had lawfully done so pursuant to the due process clause by ensuring an individual an adequate remedy in the case of a deprivation of property perpetrated by the state in the form of patent infringement. The Board responded that the PRCA was passed pursuant to Congress's enumerated Article I powers, rather than its powers under the Fourteenth Amendment, and therefore constituted invalid abrogation under Seminole Tribe . The district court agreed with College Savings Bank and denied the Board's motion to dismiss. The Federal Circuit Court affirmed, holding that \\\"Congress had clearly expressed its intent to abrogate the States' immunity ... and that Congress had the power under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to do so.\\\" The PRCA had specifically made \\\"States, instrumentalities of States, and officers and employees of States acting in their official capacity, [] subject to suit in Federal court by any person for infringements of patents.\\\" However, the Supreme Court overturned the Federal Circuit decision, holding that the PRCA was not a valid use of the § 5 enforcement power of the Fourteenth Amendment and therefore not a legitimate abrogation of state sovereign immunity.\",\n \"In reaffirming that Congress may not abrogate state sovereign immunity pursuant to Article I powers, the Court applied its holding in City of Boerne v. Flores to determine whether the PRCA was aimed at securing property protections guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment rather than passed pursuant to Article I, § 8, clause 8. While admitting that patents were \\\"property\\\" protected by the due process clause, the Court held that because Congress had not shown sufficient evidence of a \\\"widespread and persisting deprivation of constitutional rights\\\" nor adequately considered the availability of alternative remedies under state law, the PRCA was \\\"so out of proportion to a supposed remedial or preventive object that [it] cannot be understood as responsive to, or designed to prevent, unconstitutional behavior.\\\" The principal issue in College Savings Bank was whether the state of Florida had indirectly waived sovereign immunity by electing to engage in a federally regulated activity knowing that such conduct would subject it to suit under federal law. College Savings Bank argued that Congress had lawfully abrogated state sovereign immunity in trademark infringement actions through the TRCA.\",\n \"Alternatively, College Savings Bank argued that Florida had waived sovereign immunity by voluntarily engaging in the \\\"activity of selling and advertising a for-profit educational investment vehicle in interstate commerce after being put on notice by the clear language of the TRCA that it would be subject to ... liability for doing so.\\\" The district court was not swayed by College Savings Bank's arguments and dismissed the case. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, holding that Florida's actions did not constitute waiver. The Court first brushed aside the petitioner's abrogation argument, reasoning that neither of the TRCA's false or misleading advertising provisions related to interests that would qualify as property interests protected by the due process clause, and were therefore not passed pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court devoted a large part of its opinion to rejecting College Savings Bank's argument that Florida had waived sovereign immunity through its knowing participation in an activity that would subject it to suit under the TRCA.\",\n \"The majority refused to recognize any form of constructive waiver in sovereign immunity; instead, waiver could only be found where the state voluntarily invoked federal jurisdiction, or where the \\\"state makes a clear declaration that it intends to submit itself\\\" to federal jurisdiction. Florida had done neither. As a result of Florida Prepaid and College Savings Bank , the Eleventh Amendment currently bars an individual from successfully seeking damages from a state for federal patentâand likely copyright and trademarkâinfringement, unless the state has clearly consented to the suit through waiver, or Congress has successfully abrogated state sovereign immunity pursuant to a valid use of its legislative power under the Fourteenth Amendment. The specifics of these two avenues that would permit a state to be suedâwaiver and abrogationâare discussed in detail below. Although state sovereign immunity is a \\\"personal privilege which it may waive at [its] pleasure,\\\" the Court will only recognize waiver in instances where the state has explicitly shown its intent to waive immunity.\",\n \"The College Savings Bank Court held that waiver would only be legitimate where \\\"the State voluntarily invoke[d] our jurisdiction,\\\" or where \\\"the State makes a 'clear declaration' that it intends to submit itself to our [the federal court's] jurisdiction.\\\" For example, consent to suit in a state's own courts does not translate into a waiver of immunity in federal court because it does not constitute a clear declaration of waiver of immunity in the federal system. Illustrating the importance of state sovereign immunity, the Court equated the requirements for waiver of sovereign immunity by a state to the requirements for waiver of a protected constitutional right by an individual. In order to convey the seriousness with which the Court would approach the standard for waiver of a state's right to immunity in federal court, the majority opinion in College Savings Bank specifically overturned existing precedent relating to waiver implied by the state's actions rather than through express consent. At issue in Parden v. Terminal R. of Ala. Docks Dept. was a statute Congress had passed that authorized employment discrimination suits by employees of any employer operating a railroad in interstate commerce.\",\n \"The Parden Court held, against a strong dissent, that by \\\"operating a railroad in interstate commerce, Alabama must be taken to have accepted that condition and thus to have consented to suit.\\\" By participating as a common carrier in interstate commerce the State had impliedly, or constructively, waived sovereign immunity. The petitioner in College Savings Bank used the Parden precedent to argue that Florida, \\\"by engaging in the ... activity of selling and advertising a for-profit educational investment vehicle in interstate commerce\\\" with the knowledge that doing so would subject it to suit under the TRCA, had impliedly waived its immunity. The Court refused to accept the argument. After outlining the many cases that had narrowed the legitimacy of constructive waiver under Parden , the Court expressly overruled the Parden \\\"anomaly\\\": \\\"There is little reason to assume actual consent based upon the State's mere presence in a field subject to congressional regulation.\\\" Even where a state is on notice that participation in a given field could subject it to suit under federal law, merely entering the regulated field does not amount to a voluntary decision to waive immunity.\",\n \"In overruling Parden , College Savings Bank made clear that a federal court would require explicit evidence of an intent to waive sovereign immunity before allowing a case against a state to proceed. While this case barred the recognition of an implied waiver based on general state participation in a regulated field, other cases have wrestled with the extent to which states may invoke federal court jurisdiction and waive immunity by voluntarily participating in legal proceedings. The Supreme Court has held that a state voluntarily invokes a federal court's jurisdiction, and waives sovereign immunity, where the state voluntarily removes a case from state court to federal court. In Lapides v. Board of Regents, the Court clearly distinguished between the repudiated Parden -style constructive waiver, and waivers effected by affirmative litigation conduct, such as removal. Paul Lapides, a professor at the University of Georgia had brought suit against the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia for violation of state and federal civil rights law. The state of Georgia joined with their co-defendants to remove the case to federal district court and asked for a dismissal of the claims under state sovereign immunity.\",\n \"The Court, limiting its holding to those situations in which a state has expressly waived immunity in the underlying state court proceedings, held that where a state voluntarily removes a case to federal court it engages in affirmative litigation conduct sufficient to waive sovereign immunity. In reaching its holding, the Court expressed concern over the \\\"unfair tactical advantages\\\" and \\\"selective use of immunity\\\" that a state would enjoy by removing a case to federal court. Lapides , however, left unclear exactly what \\\"affirmative litigation conduct\\\" would qualify as waiver. The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals entered the fray in a 2002 case, holding that a state participates in affirmative litigation conduct sufficient to waive sovereign immunity when the state initiates the legal proceedings. In Vas-Cath Inc. v. Univ. of Missouri , the University of Missouri had initiated an administrative proceeding known as an interference action within the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) to clarify a dispute with Vas-Cath over ownership of a patent. Following six years of proceedings, the PTO issued an order granting ownership of the patent to the university.\",\n \"As authorized by law, Vas-Cath appealed the PTO decision to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The university had the case transferred to Missouri where the federal district court granted its motion to dismiss on the grounds of Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity. On appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court decision, holding that where a state initiates an administrative proceeding with ensuing judicial review, the state \\\"cannot both retain the fruits of that action and bar the losing party from its statutory right of review.\\\" By voluntarily commencing and participating in the PTO interference action, the state had waived its privilege of sovereign immunity with respect to judicial review of that decision in federal court.\",\n \"The appellate court grounded its decision on the Supreme Court's previously expressed concern over the \\\"selective use of immunity to achieve litigation advantages.\\\" The court held it would be unfair and inconsistent to allow the state, in one continuous action, to invoke sovereign immunity \\\"to shield the agency decision from review.\\\" Where a state becomes a party in a legal proceeding that it voluntarily initiated, the state has \\\"submitted its rights for judicial determination\\\" and may not escape the proceedings under the auspices of the Eleventh Amendment until the statutorily guaranteed judicial review is exhausted. Later that year, the Federal Circuit limited its decision in Vas-Cath and refused to extend the doctrine of waiver by affirmative litigation conduct to separate lawsuits. The Court affirmed the rule that a state's waiver of immunity through litigation conduct in one case does not extend to a separate, future action. In Biomedical Patent Management Corp. v. California Dept. of Health Services, a private contractor employed by California's Department of Health Services (DHS) had sued Biomedical in 1997 in the U.S.\",\n \"District Court for the Northern District of California for a declaratory judgment stating that the contractor's pregnancy screening program did not infringe a Biomedical patent. DHS intervened in that action, also seeking a declaration of non-infringement, and Biomedical responded with a counterclaim in favor of patent infringement. The 1997 case was eventually dismissed for lack of venue. Biomedical re-filed its infringement claim in 1998, but the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California dismissed the case pending the Supreme Court's determination of Florida Prepaid and College Savings Bank . Finally, in 2007, Biomedical again re-filed its claim against DHS, at which time DHS filed a motion to dismiss the case on state sovereign immunity grounds that was subsequently granted by the district court. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to grant the state's motion for dismissal under the Eleventh Amendment. The appellate court held that California had clearly waived sovereign immunity in the 1997 case and voluntarily submitted itself to the federal court's jurisdiction by intervening in the non-infringement action.\",\n \"The question the court had to answer, however, was whether the waiver in the 1997 case would carry over and extend to the 2006 case involving the same parties and litigating the same subject matter. The Federal Circuit, after a thorough survey of state sovereignty waiver jurisprudence, determined that waiver could not carry over to a separate lawsuit, and that \\\"any waiver, including one effected by litigation conduct, must be 'clear.'\\\" As it had in Vas-Cath , the court recognized Biomedical's concerns of unfairness, inconsistency, and selective use of immunity, but the court would not extend waiver through litigation conduct to separate legal proceedings. The Federal Circuit clearly differentiated between waiver scenarios consisting of one continuous action and those consisting of separate actions. Biomedical looked to Lapides , Vas-Cath , and New Hampshire v. Ramsey as precedent for finding waiver through litigation conduct where a state voluntarily submits itself to the jurisdiction of a federal court. The court rejected the argument, pointing out that none of the cases Biomedical cited supported the extension of state waiver to a separate action.\",\n \"Instead, all had \\\"involve[d] the application of a state's waiver of immunity in the same continuous proceeding.\\\" The court did acknowledge the existence of situations in which concerns of unfairness, inconsistency, and selective use of immunity would be so significant as to outweigh the court's policy not to extend waiver to a separate legal action. No similar concerns existed in the Biomedical case, however, that were sufficient to \\\"preclude\\\" DHS from asserting immunity. In addition to some forms of litigation conduct, state sovereign immunity may also be waived where the state specifically submits itself to the jurisdiction of a federal court through a provision of an enforceable contract. In Baum Research and Developmental Co., Inc., v. Univ. of Mass. at Lowell , a dispute arose over a contract the University of Massachusetts had entered into with Baum Research relating to the firm's patented device for testing baseball bats.\",\n \"The two parties formed a \\\"Confidential License Agreement\\\" for the use of the patented device, which included a governing law provision stating that all parties \\\"agree to proper venue and hereby submit to jurisdiction in the appropriate State or Federal courts.\\\" The court held this contract provision to be \\\"a clear and unambiguous consent to the jurisdiction of a Michigan federal court for disagreements arising from this licensing agreement.\\\" Although general consent provisions are not sufficient to waive sovereign immunity, this provision was clear and unequivocal as to the obligation of the state to submit to the jurisdiction of the federal court in the case of a future dispute. However, a state that participates in the federal trademark system or that files a civil action in a federal court seeking review of a decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of the PTO does not waive its sovereign immunity, according to the federal district court in Board of Regents of the Univ. of Wisconsin System v. Phoenix Software Int ' l, Inc.\",\n \"This opinion involved the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's (TTAB's) decision to cancel a federal trademark that had been registered by the Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System. A software manufacturer had filed a petition with the TTAB seeking the cancellation, asserting that the Board of Regents' mark was similar to the one that it used for its software for computers. The TTAB granted the petition, prompting the Board of Regents to appeal the decision to the federal district court. After the software manufacturer filed a counterclaim against the Board of Regents for trademark infringement related to the university's use of the mark, the university moved to dismiss the counterclaim on the grounds that the university is a branch of the State of Wisconsin and thus entitled to sovereign immunity. The federal court granted the motion and dismissed the software manufacturer's counterclaim. In reaching these decisions, the court first examined the validity of Congress's attempt to abrogate state immunity from trademark infringement suits pursuant to the Trademark Remedy Clarification Act.\",\n \"Noting that the Supreme Court's decision in College Savings Bank considered only the liability of states for claims brought under the false and misleading advertisement provisions of the federal Lanham Act, and not the statute's trademark infringement provisions, the district court concluded that \\\"[i]t is unlikely the [Supreme] Court would reach a different conclusion in trademark litigation.\\\" Citing that the TRCA's legislative history had not found a pattern of trademark infringement by the states and that it had not seriously discussed Fourteenth Amendment concerns to justify abrogation, the federal court ruled that the TRCA is not \\\"congruent and proportional\\\" to any Fourteenth Amendment injury and thus the TRCA was unconstitutional and fails to abrogate state immunity from trademark infringement suits. With respect to the waiver issue, the district court explained that the State of Wisconsin has not \\\"constructively waive[d]\\\" its immunity by participating in the federal trademark system.\",\n \"While acknowledging that College Savings Bank had held that Congress may condition a \\\"gift\\\" on the waiver (such as a grant of funds to the state upon waiver of immunity), the Trademark Remedy Clarification Act does not condition a state's receipt of a federal trademark registration on a waiver of sovereign immunity; rather, the court explained, the TRCA \\\"seeks to expose all states to liability, regardless of their participation in the federal trademark system.\\\" The court also determined that Wisconsin had not waived its immunity by appealing the TTAB's cancellation decision to a federal court, because its invocation of federal jurisdiction was not voluntary. Here, the software manufacturer had initiated the administrative proceedings by petitioning the TTAB to cancel the state's trademark, and the state was \\\"simply ...\",\n \"contesting unfavorable decisions in suits brought against it.\\\" The Supreme Court set the standard for waiver of state sovereign immunity in College Savings Bank : \\\"Generally, we will find a waiver either if the State voluntarily invokes [a federal court's] jurisdiction, or else if the State makes a 'clear declaration' that it intends to submit itself to our jurisdiction.\\\" A state must clearly submit itself to federal jurisdiction and cannot constructively or impliedly waive its sovereign immunity. The Federal Circuit and other federal district courts have interpreted this rule to validate waiver where a state voluntarily removes a case to federal court; where a state voluntarily initiates and participates in the litigation; where the case is part of one continuous action in which the state previously waived its immunity; where a state enacts legislation waiving its sovereign immunity; or where a state enters a contract containing a provision in which the state specifically submits to federal court jurisdiction in the case of a dispute. Absent these forms of clear waiver, a state does not relinquish its privilege of sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment.\",\n \"Although state sovereign immunity is a common law privilege preserved by the Eleventh Amendment, under limited situations Congress may abrogate, or override, state immunity in a given subject matter. In Seminole Tribe , the Supreme Court held that Congress could not abrogate state sovereign immunity through a statute passed pursuant to any of its Article I powers. However, the Court left the door open for abrogation by statutes passed pursuant to the § 5 legislative enforcement power of the Fourteenth Amendment. This signifies that any attempt by Congress to abrogate state sovereign immunity must find a basis in the Fourteenth Amendment. In order for a statute to be passed pursuant to Congress's § 5 power, the means adopted must be congruent and proportional to the remedy of a due process, equal protection, or privileges and immunities injury. The Court in Florida Prepaid held that the PRCA was passed pursuant to Congress's Article I powers, rather than its § 5 power, and was therefore an invalid abrogation of state sovereign immunity. Although the Court acknowledged that patents were \\\"property\\\" under the due process clause, Congress had failed to satisfy the \\\"congruence and proportionality\\\" test used in City\",\n \"of Boerne v.\",\n \"Flores to define the scope of the § 5 enforcement power. In considering what measures can be taken to prevent constitutional violations, the City of Boerne Court held that \\\"there must be a congruence and proportionality between the injury to be prevented or remedied and the means adopted to that end.\\\" In order to show the required proportionality, Congress must identify conduct transgressing the Fourteenth Amendment's substantive provisions, and must tailor its legislative scheme to remedying or preventing such conduct. The Florida Prepaid Court applied the City of Boerne test to the PRCA and found the evidence of patent infringements by the states to be lacking: \\\"Congress identified no pattern of patent infringement by the states, let alone a pattern of constitutional violations.\\\" The record reflected the existence of only eight patent infringement actions against the states \\\"in the 110 years between 1880 and 1990.\\\" Without evidence of widespread or pervasive infringements by the states, the Court was unwilling to justify the abrogation of state sovereign immunity under the PRCA. Additionally, Congress had failed to adequately consider the availability of state law remedies.\",\n \"The Court explained that mere patent infringement by the state does not violate the due process clause; rather, \\\"only where the state provides no remedy, or only inadequate remedies, to injured patent owners for its infringement of their patent could a deprivation of property without due process result.\\\" Where the state provides an adequate remedy, or the necessary process prior to infringing a patent, there is no violation of due process. Any statute that abrogated state sovereign immunity in a situation where the patent infringement did not amount to a constitutional violation of due process would thus be overboard. The record showed Congress had \\\"barely considered\\\" the availability of state remedies to patent infringements by the state. Because Congress had not presented sufficient evidence of widespread and persisting deprivations of constitutional rights, had not adequately considered the availability of state remedies, and had not adequately tailored its legislation to cover only those patent infringements by the state that constituted constitutional violations, the PRCA was \\\"so out of proportion to a supposed remedial or preventive object\\\" as to be considered an invalid use of the § 5 enforcement power.\",\n \"Thus, the abrogation provision of the PRCA was held to be invalid. In 2000, the Fifth Circuit elaborated on the Florida Prepaid abrogation standard and applied the precedent to copyright law. In Chavez v. Arte Publico Press, the plaintiff sued the University of Houston for copyright infringement under the CRCA for publishing the plaintiff's book without her consent. Relying on Florida Prepaid , the university invoked sovereign immunity as a defense. The court quickly recognized that a copyright, similar in nature to a patent, was a form of property protected by the Fourteenth Amendment and with no waiver argument made, the only question for the court was whether the abrogation provision of the CRCA was within the scope of Congress's § 5 enforcement power and therefore a valid abrogation of state sovereign immunity under Florida Prepaid. In holding that the CRCA, \\\"doomed in the wake of Florida Prepaid ,\\\" was not a valid use of Congress's § 5 power, the court gleaned a functional three-part test from the Supreme Court's Florida Prepaid decision.\",\n \"First, the court must consider the nature of the injury and whether \\\"the state's conduct evinced a pattern of constitutional violations.\\\" Congress, as it had for the PRCA in Florida Prepaid , had failed to provide sufficient evidence of widespread and unremedied copyright infringement by the states. The record only contained seven instances in which a state utilized the Eleventh Amendment as a defense to copyright infringement. The legislative record demonstrated that Congress's principal concern was over the \\\"potential for future abuse,\\\" a worry not sufficient to establish the required \\\"pattern\\\" of infringement by the states. Second, the court must consider whether \\\"Congress studied the existence and adequacy of state remedies for injured copyright owners when a state infringes their copyright.\\\" In the case of the CRCA, the Fifth Circuit held that Congress had \\\"barely considered the availability of state remedies for infringement.\\\" The court noted there was little documentation by Congress of state contract or takings remedies, and Congress had refused to consider the possibility of granting states concurrent jurisdiction over copyright claims. Finally, the court must consider the breadth of coverage of the legislation. Florida Prepaid made clear that not all patent infringements violate\",\n \"the Constitution.\",\n \"A negligent patent infringement for instance, as opposed to an intentional violation, would not constitute a violation of due process. In Chavez , the court reasoned that because copyright infringement required no finding of an intent to infringe, any valid abrogation statute would have to limit its scope to include only intentional property infringements by the states that amounted to a violation of due process. Florida Prepaid , Chavez , and other cases have not completely closed the door on federal abrogation of state sovereign immunity in the intellectual property realm. If Congress could show a substantial increase in intentional intellectual property infringements by the states, perhaps the courts would reconsider the existence of a widespread pattern of infringement and uphold an abrogation attempt. Ten years after Florida Prepaid , however, the United States District Court for the Southern District of California ruled that, as of 2008, the frequency of state infringements still did not warrant federal abrogation of state sovereign immunity. In Marketing Information Masters v.\",\n \"The Board of Trustees of the California State University , plaintiffs brought suit against the California State University for copyright infringement relating to the school's use of a community impact study for the 2004 Holiday Bowl in San Diego. The district court upheld the state's claim to sovereign immunity and granted the state's motion to dismiss. The court applied the standards of the Supreme Court's rulings in City of Boerne and Florida Prepaid, and cited the Fifth Circuit's holding in Chavez, in ruling that the CRCA was not passed pursuant to a legitimate exercise of the Fourteenth Amendment and therefore did not constitute a valid abrogation of state sovereign immunity. Although the updated record showed eight recent cases of state infringement of copyrights, the evidence \\\"demonstrated at most sporadic violations, not widespread violations by states.\\\" The district court was unable to find the \\\"pattern of unremedied conduct\\\" required under City of Boerne for a valid exercise of Congress's Fourteenth Amendment enforcement powers. The district court also found that Congress had failed to adequately consider state remedies and had not sufficiently tailored the CRCA to address only conduct that violates the due process clause.\",\n \"Once again, the courts had made clear that constitutional violations relating to intellectual property infringements by the states were not so pervasive as to warrant abrogation of state sovereign immunity by Congress. With Congress unable to successfully abrogate state sovereign immunity, an individual may only recover damages where a state has \\\"unequivocally\\\" expressed its consent to suit through a clear waiver. There are, however, limited alternative remedies available for individuals in those situations where the state has not waived its immunity. While an aggrieved party may be able to recover monetary damages under state contract, conversion, or takings law, the most likely relief for a plaintiff in these situations would be to sue an individual state officer in his or her official capacity for prospective injunctive relief. The Eleventh Amendment does not bar suits for prospective injunctive relief against state officials acting in violation of federal law. Although this provides no avenue to recover monetary damages, an individual may obtain a court order forcing state officials to cease their unlawful conduct.\",\n \"In Ex Parte Young , the Supreme Court established this prospective remedy in order to mitigate wrongs resulting from the state sovereign immunity defense, and to prevent continued violations of federal law by state officials. To satisfy the Ex Parte Young standard, the injured party must allege an ongoing violation of federal law, seek only prospective relief, and establish that the officer has \\\"some connection with the enforcement of the [illegal] act.\\\" Where the plaintiff satisfies this standard, a federal court may enter an injunction stopping the state official from acting in contravention of federal law. However, the Court has not made the Ex Parte Young exception available to plaintiffs in all instances of the violation of federal law by a state official. In 2006, the Federal Circuit considered the application of the Ex Parte Young approach to remedy state violations of federal patent law. In Pennington Seed v. Univ. of Arkansas , the plaintiff initially brought suit against the University of Arkansas for patent infringements related to Pennington's non-toxic feed grass. The district court dismissed the case on the basis of the university's Eleventh Amendment immunity.\",\n \"Pennington subsequently amended its complaint, dropped the university as a defendant, and filed its claim for patent infringement against four individual university officials; the chairman of the university board, the president of the university, the chancellor of the university, and a professor. The district court again dismissed the amended complaint on Eleventh Amendment grounds. In affirming the district court's decision, the Federal Circuit held that the plaintiff had failed to establish a sufficient nexus between the named officials and the enforcement of the illegal act. This connection must be more than a general obligation to prevent the violation, the court explained; otherwise the individual is simply being sued as a representative of the state. Although the officials named in the complaint may have had a general obligation to oversee the university's patent policy, they themselves did not violate any federal law. Plaintiffs could not show a sufficient causal connection between the named officials and the violation of federal patent law.\",\n \"Additionally, even if the officials had neglected their duty to the university to supervise the school's use of patents, a court can only enjoin activity that violates federal law; it cannot mandate that a state official \\\"perform his or her duty under state law.\\\" Although the court may stop an illegal action, it cannot mandate action unless an affirmative duty to act is created by federal law. No such duty existed in Pennington Seed . In the years following Florida Prepaid and College Savings Bank , Congress repeatedly attempted to provide individuals with ways to recover from the states for intellectual property infringement. In 1999, 2001, 2002, and 2003, Representative Lamar Smith, Senator Patrick Leahy, and Representative Howard Coble each introduced the \\\"Intellectual Property Protection Restoration Act\\\" (the Act) in their respective chambers. The proposed law presented a three-pronged approach to providing a remedy for intellectual property rights holders against states that engage in infringement.\",\n \"The first prong would have amended federal copyright, patent, and trademark laws to bar a state from recovering for the infringement of a state-owned patent, trademark, or copyright unless the state had previously waived its Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity and consented to suit under federal intellectual property law. The Act would have used affirmative waiver as a condition to the state's receipt of damages under federal intellectual property law. By requiring states to first waive their Eleventh Amendment immunity in the intellectual property area before enjoying the protections of federal intellectual property law, this provision created \\\"reasonable incentives\\\" for states to waive immunity without \\\"oblig[ing] them to do so.\\\" This provision raised some constitutional concerns as to the apparent voluntariness of the states' decision to waive their sovereign immunity. Critics argued that the waiver provision was simply a veiled attempt at the same congressional abrogation of state sovereign immunity struck down by the Court in Florida Prepaid and College Savings Bank . The state's strong financial interest in protecting its intellectual property may make the option of either waiving immunity or relinquishing recovery for property infringements a forced waiver.\",\n \"Critics also argued that the Act violated the doctrine of unconstitutional conditions, which at its core means \\\"the government may not require a person to give up a constitutional right ... in exchange for a discretionary benefit conferred by the government.\\\" The Act asked states to give up their constitutional right to state sovereign immunity in exchange for the benefits of federal intellectual property protections. Proponents of the Act responded by drawing a parallel to the use of Congress's spending power. Senator Leahy, who introduced the Senate companion bill, argued before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary that much like attaching a condition to the receipt of federal funds, Congress could attach a condition to the receipt of federal intellectual property benefits. The second prong of the Act would have guaranteed an individual's right to sue a state official in his individual capacity for violation of federal intellectual property law. The provision would have statutorily reinforced the rights provided in Ex Parte Young : mainly, the ability of an individual, notwithstanding the Eleventh Amendment, to obtain prospective injunctive relief, and monetary damages where applicable, against a state official.\",\n \"The Act would have clarified any confusion by reviewing courts as to the applicability of Ex Parte Young to suits against a state for intellectual property infringement. The final prong of the bill would have abrogated state sovereign immunity in limited circumstances. The abrogation provision of the Act was tailored directly to the concerns presented by the Justices in Florida Prepaid and College Savings Bank . The Act specifically limited abrogation to those instances where the property infringement constitutes a violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment. The abrogation provision was narrowly tailored to only include infringements amounting to constitutional violations in an attempt to ameliorate the Supreme Court's concern over the \\\"scope\\\" of the previous abrogation provisions found in the CRCA, TRCA, and PRCA. Critics argued, however, that this provision of the Act still would not amount to a valid abrogation of state sovereign immunity, contending that regardless of the narrowly tailored statute, the instances of unremedied intellectual property infringements by the states simply do not occur with the frequency required to classify abrogation as a use of the Fourteenth Amendment enforcement power.\",\n \"The Act never made it out of committee. The 1999 Senate bill was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary and never acted upon. In 2002, the Senate Committee held hearings on the issue, but the bill never came to a vote. In 2003, the House Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property again held hearings with no further action. Similar legislation has not been re-introduced in subsequent Congresses. In early 2006, the new Roberts Court issued a ruling concerning bankruptcy law that triggered renewed questions relating to the application of state sovereign immunity. In Central Virginia Community College v. Katz , the Court held that in ratifying the Constitution, the states waived sovereign immunity as a defense to bankruptcy suits. Relying on original intent and the legislative history of the bankruptcy clause, the Court reasoned that the Framers' concerns over a uniform bankruptcy system, which gave rise to the bankruptcy clause in Article I, § 8, superseded state sovereign immunity in that area. The Katz Court did not validate the abrogation of state sovereign immunity under the Article I bankruptcy clauseârelying instead on a historical waiver pertaining only to bankruptcy.\",\n \"Therefore, the case's effect on intellectual property law is unclear. The case did mark, however, a limitation on the dominance of state sovereign immunity over Congress's Article I powers. The Court did not consider the legislative history behind any of the other Article I, § 8 powers, and was careful not to venture into the realm of intellectual property. In April 2008, the Supreme Court indicated a possible desire to reconsider the relationship between state sovereign immunity and intellectual property by asking for the Solicitor General's opinion in relation to an appeal in Biomedical Patent Management Corp. v. California Department of Health Services . As discussed above, Biomedical involved the potential waiver of sovereign immunity under federal patent law by a state through affirmative litigation conduct. On December 2, 2008, the Solicitor General filed a brief expressing the views of the United States as amicus curiae. According to the Solicitor General's brief, certiorari was not warranted because The [Federal Circuit's] decision is consistent with decisions of this Court and it does not conflict with any decision of any other court of appeals.\",\n \"Moreover, this case presents a poor vehicle for addressing whether a State's waiver in one action extends to a subsequent action involving the same parties and the same underlying transaction or occurrence. The facts are not only unusual, but in light of the applicable limitations period, this case appears to involve alleged acts of infringe ment that occurred after the dismissal of the earlier suit. On January 12, 2009, the Supreme Court denied the petition for writ of certiorari in the Biomedical case. It thus remains to be seen whether there will be further changes by the Supreme Court in the area of state sovereign immunity and intellectual property law.\"\n]","isConversational":false}}},{"rowIdx":16991,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"string","value":"train_16991"},"question":{"kind":"string","value":"Write a detailed summary of the following government report."},"answer":{"kind":"string","value":"Long-standing research indicates that children raised in one-parent homes are more likely than children raised in homes with both biological parents to do poorly in school, have emotional and behavioral problems, become teenage parents, and have poverty-level incomes as adults. In an effort to improve the long-term outlook for children in one-parent homes, federal, state, and local governments, along with public and private organizations, have supported programs and activities that promote the financial and personal responsibility of noncustodial parents to their children and reduce the incidence of parental absence in the lives of children. Fatherhood initiatives include campaigns that seek to encourage noncustodial parents to connect with their children; counseling and training on \"soft skills,\" including relationship skills, to help noncustodial parents connect with them; and employment and training services so that they can help financially support them. Over the years, sources of federal funding for fatherhood programs have included the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, TANF state Maintenance-of-Effort (MOE) funding, Child Support Enforcement (CSE) funds, and Social Services Block Grant (Title XX) funds. However, the need for a specific funding stream for the program was identified in legislation as early as the 106th Congress, and President George W. Bush included funding for such programs in each of his budgets. Ultimately, funding for a competitive Healthy Marriage Promotion (HMP) and Responsible Fatherhood (RF) grants program was enacted as part of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-171). Between FY2006 and FY2010, the act provided up to $50 million per year for the RF grants and about $100 million per year for the HMP grants, but the Claims Resolution Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-291) subsequently altered the split between the programs to $75 million each. Funding for these programs has been extended on multiple occasions since that time, usually through provisions in appropriations acts. Most recently, on May 5, 2017, funding was extended through the end of FY2018 by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 (P.L. 115-31). Most fatherhood programs include media campaigns that emphasize the importance of emotional, physical, psychological, and financial connections of fathers to their children. They also include elements such as parenting education; responsible decisionmaking; mediation services for both parents; information on the CSE program; skills development related to conflict resolution, coping with stress, and problem-solving; peer support; and job-training opportunities. RF grantees include states, territories, Indian tribes and tribal organizations, and public and nonprofit community groups (including religious organizations). The 42 most recently awarded RF grants, which are scheduled to run through FY2020, have included a new emphasis on key short- and long-term outcomes intended to enhance evaluation and strengthen program design. According to the Office of Family Assistance (in the Administration for Children and Families of the Department of Health and Human Services), it is expected that the new RF grant-funded programs (and their evaluations) will increase the understanding of policymakers and others of what works and why."},"documents":{"kind":"list like","value":["While 69% children in the United States live in homes with two parents, an estimated 27% of children are maintained in one-parent homes. Most children in the latter group are in homes maintained by the mother only. In 2017, 23% of children lived in mother-only households, a statistic that has roughly doubled since 1970 (when it was 11%). Long-standing research indicates that children raised in one-parent homes are more likely than children raised in homes with both biological parents to do poorly in school, have emotional and behavioral problems, become teenage parents, and have poverty-level incomes as adults. Nonetheless, it is widely acknowledged that although children with absent fathers are at greater risk of having the aforementioned problems, most do not experience them. In an effort to improve the long-term outlook for children in one-parent homes—particularly those with low-income noncustodial parents—federal, state, and local governments (along with public and private organizations) have supported programs and activities that promote the financial and personal responsibility of noncustodial parents to their children and reduce the incidence of parental absence in the lives of children.","These \"fatherhood initiatives\" include campaigns that seek to encourage noncustodial parents to connect with their children; counseling and training on \"soft skills,\" including relationship skills, to help noncustodial parents connect with them; and employment and training services so that they can help financially support them. (Although most people refer to programs that seek to help parents initiate or maintain contact with their children and become emotionally involved in their lives as \"fatherhood\" programs, the programs generally are gender-neutral with regard to who may participate. Their underlying goal is participation of the noncustodial parent in the lives of his or her children.) This report provides an overview of the federal government's financial support of fatherhood initiatives, including through the Responsible Fatherhood (RF) grant program. It begins by providing a legislative history of this financial support and a summary of allowable activities under the RF grant program. This is followed by an explanation of some of the research and evaluations that have occurred via demonstration programs.","The report concludes by briefly examining the role of governmental child support enforcement (CSE) agencies in fatherhood programs, initiatives to promote and support father-child interaction outside the parents' relationship, and recent developments with regard to work-oriented programs for noncustodial parents. Low-income noncustodial parents historically have had little opportunity to participate in public assistance programs. Most of the policy discussion about low-income children that had occurred as part of the \"welfare reform\" debates between the 1960s to 1990s was focused on single custodial mothers and their children, not on the fathers of those children. This changed to some degree with the enactment of the 1996 welfare reform law ( P.L. 104-193 ), which established the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. The third finding of that law states: \"Promotion of responsible fatherhood and motherhood is integral to successful child rearing and the well-being of children.\" In addition, three of the four goals of the TANF program included in the law were consistent with the components of most fatherhood programs: ending welfare dependence by employment and marriage, reducing out-of-wedlock pregnancies, and encouraging the formation and maintenance of two-parent families.","This meant that states could spend TANF funds on fatherhood programs, and the law further allowed any services aimed at reduced nonmarital births or encouraging two-parent families to be free of income eligibility rules. During and soon after welfare reform, fatherhood-related changes were made to certain programs. For example, with regard to the CSE program, visitation and child support had historically been treated as legally separate issues, with only enforcement activities being under the purview of the federal government. However, the 1996 welfare reform law appropriated an additional $10 million per fiscal year in CSE funds for states to establish and operate access and visitation programs. In addition, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 ( P.L. 105-33 ; enacted the year following welfare reform) included a $3 billion \"Welfare to Work\" grant program, which expired in 2000, to fund employment services for mothers leaving cash assistance who were long-term recipients. This grant was also available to fund employment services for unemployed or underemployed fathers of those mothers' children. The next significant legislative development for fatherhood programs occurred during the 109 th Congress with the enactment of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 ( P.L. 109-171 ;","DRA).","The DRA included a provision (in Title IV-A of the Social Security Act) that provided funding for competitive Responsible Fatherhood (RF) grants to public and private entities, and also a Healthy Marriage Promotion (HMP) grants program. The law provided up to $50 million per year (FY2006-FY2010) for RF grants, and up to $100 million per year for HMP grants. Subsequently, the RF grants were awarded to 90 organizations to operate fatherhood programs. In addition, 13 other organizations received reentry program grant funding specifically for incarcerated fathers and formerly incarcerated fathers. During the 111 th Congress, the Claims Resolution Act of 2010 ( P.L. 111-291 ) extended funding for the HMP and RF grants through FY2011, but altered the split between the programs to $75 million each. Subsequently, RF program grants were for three-year grants to 55 organizations, and an additional 5 organizations received reentry program grants. Beyond FY2011, when the funding in the Claims Resolution Act was set to expire, the HMP and RF grants received a series of short-term funding extensions, usually through provisions in appropriations acts.","(See Appendix A for a list of these extension laws.) A third round of RF grant funding was announced during this period on September 30, 2015, which awarded five-year grants to 39 organizations. (Subsequently, two organizations dropped out of this most recent round of RF grant funding, reducing the total number of participating organizations to 37. ) Five other organizations received reentry program grant funding. Most recently, on May 5, 2017, funding was extended through the end of FY2018 by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 ( P.L. 115-31 ). (See Appendix B for a chronological legislative history of the RF program.) In addition to federal funds explicitly provided for RF grants, there are several other potential sources of federal funding for fatherhood programs. These include federal TANF funds and TANF state maintenance of effort (MOE) funding, which are potentially the largest sources of federal funding for fatherhood initiatives. (Other sources are CSE funds and Social Services Block Grant funds.) The TANF block grant to states is currently funded through FY2018, at an annual level of $16.5 billion. In addition, the state funding or MOE requirement (at the 75% level) is about $10.4 billion annually.","Due to a 71% reduction in the cash welfare caseload since FY1994, together with the fixed block grant funding, funds that otherwise would have been spent for cash assistance are now available for other purposes. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), about half of all states use some TANF funds for responsible fatherhood programs. The realization that one parent, especially a low-income parent, often cannot meet the financial needs of her or his children is not new. In 1975, the CSE program was viewed as a way to make noncustodial parents responsible for the financial support of their children and recover the costs of public assistance to children and custodial parents. With the advent of welfare reform in 1996, Congress agreed that many fathers were in the same financial straits as the mothers of their children who were receiving cash welfare.","Thus, the 1996 welfare reform law mandated that each state enact laws authorizing that state to issue an order, or request that a court or administrative process issue an order, that requires noncustodial parents who were unable to pay their child support obligation for a child receiving TANF benefits to participate in TANF work activities. Today, while the CSE, TANF, and RF programs remain separate entities, all three interact in a variety of ways with regard to the role of noncustodial parents in the lives of their children. Since their inception, fatherhood programs have sought to strengthen positive father-child engagement, improve healthy relationships (including couple and coparenting) and marriage, and improve employment and economic mobility opportunities for noncustodial fathers. For the purposes of the RF grant program, federal law specifies the following four activities.","(1) Activities to promote marriage or sustain marriage through activities, such as providing information about the benefits of marriage and two-parent involvement for children; enhancing relationship skills; education regarding how to control aggressive behavior; disseminating information on the causes of domestic violence and child abuse; marriage preparation programs and premarital counseling; skills-based marriage education; financial planning seminars; and divorce education and reduction programs, including mediation and counseling. (2) Activities to promote responsible parenting, such as counseling, mentoring, and mediation; disseminating information about good parenting practices; teaching parenting skills; and encouraging child support payments. (3) Activities to foster economic stability, such as helping fathers improve their economic status by providing activities such as job training, employment services, and career-advancing education; and coordination with existing employment services such as welfare-to-work programs, and referrals to local employment training initiatives. (4) Activities to promote responsible fatherhood that are conducted through a national clearinghouse that provides access to curricula, webinars, research products, and other resources to improve the implementation and success of responsible fatherhood programs. In addition to the federal funding through the RF grant program, many states and localities, private organizations, and nonprofit agencies also operate fatherhood programs with their","own funds.","These programs might differ from those funded by RF grants in terms of their focus and activities, although the general overarching purpose remains the same. Most fatherhood programs include media campaigns that emphasize the importance of emotional, physical, psychological, and financial connections of fathers to their children.","In addition, to counterbalance some of the procedural, psychological, emotional, and physical barriers to paternal involvement, fatherhood programs often involve courses or other program elements that include many of the following components: parenting education—the responsibilities of parents to their children; children's need for affection, gentle guidance, and financial support; the importance of being a proud example and respectful of the other parent; and the need to recognize developmentally appropriate behavior for children of different ages and respond appropriately to children's developmental needs; responsible decisionmaking (with regard to sexuality, establishment of paternity, and financial support); mentoring relationships with successful fathers and successful couples; mediation services (communicating with the other parent, supervised visitation, discipline of children, etc.); understanding the CSE program; conflict resolution, coping with stress, problem-solving skills; developing values in children, appropriate discipline, participation in child-rearing; understanding male-female relationships; peer support; practical tasks to stimulate involvement through parent-child interactions, such as fixing dinner for children, taking children to the park, playing a game, helping children with schoolwork, listening to children's concerns, and setting firm limits on behavior; and job training opportunities (skills development, interviewing skills, job search, job-retention skills, job-advancement skills, etc.).","On September 30, 2015, the Office of Family Assistance (OFA) in the Administration for Children and Families (ACF, an HHS agency) announced that it had awarded over $55 million in RF grants, which included 39 New Pathways for Fathers and Families grants and 5 Responsible Fatherhood Opportunities for Reentry and Mobility (ReFORM) grants. (Subsequently, two New Pathways for Fathers and Families grantees dropped out of the program, reducing the total number of participating organizations to 37.) These grants are for the five-year period FY2016-FY2020 (with funding contingent upon the subsequent availability of appropriations). The most recent grant awards represent the third round of such funding since the program's inception in 2006. Fatherhood programs have offered varied approaches to serving families, resulting in deeper insight into which organizational structures, implementation strategies, and service delivery models might offer promise as effective and replicable strategies. Organizational structures included state and local government agencies, community-based organizations of varying sizes, universities, and faith-based groups.","To help fathers and mothers meet their parental responsibilities, many policy analysts and observers support broad-based collaborative strategies that go beyond welfare and child support agencies and include schools, work programs, prison systems, churches, community organizations, and the health care system. Research findings indicate that father absence affects outcomes for children in terms of schooling, emotional and behavioral maturity, labor force participation, and nonmarital childbearing. These findings hold when income is taken into account, so the negative effects of father absence are not limited to those created by reduced family income. Much of the research into the efficacy of fatherhood programs examines, at least in part, child support-related issues and outcomes. Both advocates and critics of the CSE program largely agree that parents should be responsible for the economic and emotional well-being of their children. They generally agree that many low-income noncustodial parents are unable to meet their financial responsibility to their children and are barely able, or unable, to support themselves. They also generally agree that some noncustodial parents do not know how to be responsible parents because they were not taught that knowledge or were not exposed to enough positive role models that they","could emulate.","Below are several examples of research that has been or currently is being conducted related to fatherhood issues and programs. Many of these are demonstration programs with the purpose of helping low-income men become responsible fathers by gaining employment or job mobility and by teaching them life skills so that they might reconnect with their children in a positive sustained manner. Others are long-term studies that, for example, monitor the population that is served by these programs, but do not evaluate the efficacy of possible interventions. The Parents' Fair Share (PFS) Demonstration was a large-scale, scientifically designed (with experimental and control groups) national demonstration project conducted from 1994 to 1996 that combined job training and placement, peer support groups, and other services with the goal of increasing the earnings and child support payments of unemployed noncustodial parents (generally fathers) of children on welfare, improving their parenting and communication skills, and providing an opportunity for them to participate more fully and effectively in the lives of their children.","The final report on the PFS demonstration concluded that the program did not significantly increase employment or earnings among the full sample of PFS participants during the two years after they entered the program. However, the program did increase earnings among a subgroup of men who were characterized as \"less employable\" (i.e., those without a high school diploma and with little recent work experience). One of the reports noted the following as lessons learned from the PFS demonstration: Low-income noncustodial fathers are a disadvantaged group. Many live on the edge of poverty and face severe barriers to finding jobs, while those who can find work typically hold low-wage or temporary jobs. Despite their low, irregular income, many of these fathers are quite involved in their children's lives and, when they can, provide financial and other kinds of support.... Some services, such as peer support proved to be very important and valuable to the men and became the focal point of the program.","Other services, such as skill-building, were hard to implement because the providers had little experience working with such a disadvantaged group; it was difficult to find employers willing to hire the men, and the providers were not equipped to deal with the circumstances of men who often were simply trying to make it from one day to the next. Finally, we learned about the challenges of implementing a program like PFS, which involves the partnership of various agencies with different goals, and about the difficulty of recruiting low-income fathers into such a program. Some of the recommendations for future programs included structuring the program to encourage longer-term participation and to include job retention services; providing fathers who cannot find private sector employment with community service jobs; earmarking adequate funding for employment services; involving custodial mothers in the program; providing fathers with legal services to help them gain visitation rights; and encouraging partnerships between CSE agencies and fatherhood programs. HHS has an ongoing partnership with the private-sector initiative called Partners for Fragile Families (PFF). This project is an initiative of the National Partnership for Community Leadership (NPCL), a nonprofit organization based in Washington, DC.","A \"fragile\" family consists of low-income children born outside of marriage whose two natural parents are working together to raise them—either by living together or through frequent visitation. The development of the initial PFF demonstrations began when planning grants were awarded to 16 sites in 1996. In March 2000, HHS approved state waivers of certain federal CSE requirements (under Section 1115 of the Social Security Act) for 13 PFF demonstration projects spread across nine states. The duration of these projects was three years. The purpose of the demonstration projects was to develop new ways for CSE agencies and community-based nonprofit and faith-based organizations to work together to help young noncustodial fathers (ages 16 to 25—who had not yet established paternity and who had little or no involvement with the CSE program) obtain employment, health, and social services; make child support payments to their children; learn parenting skills; and work with the mothers of their children to build stronger parenting partnerships. The demonstration project sites were located in California, Colorado, Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. According to HHS, of the $9.7 million in federal funding budgeted for the projects, $7.1 million was spent.","An additional $1.4 million was spent for an evaluation of the projects. An evaluation of the PFF project implementation included the following statement: Although the concept of PFF was unique when it was developed in 1996, by the time the demonstration was fully implemented, other responsible fatherhood programs had started in many communities nationwide. Independent of PFF, the child support enforcement system was already incorporating more \"father-friendly\" approaches to service delivery at about the same time PFF was in its developmental stages. The child support system had begun to absorb the lessons learned from earlier fatherhood initiatives (such as the Parents' Fair Share project and the Responsible Fatherhood Demonstration). By the time PFF was operational, some may have viewed it as less pioneering than when it was conceived several years earlier. In addition, the number of young fathers who had not established paternity for their children decreased in the mid- to late-1990s as a result of the success of in-hospital paternity establishment initiatives across the country that established paternity at the time of a child's birth.","The pool of young fathers without paternity established for their children had diminished in the PFF sites by the time the projects were implemented. HHS also sponsored two other evaluations of the PFF demonstration projects. Both of the evaluations were conducted by the Urban Institute. One of the Urban Institute reports includes case studies of selected fathers and their families, and the other report provides an analysis of economic and child support outcomes. A process and outcome evaluation was conducted by interviewing all service providers (including child support enforcement, community-based organizations, and partner agencies) and analyzing client data matched with administrative wage data before and after the PFF program. This evaluation did not have a control group and, thus, did not seek to measure program impacts. According to the Urban Institute report, employment rates for participants before and after the program generally were low and unchanged. (About 58% of PFF participants were employed 6 months before the demonstration and 59% of PFF participants were employed 6-12 months after enrollment in the demonstration.) Although quarterly earnings of PFF participants increased after enrollment in the demonstration, at the end of 12 months, participants generally had poverty-level incomes.","In contrast, the report indicated that there was a substantial increase in child support orders. At enrollment, about 14% of PFF participants had child support orders, whereas two years after enrollment, 35% of PFF participants had child support orders. For those PFF participants who paid child support, the average child support payment was $1,569 for the first year after enrollment and $2,296 for the second year after enrollment. The report also noted that, on average, about five monthly child support payments were made in the first year after enrollment and about seven monthly payments were made in the second year after enrollment. The Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study followed a group of 4,700 children who were born in 20 large U.S. cities between 1998 and 2000. The parents in the 4,700 families in this sample were 3,600 unmarried couples and 1,100 married couples. The data were intended to be representative of nonmarital births in each of the 20 cities and also representative of all nonmarital births in U.S. cities with populations over 200,000. Both parents were interviewed at the child's birth and again when the child was age one, two, and five.","In addition, in-home assessments of the children and their home environments were performed when the children were ages three and five. The parent interviews provided information on attitudes, relationships, parenting behavior, demographic characteristics, health (mental and physical), economic and employment status, neighborhood characteristics, and public welfare program participation. The in-home interview collected information on children's cognitive and emotional development, health, and home environment. The study was expected to provide previously unavailable information on questions such as the following: What are the conditions and capabilities of new unwed parents, especially fathers? How many of these men hold steady jobs? How many want to be involved in raising their children? What is the nature of the relationship between unwed parents? How many couples are involved in stable, long-term relationships? How many expect to marry? How many experience high levels of conflict or domestic violence? What factors push new unwed parents together? What factors pull them apart? How do public policies affect parents' behaviors and living arrangements? What are the long-term consequences for parents, children, and society of new welfare regulations, stronger paternity establishment, and stricter child support enforcement? What roles do child care and health care policies play?","How do these policies play out in different labor market environments? A 2007 report that examined data pertaining to the surveyed children at age five found that 16% of participant mothers were married to the father at the time of the five-year interview. Despite not marrying, about 40% of the parents were still romantically involved at the five-year interview. In cases where the couples were no longer romantically involved, 43% of the fathers had seen their children in the month previous to the interview. According to the report: Fatherhood programs, such as education, training, support services, and content addressing issues of shared parenting, may also be appropriate for many new unmarried fathers. Engaging parents in responsible fatherhood programs (and weaving these programs into marriage promotion curriculums) early in their child's life may also help new fathers develop important parenting skills crucial to their child's healthy development. These programs may help fathers establish and maintain positive connections with their child and encourage their active participation in raising their child. A nine-year follow-up study—Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing in Middle Childhood—was funded via a $17 million grant from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)","of HHS.","The purpose of this project was to combine the core telephone surveys, in-home study, and teacher surveys into one larger project. Data collection began in 2007 and continued through the spring of 2010. Short summaries, based on data from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study, have been prepared since that time to highlight recent research findings and suggest policy implications on issues related to child well-being and the social and economic circumstances faced by unwed parents. To further the national child support program's mission and goals, the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) operates a number of competitive grant programs that provide federal funds for research and demonstration programs and special projects of regional and national significance for operating state child support programs. These programs and projects are funded through OSCE's grant-making or waiver authority under Section 1115 of the Social Security Act. In FY1999, OCSE provided $2.0 million for Responsible Fatherhood demonstration programs. The programs operated in eight states from October 1998 through December 2000. The following eight states received Section 1115 grants or waivers from OCSE/ACF to implement and test responsible fatherhood programs: California, Colorado, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Hampshire, Washington, and","Wisconsin.","These projects attempted to improve the employment and earnings of underemployed and unemployed noncustodial parents, and to motivate them to become more financially and emotionally involved in the lives of their children. Although the projects shared common goals, they varied with respect to service components and service delivery. OCSE also provided about $500,000 for an evaluation of the demonstration projects.","An outcome report on the programs found that (1) low-income noncustodial fathers are a difficult population to recruit and serve; (2) many of the participants found jobs with the programs' help, but they were low-paying jobs and relatively few of the participants were able to increase earnings enough to meet their financial needs and those of their children; (3) problems with the noncustodial father's access to his children were hard to define and resolve, and mediation should be used more extensively; (4) child support guidelines result in orders for low-income noncustodial parents that are unrealistically high; (5) CSE agencies should collaborate with fatherhood programs and pursue routine enforcement activities, as well as adopt policies and incentives that are responsive to low-income fathers; and (6) criminal history was the norm rather than the exception among the program participants, many participants faced ongoing alcohol and substance abuse problems, many did not have reliable transportation, and many lacked a court-ordered visitation arrangement. The outcome report also found that employment rates and earnings increased significantly, especially for noncustodial parents who were previously unemployed. In addition, child support compliance rates increased significantly, especially for those who had not been paying previously.","Moreover, the report found that 27% of the fathers reported seeing their children more often after completion of the program. In FY2012, OCSE established the National Child Support Noncustodial Parent Employment Demonstration (CSPED). The purpose of the demonstration was to increase the reliable payment of child support by noncustodial parents who were willing but unable to pay, and to test the efficacy of CSE agency-led employment strategies. Consequently, OCSE required CSPED grantees to be child support agencies, serving as fiscal agents for the grants and managing day-to-day operations. Eight state CSE programs were selected through a competitive grant process to participate in the five-year demonstration from October 2012 to September 2017. The eight states were California, Colorado, Iowa, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin. The first year was a planning year. In October 2013, sites began enrollment and random assignment, which ran through September 2016. During the final year, grantees were expected to continue to serve noncustodial parents as the demonstration wound down. Each grantee was to receive $775,000 in Section 1115 demonstration funds over five years. Once Federal Financial Participation (FFP) was added, the total amount of funding available to each grantee over five","years was $2.3 million.","Under the demonstration, each grantee attempted to recruit 1,500 eligible noncustodial parents into CSPED. Half of the enrollees were randomly assigned to receive CSPED services; half were assigned to a control group and did not receive the extra services. Each site was required to offer four core services: enhanced child support services, employment assistance, parenting education delivered in a peer support format, and case management. The CSE agency partnered with community service providers for employment and parenting services; case management could be provided by child support or a partner agency. Grantees were also required to work with domestic violence consultants to develop a domestic violence plan. While OCSE provided grantees with guidance on design features and core services, it allowed the grantees to align their efforts with preexisting policies, procedures, and the local social service context. The Institute for Research on Poverty at the University of Wisconsin and Mathematica Policy Research are conducting the evaluation of CSPED.","According to the initial implementation report, among the early lessons learned was the need to (1) deploy child support workers who support CSPED's goals to identify and recruit participants; (2) develop services that take into account the challenges faced by the target population; (3) design services to promote sustained participant engagement; and (4) invest in strong partnerships and communication systems. According to the evaluators, a final implementation report will examine the full implementation period and provide a more comprehensive assessment of the types of services participants received. It is also expected to examine CSPED's impacts on participants' outcomes and include a benefit-cost analysis. An HHS-sponsored evaluation of responsible fatherhood programs, called the National Evaluation of the Responsible Fatherhood, Marriage, and Family Strengthening Grants for Incarcerated and Reentering Fathers and Their Partners (MFS-IP), began in 2006. MFS-IP grantees included government (state, local, and tribal) and private (community- and faith-based) organizations. With a funding level of up to $500,000 per year for five years, the programs implemented under the MFS-IP priority area were designed to promote and sustain healthy marriages and strengthen families affected by incarceration.","Thirteen grantees in 12 different states received five-year grants from the OFA to implement multiple activities to support and sustain marriages and families of fathers during and after incarceration. Grantees may also provide support for reentering the family and community from prison, parenting support including visitation during incarceration, and education and employment services during and after incarceration. To evaluate the overall effectiveness of the 13 MFS-IP grantees, the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) awarded a contract to RTI International to conduct an implementation evaluation as well as a multisite, longitudinal, impact evaluation of selected grantees. The evaluation was a multiyear (quasiexperimental) study that was conducted from 2006 through 2014. According to an HHS Research Brief: The implementation experiences of the MFS-IP grantees can inform future efforts to build healthy relationship skills among families affected by incarceration. While incarcerated, many individuals are interested in improving themselves and their relationships with their partners, children, and other family members. Although not all incarcerated persons are married or in intimate relationships, healthy relationship skills broadly apply to many types of interpersonal relationships.","As observed by several grantees, relationships such as parent-child, correctional officer-inmate, inmate-inmate, and employer-employee could be improved by healthy relationship skills training. The impact study component of the MFS-IP evaluation, concluding in 2015, will determine the effectiveness of relationship education and other MFS-IP program components in strengthening relationship quality and stability and facilitating successful community reentry. Research suggests that healthy relationships contribute to reentry success, yet little is known about how to improve relationship quality for couples affected by incarceration. Relationship education that builds healthy relationship skills could play an important role in relationship quality throughout incarceration and during the critical reentry period. Even for lengthy periods of incarceration, communication and conflict resolution skills could result in more supportive relationships, improved co-parenting, and increased familial contact—all of which could be beneficial upon the individual's eventual release. HHS has invested resources in multiple federal evaluations to document successes, challenges, and lessons from fatherhood programs in order to provide useful information to program operators and policymakers. The 2011 application announcement for RF program grants required that grantees operate comprehensive fatherhood programs that integrate robust economic stability services, healthy marriage activities, and activities designed to foster responsible parenting.","It also indicated that, as a condition of acceptance of an RF grant, grantees would be required to participate fully in HHS-sponsored evaluations. According to HHS, in September 2011 60 RF grants were awarded for three years. These grants were initially scheduled to run through September 2014, but were extended for an additional year in the form of noncompetitive continuations awards. According to a 2012 report that provides a review of the fatherhood program and policy arena: At the state and local level, although awareness of the importance of evaluation appears to be high, it does not appear that programs have reached the point of being able to conduct scientifically rigorous evaluations. Moving forward, the field will need to ensure that agencies are equipped with the proper knowledge and tools for conducting meaningful evaluations, including appropriate measures to provide an accurate representation of program outcomes and impacts. In the last several years there has been a spate of fatherhood research and evaluations, some of which are using an experimental design model.","The outcomes and findings are expected to provide necessary information on the types of programs and strategies that are most effective in helping noncustodial parents, particularly fathers, better connect with their children. The 2015 round of RF grants (mentioned earlier) are subject to the continued requirement that grantees participate fully in HHS-sponsored evaluations. These grants, which are scheduled to run through FY2020, have also included a new emphasis on key short- and long-term outcomes intended to enhance evaluation and strengthen program design. According to the OFA, it is expected that the fatherhood programs funded by these grants (and their evaluations) will increase the understanding of policymakers and others of what works and why. In the late 1990s, when interest in federally funding responsible fatherhood programs first gained national attention, some were concerned that an emphasis on the importance of fathers could lead to unintended consequences for single mothers if too much emphasis was placed on the value of two-parent homes, or on the ability of noncustodial spouses to challenge child custody, child support, and visitation arrangements.","Although that underlying tension has not disappeared completely, then and now, it was thought that (in order to be productive and nondivisive) the policy debate on responsible fatherhood initiatives had to be based on the view that the welfare of fathers, mothers, and children are intertwined and interdependent. In addition, over the past 20 years, the results of the research and evaluations discussed earlier in this report have shed additional light on how certain factors, such as economic opportunity, affect the ability of fathers to be involved in the lives of their children. As a result of these and other factors, the policy debate on responsible fatherhood now recognizes that addressing the issues that directly affect the noncustodial parent could potentially strengthen the custodial parent's household as well. Many issues are associated with the federal government's support of fatherhood initiatives. A few examples are: Is the goal of federal policy to promote and support the involvement of fathers in their children's lives regardless of the father's relationship with the children's mother? What if the parent has children with more than one person? What is the federal policy with regard to incarcerated parents and parents recently released","from prison?","Does the federal government support counseling, education, and supervised visitation for abusive parents so that they can reconnect with their children? The discussion below examines three issues that will likely impact the success of congressional fatherhood initiatives. The first deals with the role of the CSE agency in responsible fatherhood programs. Some analysts contend that since many noncustodial parents have a negative view of and/or contentious relationship with the CSE program, the use of the CSE program to recruit fathers does not bode well for the success of such programs. Currently, most federally funded responsible fatherhood programs are provided through competitive grants to community organizations and other groups that have experience in working with low-income men. The second issue examines father involvement in the context of the father's relationship with the child's mother. This issue is based on the premise that formal marital relationships last longer and are more conducive to long-term interaction between fathers and children than other types of relationships. The third issue examines the importance of employment programs and job supports for noncustodial parents.","This issue acknowledges that economic pressures and instability, often because of unemployment or low wages, frequently contribute to nonpayment of child support and dysfunctional relationships. During the period from FY1978 to FY2016, child support payments collected by the CSE agencies increased from $1 billion to $28.8 billion. Moreover, the program has made significant improvements in other program measures as well, such as the number of parents located, paternities established, and child support orders established. Advocates of the CSE program say that this dramatic program performance is aside from the indirect and intangible benefits of the program, such as increased personal responsibility and welfare cost-avoidance. Critics of the CSE program contend that even with an unprecedented array of \"big brother\" enforcement tools such as license (professional, driver's, recreational) and passport revocation; seizure of banking accounts, retirement funds, and lottery winnings; and automatic income withholding from pay checks, the program still collects only 20% of child support obligations for which it has responsibility and collects payments for only 60% of its caseload. Information obtained from both custodial and noncustodial parents through various surveys and studies consistently tells the same story.","Noncustodial parents generally indicate that they (1) want more access to their children, (2) need to learn more relationship skills so they can coparent their children, and (3) need help finding and maintaining employment. In addition, many noncustodial parents maintain that the CSE system is dismissive of their financial condition and continues to pursue child support payments (current support as well as arrearages) even when it knows that many of them can barely support themselves. Although the CSE program has historically been the policy answer to the challenge of father absence, because its focus until recently was exclusively on financial support, it has had the practical effect of alienating many low-income noncustodial parents who are unable to meet their child support obligations. Some policy analysts maintain that noncustodial parents are, in effect, devalued when their role in their children's lives is based solely on their cash contributions. Many observers maintain that noncustodial parents and the CSE program have differences that may be irreconcilable.","In light of this challenge, they argue that the most that should be expected is for the noncustodial parent to clearly understand the purposes of the CSE program, the requirements imposed on the custodial parent, and the noncustodial parents' rights to have their child support payments modified if they incur a financial change in circumstances. If the CSE program continues to be one of the ways that noncustodial parents are connected with fatherhood programs, many observers contend that the CSE program must become more effective in gaining the cooperation and trust of noncustodial parents. In contrast, others assert that, more than any other agency of state government, the CSE program has the responsibility and is in the position to reach out to noncustodial parents who need supportive services. They point out that CSE agencies are already involved in forging relationships with these parents through partnerships with community-based organizations. They also note that CSE agencies provide a natural link to coordinate with TANF agencies to help families achieve self-sufficiency. The first finding included in the 1996 welfare reform law is that marriage is the foundation of a successful society.","The second finding is that marriage is an essential institution of a successful society that promotes the interests of children. However, some child welfare advocates argue that marriage is not necessarily the best alternative for all women and their children. It is generally agreed that one-parent homes are a better alternative for children than living with an abusive parent. Many observers caution that government must be careful about supporting programs that provide cash incentives to induce people to marry or that coerce people into marrying. They note the problems associated with marriages between youths and unions that are formed in response to pregnancy. Others respond that many long-lasting marriages were based on financial alliances (e.g., to increase economic status, family wealth, status in the community, etc.). They also point out that most government programs are sensitive to the issues of domestic violence and include supports to prevent or end such actions. Many young children live with parents who are not married but who are cohabiting. Noting this, some analysts argue that policies designed to promote certain types of family structures (e.g., nuclear families) at the expense of others may undermine nontraditional family relationships.","They contend that more emphasis should be placed on trying to meet the needs of these fragile families to enable them to stay together for longer periods of time. From their perspective, a single-focus policy, no matter whether it aims to support traditional family relationships or fragile families, can place children in less desirable situations. For instance, promoting the marriage of biological parents could result in supporting situations where a biological parent is absent if all children in the household are not all from the same union. In response, some promarriage analysts point out that about 65% of children born to cohabiting parents will see their parents separate before they reach age 12, compared to about 24% of those born to married parents. In light of these trends, they note that even with supports it is unlikely that fragile families (unmarried couples) will remain together as long as married families. Some observers contend that skills such as how to choose a good partner and how to keep a relationship going should be part of responsible fatherhood programs.","They argue that the promotion of marriage should be incorporated into fatherhood programs if the goal is lifetime involvement of fathers in the lives of their children. Another related concern raised by some analysis is that fatherhood initiatives might sometimes be incompatible with initiatives that encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families, and with initiatives that promote marriage. As a result, such observers argue that the focus of the program should be the participation of fathers in their children's lives, regardless of the marital status of the parents. As part of the 1996 welfare reform effort, a fourth purpose of the TANF block grant was included, to \"encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families.\" At that time, there was some discussion about whether the fourth purpose means married-couple families or just two parents who are involved in their children's lives, regardless of whether they are married or even living together. In late 1999, the Clinton Administration issued A Guide on Funding for Children and Families through the TANF program, which broadly interpreted two-parent families to mean not only married-couple families, but also never-married, separated, and divorced parents, whether living together or not.","Thus, many states classify their fatherhood programs and programs that encourage visitation by noncustodial parents under the rubric of fulfilling the purposes of the TANF program. It is generally agreed that many low-income fathers, like low-income mothers, lack the education and training they need to get jobs that pay enough to sustain them and their families. The 1996 welfare reform law placed work requirements on TANF recipients, mainly custodial mothers. It also required states, as part of their collection tools, to require state child support officials to have the authority to seek a judicial or administrative order that directs any noncustodial parent owing past-due support to a child receiving TANF benefits to pay that child support in accordance with a plan approved by the court or to participate in appropriate work activities.","After welfare reform, Representative Nancy Johnson, the chair of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Human Resources during the 106 th Congress, stated, \"To take the next step in welfare reform we must find a way to help children by providing them with more than a working mother and sporadic child support.\" She noted that many low-income fathers have problems similar to those of mothers on welfare—namely, they are likely to have dropped out of high school, to have little work experience, and to have significant barriers that lessen their ability to find and/or keep a job. She also asserted that in many cases these men are \"dead broke\" rather than \"dead beats,\" and that the federal government should help these noncustodial fathers meet both their financial and emotional obligations to their children. As mentioned earlier, \"Activities to foster economic stability\" are a part of the purpose of responsible fatherhood programs. Federal law lists some examples of activities that foster economic stability, namely job search, job training, subsidized employment, job retention, job enhancement, and education including career-advancing education; coordination with existing employment services; and referrals to local employment training initiatives.","In addition, as was noted in the earlier section of this report on evaluations, many of the responsible fatherhood evaluations that included an impact analysis indicated that programs that included work-oriented strategies showed a significant increase in child support payments made by the participants. According to a 2015 report that summarizes information gained from in-depth interviews with participants of responsible fatherhood programs: While fathers generally provided positive feedback about the job readiness and job search skills they obtained through the RF programs, the employment challenges these men typically face are significant. Most were still struggling to find steady employment, earn enough to make ends meet, and meet their child support obligations. Although these fathers faced a myriad of barriers to gaining and maintaining employment, the most commonly cited obstacle was fathers' past incarceration and criminal records. These findings suggest that the economic stability component of RF programs may need to be strengthened to improve the chances that fathers will be successful at securing good jobs with steady and adequate wages. Any employment approach should include assistance in expunging or sealing criminal records when possible.","As of February 2014, 30 states and the District of Columbia were operating 77 work-oriented programs for noncustodial parents with active CSE agency involvement. Although most of the programs were not statewide, Georgia, Maryland, and North Dakota were identified as operating statewide programs, and many other states were operating programs in multiple counties. OCSE estimated that roughly 30,000 noncustodial parents were served by these programs in 2013. In many of these states, the work-oriented programs discussed in the report were available to all noncustodial parents who are unable to make their child support payments in a timely manner, not just those noncustodial parents who have a child enrolled in the TANF program. Current job training and workforce programs generally are not targeted to noncustodial parents, and only some focus on low-income individuals. Some observers note that while the CSE agency and responsible fatherhood programs are making some inroads, a lot more needs to be done on a much broader scale. They contend that in these times of federal and state budget constraints, the TANF program is an untapped resource. They maintain that states should use TANF and MOE funds to provide work opportunities and work supports","for noncustodial parents.","In November 2014, a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) was released that proposed revisions to CSE program operations and enforcement procedures. These revisions included a proposal to provide the CSE program with the ability to directly fund job services for noncustodial parents at the regular CSE matching rate (66%). Advocates commented that, given that employment services have been seriously underfunded for many years, allowing states to be reimbursed at an open-ended 66% federal matching rate could make a significant difference for noncustodial parents who are unable to comply with their child support obligations because of unemployment or low wages. Although there are many supporters of the idea of providing CSE federal matching funds for work-oriented programs for noncustodial parents, there was concern among both supporters and opponents of the provision that the Obama Administration may have overstepped its authority (i.e., they say the Administration was legislating through its regulations). When the final rule was issued on December 19, 2016, the job service-related provisions were omitted.","In its commentary on the final rule, OCSE explained, This proposed provision received overwhelming support from states, Members of Congress, and the public, but it also was opposed by some Members of Congress who did not think the provision should be included in the final rule. While we appreciate the support the commenters expressed, we think allowing for federal IV-D reimbursement for job services needs further study and would be ripe for implementation at a later time. Therefore, we are not proceeding with finalizing the proposed provisions.... Appendix A. Temporary Extensions of the Healthy Marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grant Program Appendix B. Legislative History of Federally Funded Responsible Federal Fatherhood Programs Beginning with the 106 th Congress and with each subsequent Congress, responsible fatherhood programs have received both presidential and congressional attention. 106 th Congress (1999-2000) Through the FY2001 appropriations process, $3 million was set aside for a nongovernmental national fatherhood organization named the National Fatherhood Initiative ( P.L. 106-553 ), $500,000 for the National Fatherhood Initiative, and $500,000 for the Institute for Responsible Fatherhood and Family Revitalization ( P.L. 106-554 ).","President Clinton's FY2001 budget included $255 million for the first year of a proposed \"Fathers Work/Families Win\" initiative to help low-income noncustodial parents and low-income working families work and support their children. The \"Fathers Work/Families Win\" initiative would have been administered by the Department of Labor (DOL). The \"Fathers Work\" component ($125 million) would have been limited to noncustodial parents (primarily fathers) and the \"Families Win\" component ($130 million) would have been targeted more generally to low-income families. Neither the House nor the Senate versions of the FY2001 appropriations bill ( H.R. 4577 , 106 th Congress) for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies (LHHS) included funding for the Fathers Work/Families Win proposal. In addition, legislation that included funding for a nationwide responsible fatherhood grants program was twice passed by the House (but not acted on by the Senate). H.R. 3073 , the proposed Fathers Count Act of 1999, and H.R. 4678 , the proposed Child Support Distribution Act of 2000, would have authorized funding ($140 million over two years in H.R. 3073 and $140 million over four years in H.R.","4678 ) to establish a program (usually referred to as fatherhood initiatives) to make grants to public or private entities for projects designed to promote marriage, promote successful parenting and the involvement of fathers in the lives of their children, and help fathers improve their economic status by providing job-related services to them. 107 th Congress (2001-2002) From the beginning of his presidency, President George W. Bush indicated his support for responsible fatherhood initiatives. President Bush's FY2002 budget proposed $64 million in 2002 (and $315 million over five years) to strengthen the role of fathers in the lives of families. This initiative would have provided competitive grants to faith-based and community organizations that help unemployed or low-income fathers and their families avoid or leave cash welfare, as well as to programs that promote successful parenting and strengthen marriage. His FY2003 budget proposed $20 million (for FY2003) for competitive grants to community and faith-based organizations for programs that help noncustodial fathers support their families to avoid or leave cash welfare, become more involved in their children's lives, and promote successful parenting and encourage and support healthy marriages and married fatherhood. Several bills ( H.R. 1300 / S.","653 , H.R. 1471 , S.","685 , S. 940 / H.R. 1990 , H.R. 2893 , H.R. 3625 , H.R. 4090 , S. 2524 , and H.R. 4737 ) that included fatherhood initiatives were introduced, but none were enacted. The purposes of the fatherhood programs in the bills introduced generally were the same: fatherhood programs must be designed to promote marriage through counseling, mentoring, and other activities; promote successful parenting through counseling, providing information about good parenting practices including payment of child support, and other activities; and help noncustodial parents and their families avoid or leave cash welfare by providing work-first services, job training, subsidized employment, career-advancing education, and other activities. However, the structure of the fatherhood programs differed. Although H.R. 4737 , as amended, was passed by the House on May 16, 2002 ( H.Rept. 107-460 , Part 1), and reported favorably in the nature of a substitute by the Senate Finance Committee ( S.Rept. 107-221 ) on July 25, 2002, it was not passed by the full Senate. 108 th Congress (2003-2004) President Bush's FY2004 budget proposed $20 million annually (for FY2004-FY2008) for promotion and support of responsible fatherhood and healthy marriage.","The FY2004 budget proposal also would have gradually increased the annual funding of the CSE access and visitation grant program from $10 million annually, to $20 million annually by FY2007. His FY2005 budget proposed $50 million (for FY2005) for 75 competitive grants to faith-based and community organizations, together with Indian tribes and tribal organizations, to encourage and help fathers to support their families, avoid welfare, and improve their ability to manage family business affairs, and to support healthy marriages and married fatherhood. Several bills that included responsible fatherhood provisions ( S. 5 , S. 448 , S. 604 , S. 657 , S. 1443 , and S. 2830 ; H.R. 4 and H.R. 936 ) were introduced, none of which became law. On February 13, 2003, the House passed H.R. 4 , a welfare reauthorization bill that would have provided $20 million per year for each of FY2004-FY2008 for a responsible fatherhood grant program. This bill was essentially identical to H.R. 4737 as passed by the House in 2002. On September 10, 2003, the Senate Finance Committee approved its version of H.R. 4 ( S.Rept.","108-162 ), which would have established a $75 million responsible fatherhood program composed of four components for each of FY2004-FY2008: (1) a $20 million grant program for up to 10 eligible states to conduct demonstration programs; (2) a $30 million grant for eligible entities to conduct demonstration programs; (3) $5 million for a nationally recognized nonprofit fatherhood promotion organization to develop and promote a responsible fatherhood media campaign; and (4) a $20 million block grant for states to conduct responsible fatherhood media campaigns. Although H.R. 4 was debated on the Senate floor during the period March 29-April 1, 2004, consideration of the bill was not completed when a motion to limit debate on the bill failed to garner the necessary 60 votes. The Senate did not bring the bill back to the floor before the end of the session. 109 th Congress (2005-2006) President Bush's FY2006 budget proposed $40 million (for FY2006) for a responsible fatherhood competitive grant program. The FY2007 budget proposed $100 million for competitive matching grants to states for marriage promotion. It also included the $150 million for HMP and RF grants that was enacted in the DRA during the prior Congress.","Several bills that included responsible fatherhood provisions were introduced. Two of the bills were standalone bills that had been introduced in a previous Congress ( S. 3607 and S. 3803 ) and four were welfare reauthorization bills that included some responsible fatherhood provisions ( H.R. 240 / S. 105 , S. 6 , and S. 667 ). The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 ( S. 1932 ; DRA), which also included a provision that provided competitive grants for responsible fatherhood activities, was enacted into law. Among other things, the DRA reauthorized the TANF block grant at $16.5 billion annually through FY2010 and included a provision that provided $150 million in funding for the new HMP and RF competitive grants programs for each of the fiscal years, FY2006 through FY2010. Of the $150 million, up to $50 million per year in grants was to be provided to states, territories, Indian tribes and tribal organizations, and public and nonprofit community organizations, including religious organizations, for responsible fatherhood initiatives.","Under the DRA, RF grant funds could be spent on activities to promote responsible fatherhood through (1) marriage promotion (through counseling, mentoring, disseminating information about the advantages of marriage and two-parent involvement for children, etc.), (2) parenting activities (through counseling, mentoring, mediation, disseminating information about good parenting practices, etc.), (3) fostering economic stability of fathers (through work first services, job search, job training, subsidized employment, education, etc.), or (4) contracting with a nationally recognized nonprofit fatherhood promotion organization to develop, promote, or distribute a media campaign to encourage the appropriate involvement of parents in the lives of their children, focusing particularly on responsible fatherhood; and/or to develop a national clearinghouse to help states and communities in their efforts to promote and support marriage and responsible fatherhood. 110 th Congress (2007-2008) President Bush's FY2008 and FY2009 budget included the $150 million for HMP and RF programs that was included in the DRA as part of welfare reauthorization. As noted, pursuant to the DRA, $50 million was specifically allocated for responsible fatherhood programs for each of FY2006-FY2010. Two bills that included responsible fatherhood provisions were introduced, S. 1626 , and a House companion bill, H.R. 3395 . Among","other things, S.","1626 / H.R. 3395 , would have increased funding for the RF grants (authorized by the DRA) to $100 million per year for each of FY2008-FY2010. (The total for the HMP and RF grants would have increased from $150 million to $200 million per year for each of FY2008-FY2010.) The bills were not reported out of committee. 111 th Congress (2009-2010) The Obama Administration's FY2011 budget included a new proposal to redirect funds from the HMP and RF Grant Programs to the proposed $500 million Fatherhood, Marriage, and Families Innovation Fund. The proposed Fatherhood, Marriage, and Families Innovation Fund would have been available for one year (FY2011) to provide three-year competitive grants to states. According to one budget document, \"The Fatherhood, Marriage, and Families Innovation Fund will serve as a catalyst for innovative service models that integrate a variety of service streams.","The results from these demonstrations could form the basis for possible future TANF and CSE program changes at the federal or state level based on a multidimensional picture of the dynamics of family functioning and material self-sufficiency and child well-being.\" The Fatherhood, Marriage, and Families Innovation Fund proposal was not acted on by either the House or the Senate. Three bills that included responsible fatherhood provisions were introduced, all three of which had been introduced in a previous Congress. None of the bills received congressional action. The first two bills were companion proposals that were almost identical to bills that were introduced in the 110 th Congress. The Senate proposal, S. 1309 , was referred to as the Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act of 2009. The House proposal, H.R. 2979 , was referred to as the Julia Carson Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act of 2009.","The bills would have (1) increased funding for RF grant programs from $50 million per year to $100 million per year (for each of FY2008-FY2010); (2) expanded procedures to address domestic violence; (3) expanded activities promoting responsible fatherhood; (4) provided grants to healthy family partnerships for domestic violence prevention, for services for families and individuals affected by domestic violence, and for developing and implementing best practices to prevent domestic violence; and (5) eliminated the separate TANF work participation rate for two-parent families. The bills would have also made several changes to the CSE program and addressed the issue of employment for noncustodial and disadvantaged parents. The HHS Secretary would have been directed to award grants to states for an employment demonstration project involving a court- or state child support agency-supervised program for noncustodial parents so they can pay child support obligations. In addition, the Secretary of Labor would have been required to award grants for transitional jobs programs and for public-private career pathways partnerships to help disadvantaged parents obtain employment. The third proposal, S. 939 , was the Protecting Adoption and Promoting Responsible Fatherhood Act of 2009.","The bill would have required the HHS Secretary to establish an automated National Putative Father Registry. Among other things, S. 939 would have directed the Secretary to establish a nationwide responsible fatherhood and putative father registry educational campaign designed to (1) inform men about the National Putative Father Registry, the advantages of registering with a State Putative Father Registry, and the rights and responsibilities of putative fathers; and (2) inform women about the National Registry and its potential role in a pending or planned adoption or a termination of a putative father's rights. In addition, it would have required each state that desired to receive such a grant to develop and implement a state plan for promoting responsible fatherhood and permanency for children. The Claims Resolution Act of 2010, enacted December 8, 2010 ( P.L. 111-291 ), extended the RF grant program through FY2011 and its funding was increased from $50 million to $75 million. Funding for the HMP grants was reduced to $75 million. 112 th Congress (2011-2012) The Obama Administration's FY2012 and FY2013 budget proposed continued funding of $150 million to support HMP and RF grant programs for FY2012.","This budget proposal also would have made changes to the purpose clause of the CSE program to include access and visitation and other fatherhood involvement activities. These activities would have become core parts of the CSE program and thereby states would have been reimbursed by the federal government for expenditures on such activities at an open-ended 66% matching rate. The budget proposal would have required states to establish access and visitation responsibilities in all initial child support orders. It would have encouraged states to undertake activities that support access and visitation, implementing domestic violence safeguards as a critical component of this new state responsibility. (The estimated cost of the proposal was $570 million over 10 years.) The Julia Carson Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act of 2011, was reintroduced as H.R. 2193 . Similar to the bill introduced in the 111 th Congress, H.R. 2193 , among other things, would have reauthorized and provided $75 million per year for the RF grant program for each of the years FY2011 through FY2015. This measure did not receive congressional action.","Instead, the programs were extended temporarily at their FY2012 levels ($150 million per year on a pro rata basis, divided equally between the two programs), through three laws: P.L. 112-78 , the Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011 (enacted December 23, 2011), provided funding for the HMP and RF grant programs through February 29, 2012. P.L. 112-96 , the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (enacted February 22, 2012), provided funding for the HMP and RF grant programs through September 30, 2012. P.L. 112-175 (the government-wide continuing resolution enacted on September 28, 2012) extended funding for the HMP and RF grant programs through March 2013 (i.e., the first six months of FY2013). 113 th Congress (2013-2014) The Obama Administration's FY2014 and FY2015 budgets proposed continued funding of $150 million to support HMP and RF grant programs each of those fiscal years. These funds would have been split equally among HMP and RF activities. These budget proposals were very similar to the FY2012 and FY2013 proposals with regard to fatherhood programs.","(However, the FY2013 budget would have provided $580 million over 10 years to support the increased access and visitation services while the FY2014 and FY2015 budgets would have provided $448 million over 10 years for such services.) During the 113 th Congress, the HMP and RF grant programs were extended and funded thorough a number of appropriations acts. All of these appropriations acts provided $150 million per year (either through a full year of funding or on an annualized basis), divided equally between the programs. For FY2013, a full-year continuing resolution ( P.L. 113-6 , enacted on March 26, 2013) extended funding for the HMP and RF grant programs through September 30, 2013. For FY2014, the programs were initially extended and funded through an interim continuing resolution ( P.L. 113-46 , enacted on October 17, 2013), and subsequently provided full-year appropriations through September 30, 2014 ( P.L. 113-76 , enacted on January 17, 2014). For FY2015, the programs were initially extended and funded through three continuing appropriations acts: (1) P.L. 113-164 , enacted on September 19, 2014; (2) P.L. 113-202 , enacted on December 12, 2014; and (3) P.L. 113-203 , enacted on December 13, 2014).","Later in the fiscal year, full-year appropriations were provided through September 30, 2015 ( P.L. 113-235 , enacted on December 16, 2014). Other pieces of legislation affecting the HMP and RF programs were introduced during the 113 th Congress, though none received congressional action. H.R. 2359 , the Julia Carson Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act of 2013, was reintroduced. Similar to the bill ( H.R. 2193 ) introduced in the 112 th Congress, H.R. 2359 , among other things, would have reauthorized and provided $75 million per year for RF programs for each of the years FY2014 through FY2018. 114 th Congress (2015-2016) The Obama Administration's FY2016 and FY2017 budgets proposed continuing funding of $150 million to support HMP and RF grant programs for each of those fiscal years. These funds would have been split equally among Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood activities. These budget requests also continued to propose $448 million over 10 years to support increased access and visitation services and integrating those services into the core CSE program. The HMP and RF programs were extended and funded through a number of appropriations acts.","All of these appropriations acts provided $150 million per year (either through a full year of funding or on an annualized basis), divided equally between the programs. For FY2016, the programs were initially funded through three interim continuing resolutions: (1) P.L. 114-53 , enacted September 30, 2015; (2) P.L. 114-96 , enacted December 11, 2015; and (3) P.L. 114-100 , enacted December 16, 2015. Full-year funding for FY2016 was provided via P.L. 114-113 (enacted December 18, 2015). For FY2017, the programs did not receive full-year appropriations during the 114 th Congress, and instead were funded through two continuing resolutions: (1) P.L. 114-223 , enacted on September 29, 2016; and (2) P.L. 114-254 , enacted on December 10, 2017. The continuing appropriations in P.L. 114-254 were scheduled to expire on April 28, 2017. Other pieces of legislation affecting the Healthy Marriages and Responsible Fatherhood programs were introduced during the 114 th Congress, though none received congressional action. H.R. 3005 , the Julia Carson Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act of 2015, was reintroduced. Similar to the bill ( H.R. 2359 ) introduced in the 113 th Congress, H.R.","3005 , among other things, would have reauthorized and provided $75 million per year for responsible fatherhood programs for each of five fiscal years (FY2016 through FY2020). Also during the 114 th Congress, two pieces of legislation were introduced that specify that HHS may not take any action to finalize, implement, enforce, or otherwise give effect to the proposed rule entitled \"Flexibility, Efficiency, and Modernization in Child Support Enforcement Programs\" or any proposal set forth in the proposed rule ( S. 1525 and H.R. 2688 ). Neither of those pieces of legislation received congressional action. (The final rule was issued on December 19, 2016.) 115 th Congress (2017-2018) The Trump Administration's FY2018 budget proposed that funding for the HMP and RF grants be continued through FY2018 at current law levels ($75 million for each program). The HMP and RF grant programs were temporarily extended by two appropriations laws. The first, enacted on April 29, 2017, extended the program through May 5, 2017 ( P.L. 115-30 ). The second, enacted on May 5, 2017, extended the program for a comparatively longer time period, through September 30, 2018 ( P.L. 115-31 ).","The Julia Carson Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act of 2017 ( H.R. 3465 ) was reintroduced, which would, among other things, reauthorize the program through FY2023. No legislative action on that proposal has occurred."],"string":"[\n \"While 69% children in the United States live in homes with two parents, an estimated 27% of children are maintained in one-parent homes. Most children in the latter group are in homes maintained by the mother only. In 2017, 23% of children lived in mother-only households, a statistic that has roughly doubled since 1970 (when it was 11%). Long-standing research indicates that children raised in one-parent homes are more likely than children raised in homes with both biological parents to do poorly in school, have emotional and behavioral problems, become teenage parents, and have poverty-level incomes as adults. Nonetheless, it is widely acknowledged that although children with absent fathers are at greater risk of having the aforementioned problems, most do not experience them. In an effort to improve the long-term outlook for children in one-parent homes—particularly those with low-income noncustodial parents—federal, state, and local governments (along with public and private organizations) have supported programs and activities that promote the financial and personal responsibility of noncustodial parents to their children and reduce the incidence of parental absence in the lives of children.\",\n \"These \\\"fatherhood initiatives\\\" include campaigns that seek to encourage noncustodial parents to connect with their children; counseling and training on \\\"soft skills,\\\" including relationship skills, to help noncustodial parents connect with them; and employment and training services so that they can help financially support them. (Although most people refer to programs that seek to help parents initiate or maintain contact with their children and become emotionally involved in their lives as \\\"fatherhood\\\" programs, the programs generally are gender-neutral with regard to who may participate. Their underlying goal is participation of the noncustodial parent in the lives of his or her children.) This report provides an overview of the federal government's financial support of fatherhood initiatives, including through the Responsible Fatherhood (RF) grant program. It begins by providing a legislative history of this financial support and a summary of allowable activities under the RF grant program. This is followed by an explanation of some of the research and evaluations that have occurred via demonstration programs.\",\n \"The report concludes by briefly examining the role of governmental child support enforcement (CSE) agencies in fatherhood programs, initiatives to promote and support father-child interaction outside the parents' relationship, and recent developments with regard to work-oriented programs for noncustodial parents. Low-income noncustodial parents historically have had little opportunity to participate in public assistance programs. Most of the policy discussion about low-income children that had occurred as part of the \\\"welfare reform\\\" debates between the 1960s to 1990s was focused on single custodial mothers and their children, not on the fathers of those children. This changed to some degree with the enactment of the 1996 welfare reform law ( P.L. 104-193 ), which established the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. The third finding of that law states: \\\"Promotion of responsible fatherhood and motherhood is integral to successful child rearing and the well-being of children.\\\" In addition, three of the four goals of the TANF program included in the law were consistent with the components of most fatherhood programs: ending welfare dependence by employment and marriage, reducing out-of-wedlock pregnancies, and encouraging the formation and maintenance of two-parent families.\",\n \"This meant that states could spend TANF funds on fatherhood programs, and the law further allowed any services aimed at reduced nonmarital births or encouraging two-parent families to be free of income eligibility rules. During and soon after welfare reform, fatherhood-related changes were made to certain programs. For example, with regard to the CSE program, visitation and child support had historically been treated as legally separate issues, with only enforcement activities being under the purview of the federal government. However, the 1996 welfare reform law appropriated an additional $10 million per fiscal year in CSE funds for states to establish and operate access and visitation programs. In addition, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 ( P.L. 105-33 ; enacted the year following welfare reform) included a $3 billion \\\"Welfare to Work\\\" grant program, which expired in 2000, to fund employment services for mothers leaving cash assistance who were long-term recipients. This grant was also available to fund employment services for unemployed or underemployed fathers of those mothers' children. The next significant legislative development for fatherhood programs occurred during the 109 th Congress with the enactment of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 ( P.L. 109-171 ;\",\n \"DRA).\",\n \"The DRA included a provision (in Title IV-A of the Social Security Act) that provided funding for competitive Responsible Fatherhood (RF) grants to public and private entities, and also a Healthy Marriage Promotion (HMP) grants program. The law provided up to $50 million per year (FY2006-FY2010) for RF grants, and up to $100 million per year for HMP grants. Subsequently, the RF grants were awarded to 90 organizations to operate fatherhood programs. In addition, 13 other organizations received reentry program grant funding specifically for incarcerated fathers and formerly incarcerated fathers. During the 111 th Congress, the Claims Resolution Act of 2010 ( P.L. 111-291 ) extended funding for the HMP and RF grants through FY2011, but altered the split between the programs to $75 million each. Subsequently, RF program grants were for three-year grants to 55 organizations, and an additional 5 organizations received reentry program grants. Beyond FY2011, when the funding in the Claims Resolution Act was set to expire, the HMP and RF grants received a series of short-term funding extensions, usually through provisions in appropriations acts.\",\n \"(See Appendix A for a list of these extension laws.) A third round of RF grant funding was announced during this period on September 30, 2015, which awarded five-year grants to 39 organizations. (Subsequently, two organizations dropped out of this most recent round of RF grant funding, reducing the total number of participating organizations to 37. ) Five other organizations received reentry program grant funding. Most recently, on May 5, 2017, funding was extended through the end of FY2018 by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 ( P.L. 115-31 ). (See Appendix B for a chronological legislative history of the RF program.) In addition to federal funds explicitly provided for RF grants, there are several other potential sources of federal funding for fatherhood programs. These include federal TANF funds and TANF state maintenance of effort (MOE) funding, which are potentially the largest sources of federal funding for fatherhood initiatives. (Other sources are CSE funds and Social Services Block Grant funds.) The TANF block grant to states is currently funded through FY2018, at an annual level of $16.5 billion. In addition, the state funding or MOE requirement (at the 75% level) is about $10.4 billion annually.\",\n \"Due to a 71% reduction in the cash welfare caseload since FY1994, together with the fixed block grant funding, funds that otherwise would have been spent for cash assistance are now available for other purposes. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), about half of all states use some TANF funds for responsible fatherhood programs. The realization that one parent, especially a low-income parent, often cannot meet the financial needs of her or his children is not new. In 1975, the CSE program was viewed as a way to make noncustodial parents responsible for the financial support of their children and recover the costs of public assistance to children and custodial parents. With the advent of welfare reform in 1996, Congress agreed that many fathers were in the same financial straits as the mothers of their children who were receiving cash welfare.\",\n \"Thus, the 1996 welfare reform law mandated that each state enact laws authorizing that state to issue an order, or request that a court or administrative process issue an order, that requires noncustodial parents who were unable to pay their child support obligation for a child receiving TANF benefits to participate in TANF work activities. Today, while the CSE, TANF, and RF programs remain separate entities, all three interact in a variety of ways with regard to the role of noncustodial parents in the lives of their children. Since their inception, fatherhood programs have sought to strengthen positive father-child engagement, improve healthy relationships (including couple and coparenting) and marriage, and improve employment and economic mobility opportunities for noncustodial fathers. For the purposes of the RF grant program, federal law specifies the following four activities.\",\n \"(1) Activities to promote marriage or sustain marriage through activities, such as providing information about the benefits of marriage and two-parent involvement for children; enhancing relationship skills; education regarding how to control aggressive behavior; disseminating information on the causes of domestic violence and child abuse; marriage preparation programs and premarital counseling; skills-based marriage education; financial planning seminars; and divorce education and reduction programs, including mediation and counseling. (2) Activities to promote responsible parenting, such as counseling, mentoring, and mediation; disseminating information about good parenting practices; teaching parenting skills; and encouraging child support payments. (3) Activities to foster economic stability, such as helping fathers improve their economic status by providing activities such as job training, employment services, and career-advancing education; and coordination with existing employment services such as welfare-to-work programs, and referrals to local employment training initiatives. (4) Activities to promote responsible fatherhood that are conducted through a national clearinghouse that provides access to curricula, webinars, research products, and other resources to improve the implementation and success of responsible fatherhood programs. In addition to the federal funding through the RF grant program, many states and localities, private organizations, and nonprofit agencies also operate fatherhood programs with their\",\n \"own funds.\",\n \"These programs might differ from those funded by RF grants in terms of their focus and activities, although the general overarching purpose remains the same. Most fatherhood programs include media campaigns that emphasize the importance of emotional, physical, psychological, and financial connections of fathers to their children.\",\n \"In addition, to counterbalance some of the procedural, psychological, emotional, and physical barriers to paternal involvement, fatherhood programs often involve courses or other program elements that include many of the following components: parenting education—the responsibilities of parents to their children; children's need for affection, gentle guidance, and financial support; the importance of being a proud example and respectful of the other parent; and the need to recognize developmentally appropriate behavior for children of different ages and respond appropriately to children's developmental needs; responsible decisionmaking (with regard to sexuality, establishment of paternity, and financial support); mentoring relationships with successful fathers and successful couples; mediation services (communicating with the other parent, supervised visitation, discipline of children, etc.); understanding the CSE program; conflict resolution, coping with stress, problem-solving skills; developing values in children, appropriate discipline, participation in child-rearing; understanding male-female relationships; peer support; practical tasks to stimulate involvement through parent-child interactions, such as fixing dinner for children, taking children to the park, playing a game, helping children with schoolwork, listening to children's concerns, and setting firm limits on behavior; and job training opportunities (skills development, interviewing skills, job search, job-retention skills, job-advancement skills, etc.).\",\n \"On September 30, 2015, the Office of Family Assistance (OFA) in the Administration for Children and Families (ACF, an HHS agency) announced that it had awarded over $55 million in RF grants, which included 39 New Pathways for Fathers and Families grants and 5 Responsible Fatherhood Opportunities for Reentry and Mobility (ReFORM) grants. (Subsequently, two New Pathways for Fathers and Families grantees dropped out of the program, reducing the total number of participating organizations to 37.) These grants are for the five-year period FY2016-FY2020 (with funding contingent upon the subsequent availability of appropriations). The most recent grant awards represent the third round of such funding since the program's inception in 2006. Fatherhood programs have offered varied approaches to serving families, resulting in deeper insight into which organizational structures, implementation strategies, and service delivery models might offer promise as effective and replicable strategies. Organizational structures included state and local government agencies, community-based organizations of varying sizes, universities, and faith-based groups.\",\n \"To help fathers and mothers meet their parental responsibilities, many policy analysts and observers support broad-based collaborative strategies that go beyond welfare and child support agencies and include schools, work programs, prison systems, churches, community organizations, and the health care system. Research findings indicate that father absence affects outcomes for children in terms of schooling, emotional and behavioral maturity, labor force participation, and nonmarital childbearing. These findings hold when income is taken into account, so the negative effects of father absence are not limited to those created by reduced family income. Much of the research into the efficacy of fatherhood programs examines, at least in part, child support-related issues and outcomes. Both advocates and critics of the CSE program largely agree that parents should be responsible for the economic and emotional well-being of their children. They generally agree that many low-income noncustodial parents are unable to meet their financial responsibility to their children and are barely able, or unable, to support themselves. They also generally agree that some noncustodial parents do not know how to be responsible parents because they were not taught that knowledge or were not exposed to enough positive role models that they\",\n \"could emulate.\",\n \"Below are several examples of research that has been or currently is being conducted related to fatherhood issues and programs. Many of these are demonstration programs with the purpose of helping low-income men become responsible fathers by gaining employment or job mobility and by teaching them life skills so that they might reconnect with their children in a positive sustained manner. Others are long-term studies that, for example, monitor the population that is served by these programs, but do not evaluate the efficacy of possible interventions. The Parents' Fair Share (PFS) Demonstration was a large-scale, scientifically designed (with experimental and control groups) national demonstration project conducted from 1994 to 1996 that combined job training and placement, peer support groups, and other services with the goal of increasing the earnings and child support payments of unemployed noncustodial parents (generally fathers) of children on welfare, improving their parenting and communication skills, and providing an opportunity for them to participate more fully and effectively in the lives of their children.\",\n \"The final report on the PFS demonstration concluded that the program did not significantly increase employment or earnings among the full sample of PFS participants during the two years after they entered the program. However, the program did increase earnings among a subgroup of men who were characterized as \\\"less employable\\\" (i.e., those without a high school diploma and with little recent work experience). One of the reports noted the following as lessons learned from the PFS demonstration: Low-income noncustodial fathers are a disadvantaged group. Many live on the edge of poverty and face severe barriers to finding jobs, while those who can find work typically hold low-wage or temporary jobs. Despite their low, irregular income, many of these fathers are quite involved in their children's lives and, when they can, provide financial and other kinds of support.... Some services, such as peer support proved to be very important and valuable to the men and became the focal point of the program.\",\n \"Other services, such as skill-building, were hard to implement because the providers had little experience working with such a disadvantaged group; it was difficult to find employers willing to hire the men, and the providers were not equipped to deal with the circumstances of men who often were simply trying to make it from one day to the next. Finally, we learned about the challenges of implementing a program like PFS, which involves the partnership of various agencies with different goals, and about the difficulty of recruiting low-income fathers into such a program. Some of the recommendations for future programs included structuring the program to encourage longer-term participation and to include job retention services; providing fathers who cannot find private sector employment with community service jobs; earmarking adequate funding for employment services; involving custodial mothers in the program; providing fathers with legal services to help them gain visitation rights; and encouraging partnerships between CSE agencies and fatherhood programs. HHS has an ongoing partnership with the private-sector initiative called Partners for Fragile Families (PFF). This project is an initiative of the National Partnership for Community Leadership (NPCL), a nonprofit organization based in Washington, DC.\",\n \"A \\\"fragile\\\" family consists of low-income children born outside of marriage whose two natural parents are working together to raise them—either by living together or through frequent visitation. The development of the initial PFF demonstrations began when planning grants were awarded to 16 sites in 1996. In March 2000, HHS approved state waivers of certain federal CSE requirements (under Section 1115 of the Social Security Act) for 13 PFF demonstration projects spread across nine states. The duration of these projects was three years. The purpose of the demonstration projects was to develop new ways for CSE agencies and community-based nonprofit and faith-based organizations to work together to help young noncustodial fathers (ages 16 to 25—who had not yet established paternity and who had little or no involvement with the CSE program) obtain employment, health, and social services; make child support payments to their children; learn parenting skills; and work with the mothers of their children to build stronger parenting partnerships. The demonstration project sites were located in California, Colorado, Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. According to HHS, of the $9.7 million in federal funding budgeted for the projects, $7.1 million was spent.\",\n \"An additional $1.4 million was spent for an evaluation of the projects. An evaluation of the PFF project implementation included the following statement: Although the concept of PFF was unique when it was developed in 1996, by the time the demonstration was fully implemented, other responsible fatherhood programs had started in many communities nationwide. Independent of PFF, the child support enforcement system was already incorporating more \\\"father-friendly\\\" approaches to service delivery at about the same time PFF was in its developmental stages. The child support system had begun to absorb the lessons learned from earlier fatherhood initiatives (such as the Parents' Fair Share project and the Responsible Fatherhood Demonstration). By the time PFF was operational, some may have viewed it as less pioneering than when it was conceived several years earlier. In addition, the number of young fathers who had not established paternity for their children decreased in the mid- to late-1990s as a result of the success of in-hospital paternity establishment initiatives across the country that established paternity at the time of a child's birth.\",\n \"The pool of young fathers without paternity established for their children had diminished in the PFF sites by the time the projects were implemented. HHS also sponsored two other evaluations of the PFF demonstration projects. Both of the evaluations were conducted by the Urban Institute. One of the Urban Institute reports includes case studies of selected fathers and their families, and the other report provides an analysis of economic and child support outcomes. A process and outcome evaluation was conducted by interviewing all service providers (including child support enforcement, community-based organizations, and partner agencies) and analyzing client data matched with administrative wage data before and after the PFF program. This evaluation did not have a control group and, thus, did not seek to measure program impacts. According to the Urban Institute report, employment rates for participants before and after the program generally were low and unchanged. (About 58% of PFF participants were employed 6 months before the demonstration and 59% of PFF participants were employed 6-12 months after enrollment in the demonstration.) Although quarterly earnings of PFF participants increased after enrollment in the demonstration, at the end of 12 months, participants generally had poverty-level incomes.\",\n \"In contrast, the report indicated that there was a substantial increase in child support orders. At enrollment, about 14% of PFF participants had child support orders, whereas two years after enrollment, 35% of PFF participants had child support orders. For those PFF participants who paid child support, the average child support payment was $1,569 for the first year after enrollment and $2,296 for the second year after enrollment. The report also noted that, on average, about five monthly child support payments were made in the first year after enrollment and about seven monthly payments were made in the second year after enrollment. The Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study followed a group of 4,700 children who were born in 20 large U.S. cities between 1998 and 2000. The parents in the 4,700 families in this sample were 3,600 unmarried couples and 1,100 married couples. The data were intended to be representative of nonmarital births in each of the 20 cities and also representative of all nonmarital births in U.S. cities with populations over 200,000. Both parents were interviewed at the child's birth and again when the child was age one, two, and five.\",\n \"In addition, in-home assessments of the children and their home environments were performed when the children were ages three and five. The parent interviews provided information on attitudes, relationships, parenting behavior, demographic characteristics, health (mental and physical), economic and employment status, neighborhood characteristics, and public welfare program participation. The in-home interview collected information on children's cognitive and emotional development, health, and home environment. The study was expected to provide previously unavailable information on questions such as the following: What are the conditions and capabilities of new unwed parents, especially fathers? How many of these men hold steady jobs? How many want to be involved in raising their children? What is the nature of the relationship between unwed parents? How many couples are involved in stable, long-term relationships? How many expect to marry? How many experience high levels of conflict or domestic violence? What factors push new unwed parents together? What factors pull them apart? How do public policies affect parents' behaviors and living arrangements? What are the long-term consequences for parents, children, and society of new welfare regulations, stronger paternity establishment, and stricter child support enforcement? What roles do child care and health care policies play?\",\n \"How do these policies play out in different labor market environments? A 2007 report that examined data pertaining to the surveyed children at age five found that 16% of participant mothers were married to the father at the time of the five-year interview. Despite not marrying, about 40% of the parents were still romantically involved at the five-year interview. In cases where the couples were no longer romantically involved, 43% of the fathers had seen their children in the month previous to the interview. According to the report: Fatherhood programs, such as education, training, support services, and content addressing issues of shared parenting, may also be appropriate for many new unmarried fathers. Engaging parents in responsible fatherhood programs (and weaving these programs into marriage promotion curriculums) early in their child's life may also help new fathers develop important parenting skills crucial to their child's healthy development. These programs may help fathers establish and maintain positive connections with their child and encourage their active participation in raising their child. A nine-year follow-up study—Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing in Middle Childhood—was funded via a $17 million grant from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)\",\n \"of HHS.\",\n \"The purpose of this project was to combine the core telephone surveys, in-home study, and teacher surveys into one larger project. Data collection began in 2007 and continued through the spring of 2010. Short summaries, based on data from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study, have been prepared since that time to highlight recent research findings and suggest policy implications on issues related to child well-being and the social and economic circumstances faced by unwed parents. To further the national child support program's mission and goals, the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) operates a number of competitive grant programs that provide federal funds for research and demonstration programs and special projects of regional and national significance for operating state child support programs. These programs and projects are funded through OSCE's grant-making or waiver authority under Section 1115 of the Social Security Act. In FY1999, OCSE provided $2.0 million for Responsible Fatherhood demonstration programs. The programs operated in eight states from October 1998 through December 2000. The following eight states received Section 1115 grants or waivers from OCSE/ACF to implement and test responsible fatherhood programs: California, Colorado, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Hampshire, Washington, and\",\n \"Wisconsin.\",\n \"These projects attempted to improve the employment and earnings of underemployed and unemployed noncustodial parents, and to motivate them to become more financially and emotionally involved in the lives of their children. Although the projects shared common goals, they varied with respect to service components and service delivery. OCSE also provided about $500,000 for an evaluation of the demonstration projects.\",\n \"An outcome report on the programs found that (1) low-income noncustodial fathers are a difficult population to recruit and serve; (2) many of the participants found jobs with the programs' help, but they were low-paying jobs and relatively few of the participants were able to increase earnings enough to meet their financial needs and those of their children; (3) problems with the noncustodial father's access to his children were hard to define and resolve, and mediation should be used more extensively; (4) child support guidelines result in orders for low-income noncustodial parents that are unrealistically high; (5) CSE agencies should collaborate with fatherhood programs and pursue routine enforcement activities, as well as adopt policies and incentives that are responsive to low-income fathers; and (6) criminal history was the norm rather than the exception among the program participants, many participants faced ongoing alcohol and substance abuse problems, many did not have reliable transportation, and many lacked a court-ordered visitation arrangement. The outcome report also found that employment rates and earnings increased significantly, especially for noncustodial parents who were previously unemployed. In addition, child support compliance rates increased significantly, especially for those who had not been paying previously.\",\n \"Moreover, the report found that 27% of the fathers reported seeing their children more often after completion of the program. In FY2012, OCSE established the National Child Support Noncustodial Parent Employment Demonstration (CSPED). The purpose of the demonstration was to increase the reliable payment of child support by noncustodial parents who were willing but unable to pay, and to test the efficacy of CSE agency-led employment strategies. Consequently, OCSE required CSPED grantees to be child support agencies, serving as fiscal agents for the grants and managing day-to-day operations. Eight state CSE programs were selected through a competitive grant process to participate in the five-year demonstration from October 2012 to September 2017. The eight states were California, Colorado, Iowa, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin. The first year was a planning year. In October 2013, sites began enrollment and random assignment, which ran through September 2016. During the final year, grantees were expected to continue to serve noncustodial parents as the demonstration wound down. Each grantee was to receive $775,000 in Section 1115 demonstration funds over five years. Once Federal Financial Participation (FFP) was added, the total amount of funding available to each grantee over five\",\n \"years was $2.3 million.\",\n \"Under the demonstration, each grantee attempted to recruit 1,500 eligible noncustodial parents into CSPED. Half of the enrollees were randomly assigned to receive CSPED services; half were assigned to a control group and did not receive the extra services. Each site was required to offer four core services: enhanced child support services, employment assistance, parenting education delivered in a peer support format, and case management. The CSE agency partnered with community service providers for employment and parenting services; case management could be provided by child support or a partner agency. Grantees were also required to work with domestic violence consultants to develop a domestic violence plan. While OCSE provided grantees with guidance on design features and core services, it allowed the grantees to align their efforts with preexisting policies, procedures, and the local social service context. The Institute for Research on Poverty at the University of Wisconsin and Mathematica Policy Research are conducting the evaluation of CSPED.\",\n \"According to the initial implementation report, among the early lessons learned was the need to (1) deploy child support workers who support CSPED's goals to identify and recruit participants; (2) develop services that take into account the challenges faced by the target population; (3) design services to promote sustained participant engagement; and (4) invest in strong partnerships and communication systems. According to the evaluators, a final implementation report will examine the full implementation period and provide a more comprehensive assessment of the types of services participants received. It is also expected to examine CSPED's impacts on participants' outcomes and include a benefit-cost analysis. An HHS-sponsored evaluation of responsible fatherhood programs, called the National Evaluation of the Responsible Fatherhood, Marriage, and Family Strengthening Grants for Incarcerated and Reentering Fathers and Their Partners (MFS-IP), began in 2006. MFS-IP grantees included government (state, local, and tribal) and private (community- and faith-based) organizations. With a funding level of up to $500,000 per year for five years, the programs implemented under the MFS-IP priority area were designed to promote and sustain healthy marriages and strengthen families affected by incarceration.\",\n \"Thirteen grantees in 12 different states received five-year grants from the OFA to implement multiple activities to support and sustain marriages and families of fathers during and after incarceration. Grantees may also provide support for reentering the family and community from prison, parenting support including visitation during incarceration, and education and employment services during and after incarceration. To evaluate the overall effectiveness of the 13 MFS-IP grantees, the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) awarded a contract to RTI International to conduct an implementation evaluation as well as a multisite, longitudinal, impact evaluation of selected grantees. The evaluation was a multiyear (quasiexperimental) study that was conducted from 2006 through 2014. According to an HHS Research Brief: The implementation experiences of the MFS-IP grantees can inform future efforts to build healthy relationship skills among families affected by incarceration. While incarcerated, many individuals are interested in improving themselves and their relationships with their partners, children, and other family members. Although not all incarcerated persons are married or in intimate relationships, healthy relationship skills broadly apply to many types of interpersonal relationships.\",\n \"As observed by several grantees, relationships such as parent-child, correctional officer-inmate, inmate-inmate, and employer-employee could be improved by healthy relationship skills training. The impact study component of the MFS-IP evaluation, concluding in 2015, will determine the effectiveness of relationship education and other MFS-IP program components in strengthening relationship quality and stability and facilitating successful community reentry. Research suggests that healthy relationships contribute to reentry success, yet little is known about how to improve relationship quality for couples affected by incarceration. Relationship education that builds healthy relationship skills could play an important role in relationship quality throughout incarceration and during the critical reentry period. Even for lengthy periods of incarceration, communication and conflict resolution skills could result in more supportive relationships, improved co-parenting, and increased familial contact—all of which could be beneficial upon the individual's eventual release. HHS has invested resources in multiple federal evaluations to document successes, challenges, and lessons from fatherhood programs in order to provide useful information to program operators and policymakers. The 2011 application announcement for RF program grants required that grantees operate comprehensive fatherhood programs that integrate robust economic stability services, healthy marriage activities, and activities designed to foster responsible parenting.\",\n \"It also indicated that, as a condition of acceptance of an RF grant, grantees would be required to participate fully in HHS-sponsored evaluations. According to HHS, in September 2011 60 RF grants were awarded for three years. These grants were initially scheduled to run through September 2014, but were extended for an additional year in the form of noncompetitive continuations awards. According to a 2012 report that provides a review of the fatherhood program and policy arena: At the state and local level, although awareness of the importance of evaluation appears to be high, it does not appear that programs have reached the point of being able to conduct scientifically rigorous evaluations. Moving forward, the field will need to ensure that agencies are equipped with the proper knowledge and tools for conducting meaningful evaluations, including appropriate measures to provide an accurate representation of program outcomes and impacts. In the last several years there has been a spate of fatherhood research and evaluations, some of which are using an experimental design model.\",\n \"The outcomes and findings are expected to provide necessary information on the types of programs and strategies that are most effective in helping noncustodial parents, particularly fathers, better connect with their children. The 2015 round of RF grants (mentioned earlier) are subject to the continued requirement that grantees participate fully in HHS-sponsored evaluations. These grants, which are scheduled to run through FY2020, have also included a new emphasis on key short- and long-term outcomes intended to enhance evaluation and strengthen program design. According to the OFA, it is expected that the fatherhood programs funded by these grants (and their evaluations) will increase the understanding of policymakers and others of what works and why. In the late 1990s, when interest in federally funding responsible fatherhood programs first gained national attention, some were concerned that an emphasis on the importance of fathers could lead to unintended consequences for single mothers if too much emphasis was placed on the value of two-parent homes, or on the ability of noncustodial spouses to challenge child custody, child support, and visitation arrangements.\",\n \"Although that underlying tension has not disappeared completely, then and now, it was thought that (in order to be productive and nondivisive) the policy debate on responsible fatherhood initiatives had to be based on the view that the welfare of fathers, mothers, and children are intertwined and interdependent. In addition, over the past 20 years, the results of the research and evaluations discussed earlier in this report have shed additional light on how certain factors, such as economic opportunity, affect the ability of fathers to be involved in the lives of their children. As a result of these and other factors, the policy debate on responsible fatherhood now recognizes that addressing the issues that directly affect the noncustodial parent could potentially strengthen the custodial parent's household as well. Many issues are associated with the federal government's support of fatherhood initiatives. A few examples are: Is the goal of federal policy to promote and support the involvement of fathers in their children's lives regardless of the father's relationship with the children's mother? What if the parent has children with more than one person? What is the federal policy with regard to incarcerated parents and parents recently released\",\n \"from prison?\",\n \"Does the federal government support counseling, education, and supervised visitation for abusive parents so that they can reconnect with their children? The discussion below examines three issues that will likely impact the success of congressional fatherhood initiatives. The first deals with the role of the CSE agency in responsible fatherhood programs. Some analysts contend that since many noncustodial parents have a negative view of and/or contentious relationship with the CSE program, the use of the CSE program to recruit fathers does not bode well for the success of such programs. Currently, most federally funded responsible fatherhood programs are provided through competitive grants to community organizations and other groups that have experience in working with low-income men. The second issue examines father involvement in the context of the father's relationship with the child's mother. This issue is based on the premise that formal marital relationships last longer and are more conducive to long-term interaction between fathers and children than other types of relationships. The third issue examines the importance of employment programs and job supports for noncustodial parents.\",\n \"This issue acknowledges that economic pressures and instability, often because of unemployment or low wages, frequently contribute to nonpayment of child support and dysfunctional relationships. During the period from FY1978 to FY2016, child support payments collected by the CSE agencies increased from $1 billion to $28.8 billion. Moreover, the program has made significant improvements in other program measures as well, such as the number of parents located, paternities established, and child support orders established. Advocates of the CSE program say that this dramatic program performance is aside from the indirect and intangible benefits of the program, such as increased personal responsibility and welfare cost-avoidance. Critics of the CSE program contend that even with an unprecedented array of \\\"big brother\\\" enforcement tools such as license (professional, driver's, recreational) and passport revocation; seizure of banking accounts, retirement funds, and lottery winnings; and automatic income withholding from pay checks, the program still collects only 20% of child support obligations for which it has responsibility and collects payments for only 60% of its caseload. Information obtained from both custodial and noncustodial parents through various surveys and studies consistently tells the same story.\",\n \"Noncustodial parents generally indicate that they (1) want more access to their children, (2) need to learn more relationship skills so they can coparent their children, and (3) need help finding and maintaining employment. In addition, many noncustodial parents maintain that the CSE system is dismissive of their financial condition and continues to pursue child support payments (current support as well as arrearages) even when it knows that many of them can barely support themselves. Although the CSE program has historically been the policy answer to the challenge of father absence, because its focus until recently was exclusively on financial support, it has had the practical effect of alienating many low-income noncustodial parents who are unable to meet their child support obligations. Some policy analysts maintain that noncustodial parents are, in effect, devalued when their role in their children's lives is based solely on their cash contributions. Many observers maintain that noncustodial parents and the CSE program have differences that may be irreconcilable.\",\n \"In light of this challenge, they argue that the most that should be expected is for the noncustodial parent to clearly understand the purposes of the CSE program, the requirements imposed on the custodial parent, and the noncustodial parents' rights to have their child support payments modified if they incur a financial change in circumstances. If the CSE program continues to be one of the ways that noncustodial parents are connected with fatherhood programs, many observers contend that the CSE program must become more effective in gaining the cooperation and trust of noncustodial parents. In contrast, others assert that, more than any other agency of state government, the CSE program has the responsibility and is in the position to reach out to noncustodial parents who need supportive services. They point out that CSE agencies are already involved in forging relationships with these parents through partnerships with community-based organizations. They also note that CSE agencies provide a natural link to coordinate with TANF agencies to help families achieve self-sufficiency. The first finding included in the 1996 welfare reform law is that marriage is the foundation of a successful society.\",\n \"The second finding is that marriage is an essential institution of a successful society that promotes the interests of children. However, some child welfare advocates argue that marriage is not necessarily the best alternative for all women and their children. It is generally agreed that one-parent homes are a better alternative for children than living with an abusive parent. Many observers caution that government must be careful about supporting programs that provide cash incentives to induce people to marry or that coerce people into marrying. They note the problems associated with marriages between youths and unions that are formed in response to pregnancy. Others respond that many long-lasting marriages were based on financial alliances (e.g., to increase economic status, family wealth, status in the community, etc.). They also point out that most government programs are sensitive to the issues of domestic violence and include supports to prevent or end such actions. Many young children live with parents who are not married but who are cohabiting. Noting this, some analysts argue that policies designed to promote certain types of family structures (e.g., nuclear families) at the expense of others may undermine nontraditional family relationships.\",\n \"They contend that more emphasis should be placed on trying to meet the needs of these fragile families to enable them to stay together for longer periods of time. From their perspective, a single-focus policy, no matter whether it aims to support traditional family relationships or fragile families, can place children in less desirable situations. For instance, promoting the marriage of biological parents could result in supporting situations where a biological parent is absent if all children in the household are not all from the same union. In response, some promarriage analysts point out that about 65% of children born to cohabiting parents will see their parents separate before they reach age 12, compared to about 24% of those born to married parents. In light of these trends, they note that even with supports it is unlikely that fragile families (unmarried couples) will remain together as long as married families. Some observers contend that skills such as how to choose a good partner and how to keep a relationship going should be part of responsible fatherhood programs.\",\n \"They argue that the promotion of marriage should be incorporated into fatherhood programs if the goal is lifetime involvement of fathers in the lives of their children. Another related concern raised by some analysis is that fatherhood initiatives might sometimes be incompatible with initiatives that encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families, and with initiatives that promote marriage. As a result, such observers argue that the focus of the program should be the participation of fathers in their children's lives, regardless of the marital status of the parents. As part of the 1996 welfare reform effort, a fourth purpose of the TANF block grant was included, to \\\"encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families.\\\" At that time, there was some discussion about whether the fourth purpose means married-couple families or just two parents who are involved in their children's lives, regardless of whether they are married or even living together. In late 1999, the Clinton Administration issued A Guide on Funding for Children and Families through the TANF program, which broadly interpreted two-parent families to mean not only married-couple families, but also never-married, separated, and divorced parents, whether living together or not.\",\n \"Thus, many states classify their fatherhood programs and programs that encourage visitation by noncustodial parents under the rubric of fulfilling the purposes of the TANF program. It is generally agreed that many low-income fathers, like low-income mothers, lack the education and training they need to get jobs that pay enough to sustain them and their families. The 1996 welfare reform law placed work requirements on TANF recipients, mainly custodial mothers. It also required states, as part of their collection tools, to require state child support officials to have the authority to seek a judicial or administrative order that directs any noncustodial parent owing past-due support to a child receiving TANF benefits to pay that child support in accordance with a plan approved by the court or to participate in appropriate work activities.\",\n \"After welfare reform, Representative Nancy Johnson, the chair of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Human Resources during the 106 th Congress, stated, \\\"To take the next step in welfare reform we must find a way to help children by providing them with more than a working mother and sporadic child support.\\\" She noted that many low-income fathers have problems similar to those of mothers on welfare—namely, they are likely to have dropped out of high school, to have little work experience, and to have significant barriers that lessen their ability to find and/or keep a job. She also asserted that in many cases these men are \\\"dead broke\\\" rather than \\\"dead beats,\\\" and that the federal government should help these noncustodial fathers meet both their financial and emotional obligations to their children. As mentioned earlier, \\\"Activities to foster economic stability\\\" are a part of the purpose of responsible fatherhood programs. Federal law lists some examples of activities that foster economic stability, namely job search, job training, subsidized employment, job retention, job enhancement, and education including career-advancing education; coordination with existing employment services; and referrals to local employment training initiatives.\",\n \"In addition, as was noted in the earlier section of this report on evaluations, many of the responsible fatherhood evaluations that included an impact analysis indicated that programs that included work-oriented strategies showed a significant increase in child support payments made by the participants. According to a 2015 report that summarizes information gained from in-depth interviews with participants of responsible fatherhood programs: While fathers generally provided positive feedback about the job readiness and job search skills they obtained through the RF programs, the employment challenges these men typically face are significant. Most were still struggling to find steady employment, earn enough to make ends meet, and meet their child support obligations. Although these fathers faced a myriad of barriers to gaining and maintaining employment, the most commonly cited obstacle was fathers' past incarceration and criminal records. These findings suggest that the economic stability component of RF programs may need to be strengthened to improve the chances that fathers will be successful at securing good jobs with steady and adequate wages. Any employment approach should include assistance in expunging or sealing criminal records when possible.\",\n \"As of February 2014, 30 states and the District of Columbia were operating 77 work-oriented programs for noncustodial parents with active CSE agency involvement. Although most of the programs were not statewide, Georgia, Maryland, and North Dakota were identified as operating statewide programs, and many other states were operating programs in multiple counties. OCSE estimated that roughly 30,000 noncustodial parents were served by these programs in 2013. In many of these states, the work-oriented programs discussed in the report were available to all noncustodial parents who are unable to make their child support payments in a timely manner, not just those noncustodial parents who have a child enrolled in the TANF program. Current job training and workforce programs generally are not targeted to noncustodial parents, and only some focus on low-income individuals. Some observers note that while the CSE agency and responsible fatherhood programs are making some inroads, a lot more needs to be done on a much broader scale. They contend that in these times of federal and state budget constraints, the TANF program is an untapped resource. They maintain that states should use TANF and MOE funds to provide work opportunities and work supports\",\n \"for noncustodial parents.\",\n \"In November 2014, a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) was released that proposed revisions to CSE program operations and enforcement procedures. These revisions included a proposal to provide the CSE program with the ability to directly fund job services for noncustodial parents at the regular CSE matching rate (66%). Advocates commented that, given that employment services have been seriously underfunded for many years, allowing states to be reimbursed at an open-ended 66% federal matching rate could make a significant difference for noncustodial parents who are unable to comply with their child support obligations because of unemployment or low wages. Although there are many supporters of the idea of providing CSE federal matching funds for work-oriented programs for noncustodial parents, there was concern among both supporters and opponents of the provision that the Obama Administration may have overstepped its authority (i.e., they say the Administration was legislating through its regulations). When the final rule was issued on December 19, 2016, the job service-related provisions were omitted.\",\n \"In its commentary on the final rule, OCSE explained, This proposed provision received overwhelming support from states, Members of Congress, and the public, but it also was opposed by some Members of Congress who did not think the provision should be included in the final rule. While we appreciate the support the commenters expressed, we think allowing for federal IV-D reimbursement for job services needs further study and would be ripe for implementation at a later time. Therefore, we are not proceeding with finalizing the proposed provisions.... Appendix A. Temporary Extensions of the Healthy Marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grant Program Appendix B. Legislative History of Federally Funded Responsible Federal Fatherhood Programs Beginning with the 106 th Congress and with each subsequent Congress, responsible fatherhood programs have received both presidential and congressional attention. 106 th Congress (1999-2000) Through the FY2001 appropriations process, $3 million was set aside for a nongovernmental national fatherhood organization named the National Fatherhood Initiative ( P.L. 106-553 ), $500,000 for the National Fatherhood Initiative, and $500,000 for the Institute for Responsible Fatherhood and Family Revitalization ( P.L. 106-554 ).\",\n \"President Clinton's FY2001 budget included $255 million for the first year of a proposed \\\"Fathers Work/Families Win\\\" initiative to help low-income noncustodial parents and low-income working families work and support their children. The \\\"Fathers Work/Families Win\\\" initiative would have been administered by the Department of Labor (DOL). The \\\"Fathers Work\\\" component ($125 million) would have been limited to noncustodial parents (primarily fathers) and the \\\"Families Win\\\" component ($130 million) would have been targeted more generally to low-income families. Neither the House nor the Senate versions of the FY2001 appropriations bill ( H.R. 4577 , 106 th Congress) for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies (LHHS) included funding for the Fathers Work/Families Win proposal. In addition, legislation that included funding for a nationwide responsible fatherhood grants program was twice passed by the House (but not acted on by the Senate). H.R. 3073 , the proposed Fathers Count Act of 1999, and H.R. 4678 , the proposed Child Support Distribution Act of 2000, would have authorized funding ($140 million over two years in H.R. 3073 and $140 million over four years in H.R.\",\n \"4678 ) to establish a program (usually referred to as fatherhood initiatives) to make grants to public or private entities for projects designed to promote marriage, promote successful parenting and the involvement of fathers in the lives of their children, and help fathers improve their economic status by providing job-related services to them. 107 th Congress (2001-2002) From the beginning of his presidency, President George W. Bush indicated his support for responsible fatherhood initiatives. President Bush's FY2002 budget proposed $64 million in 2002 (and $315 million over five years) to strengthen the role of fathers in the lives of families. This initiative would have provided competitive grants to faith-based and community organizations that help unemployed or low-income fathers and their families avoid or leave cash welfare, as well as to programs that promote successful parenting and strengthen marriage. His FY2003 budget proposed $20 million (for FY2003) for competitive grants to community and faith-based organizations for programs that help noncustodial fathers support their families to avoid or leave cash welfare, become more involved in their children's lives, and promote successful parenting and encourage and support healthy marriages and married fatherhood. Several bills ( H.R. 1300 / S.\",\n \"653 , H.R. 1471 , S.\",\n \"685 , S. 940 / H.R. 1990 , H.R. 2893 , H.R. 3625 , H.R. 4090 , S. 2524 , and H.R. 4737 ) that included fatherhood initiatives were introduced, but none were enacted. The purposes of the fatherhood programs in the bills introduced generally were the same: fatherhood programs must be designed to promote marriage through counseling, mentoring, and other activities; promote successful parenting through counseling, providing information about good parenting practices including payment of child support, and other activities; and help noncustodial parents and their families avoid or leave cash welfare by providing work-first services, job training, subsidized employment, career-advancing education, and other activities. However, the structure of the fatherhood programs differed. Although H.R. 4737 , as amended, was passed by the House on May 16, 2002 ( H.Rept. 107-460 , Part 1), and reported favorably in the nature of a substitute by the Senate Finance Committee ( S.Rept. 107-221 ) on July 25, 2002, it was not passed by the full Senate. 108 th Congress (2003-2004) President Bush's FY2004 budget proposed $20 million annually (for FY2004-FY2008) for promotion and support of responsible fatherhood and healthy marriage.\",\n \"The FY2004 budget proposal also would have gradually increased the annual funding of the CSE access and visitation grant program from $10 million annually, to $20 million annually by FY2007. His FY2005 budget proposed $50 million (for FY2005) for 75 competitive grants to faith-based and community organizations, together with Indian tribes and tribal organizations, to encourage and help fathers to support their families, avoid welfare, and improve their ability to manage family business affairs, and to support healthy marriages and married fatherhood. Several bills that included responsible fatherhood provisions ( S. 5 , S. 448 , S. 604 , S. 657 , S. 1443 , and S. 2830 ; H.R. 4 and H.R. 936 ) were introduced, none of which became law. On February 13, 2003, the House passed H.R. 4 , a welfare reauthorization bill that would have provided $20 million per year for each of FY2004-FY2008 for a responsible fatherhood grant program. This bill was essentially identical to H.R. 4737 as passed by the House in 2002. On September 10, 2003, the Senate Finance Committee approved its version of H.R. 4 ( S.Rept.\",\n \"108-162 ), which would have established a $75 million responsible fatherhood program composed of four components for each of FY2004-FY2008: (1) a $20 million grant program for up to 10 eligible states to conduct demonstration programs; (2) a $30 million grant for eligible entities to conduct demonstration programs; (3) $5 million for a nationally recognized nonprofit fatherhood promotion organization to develop and promote a responsible fatherhood media campaign; and (4) a $20 million block grant for states to conduct responsible fatherhood media campaigns. Although H.R. 4 was debated on the Senate floor during the period March 29-April 1, 2004, consideration of the bill was not completed when a motion to limit debate on the bill failed to garner the necessary 60 votes. The Senate did not bring the bill back to the floor before the end of the session. 109 th Congress (2005-2006) President Bush's FY2006 budget proposed $40 million (for FY2006) for a responsible fatherhood competitive grant program. The FY2007 budget proposed $100 million for competitive matching grants to states for marriage promotion. It also included the $150 million for HMP and RF grants that was enacted in the DRA during the prior Congress.\",\n \"Several bills that included responsible fatherhood provisions were introduced. Two of the bills were standalone bills that had been introduced in a previous Congress ( S. 3607 and S. 3803 ) and four were welfare reauthorization bills that included some responsible fatherhood provisions ( H.R. 240 / S. 105 , S. 6 , and S. 667 ). The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 ( S. 1932 ; DRA), which also included a provision that provided competitive grants for responsible fatherhood activities, was enacted into law. Among other things, the DRA reauthorized the TANF block grant at $16.5 billion annually through FY2010 and included a provision that provided $150 million in funding for the new HMP and RF competitive grants programs for each of the fiscal years, FY2006 through FY2010. Of the $150 million, up to $50 million per year in grants was to be provided to states, territories, Indian tribes and tribal organizations, and public and nonprofit community organizations, including religious organizations, for responsible fatherhood initiatives.\",\n \"Under the DRA, RF grant funds could be spent on activities to promote responsible fatherhood through (1) marriage promotion (through counseling, mentoring, disseminating information about the advantages of marriage and two-parent involvement for children, etc.), (2) parenting activities (through counseling, mentoring, mediation, disseminating information about good parenting practices, etc.), (3) fostering economic stability of fathers (through work first services, job search, job training, subsidized employment, education, etc.), or (4) contracting with a nationally recognized nonprofit fatherhood promotion organization to develop, promote, or distribute a media campaign to encourage the appropriate involvement of parents in the lives of their children, focusing particularly on responsible fatherhood; and/or to develop a national clearinghouse to help states and communities in their efforts to promote and support marriage and responsible fatherhood. 110 th Congress (2007-2008) President Bush's FY2008 and FY2009 budget included the $150 million for HMP and RF programs that was included in the DRA as part of welfare reauthorization. As noted, pursuant to the DRA, $50 million was specifically allocated for responsible fatherhood programs for each of FY2006-FY2010. Two bills that included responsible fatherhood provisions were introduced, S. 1626 , and a House companion bill, H.R. 3395 . Among\",\n \"other things, S.\",\n \"1626 / H.R. 3395 , would have increased funding for the RF grants (authorized by the DRA) to $100 million per year for each of FY2008-FY2010. (The total for the HMP and RF grants would have increased from $150 million to $200 million per year for each of FY2008-FY2010.) The bills were not reported out of committee. 111 th Congress (2009-2010) The Obama Administration's FY2011 budget included a new proposal to redirect funds from the HMP and RF Grant Programs to the proposed $500 million Fatherhood, Marriage, and Families Innovation Fund. The proposed Fatherhood, Marriage, and Families Innovation Fund would have been available for one year (FY2011) to provide three-year competitive grants to states. According to one budget document, \\\"The Fatherhood, Marriage, and Families Innovation Fund will serve as a catalyst for innovative service models that integrate a variety of service streams.\",\n \"The results from these demonstrations could form the basis for possible future TANF and CSE program changes at the federal or state level based on a multidimensional picture of the dynamics of family functioning and material self-sufficiency and child well-being.\\\" The Fatherhood, Marriage, and Families Innovation Fund proposal was not acted on by either the House or the Senate. Three bills that included responsible fatherhood provisions were introduced, all three of which had been introduced in a previous Congress. None of the bills received congressional action. The first two bills were companion proposals that were almost identical to bills that were introduced in the 110 th Congress. The Senate proposal, S. 1309 , was referred to as the Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act of 2009. The House proposal, H.R. 2979 , was referred to as the Julia Carson Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act of 2009.\",\n \"The bills would have (1) increased funding for RF grant programs from $50 million per year to $100 million per year (for each of FY2008-FY2010); (2) expanded procedures to address domestic violence; (3) expanded activities promoting responsible fatherhood; (4) provided grants to healthy family partnerships for domestic violence prevention, for services for families and individuals affected by domestic violence, and for developing and implementing best practices to prevent domestic violence; and (5) eliminated the separate TANF work participation rate for two-parent families. The bills would have also made several changes to the CSE program and addressed the issue of employment for noncustodial and disadvantaged parents. The HHS Secretary would have been directed to award grants to states for an employment demonstration project involving a court- or state child support agency-supervised program for noncustodial parents so they can pay child support obligations. In addition, the Secretary of Labor would have been required to award grants for transitional jobs programs and for public-private career pathways partnerships to help disadvantaged parents obtain employment. The third proposal, S. 939 , was the Protecting Adoption and Promoting Responsible Fatherhood Act of 2009.\",\n \"The bill would have required the HHS Secretary to establish an automated National Putative Father Registry. Among other things, S. 939 would have directed the Secretary to establish a nationwide responsible fatherhood and putative father registry educational campaign designed to (1) inform men about the National Putative Father Registry, the advantages of registering with a State Putative Father Registry, and the rights and responsibilities of putative fathers; and (2) inform women about the National Registry and its potential role in a pending or planned adoption or a termination of a putative father's rights. In addition, it would have required each state that desired to receive such a grant to develop and implement a state plan for promoting responsible fatherhood and permanency for children. The Claims Resolution Act of 2010, enacted December 8, 2010 ( P.L. 111-291 ), extended the RF grant program through FY2011 and its funding was increased from $50 million to $75 million. Funding for the HMP grants was reduced to $75 million. 112 th Congress (2011-2012) The Obama Administration's FY2012 and FY2013 budget proposed continued funding of $150 million to support HMP and RF grant programs for FY2012.\",\n \"This budget proposal also would have made changes to the purpose clause of the CSE program to include access and visitation and other fatherhood involvement activities. These activities would have become core parts of the CSE program and thereby states would have been reimbursed by the federal government for expenditures on such activities at an open-ended 66% matching rate. The budget proposal would have required states to establish access and visitation responsibilities in all initial child support orders. It would have encouraged states to undertake activities that support access and visitation, implementing domestic violence safeguards as a critical component of this new state responsibility. (The estimated cost of the proposal was $570 million over 10 years.) The Julia Carson Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act of 2011, was reintroduced as H.R. 2193 . Similar to the bill introduced in the 111 th Congress, H.R. 2193 , among other things, would have reauthorized and provided $75 million per year for the RF grant program for each of the years FY2011 through FY2015. This measure did not receive congressional action.\",\n \"Instead, the programs were extended temporarily at their FY2012 levels ($150 million per year on a pro rata basis, divided equally between the two programs), through three laws: P.L. 112-78 , the Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011 (enacted December 23, 2011), provided funding for the HMP and RF grant programs through February 29, 2012. P.L. 112-96 , the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (enacted February 22, 2012), provided funding for the HMP and RF grant programs through September 30, 2012. P.L. 112-175 (the government-wide continuing resolution enacted on September 28, 2012) extended funding for the HMP and RF grant programs through March 2013 (i.e., the first six months of FY2013). 113 th Congress (2013-2014) The Obama Administration's FY2014 and FY2015 budgets proposed continued funding of $150 million to support HMP and RF grant programs each of those fiscal years. These funds would have been split equally among HMP and RF activities. These budget proposals were very similar to the FY2012 and FY2013 proposals with regard to fatherhood programs.\",\n \"(However, the FY2013 budget would have provided $580 million over 10 years to support the increased access and visitation services while the FY2014 and FY2015 budgets would have provided $448 million over 10 years for such services.) During the 113 th Congress, the HMP and RF grant programs were extended and funded thorough a number of appropriations acts. All of these appropriations acts provided $150 million per year (either through a full year of funding or on an annualized basis), divided equally between the programs. For FY2013, a full-year continuing resolution ( P.L. 113-6 , enacted on March 26, 2013) extended funding for the HMP and RF grant programs through September 30, 2013. For FY2014, the programs were initially extended and funded through an interim continuing resolution ( P.L. 113-46 , enacted on October 17, 2013), and subsequently provided full-year appropriations through September 30, 2014 ( P.L. 113-76 , enacted on January 17, 2014). For FY2015, the programs were initially extended and funded through three continuing appropriations acts: (1) P.L. 113-164 , enacted on September 19, 2014; (2) P.L. 113-202 , enacted on December 12, 2014; and (3) P.L. 113-203 , enacted on December 13, 2014).\",\n \"Later in the fiscal year, full-year appropriations were provided through September 30, 2015 ( P.L. 113-235 , enacted on December 16, 2014). Other pieces of legislation affecting the HMP and RF programs were introduced during the 113 th Congress, though none received congressional action. H.R. 2359 , the Julia Carson Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act of 2013, was reintroduced. Similar to the bill ( H.R. 2193 ) introduced in the 112 th Congress, H.R. 2359 , among other things, would have reauthorized and provided $75 million per year for RF programs for each of the years FY2014 through FY2018. 114 th Congress (2015-2016) The Obama Administration's FY2016 and FY2017 budgets proposed continuing funding of $150 million to support HMP and RF grant programs for each of those fiscal years. These funds would have been split equally among Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood activities. These budget requests also continued to propose $448 million over 10 years to support increased access and visitation services and integrating those services into the core CSE program. The HMP and RF programs were extended and funded through a number of appropriations acts.\",\n \"All of these appropriations acts provided $150 million per year (either through a full year of funding or on an annualized basis), divided equally between the programs. For FY2016, the programs were initially funded through three interim continuing resolutions: (1) P.L. 114-53 , enacted September 30, 2015; (2) P.L. 114-96 , enacted December 11, 2015; and (3) P.L. 114-100 , enacted December 16, 2015. Full-year funding for FY2016 was provided via P.L. 114-113 (enacted December 18, 2015). For FY2017, the programs did not receive full-year appropriations during the 114 th Congress, and instead were funded through two continuing resolutions: (1) P.L. 114-223 , enacted on September 29, 2016; and (2) P.L. 114-254 , enacted on December 10, 2017. The continuing appropriations in P.L. 114-254 were scheduled to expire on April 28, 2017. Other pieces of legislation affecting the Healthy Marriages and Responsible Fatherhood programs were introduced during the 114 th Congress, though none received congressional action. H.R. 3005 , the Julia Carson Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act of 2015, was reintroduced. Similar to the bill ( H.R. 2359 ) introduced in the 113 th Congress, H.R.\",\n \"3005 , among other things, would have reauthorized and provided $75 million per year for responsible fatherhood programs for each of five fiscal years (FY2016 through FY2020). Also during the 114 th Congress, two pieces of legislation were introduced that specify that HHS may not take any action to finalize, implement, enforce, or otherwise give effect to the proposed rule entitled \\\"Flexibility, Efficiency, and Modernization in Child Support Enforcement Programs\\\" or any proposal set forth in the proposed rule ( S. 1525 and H.R. 2688 ). Neither of those pieces of legislation received congressional action. (The final rule was issued on December 19, 2016.) 115 th Congress (2017-2018) The Trump Administration's FY2018 budget proposed that funding for the HMP and RF grants be continued through FY2018 at current law levels ($75 million for each program). The HMP and RF grant programs were temporarily extended by two appropriations laws. The first, enacted on April 29, 2017, extended the program through May 5, 2017 ( P.L. 115-30 ). The second, enacted on May 5, 2017, extended the program for a comparatively longer time period, through September 30, 2018 ( P.L. 115-31 ).\",\n \"The Julia Carson Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act of 2017 ( H.R. 3465 ) was reintroduced, which would, among other things, reauthorize the program through FY2023. No legislative action on that proposal has occurred.\"\n]","isConversational":false}}},{"rowIdx":16992,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"string","value":"train_16992"},"question":{"kind":"string","value":"Write a detailed summary of the following government report."},"answer":{"kind":"string","value":"On June 28, 2009, the Honduran military detained President Manuel Zelaya and flew him to exile in Costa Rica, ending 27 years of uninterrupted democratic, constitutional governance. Honduran governmental institutions had become increasingly polarized in the preceding months as a result of Zelaya's intention to hold a non-binding referendum and eventually amend the constitution. After the ouster, the Honduran Supreme Court asserted that an arrest warrant had been issued for Zelaya as a result of his noncompliance with judicial decisions that had declared the non-binding referendum unconstitutional. However, the military's actions halted the judicial process before a trial could be held. The Honduran National Congress then adopted a resolution to replace Zelaya with the President of Congress, Roberto Micheletti. Micheletti insisted that he took power through a \"constitutional succession\" throughout the seven months between Zelaya's forced removal and the inauguration of new President Porfirio \"Pepe\" Lobo Sosa. He also maintained tight control of Honduran society, severely restricting political activity that opposed his government. President Lobo, who won a November 2009 election that had been scheduled prior to the ouster, took office on January 27, 2010. Some Hondurans declared the election illegitimate, however, as a result of the conditions in the country at the time it was held. The political crisis has left Lobo with a number of challenges, including considerable domestic political polarization, a lack of international recognition, and a faltering economy. The United States and the rest of the international community universally condemned Zelaya's ouster. They leveled a series of diplomatic and economic sanctions against the Micheletti government and pushed for a negotiated agreement to end the crisis. Although an accord was signed roughly one month before the November 2009 election, it quickly fell apart. The unity of the international community crumbled along with the agreement, as some countries—such as the United States—agreed to recognize the results of the election despite Zelaya never being restored to office, while others refused to do so. Members demonstrated considerable interest in the Honduran political crisis during the first session of the 111th Congress. A number of resolutions were introduced regarding the situation. On July 8, 2009, H.Res. 619 (Mack) and H.Res. 620 (Serrano) were introduced in the House. H.Res. 619 condemned Zelaya for his \"unconstitutional and illegal\" actions and called for a peaceful resolution. H.Res. 620 called upon the Micheletti government to end its \"illegal seizure of power.\" On July 10, 2009, H.Res. 630 (Delahunt) was introduced in the House. It condemned the \"coup d'état\" in Honduras; refused to recognize the Micheletti government; urged the Obama Administration to suspend non-humanitarian aid; and called for international observation of the November 2009 elections. On September 17, 2009, H.Res. 749 (Ros-Lehtinen) was introduced in the House. It called for the Secretary of State to work with Honduran authorities to ensure free and fair elections and for President Obama to recognize the November elections \"as an important step in the consolidation of democracy and rule of law in Honduras.\" This report examines the political crisis in Honduras, with specific focus on the events between June 2009 and January 2010. It concludes with the inauguration of President Lobo. For more information on the current political situation in Honduras, see CRS Report RL34027, Honduran-U.S. Relations."},"documents":{"kind":"list like","value":["Figure 1. Map of HondurasSource: Map Resources. Adapted by CRS Graphics. Prior to the military-imposed exile of President Manuel Zelaya, Honduras, a Central American nation of 7.4 million people, enjoyed 27 years of uninterrupted elected civilian democratic rule. The Liberal (PL) and National (PN) parties have been Honduras' two dominant political parties since the military relinquished control of the country in 1982. Both are considered to be ideologically center-right, and there appear to be few major differences between the two. Manuel Zelaya of the PL was elected president in November 2005, narrowly defeating his PN rival, Porfirio Lobo Sosa. Zelaya—a wealthy landowner with considerable investments in the timber and cattle industries—was generally regarded as a moderate when he was inaugurated to a four-year term in January 2006. As his term progressed, however, Zelaya advanced a number of populist policies, including free school enrollment, an increase in teachers' pay, and a 60% increase in the minimum wage. Zelaya also forged closer relations with Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, joining PetroCaribe and the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA) in 2008.","Although Zelaya's populist policies allowed him to maintain considerable support among certain sectors of Honduran society, they alienated many within the traditional economic and political elite. Likewise, his Administration's inability to achieve concrete results on a number of issues of importance—such as poverty and violent crime—significantly weakened his public standing. Opinion polls indicated that Zelaya's approval rating had fallen to about 30% prior to his ouster. In March 2009, President Zelaya issued an executive decree introducing a process that eventually could have led to changes to the Honduran constitution. The decree called on the National Statistics Institute (INE) to hold a popular referendum on June 28, 2009, to determine if the country should include a fourth ballot box during the general elections in November 2009. The fourth ballot would consult Hondurans about whether the country should convoke a national constituent assembly to approve a new constitution. In May 2009, Zelaya repealed the March decree and issued a new decree—not published until June 25, 2009—that made the referendum non-binding and removed the reference to a new constitution.","The non-binding referendum would have asked Hondurans, \"Do you agree that in the general elections of 2009, a fourth ballot box should be installed in which the people decide on the convocation of a National Constituent Assembly?\" Zelaya argued that the constitution—drafted in 1982—should be amended to reflect the \"substantial and significant changes\" that have taken place in Honduran society in recent years. The proposal was immediately criticized by a number of officials. President of Congress Roberto Micheletti expressed ardent opposition, the 2009 presidential nominees of the PL and the PN—both of whom later indicated that they were open to a constitutional assembly —accused Zelaya of trying to perpetuate himself in power, the Attorney General's office accused Zelaya of violating the constitution, and the Honduran judiciary declared Zelaya's proposal unconstitutional. Nonetheless, Zelaya pushed forward, maintaining that the law of citizen participation approved shortly after he took office allowed him to consult the people of Honduras in a non-binding poll. Zelaya also noted that the referendum did not propose specific constitutional changes, and any changes arising from an eventual assembly would take place after he left office.","President Zelaya's refusal to accept the court rulings, however, sparked rumors that he was planning an institutional coup that would dissolve Congress and immediately call a constitutional assembly. The political situation in the country deteriorated considerably the week before the non-binding referendum was to be held as Honduran society and the country's governmental institutions became increasingly polarized. On June 23, 2009, the National Congress created an additional legal obstacle to the referendum, passing a law preventing referenda from occurring 180 days before or after general elections. A day later, Zelaya ordered the resignations of Honduran Defense Minister Edmundo Orellana Mercado and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Romeo Vasquez Velasquez after they informed him that the Honduran military would not provide logistical support for the non-binding referendum since the courts had ruled it unconstitutional. The removal of Orellana and Vasquez prompted the resignation of 36 other Honduran military commanders, including the heads of the army, navy, and air force. On June 25, 2009, the Supreme Court ordered that the Defense Minister and Armed Forces Chief should be restored to their positions, and the National Congress began debate on the possibility of censuring Zelaya.","In response, Zelaya declared that the legislature and courts were working with the country's oligarchy to carry out a technical coup. By the day the non-binding referendum was to be held, Honduras was extremely divided. The legislature, the judiciary, the Attorney General, the Human Rights Ombudsman, the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, evangelical groups, business associations, and four of the five political parties represented in the National Congress—including Zelaya's own PL—opposed the referendum. Nearly all of these political and social actors called on the people of Honduras to boycott the vote. Proponents of the referendum—who saw it as a mechanism to overcome political and economic exclusion—included unions, peasants, women's groups, groups of ethnic minorities, and the small leftist Democratic Unification party (DU). On June 28, 2009, shortly before the polls were to open for the non-binding referendum, the Honduran military surrounded the presidential residence, arrested President Zelaya, and flew him to exile in Costa Rica. The military also confiscated all referendum materials from polling places across the country.","In the aftermath of the ouster, the Honduran Supreme Court produced documents asserting that an arrest warrant for President Zelaya had been issued in secrecy on June 26, 2009, as a result of the executive branch's noncompliance with judicial rulings that had declared the non-binding referendum unconstitutional. Zelaya was charged with crimes against the form of government, treason, abuse of authority, and usurpation of functions for calling a referendum without the approval of the National Congress and intending to use the INE to supervise the vote rather than the Supreme Electoral Tribunal. The judicial process was halted before a trial could be held, however, as a result of the Honduran military's actions. The Honduran National Congress ratified the ouster soon after the military forced Zelaya from the country. The Congress accepted a letter of resignation allegedly signed by the exiled president, which Zelaya immediately declared to be fraudulent.","It then passed a decree that disapproved of Zelaya's conduct for \"repeated violations against the Constitution and laws of the Republic and nonobservance of the resolutions and rulings of the judicial organs,\" removed Zelaya from office, and named Roberto Micheletti—the President of Congress and the next in line constitutionally—the President of Honduras for the remainder of Zelaya's term, which ended on January 27, 2010. Although some maintain that Zelaya's removal was done through legal means, others assert that the actions of the military and Congress were unconstitutional. According to most analysts, the Honduran military's decision to force Zelaya into exile directly violated the Honduran Constitution, which forbids the expatriation of Honduran citizens. Those involved in the ouster maintain that their actions were necessary to avoid chaos. On January 26, 2010, a Honduran Supreme Court judge dismissed charges against members of the joint command of the Honduran military for their role in Zelaya's expatriation, asserting that the Honduran military had acted to \"preserve democracy\" and \"avoid bloodshed.\" Some Honduran legal observers also have asserted that the actions of the Honduran National Congress were unconstitutional. They maintain that the power to remove a president is reserved for the","judicial branch.","They also note that since Zelaya never resigned and the judicial process against him was terminated prematurely by the military's actions, Zelaya was still president and there was no vacancy to be filled. Nevertheless, the Honduran Supreme Court appears to have accepted the legality of the actions of Congress. On June 29, 2009, it ordered Zelaya's legal proceedings to continue through the ordinary judicial process since he \"no longer holds high office;\" however, the Court has never directly ruled on the legality of Congress's actions. Roberto Micheletti assumed the office of the presidency following Zelaya's removal. Throughout the seven months between the ouster and the inauguration of President Lobo, Micheletti maintained that he was the legitimate president of Honduras as a result of a \"constitutional substitution.\" Upon assuming office, he named a new cabinet, announced a plan of governance, and assured the public that general elections would be held in November 2009, as previously planned. Micheletti and the Honduran National Congress passed a 2009 budget, which included a 10% cut to the central government and a 20% cut to decentralized state bodies as a result of the loss of international support.","They also annulled more than a dozen decrees and reforms approved under Zelaya, including Honduras' accession to the Venezuelan-led trade bloc known as ALBA. Micheletti received strong support from some sectors of Honduran society throughout his government. On various occasions, Hondurans held large demonstrations in support of his government. Likewise, prior to adjourning in mid-January 2010, the Honduran National Congress named Micheletti a \"deputy-for-life,\" and offered life-long security to Micheletti and some 50 other Honduran officials involved in his government or the ouster of Zelaya. Nonetheless, an October 2009 poll found that just 36% of Hondurans approved of Micheletti's job in office and 59% believed he rarely or never did what was in the interest of the Honduran people. The same poll found that 42% of Hondurans recognized Zelaya as president, while 36% recognized Micheletti. During his government, Micheletti implemented a number of measures that placed Honduran society under strict control. On the day of the ouster, security forces patrolled the streets, a curfew was put in place, and a number of local and international television and radio stations were shut down or intimidated.","Likewise, members of Zelaya's Administration, other political and social leaders, and some members of the press were detained or forced to go into hiding. Over the next several months, the Micheletti government periodically implemented curfews—often arbitrarily and with little or no prior notification—and issued decrees restricting civil liberties. Micheletti declared a 45-day state of siege following Zelaya's September 21, 2009, announcement that he had clandestinely returned to Honduras and taken refuge in the Brazilian Embassy in Tegucigalpa. The decree suspended freedom of the press and freedom of movement, required police or military authorization for public meetings, allowed detention without a warrant, and led to the government shutdown of two of the leading sources of media opposition to the Micheletti government. Although criticism from the country's presidential candidates, members of the National Congress, and the Supreme Electoral Tribunal ultimately led Micheletti to revoke the decree three weeks later, repressive actions continued. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), an autonomous organ of the Organization of American States, monitored the human rights situation in Honduras during the Micheletti government.","The IACHR asserts that serious violations of human rights occurred, including \"deaths, an arbitrary declaration of a state of emergency, suppression of public demonstrations through disproportionate use of force, criminalization of public protest, arbitrary detentions of thousands of persons, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and grossly inadequate conditions of detention, militarization of Honduran territory, a surge in incidents of racial discrimination, violations of women's rights, serious and arbitrary restrictions on the right to freedom of expression, and grave violations of political rights.\" The IACHR also asserts that the Honduran judicial system failed to investigate, prosecute, and punish those responsible for human rights violations. The international community reacted quickly and forcefully to the events of June 28, 2009. The United States, European Union, and United Nations condemned the ouster and called for Zelaya's immediate return, as did every regional grouping in the hemisphere from the System of Central American Integration (SICA) to the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) to the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR).","On July 4, 2009, in accordance with Article 21 of the Inter-American Democratic Charter, the member states of the Organization of American States (OAS) unanimously voted to suspend Honduras from the organization for an unconstitutional interruption of the democratic order. Moreover, countries throughout Latin America and Europe withdrew their ambassadors, diplomatically isolating the Micheletti government, which was not recognized by a single country. Economic pressure was also placed on Honduras, which was already suffering as a result of the global financial crisis and U.S. recession. Some Central American countries imposed a 48-hour commercial blockade, international financial institutions withheld access to some $485 million in loans and other transfers, the European Union suspended an estimated $93 million in budget support, the United States terminated nearly $33 million in economic and military aid, and Venezuela—which provided 50% of Honduras' petroleum imports in 2008—stopped supplying the country with oil. After the initial sanctions failed to return Zelaya to power, the international community focused its efforts on facilitating a negotiated solution to the political crisis.","In July 2009, Zelaya and Micheletti agreed to participate in talks mediated by Costa Rican President Oscar Arias, who won a Nobel Peace Prize in 1987 for his efforts to end conflicts in Central America during his previous administration (1986-1990). Following initial meetings with President Arias, both leaders designated groups of negotiators to continue on their behalves. President Arias eventually proposed a 12-point plan known as the \"San José Accord.\" Among other provisions, the proposal called for President Zelaya's reinstatement, the creation of a national unity government, a general amnesty for all political crimes committed before and after Zelaya's removal, an agreement not to pursue constitutional reform, and the creation of a verification commission to guarantee compliance with the accord. Although Zelaya initially declared the negotiation process a failure, he later signaled that he would accept the Arias proposal. Micheletti's negotiators said they would take the proposal back to the independent branches of the government to consider. They subsequently rejected the accord. Nonetheless, the international community continued to push all of the parties involved to accept the San José Accord.","Following a new round of talks supported by the OAS and the United States, Zelaya and Micheletti signed an agreement on October 30, 2009. Based largely on the San José Accord, the \"Tegucigalpa/San José Accord\" called for (1) the formation of a national unity and reconciliation government; (2) a renunciation of any attempts to reform the non-amendable provisions of the constitution; (3) a recognition of the November elections with international observation; (4) the transfer of supervision of the armed forces (who traditionally assist in election logistics) to the Supreme Electoral Tribunal one month prior to the election; (5) a congressional vote—considering the input of the Supreme Court—on Zelaya's restitution to the presidency; (6) the creation of a verification commission to ensure the accord's implementation, and a truth commission to investigate the events before, during, and after the June 28 ouster; and (7) international recognition of Honduras and the removal of all sanctions against the country.","The agreement also set a timeline for implementation: transfer of the agreement to Congress to consider Zelaya's restitution was to occur on October 30, 2009, the verification commission was to be formed by November 2, 2009, the national unity government was supposed to take office by November 5, 2009, and the formation of the truth commission was scheduled to occur in the first half of 2010. Despite proclamations by some in the international community that the accord signaled the end of the political crisis in Honduras, little changed in the country following the agreement. Although a verification committee was created according to schedule, a national unity government was never formed. Likewise, the accord was immediately sent to the legislative branch, yet the National Congress did not consider Zelaya's reinstatement until December 2, 2009—three days after the presidential election—at which point it reaffirmed his ouster. As a result, Zelaya and members of the \"National Resistance Front Against the Coup d'état\" boycotted the November 2009 elections and refused to recognize the results.","Moreover, Micheletti refused to allow Zelaya to leave the Brazilian embassy, maintaining that the deposed president had to renounce his claim to the presidency and request refugee status in order to be given safe passage. On November 29, 2009, Honduras held general elections to fill nearly 3,000 posts nationwide, including the presidency and all 128 seats in the unicameral National Congress. Former President of Congress and 2005 National Party (PN) presidential nominee Porfirio Lobo easily defeated his closest rival, former Vice President Elvin Santos of the Liberal Party (PL), 56.6% to 38.1%. Lobo's PN also won 71 of the 128 seats in Congress, up from 55 in the 2005 election. The PL won just 45 seats in Congress, down from 62 in 2005. A number of analysts have interpreted the vote as a clear rejection of the PL, which Hondurans saw as responsible for the country's political crisis as a result of Zelaya and Micheletti both belonging to the party. A poll taken prior to the election found that 63% of Hondurans thought the election would help end the country's political crisis. There has been considerable debate—both in Honduras and the international community—concerning the legitimacy of","the November 2009 elections.","Supporters of the elections note that the electoral process was initiated, and the members of the autonomous Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSE) were chosen, prior to Zelaya's ouster. They also note that the candidates were selected in internationally observed primary elections in November 2008, and that election day was largely free of political violence. Nonetheless, some Hondurans and international observers have argued that the Micheletti government's suppression of opposition media and demonstrators prevented a fair electoral campaign from taking place. This led to election boycotts and a number of candidates for a variety of offices withdrawing from the elections, including an independent presidential candidate and some incumbent Members of Congress. It also led organizations that traditionally observe elections in the hemisphere, such as the OAS, the EU, and the Carter Center, to cancel their electoral observation missions. Critics of the elections also assert that the electoral turnout, which was just under 50% (5 points lower than 2005), demonstrated a rejection of the elections by the Honduran people.","Supporters of the elections counter this assertion by arguing that Lobo won more absolute votes in 2009 than Zelaya did in 2005, and that the electoral rolls are artificially inflated—distorting the turnout rate—as a result of Honduras not purging the rolls of those who have died or migrated overseas. Although a growing number of Hondurans and members of the international community have recognized Lobo as the legitimate President of Honduras, some have refused to do so. President Lobo has already taken a number of steps to ease the political polarization in Honduras. Since his election, Lobo has called for a government of national unity and pledged to engage in dialogue with all sectors of Honduran society. He intends to create two outside advisory councils: one composed of former presidents and another composed of members of the business community, the churches, unions, peasant organizations, and the media. Lobo has included three of his presidential rivals in his administration, and the new Honduran National Congress, which is controlled by Lobo's National Party, incorporated members of each of the political parties into the leadership committee.","Moreover, Lobo arranged safe passage out of the country for Zelaya and immediately signed a bill providing political amnesty to Zelaya and those who removed him from office. The amnesty covers political and common crimes committed prior to and after the removal of President Zelaya, but does not include acts of corruption or violations of human rights. Although these actions have partially reduced the polarization of Honduran society, a number of analysts caution that the underlying cause of the crisis—the failure of the political elite to respond to the interests of the majority of the population—remains. They assert that those who made up the \"National Resistance Front Against the Coup d'état,\" an umbrella group of those opposed to Zelaya's removal, are still fully committed to reforming the Honduran constitution and pushing for greater political, economic, and social rights for traditionally excluded sectors of the Honduran population. These analysts maintain that Honduras will continue to be susceptible to political instability if Honduran leaders simply revert to that status quo that existed prior to the political crisis and largely ignore the basic needs of the 70% of the population that lives below the poverty line.","President Lobo faces a challenge in winning support from the international community. Following the ouster of President Zelaya, many nations expressed concern about the state of democracy in Latin America and the possibility that the events of June 28, 2009, could serve as an example for other countries. Not a single nation recognized the Micheletti government, and since Zelaya was not returned to office prior to the November 2009 election, a number of countries refused to recognize the result. Lobo has called on the international community to stop \"punishing\" the people of Honduras for Zelaya's ouster. Although the United States and several other countries in the region have indicated that they will support Lobo, he still needs to win the support of others—such as Brazil—in order to reintegrate Honduras into the international community and end the diplomatic and economic sanctions that have been leveled against the country. According to a number of analysts, the international community is likely to slowly restore relations with Honduras. They assert that several countries have responded positively to Lobo's preliminary attempts at national reconciliation and have softened their positions.","They also assert that countries that have yet to recognize Lobo have few remaining options since a growing number of nations and the majority of Hondurans have already recognized the new government. Lobo's third major challenge is Honduras' faltering economy. The political crisis exacerbated economic problems that were already present as a result of the global financial crisis and U.S. recession. Steep declines in tourism and investment were added to already significant declines in exports and remittances. Likewise, steep declines in international loans and assistance were added to already significant declines in government revenue. As a result, Micheletti and the Honduran Congress were forced to slash central government spending by 10% and decentralized state bodies by 20%, and the Honduran economy contracted by an estimated 4.4% in 2009. According to some analysts, Lobo will need to re-establish flows of bilateral and multilateral aid in order to turn the economy around. This will allow Lobo to address Honduras' growing fiscal deficit and restore some of the spending that was cut in 2009.","Although analysts suggest that the improving international economy should aid Honduras' recovery, they caution that it will be years before Honduras regains what was lost as a result of the political crisis. In the weeks and months leading up to President Zelaya's proposed non-binding referendum, the United States expressed its support for a democratic solution to the political impasse in Honduras. The U.S. embassy repeatedly asserted that the referendum was a matter for Hondurans to resolve and that whatever was decided should comply with Honduran law. As the situation deteriorated in the days before the proposed referendum was to take place, the United States continued to \"urge all sides to seek a consensual democratic resolution.\" The efforts of U.S. officials, however, failed to prevent Zelaya's forced removal. The United States government quickly responded to Zelaya's ouster. President Obama initially expressed deep concern about the situation and called on all Hondurans to respect democratic norms and resolve the dispute peacefully. The Obama Administration later condemned the events more forcefully, declared them illegal, and asserted that the United States viewed Zelaya as the legitimate president of Honduras. Following its preliminary statements, the United States addressed the situation in","Honduras in a variety of ways.","In the days after Zelaya's forced removal, U.S. Southern Command minimized cooperation with the Honduran military, the U.S. State Department suspended some non-humanitarian foreign assistance, the U.S. embassy provided security and refuge for Zelaya's family, and U.S. officials met with President Zelaya in Washington, DC. The United States also strongly supported the mediation of Costa Rican President Oscar Arias, advising both Zelaya and Micheletti to accept the proposed San José Accord. In order to place pressure on Honduran officials to accept the accord, the State Department revoked the visas of members and supporters of the Micheletti government, suspended non-emergency and non-immigrant visa services in the consular section of the U.S. embassy in Honduras, and announced that it would not recognize the results of the November 2009 general election in Honduras unless the situation changed. In September 2009, the United States terminated $32.7 million in foreign assistance appropriated for Honduras for FY2009. Some $10.3 million was intended for security assistance. Another $11.4 million was intended for economic and social development programs administered by the government of Honduras, including funds for anti-gang activities, trade capacity building, and aid to small farmers.","The final $11 million was intended for two transportation projects, and was all that remained of the $215 million MCC compact that Honduras signed in 2005. Nonetheless, Honduras still received an estimated $42.5 million in U.S. foreign aid in FY2009, which provided direct assistance to the Honduran people. The assistance included funds for education, disease prevention, and democracy promotion. The U.S. government would have been legally required to terminate some foreign assistance if it had declared Zelaya's ouster a \"military coup.\" Although the United States never made such a declaration, it terminated the foreign assistance that it would have been required to discontinue had it done so. Upon the signing of the ill-fated Tegucigalpa-San José Accord in late October 2009, the United States announced that it would support the November 2009 elections in Honduras. Although the agreement began to fall apart almost immediately, the United States continued to urge compliance with the accord's provisions. U.S. officials also announced that they would support the Honduran elections no matter what happened with the accord, maintaining elections represented a \"significant step in Honduras' return to the democratic and constitutional order.","\" Following the elections, the United States commended the Honduran people for \"peacefully exercising their democratic right to select their leaders;\" however, the United States noted that \"significant work\" remained to be done in order to end the political crisis. The U.S. State Department then urged Honduran officials to implement the remaining provisions of the Tegucigalpa-San José Accord, including the vote on Zelaya's restitution, the creation of a national unity government, and the formation of a truth commission. U.S. officials expressed disappointment over the Honduran National Congress vote against Zelaya's restitution as well as Micheletti's refusal to step down in favor of a unity government. Nonetheless, U.S. officials have been encouraged by President Lobo's decision to form a unity government and his willingness to appoint a truth commission. As a result, the United States has offered its full support to Lobo and has called on other nations to do the same. Congress has expressed considerable interest in the situation in Honduras since Zelaya's forced removal on June 28, 2009. On July 10, 2009, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere held a hearing on the crisis in Honduras.","Over the course of the following months, a number of congressional delegations traveled to the country to observe the conditions on the ground and meet with Hondurans. Some Members of the Senate also placed temporary holds on the nominations of Arturo Valenzuela to be Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs and Thomas Shannon to be Ambassador to Brazil in protest of the Obama Administration's punitive policies toward Honduras and the Micheletti government. Several resolutions were introduced in the first session of the 111 th Congress regarding the political crisis. On July 8, 2009, H.Res. 619 (Mack) and H.Res. 620 (Serrano) were introduced in the House. H.Res. 619 condemned Zelaya for his \"unconstitutional and illegal\" actions and called on all parties to seek a peaceful resolution. H.Res. 620 called upon the Micheletti government to end its \"illegal seizure of power\" and work within the rule of law to resolve the situation. On July 10, H.Res. 630 (Delahunt) was introduced in the House.","It condemned the \"coup d'etat\" in Honduras; refused to recognize the Micheletti government; called for the reinstatement of Zelaya; urged the Obama Administration to suspend non-humanitarian assistance to Honduras; called for international observation of the November 2009 elections; and welcomed the mediation efforts of Costa Rican President Oscar Arias. On September 17, H.Res. 749 (Ros-Lehtinen) was introduced in the House. The resolution called for the Secretary of State to work with Honduran authorities to ensure free and fair elections in Honduras. It also called on President Obama to recognize the November elections \"as an important step in the consolidation of democracy and rule of law in Honduras.\" The Honduran political crisis also influenced a change to one of the provisions of the FY2010 Consolidated Appropriations Act ( P.L. 111-117 ). The heading of section 7008 of the \"Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2010\" (Division F) was changed from \"Military Coups\" to \"Coups d'État.\" Section 7008 requires the U.S. government to terminate some foreign assistance to any country \"whose duly elected head of government is deposed by military coup or decree.\" The U.S.","Department of State has asserted that although Zelaya's ouster could be considered a \"coup d'état,\" it was not a \"military coup\" and a termination of assistance was not legally required. The House report to the appropriations bill ( H.Rept. 111-366 ) notes that there are no substantive changes to section 7008, but conferees are \"concerned that the previous title implied an unintended limitation of the provision's application.\" The House report also directs the Department of State's Office of the Legal Advisor to \"undertake a review of events necessary to trigger the provisions of this section and submit a report on such events to the Committees on Appropriations not later than 45 days after enactment\" of the bill. On March 23, 2009, President Zelaya announced an executive decree—which was never officially published—calling for a popular referendum on June 28 on whether to include a fourth ballot box during the November 2009 general elections. The fourth ballot would have consulted Hondurans about whether the country should convoke a national constituent assembly to approve a new constitution. On May 26, 2009, President Zelaya issued two executive decrees that were officially published on June 25, 2009. One annulled the March","23 decree.","The other called for a non-binding referendum on June 28 on whether to include a fourth ballot box during the November 2009 general elections in which Hondurans could choose to convoke a national constituent assembly. On May 27, 2009, a Honduran lower court judge ordered the suspension of the referendum that President Zelaya proposed on March 23. On May 29, 2009, a Honduran lower court judge issued an order clarifying that the May 27 ruling applied to any other executive decree that would lead to the same ends as the suspended decree. On the same day, President Zelaya ordered the Honduran military and police to provide logistical support for the proposed referendum. On June 16, 2009, a Honduran Appeals Court upheld the lower court ruling that declared President Zelaya's proposed non-binding referendum illegal. On June 19, 2009, the Honduran Supreme Court ordered the Honduran security forces not to provide any support for the proposed non-binding referendum. On June 23, 2009, the Honduran Congress passed a plebiscite and referendum law that prevents referenda from occurring within 180 days of a general election.","On June 24, 2009, President Zelaya asked for the resignations of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Defense Minister after they refused to provide logistical support for the proposed non-binding referendum. On June 25, 2009, the Honduran Supreme Court ruled that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Defense Minister should remain in their positions despite Zelaya's request for their resignations. On the same day, Zelaya and a group of supporters removed referendum materials from an air force base in Tegucigalpa. On June 26, 2009, the Organization of American States (OAS) adopted a resolution that offered support for the preservation of democratic institutions and the rule of law in Honduras and called on all social and political actors to maintain social peace and prevent the rupture of the constitutional order. On June 28, 2009, shortly before the polls were to open for the non-binding referendum, the Honduran military arrested President Zelaya, flew him to Costa Rica, and seized all referendum materials. The Honduran Supreme Court indicated that an arrest warrant had previously been issued for the deposed president, and the National Congress replaced Zelaya with the President of Congress,","Roberto Micheletti.","The United States and governments around the world condemned the action and called for President Zelaya's reinstatement. On July 1, 2009, the OAS adopted a resolution that would suspend Honduras' membership in the organization if the country failed to restore President Zelaya to power within three days. On the same day, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution that condemned Zelaya's ouster and called for his immediate return, U.S. Southern Command ordered U.S. troops to minimize contact with the Honduran military, and the Honduran National Congress suspended a number of constitutional rights—such as the freedom of association and the freedom of movement—during curfew hours. On July 2, 2009, the U.S. State Department announced it would suspend foreign assistance programs to Honduras that it would be legally required to terminate should it declare the events in Honduras a \"military coup.\" On July 4, 2009, the OAS unanimously voted to suspend Honduras for an unconstitutional interruption of the democratic order in accordance with Article 21 of the Inter-American Democratic Charter and the OAS resolution adopted three days earlier. On July 5, 2009, Zelaya attempted to return to Honduras but the Micheletti government prevented his plane from landing.","On July 7, 2009, Zelaya met with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Washington, DC. Following their meeting, Secretary Clinton announced that Zelaya and Micheletti had agreed to engage in negotiations mediated by Costa Rican President Oscar Arias. On July 9, 2009, Zelaya and Micheletti met separately with President Arias in Costa Rica to discuss a solution to the situation in Honduras. Zelaya and Micheletti never spoke face to face, and left the country after the meetings, designating representatives to continue negotiations. On July 18, 2009, Costa Rican President Oscar Arias proposed a seven-point plan to end the political conflict in Honduras. Although the plan was agreed to in principle by Zelaya's representatives, it was rejected by Micheletti. On July 22, 2009, Costa Rican President Oscar Arias modified his previously rejected proposal and offered a 12-point plan, known as the \"San José Accord,\" to resolve the Honduran political crisis. Zelaya accepted the plan. Micheletti's negotiation team said it would take the proposal back to the independent branches of government in Honduras to consider. It later rejected the accord.","On July 24, 2009, exiled President Manuel Zelaya briefly crossed the Nicaraguan border, entering Honduras for the first time since his June 28, 2009 forced removal. On July 28, 2009, the U.S. Department of State announced that it had revoked the diplomatic visas of four members of the Honduran government and was reviewing the visas of others. On August 21, 2009, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) concluded a five-day visit to Honduras. The Commission—which met with representatives of the Micheletti government, representatives of various sectors of civil society, and more than 100 individuals—\"confirmed the existence of a pattern of disproportionate use of public force on the part of police and military forces, arbitrary detentions, and the control of information aimed at limiting political participation by a sector of the citizenry.\" On August 25, 2009, a delegation of foreign ministers from the OAS left Honduras after a three-day mission that failed to convince the Micheletti government to accept the San José Accord. On the same day, the U.S. State Department announced that it was suspending non-emergency, non-immigrant visa services in the consular section of the embassy in Honduras. On September 3, 2009, exiled President Manuel","Zelaya met with U.S.","Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. On the same day, the U.S. State Department announced that it was terminating nearly $22 million in previously suspended foreign assistance to Honduras, revoking the visas of some members and supporters of the Micheletti government, and would be unable to support the outcome of the November elections under the existing conditions On September 9, 2009, the Millennium Challenge Corporation terminated two transportation projects totaling $11 million from its compact with Honduras and put another $4 million on hold. On September 21, 2009, President Manuel Zelaya revealed that he had returned to Honduras and was sheltered in the Brazilian embassy in the capital, Tegucigalpa. On September 25, 2009, the United Nations Security Council condemned acts of intimidation against the Brazilian embassy by the Honduran military. On September 26, 2009, the Micheletti government published a decree—dated September 22, 2009—that declared a state of siege and suspended a number of basic civil liberties for 45 days. The decree suspended freedom of the press and freedom of movement, required police or military authorization for public meetings, and allowed for detention without a warrant.","On September 27, 2009, Honduras expelled four diplomats from the OAS who formed part of an advance team planning a visit of foreign ministers from the region. On the same day, the Micheletti government warned Brazil that it would strip its embassy of diplomatic status if Brazil did not grant Zelaya political asylum or hand him over to Honduran authorities within 10 days. On September 28, 2009, the Honduran military shut down Radio Globo and television Channel 36, two of the principal sources of media opposition to the Micheletti government. On October 7, 2009, the Micheletti government issued a decree allowing it to revoke or cancel the licenses of any media outlet \"fomenting social anarchy.\" On the same day, a new round of talks between Micheletti and Zelaya were initiated under the guidance of the OAS. On October 19, 2009, the Micheletti government formally revoked the state of siege that entered into force on September 26, allowing Radio Globo and television Channel 36 to return to the air. On October 28, 2009, then U.S.","Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, Thomas Shannon, and the National Security Council's director for the Western Hemisphere, Dan Restrepo, traveled to Honduras to restart dialogue between Zelaya and Micheletti. On October 30, 2009, Micheletti and Zelaya signed an agreement designed to end the political crisis in Honduras known as the \"Tegucigalpa/San José Accord.\" On November 2, 2009, a four-member verification commission intended to ensure implementation of the accord, including two members appointed by the OAS and two members appointed by Zelaya and Micheletti, was created. On November 4, 2009, the executive council of the Honduran National Congress voted to solicit non-binding legal opinions on Zelaya's restitution from the Supreme Court and other Honduran institutions and postponed convening an extraordinary session of Congress to consider the matter until it received the responses. On November 5, 2009, Micheletti named a \"national unity and reconciliation government\" headed by himself, which Zelaya and his supporters refused to recognize. On November 8, 2009, members of the \"National Resistance Front Against the Coup d'état,\" including independent presidential candidate Carlos Reyes, announced that they would boycott the elections on November 29, 2009.","They asserted that a fair election could not be held given the conditions under which the campaign had been conducted and the fact that Zelaya had not been restored to office. On November 14, 2009, Zelaya released a letter to President Obama that announced that he was no longer willing to recognize the November 29, 2009, elections nor accept any reinstatement deal that would serve to legitimize the June 28, 2009, ouster. On November 17, 2009, the President of the Honduran National Congress announced that a special legislative session would be convoked on December 2, 2009 (three days after the election), to consider the restoration of Zelaya. On November 19, 2009, Micheletti announced that he would temporarily halt the \"exercise of [his] public duties\" between November 25 and December 2, in order to ensure that the attention of all Hondurans was \"concentrated on the electoral process and not the political crisis.\" On November 29, 2009, Porfirio Lobo of the National Party was elected president of Honduras. Lobo defeated his closest rival, Elvin Santos of the Liberal Party, 56.6% to 38.1%.","On December 2, 2009, 111 of the 128 deputies in the Honduran National Congress voted against restoring Zelaya to the Honduran presidency. On December 9, 2009, Micheletti refused to allow Zelaya safe passage from the Brazilian embassy in Tegucigalpa to Mexico unless the deposed president renounced his claim to the presidency and requested political refugee status. On January 6, 2010, the attorney general and anti-corruption prosecutor in Honduras filed charges against six members of the joint command of the Honduran military for their forced expatriation of Zelaya on June 28, 2009. On January 13, 2010, the Honduran National Congress named Roberto Micheletti a \"deputy-for-life\" and approved a decree providing life-long security to Micheletti and some 50 other Honduran officials involved in his government or the ouster of Zelaya On January 19, 2010, the U.S. State Department revoked the visas of five additional members of the Micheletti government. On January 20, 2010, President-elect Lobo reached an agreement with President Leonel Fernández of the Dominican Republic to provide Zelaya safe passage from the Brazilian embassy in Tegucigalpa to the Dominican Republic.","On January 21, 2010, Roberto Micheletti took a leave of absence from his public functions in order to avoid a distraction from the transfer of power to the new president. Nevertheless, Micheletti continued to exercise the powers of the presidency until the inauguration of President Lobo. On January 25, 2010, the new Honduran National Congress took office for its four-year term. On January 26, 2010, a Honduran Supreme Court judge dismissed charges against members of the joint command of the Honduran military for their forced expatriation of Zelaya. The judge asserted that the Honduran military had acted to \"preserve democracy and avoid bloodshed.\" On January 27, 2010, Porfirio \"Pepe\" Lobo Sosa was inaugurated President of Honduras. On the same day, Zelaya was granted safe passage from the Brazilian embassy in Tegucigalpa to the Dominican Republic, and the Honduran National Congress approved a political amnesty for Zelaya and those involved in his ouster."],"string":"[\n \"Figure 1. Map of HondurasSource: Map Resources. Adapted by CRS Graphics. Prior to the military-imposed exile of President Manuel Zelaya, Honduras, a Central American nation of 7.4 million people, enjoyed 27 years of uninterrupted elected civilian democratic rule. The Liberal (PL) and National (PN) parties have been Honduras' two dominant political parties since the military relinquished control of the country in 1982. Both are considered to be ideologically center-right, and there appear to be few major differences between the two. Manuel Zelaya of the PL was elected president in November 2005, narrowly defeating his PN rival, Porfirio Lobo Sosa. Zelaya—a wealthy landowner with considerable investments in the timber and cattle industries—was generally regarded as a moderate when he was inaugurated to a four-year term in January 2006. As his term progressed, however, Zelaya advanced a number of populist policies, including free school enrollment, an increase in teachers' pay, and a 60% increase in the minimum wage. Zelaya also forged closer relations with Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, joining PetroCaribe and the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA) in 2008.\",\n \"Although Zelaya's populist policies allowed him to maintain considerable support among certain sectors of Honduran society, they alienated many within the traditional economic and political elite. Likewise, his Administration's inability to achieve concrete results on a number of issues of importance—such as poverty and violent crime—significantly weakened his public standing. Opinion polls indicated that Zelaya's approval rating had fallen to about 30% prior to his ouster. In March 2009, President Zelaya issued an executive decree introducing a process that eventually could have led to changes to the Honduran constitution. The decree called on the National Statistics Institute (INE) to hold a popular referendum on June 28, 2009, to determine if the country should include a fourth ballot box during the general elections in November 2009. The fourth ballot would consult Hondurans about whether the country should convoke a national constituent assembly to approve a new constitution. In May 2009, Zelaya repealed the March decree and issued a new decree—not published until June 25, 2009—that made the referendum non-binding and removed the reference to a new constitution.\",\n \"The non-binding referendum would have asked Hondurans, \\\"Do you agree that in the general elections of 2009, a fourth ballot box should be installed in which the people decide on the convocation of a National Constituent Assembly?\\\" Zelaya argued that the constitution—drafted in 1982—should be amended to reflect the \\\"substantial and significant changes\\\" that have taken place in Honduran society in recent years. The proposal was immediately criticized by a number of officials. President of Congress Roberto Micheletti expressed ardent opposition, the 2009 presidential nominees of the PL and the PN—both of whom later indicated that they were open to a constitutional assembly —accused Zelaya of trying to perpetuate himself in power, the Attorney General's office accused Zelaya of violating the constitution, and the Honduran judiciary declared Zelaya's proposal unconstitutional. Nonetheless, Zelaya pushed forward, maintaining that the law of citizen participation approved shortly after he took office allowed him to consult the people of Honduras in a non-binding poll. Zelaya also noted that the referendum did not propose specific constitutional changes, and any changes arising from an eventual assembly would take place after he left office.\",\n \"President Zelaya's refusal to accept the court rulings, however, sparked rumors that he was planning an institutional coup that would dissolve Congress and immediately call a constitutional assembly. The political situation in the country deteriorated considerably the week before the non-binding referendum was to be held as Honduran society and the country's governmental institutions became increasingly polarized. On June 23, 2009, the National Congress created an additional legal obstacle to the referendum, passing a law preventing referenda from occurring 180 days before or after general elections. A day later, Zelaya ordered the resignations of Honduran Defense Minister Edmundo Orellana Mercado and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Romeo Vasquez Velasquez after they informed him that the Honduran military would not provide logistical support for the non-binding referendum since the courts had ruled it unconstitutional. The removal of Orellana and Vasquez prompted the resignation of 36 other Honduran military commanders, including the heads of the army, navy, and air force. On June 25, 2009, the Supreme Court ordered that the Defense Minister and Armed Forces Chief should be restored to their positions, and the National Congress began debate on the possibility of censuring Zelaya.\",\n \"In response, Zelaya declared that the legislature and courts were working with the country's oligarchy to carry out a technical coup. By the day the non-binding referendum was to be held, Honduras was extremely divided. The legislature, the judiciary, the Attorney General, the Human Rights Ombudsman, the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, evangelical groups, business associations, and four of the five political parties represented in the National Congress—including Zelaya's own PL—opposed the referendum. Nearly all of these political and social actors called on the people of Honduras to boycott the vote. Proponents of the referendum—who saw it as a mechanism to overcome political and economic exclusion—included unions, peasants, women's groups, groups of ethnic minorities, and the small leftist Democratic Unification party (DU). On June 28, 2009, shortly before the polls were to open for the non-binding referendum, the Honduran military surrounded the presidential residence, arrested President Zelaya, and flew him to exile in Costa Rica. The military also confiscated all referendum materials from polling places across the country.\",\n \"In the aftermath of the ouster, the Honduran Supreme Court produced documents asserting that an arrest warrant for President Zelaya had been issued in secrecy on June 26, 2009, as a result of the executive branch's noncompliance with judicial rulings that had declared the non-binding referendum unconstitutional. Zelaya was charged with crimes against the form of government, treason, abuse of authority, and usurpation of functions for calling a referendum without the approval of the National Congress and intending to use the INE to supervise the vote rather than the Supreme Electoral Tribunal. The judicial process was halted before a trial could be held, however, as a result of the Honduran military's actions. The Honduran National Congress ratified the ouster soon after the military forced Zelaya from the country. The Congress accepted a letter of resignation allegedly signed by the exiled president, which Zelaya immediately declared to be fraudulent.\",\n \"It then passed a decree that disapproved of Zelaya's conduct for \\\"repeated violations against the Constitution and laws of the Republic and nonobservance of the resolutions and rulings of the judicial organs,\\\" removed Zelaya from office, and named Roberto Micheletti—the President of Congress and the next in line constitutionally—the President of Honduras for the remainder of Zelaya's term, which ended on January 27, 2010. Although some maintain that Zelaya's removal was done through legal means, others assert that the actions of the military and Congress were unconstitutional. According to most analysts, the Honduran military's decision to force Zelaya into exile directly violated the Honduran Constitution, which forbids the expatriation of Honduran citizens. Those involved in the ouster maintain that their actions were necessary to avoid chaos. On January 26, 2010, a Honduran Supreme Court judge dismissed charges against members of the joint command of the Honduran military for their role in Zelaya's expatriation, asserting that the Honduran military had acted to \\\"preserve democracy\\\" and \\\"avoid bloodshed.\\\" Some Honduran legal observers also have asserted that the actions of the Honduran National Congress were unconstitutional. They maintain that the power to remove a president is reserved for the\",\n \"judicial branch.\",\n \"They also note that since Zelaya never resigned and the judicial process against him was terminated prematurely by the military's actions, Zelaya was still president and there was no vacancy to be filled. Nevertheless, the Honduran Supreme Court appears to have accepted the legality of the actions of Congress. On June 29, 2009, it ordered Zelaya's legal proceedings to continue through the ordinary judicial process since he \\\"no longer holds high office;\\\" however, the Court has never directly ruled on the legality of Congress's actions. Roberto Micheletti assumed the office of the presidency following Zelaya's removal. Throughout the seven months between the ouster and the inauguration of President Lobo, Micheletti maintained that he was the legitimate president of Honduras as a result of a \\\"constitutional substitution.\\\" Upon assuming office, he named a new cabinet, announced a plan of governance, and assured the public that general elections would be held in November 2009, as previously planned. Micheletti and the Honduran National Congress passed a 2009 budget, which included a 10% cut to the central government and a 20% cut to decentralized state bodies as a result of the loss of international support.\",\n \"They also annulled more than a dozen decrees and reforms approved under Zelaya, including Honduras' accession to the Venezuelan-led trade bloc known as ALBA. Micheletti received strong support from some sectors of Honduran society throughout his government. On various occasions, Hondurans held large demonstrations in support of his government. Likewise, prior to adjourning in mid-January 2010, the Honduran National Congress named Micheletti a \\\"deputy-for-life,\\\" and offered life-long security to Micheletti and some 50 other Honduran officials involved in his government or the ouster of Zelaya. Nonetheless, an October 2009 poll found that just 36% of Hondurans approved of Micheletti's job in office and 59% believed he rarely or never did what was in the interest of the Honduran people. The same poll found that 42% of Hondurans recognized Zelaya as president, while 36% recognized Micheletti. During his government, Micheletti implemented a number of measures that placed Honduran society under strict control. On the day of the ouster, security forces patrolled the streets, a curfew was put in place, and a number of local and international television and radio stations were shut down or intimidated.\",\n \"Likewise, members of Zelaya's Administration, other political and social leaders, and some members of the press were detained or forced to go into hiding. Over the next several months, the Micheletti government periodically implemented curfews—often arbitrarily and with little or no prior notification—and issued decrees restricting civil liberties. Micheletti declared a 45-day state of siege following Zelaya's September 21, 2009, announcement that he had clandestinely returned to Honduras and taken refuge in the Brazilian Embassy in Tegucigalpa. The decree suspended freedom of the press and freedom of movement, required police or military authorization for public meetings, allowed detention without a warrant, and led to the government shutdown of two of the leading sources of media opposition to the Micheletti government. Although criticism from the country's presidential candidates, members of the National Congress, and the Supreme Electoral Tribunal ultimately led Micheletti to revoke the decree three weeks later, repressive actions continued. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), an autonomous organ of the Organization of American States, monitored the human rights situation in Honduras during the Micheletti government.\",\n \"The IACHR asserts that serious violations of human rights occurred, including \\\"deaths, an arbitrary declaration of a state of emergency, suppression of public demonstrations through disproportionate use of force, criminalization of public protest, arbitrary detentions of thousands of persons, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and grossly inadequate conditions of detention, militarization of Honduran territory, a surge in incidents of racial discrimination, violations of women's rights, serious and arbitrary restrictions on the right to freedom of expression, and grave violations of political rights.\\\" The IACHR also asserts that the Honduran judicial system failed to investigate, prosecute, and punish those responsible for human rights violations. The international community reacted quickly and forcefully to the events of June 28, 2009. The United States, European Union, and United Nations condemned the ouster and called for Zelaya's immediate return, as did every regional grouping in the hemisphere from the System of Central American Integration (SICA) to the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) to the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR).\",\n \"On July 4, 2009, in accordance with Article 21 of the Inter-American Democratic Charter, the member states of the Organization of American States (OAS) unanimously voted to suspend Honduras from the organization for an unconstitutional interruption of the democratic order. Moreover, countries throughout Latin America and Europe withdrew their ambassadors, diplomatically isolating the Micheletti government, which was not recognized by a single country. Economic pressure was also placed on Honduras, which was already suffering as a result of the global financial crisis and U.S. recession. Some Central American countries imposed a 48-hour commercial blockade, international financial institutions withheld access to some $485 million in loans and other transfers, the European Union suspended an estimated $93 million in budget support, the United States terminated nearly $33 million in economic and military aid, and Venezuela—which provided 50% of Honduras' petroleum imports in 2008—stopped supplying the country with oil. After the initial sanctions failed to return Zelaya to power, the international community focused its efforts on facilitating a negotiated solution to the political crisis.\",\n \"In July 2009, Zelaya and Micheletti agreed to participate in talks mediated by Costa Rican President Oscar Arias, who won a Nobel Peace Prize in 1987 for his efforts to end conflicts in Central America during his previous administration (1986-1990). Following initial meetings with President Arias, both leaders designated groups of negotiators to continue on their behalves. President Arias eventually proposed a 12-point plan known as the \\\"San José Accord.\\\" Among other provisions, the proposal called for President Zelaya's reinstatement, the creation of a national unity government, a general amnesty for all political crimes committed before and after Zelaya's removal, an agreement not to pursue constitutional reform, and the creation of a verification commission to guarantee compliance with the accord. Although Zelaya initially declared the negotiation process a failure, he later signaled that he would accept the Arias proposal. Micheletti's negotiators said they would take the proposal back to the independent branches of the government to consider. They subsequently rejected the accord. Nonetheless, the international community continued to push all of the parties involved to accept the San José Accord.\",\n \"Following a new round of talks supported by the OAS and the United States, Zelaya and Micheletti signed an agreement on October 30, 2009. Based largely on the San José Accord, the \\\"Tegucigalpa/San José Accord\\\" called for (1) the formation of a national unity and reconciliation government; (2) a renunciation of any attempts to reform the non-amendable provisions of the constitution; (3) a recognition of the November elections with international observation; (4) the transfer of supervision of the armed forces (who traditionally assist in election logistics) to the Supreme Electoral Tribunal one month prior to the election; (5) a congressional vote—considering the input of the Supreme Court—on Zelaya's restitution to the presidency; (6) the creation of a verification commission to ensure the accord's implementation, and a truth commission to investigate the events before, during, and after the June 28 ouster; and (7) international recognition of Honduras and the removal of all sanctions against the country.\",\n \"The agreement also set a timeline for implementation: transfer of the agreement to Congress to consider Zelaya's restitution was to occur on October 30, 2009, the verification commission was to be formed by November 2, 2009, the national unity government was supposed to take office by November 5, 2009, and the formation of the truth commission was scheduled to occur in the first half of 2010. Despite proclamations by some in the international community that the accord signaled the end of the political crisis in Honduras, little changed in the country following the agreement. Although a verification committee was created according to schedule, a national unity government was never formed. Likewise, the accord was immediately sent to the legislative branch, yet the National Congress did not consider Zelaya's reinstatement until December 2, 2009—three days after the presidential election—at which point it reaffirmed his ouster. As a result, Zelaya and members of the \\\"National Resistance Front Against the Coup d'état\\\" boycotted the November 2009 elections and refused to recognize the results.\",\n \"Moreover, Micheletti refused to allow Zelaya to leave the Brazilian embassy, maintaining that the deposed president had to renounce his claim to the presidency and request refugee status in order to be given safe passage. On November 29, 2009, Honduras held general elections to fill nearly 3,000 posts nationwide, including the presidency and all 128 seats in the unicameral National Congress. Former President of Congress and 2005 National Party (PN) presidential nominee Porfirio Lobo easily defeated his closest rival, former Vice President Elvin Santos of the Liberal Party (PL), 56.6% to 38.1%. Lobo's PN also won 71 of the 128 seats in Congress, up from 55 in the 2005 election. The PL won just 45 seats in Congress, down from 62 in 2005. A number of analysts have interpreted the vote as a clear rejection of the PL, which Hondurans saw as responsible for the country's political crisis as a result of Zelaya and Micheletti both belonging to the party. A poll taken prior to the election found that 63% of Hondurans thought the election would help end the country's political crisis. There has been considerable debate—both in Honduras and the international community—concerning the legitimacy of\",\n \"the November 2009 elections.\",\n \"Supporters of the elections note that the electoral process was initiated, and the members of the autonomous Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSE) were chosen, prior to Zelaya's ouster. They also note that the candidates were selected in internationally observed primary elections in November 2008, and that election day was largely free of political violence. Nonetheless, some Hondurans and international observers have argued that the Micheletti government's suppression of opposition media and demonstrators prevented a fair electoral campaign from taking place. This led to election boycotts and a number of candidates for a variety of offices withdrawing from the elections, including an independent presidential candidate and some incumbent Members of Congress. It also led organizations that traditionally observe elections in the hemisphere, such as the OAS, the EU, and the Carter Center, to cancel their electoral observation missions. Critics of the elections also assert that the electoral turnout, which was just under 50% (5 points lower than 2005), demonstrated a rejection of the elections by the Honduran people.\",\n \"Supporters of the elections counter this assertion by arguing that Lobo won more absolute votes in 2009 than Zelaya did in 2005, and that the electoral rolls are artificially inflated—distorting the turnout rate—as a result of Honduras not purging the rolls of those who have died or migrated overseas. Although a growing number of Hondurans and members of the international community have recognized Lobo as the legitimate President of Honduras, some have refused to do so. President Lobo has already taken a number of steps to ease the political polarization in Honduras. Since his election, Lobo has called for a government of national unity and pledged to engage in dialogue with all sectors of Honduran society. He intends to create two outside advisory councils: one composed of former presidents and another composed of members of the business community, the churches, unions, peasant organizations, and the media. Lobo has included three of his presidential rivals in his administration, and the new Honduran National Congress, which is controlled by Lobo's National Party, incorporated members of each of the political parties into the leadership committee.\",\n \"Moreover, Lobo arranged safe passage out of the country for Zelaya and immediately signed a bill providing political amnesty to Zelaya and those who removed him from office. The amnesty covers political and common crimes committed prior to and after the removal of President Zelaya, but does not include acts of corruption or violations of human rights. Although these actions have partially reduced the polarization of Honduran society, a number of analysts caution that the underlying cause of the crisis—the failure of the political elite to respond to the interests of the majority of the population—remains. They assert that those who made up the \\\"National Resistance Front Against the Coup d'état,\\\" an umbrella group of those opposed to Zelaya's removal, are still fully committed to reforming the Honduran constitution and pushing for greater political, economic, and social rights for traditionally excluded sectors of the Honduran population. These analysts maintain that Honduras will continue to be susceptible to political instability if Honduran leaders simply revert to that status quo that existed prior to the political crisis and largely ignore the basic needs of the 70% of the population that lives below the poverty line.\",\n \"President Lobo faces a challenge in winning support from the international community. Following the ouster of President Zelaya, many nations expressed concern about the state of democracy in Latin America and the possibility that the events of June 28, 2009, could serve as an example for other countries. Not a single nation recognized the Micheletti government, and since Zelaya was not returned to office prior to the November 2009 election, a number of countries refused to recognize the result. Lobo has called on the international community to stop \\\"punishing\\\" the people of Honduras for Zelaya's ouster. Although the United States and several other countries in the region have indicated that they will support Lobo, he still needs to win the support of others—such as Brazil—in order to reintegrate Honduras into the international community and end the diplomatic and economic sanctions that have been leveled against the country. According to a number of analysts, the international community is likely to slowly restore relations with Honduras. They assert that several countries have responded positively to Lobo's preliminary attempts at national reconciliation and have softened their positions.\",\n \"They also assert that countries that have yet to recognize Lobo have few remaining options since a growing number of nations and the majority of Hondurans have already recognized the new government. Lobo's third major challenge is Honduras' faltering economy. The political crisis exacerbated economic problems that were already present as a result of the global financial crisis and U.S. recession. Steep declines in tourism and investment were added to already significant declines in exports and remittances. Likewise, steep declines in international loans and assistance were added to already significant declines in government revenue. As a result, Micheletti and the Honduran Congress were forced to slash central government spending by 10% and decentralized state bodies by 20%, and the Honduran economy contracted by an estimated 4.4% in 2009. According to some analysts, Lobo will need to re-establish flows of bilateral and multilateral aid in order to turn the economy around. This will allow Lobo to address Honduras' growing fiscal deficit and restore some of the spending that was cut in 2009.\",\n \"Although analysts suggest that the improving international economy should aid Honduras' recovery, they caution that it will be years before Honduras regains what was lost as a result of the political crisis. In the weeks and months leading up to President Zelaya's proposed non-binding referendum, the United States expressed its support for a democratic solution to the political impasse in Honduras. The U.S. embassy repeatedly asserted that the referendum was a matter for Hondurans to resolve and that whatever was decided should comply with Honduran law. As the situation deteriorated in the days before the proposed referendum was to take place, the United States continued to \\\"urge all sides to seek a consensual democratic resolution.\\\" The efforts of U.S. officials, however, failed to prevent Zelaya's forced removal. The United States government quickly responded to Zelaya's ouster. President Obama initially expressed deep concern about the situation and called on all Hondurans to respect democratic norms and resolve the dispute peacefully. The Obama Administration later condemned the events more forcefully, declared them illegal, and asserted that the United States viewed Zelaya as the legitimate president of Honduras. Following its preliminary statements, the United States addressed the situation in\",\n \"Honduras in a variety of ways.\",\n \"In the days after Zelaya's forced removal, U.S. Southern Command minimized cooperation with the Honduran military, the U.S. State Department suspended some non-humanitarian foreign assistance, the U.S. embassy provided security and refuge for Zelaya's family, and U.S. officials met with President Zelaya in Washington, DC. The United States also strongly supported the mediation of Costa Rican President Oscar Arias, advising both Zelaya and Micheletti to accept the proposed San José Accord. In order to place pressure on Honduran officials to accept the accord, the State Department revoked the visas of members and supporters of the Micheletti government, suspended non-emergency and non-immigrant visa services in the consular section of the U.S. embassy in Honduras, and announced that it would not recognize the results of the November 2009 general election in Honduras unless the situation changed. In September 2009, the United States terminated $32.7 million in foreign assistance appropriated for Honduras for FY2009. Some $10.3 million was intended for security assistance. Another $11.4 million was intended for economic and social development programs administered by the government of Honduras, including funds for anti-gang activities, trade capacity building, and aid to small farmers.\",\n \"The final $11 million was intended for two transportation projects, and was all that remained of the $215 million MCC compact that Honduras signed in 2005. Nonetheless, Honduras still received an estimated $42.5 million in U.S. foreign aid in FY2009, which provided direct assistance to the Honduran people. The assistance included funds for education, disease prevention, and democracy promotion. The U.S. government would have been legally required to terminate some foreign assistance if it had declared Zelaya's ouster a \\\"military coup.\\\" Although the United States never made such a declaration, it terminated the foreign assistance that it would have been required to discontinue had it done so. Upon the signing of the ill-fated Tegucigalpa-San José Accord in late October 2009, the United States announced that it would support the November 2009 elections in Honduras. Although the agreement began to fall apart almost immediately, the United States continued to urge compliance with the accord's provisions. U.S. officials also announced that they would support the Honduran elections no matter what happened with the accord, maintaining elections represented a \\\"significant step in Honduras' return to the democratic and constitutional order.\",\n \"\\\" Following the elections, the United States commended the Honduran people for \\\"peacefully exercising their democratic right to select their leaders;\\\" however, the United States noted that \\\"significant work\\\" remained to be done in order to end the political crisis. The U.S. State Department then urged Honduran officials to implement the remaining provisions of the Tegucigalpa-San José Accord, including the vote on Zelaya's restitution, the creation of a national unity government, and the formation of a truth commission. U.S. officials expressed disappointment over the Honduran National Congress vote against Zelaya's restitution as well as Micheletti's refusal to step down in favor of a unity government. Nonetheless, U.S. officials have been encouraged by President Lobo's decision to form a unity government and his willingness to appoint a truth commission. As a result, the United States has offered its full support to Lobo and has called on other nations to do the same. Congress has expressed considerable interest in the situation in Honduras since Zelaya's forced removal on June 28, 2009. On July 10, 2009, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere held a hearing on the crisis in Honduras.\",\n \"Over the course of the following months, a number of congressional delegations traveled to the country to observe the conditions on the ground and meet with Hondurans. Some Members of the Senate also placed temporary holds on the nominations of Arturo Valenzuela to be Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs and Thomas Shannon to be Ambassador to Brazil in protest of the Obama Administration's punitive policies toward Honduras and the Micheletti government. Several resolutions were introduced in the first session of the 111 th Congress regarding the political crisis. On July 8, 2009, H.Res. 619 (Mack) and H.Res. 620 (Serrano) were introduced in the House. H.Res. 619 condemned Zelaya for his \\\"unconstitutional and illegal\\\" actions and called on all parties to seek a peaceful resolution. H.Res. 620 called upon the Micheletti government to end its \\\"illegal seizure of power\\\" and work within the rule of law to resolve the situation. On July 10, H.Res. 630 (Delahunt) was introduced in the House.\",\n \"It condemned the \\\"coup d'etat\\\" in Honduras; refused to recognize the Micheletti government; called for the reinstatement of Zelaya; urged the Obama Administration to suspend non-humanitarian assistance to Honduras; called for international observation of the November 2009 elections; and welcomed the mediation efforts of Costa Rican President Oscar Arias. On September 17, H.Res. 749 (Ros-Lehtinen) was introduced in the House. The resolution called for the Secretary of State to work with Honduran authorities to ensure free and fair elections in Honduras. It also called on President Obama to recognize the November elections \\\"as an important step in the consolidation of democracy and rule of law in Honduras.\\\" The Honduran political crisis also influenced a change to one of the provisions of the FY2010 Consolidated Appropriations Act ( P.L. 111-117 ). The heading of section 7008 of the \\\"Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2010\\\" (Division F) was changed from \\\"Military Coups\\\" to \\\"Coups d'État.\\\" Section 7008 requires the U.S. government to terminate some foreign assistance to any country \\\"whose duly elected head of government is deposed by military coup or decree.\\\" The U.S.\",\n \"Department of State has asserted that although Zelaya's ouster could be considered a \\\"coup d'état,\\\" it was not a \\\"military coup\\\" and a termination of assistance was not legally required. The House report to the appropriations bill ( H.Rept. 111-366 ) notes that there are no substantive changes to section 7008, but conferees are \\\"concerned that the previous title implied an unintended limitation of the provision's application.\\\" The House report also directs the Department of State's Office of the Legal Advisor to \\\"undertake a review of events necessary to trigger the provisions of this section and submit a report on such events to the Committees on Appropriations not later than 45 days after enactment\\\" of the bill. On March 23, 2009, President Zelaya announced an executive decree—which was never officially published—calling for a popular referendum on June 28 on whether to include a fourth ballot box during the November 2009 general elections. The fourth ballot would have consulted Hondurans about whether the country should convoke a national constituent assembly to approve a new constitution. On May 26, 2009, President Zelaya issued two executive decrees that were officially published on June 25, 2009. One annulled the March\",\n \"23 decree.\",\n \"The other called for a non-binding referendum on June 28 on whether to include a fourth ballot box during the November 2009 general elections in which Hondurans could choose to convoke a national constituent assembly. On May 27, 2009, a Honduran lower court judge ordered the suspension of the referendum that President Zelaya proposed on March 23. On May 29, 2009, a Honduran lower court judge issued an order clarifying that the May 27 ruling applied to any other executive decree that would lead to the same ends as the suspended decree. On the same day, President Zelaya ordered the Honduran military and police to provide logistical support for the proposed referendum. On June 16, 2009, a Honduran Appeals Court upheld the lower court ruling that declared President Zelaya's proposed non-binding referendum illegal. On June 19, 2009, the Honduran Supreme Court ordered the Honduran security forces not to provide any support for the proposed non-binding referendum. On June 23, 2009, the Honduran Congress passed a plebiscite and referendum law that prevents referenda from occurring within 180 days of a general election.\",\n \"On June 24, 2009, President Zelaya asked for the resignations of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Defense Minister after they refused to provide logistical support for the proposed non-binding referendum. On June 25, 2009, the Honduran Supreme Court ruled that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Defense Minister should remain in their positions despite Zelaya's request for their resignations. On the same day, Zelaya and a group of supporters removed referendum materials from an air force base in Tegucigalpa. On June 26, 2009, the Organization of American States (OAS) adopted a resolution that offered support for the preservation of democratic institutions and the rule of law in Honduras and called on all social and political actors to maintain social peace and prevent the rupture of the constitutional order. On June 28, 2009, shortly before the polls were to open for the non-binding referendum, the Honduran military arrested President Zelaya, flew him to Costa Rica, and seized all referendum materials. The Honduran Supreme Court indicated that an arrest warrant had previously been issued for the deposed president, and the National Congress replaced Zelaya with the President of Congress,\",\n \"Roberto Micheletti.\",\n \"The United States and governments around the world condemned the action and called for President Zelaya's reinstatement. On July 1, 2009, the OAS adopted a resolution that would suspend Honduras' membership in the organization if the country failed to restore President Zelaya to power within three days. On the same day, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution that condemned Zelaya's ouster and called for his immediate return, U.S. Southern Command ordered U.S. troops to minimize contact with the Honduran military, and the Honduran National Congress suspended a number of constitutional rights—such as the freedom of association and the freedom of movement—during curfew hours. On July 2, 2009, the U.S. State Department announced it would suspend foreign assistance programs to Honduras that it would be legally required to terminate should it declare the events in Honduras a \\\"military coup.\\\" On July 4, 2009, the OAS unanimously voted to suspend Honduras for an unconstitutional interruption of the democratic order in accordance with Article 21 of the Inter-American Democratic Charter and the OAS resolution adopted three days earlier. On July 5, 2009, Zelaya attempted to return to Honduras but the Micheletti government prevented his plane from landing.\",\n \"On July 7, 2009, Zelaya met with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Washington, DC. Following their meeting, Secretary Clinton announced that Zelaya and Micheletti had agreed to engage in negotiations mediated by Costa Rican President Oscar Arias. On July 9, 2009, Zelaya and Micheletti met separately with President Arias in Costa Rica to discuss a solution to the situation in Honduras. Zelaya and Micheletti never spoke face to face, and left the country after the meetings, designating representatives to continue negotiations. On July 18, 2009, Costa Rican President Oscar Arias proposed a seven-point plan to end the political conflict in Honduras. Although the plan was agreed to in principle by Zelaya's representatives, it was rejected by Micheletti. On July 22, 2009, Costa Rican President Oscar Arias modified his previously rejected proposal and offered a 12-point plan, known as the \\\"San José Accord,\\\" to resolve the Honduran political crisis. Zelaya accepted the plan. Micheletti's negotiation team said it would take the proposal back to the independent branches of government in Honduras to consider. It later rejected the accord.\",\n \"On July 24, 2009, exiled President Manuel Zelaya briefly crossed the Nicaraguan border, entering Honduras for the first time since his June 28, 2009 forced removal. On July 28, 2009, the U.S. Department of State announced that it had revoked the diplomatic visas of four members of the Honduran government and was reviewing the visas of others. On August 21, 2009, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) concluded a five-day visit to Honduras. The Commission—which met with representatives of the Micheletti government, representatives of various sectors of civil society, and more than 100 individuals—\\\"confirmed the existence of a pattern of disproportionate use of public force on the part of police and military forces, arbitrary detentions, and the control of information aimed at limiting political participation by a sector of the citizenry.\\\" On August 25, 2009, a delegation of foreign ministers from the OAS left Honduras after a three-day mission that failed to convince the Micheletti government to accept the San José Accord. On the same day, the U.S. State Department announced that it was suspending non-emergency, non-immigrant visa services in the consular section of the embassy in Honduras. On September 3, 2009, exiled President Manuel\",\n \"Zelaya met with U.S.\",\n \"Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. On the same day, the U.S. State Department announced that it was terminating nearly $22 million in previously suspended foreign assistance to Honduras, revoking the visas of some members and supporters of the Micheletti government, and would be unable to support the outcome of the November elections under the existing conditions On September 9, 2009, the Millennium Challenge Corporation terminated two transportation projects totaling $11 million from its compact with Honduras and put another $4 million on hold. On September 21, 2009, President Manuel Zelaya revealed that he had returned to Honduras and was sheltered in the Brazilian embassy in the capital, Tegucigalpa. On September 25, 2009, the United Nations Security Council condemned acts of intimidation against the Brazilian embassy by the Honduran military. On September 26, 2009, the Micheletti government published a decree—dated September 22, 2009—that declared a state of siege and suspended a number of basic civil liberties for 45 days. The decree suspended freedom of the press and freedom of movement, required police or military authorization for public meetings, and allowed for detention without a warrant.\",\n \"On September 27, 2009, Honduras expelled four diplomats from the OAS who formed part of an advance team planning a visit of foreign ministers from the region. On the same day, the Micheletti government warned Brazil that it would strip its embassy of diplomatic status if Brazil did not grant Zelaya political asylum or hand him over to Honduran authorities within 10 days. On September 28, 2009, the Honduran military shut down Radio Globo and television Channel 36, two of the principal sources of media opposition to the Micheletti government. On October 7, 2009, the Micheletti government issued a decree allowing it to revoke or cancel the licenses of any media outlet \\\"fomenting social anarchy.\\\" On the same day, a new round of talks between Micheletti and Zelaya were initiated under the guidance of the OAS. On October 19, 2009, the Micheletti government formally revoked the state of siege that entered into force on September 26, allowing Radio Globo and television Channel 36 to return to the air. On October 28, 2009, then U.S.\",\n \"Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, Thomas Shannon, and the National Security Council's director for the Western Hemisphere, Dan Restrepo, traveled to Honduras to restart dialogue between Zelaya and Micheletti. On October 30, 2009, Micheletti and Zelaya signed an agreement designed to end the political crisis in Honduras known as the \\\"Tegucigalpa/San José Accord.\\\" On November 2, 2009, a four-member verification commission intended to ensure implementation of the accord, including two members appointed by the OAS and two members appointed by Zelaya and Micheletti, was created. On November 4, 2009, the executive council of the Honduran National Congress voted to solicit non-binding legal opinions on Zelaya's restitution from the Supreme Court and other Honduran institutions and postponed convening an extraordinary session of Congress to consider the matter until it received the responses. On November 5, 2009, Micheletti named a \\\"national unity and reconciliation government\\\" headed by himself, which Zelaya and his supporters refused to recognize. On November 8, 2009, members of the \\\"National Resistance Front Against the Coup d'état,\\\" including independent presidential candidate Carlos Reyes, announced that they would boycott the elections on November 29, 2009.\",\n \"They asserted that a fair election could not be held given the conditions under which the campaign had been conducted and the fact that Zelaya had not been restored to office. On November 14, 2009, Zelaya released a letter to President Obama that announced that he was no longer willing to recognize the November 29, 2009, elections nor accept any reinstatement deal that would serve to legitimize the June 28, 2009, ouster. On November 17, 2009, the President of the Honduran National Congress announced that a special legislative session would be convoked on December 2, 2009 (three days after the election), to consider the restoration of Zelaya. On November 19, 2009, Micheletti announced that he would temporarily halt the \\\"exercise of [his] public duties\\\" between November 25 and December 2, in order to ensure that the attention of all Hondurans was \\\"concentrated on the electoral process and not the political crisis.\\\" On November 29, 2009, Porfirio Lobo of the National Party was elected president of Honduras. Lobo defeated his closest rival, Elvin Santos of the Liberal Party, 56.6% to 38.1%.\",\n \"On December 2, 2009, 111 of the 128 deputies in the Honduran National Congress voted against restoring Zelaya to the Honduran presidency. On December 9, 2009, Micheletti refused to allow Zelaya safe passage from the Brazilian embassy in Tegucigalpa to Mexico unless the deposed president renounced his claim to the presidency and requested political refugee status. On January 6, 2010, the attorney general and anti-corruption prosecutor in Honduras filed charges against six members of the joint command of the Honduran military for their forced expatriation of Zelaya on June 28, 2009. On January 13, 2010, the Honduran National Congress named Roberto Micheletti a \\\"deputy-for-life\\\" and approved a decree providing life-long security to Micheletti and some 50 other Honduran officials involved in his government or the ouster of Zelaya On January 19, 2010, the U.S. State Department revoked the visas of five additional members of the Micheletti government. On January 20, 2010, President-elect Lobo reached an agreement with President Leonel Fernández of the Dominican Republic to provide Zelaya safe passage from the Brazilian embassy in Tegucigalpa to the Dominican Republic.\",\n \"On January 21, 2010, Roberto Micheletti took a leave of absence from his public functions in order to avoid a distraction from the transfer of power to the new president. Nevertheless, Micheletti continued to exercise the powers of the presidency until the inauguration of President Lobo. On January 25, 2010, the new Honduran National Congress took office for its four-year term. On January 26, 2010, a Honduran Supreme Court judge dismissed charges against members of the joint command of the Honduran military for their forced expatriation of Zelaya. The judge asserted that the Honduran military had acted to \\\"preserve democracy and avoid bloodshed.\\\" On January 27, 2010, Porfirio \\\"Pepe\\\" Lobo Sosa was inaugurated President of Honduras. On the same day, Zelaya was granted safe passage from the Brazilian embassy in Tegucigalpa to the Dominican Republic, and the Honduran National Congress approved a political amnesty for Zelaya and those involved in his ouster.\"\n]","isConversational":false}}},{"rowIdx":16993,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"string","value":"train_16993"},"question":{"kind":"string","value":"Write a detailed summary of the following government report."},"answer":{"kind":"string","value":"The Chesapeake Bay (the Bay) is the largest estuary in the United States. It is recognized as a \"Wetlands of International Importance\" by the Ramsar Convention, a 1971 treaty about the increasing loss and degradation of wetland habitat for migratory waterbirds. The Chesapeake Bay estuary resides in a more than 64,000-square-mile watershed that extends across parts of Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia. The Bay's watershed is home to more than 18 million people and thousands of species of plants and animals. A combination of factors has caused the ecosystem functions and natural habitat of the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed to deteriorate over time. These factors include centuries of land-use changes, increased sediment loads and nutrient pollution, overfishing and overharvesting, the introduction of invasive species, and the spread of toxic contaminants. In response, the Bay has experienced reductions in economically important fisheries, such as oysters and crabs; the loss of habitat, such as underwater vegetation and sea grass; annual dead zones, as nutrient-driven algal blooms die and decompose; and potential impacts to tourism, recreation, and real estate values. Congress began to address ecosystem degradation in the Chesapeake Bay in 1965, when it authorized the first wide-scale study of water resources of the Bay. Since then, federal restoration activities, conducted by multiple agencies, have focused on reducing pollution entering the Chesapeake Bay, restoring habitat, managing fisheries, protecting sub-watersheds within the larger Bay watershed, and fostering public access and stewardship of the Bay. Congress has authorized various programs and activities to restore the Chesapeake Bay, including the Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP), created in 1983. The CBP implements the Chesapeake Bay Agreement, a periodically renewed agreement between executives in the watershed states, a joint Bay state legislative body, and select federal agencies that aims to coordinate Bay restoration efforts. The most recent agreement was signed in 2014 (known as the 2014 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement) and set a series of restoration goals and actions to be completed by 2025. The 2014 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement, like others in the past, is not binding. Other restoration plans—including the 2010 Chesapeake Bay Strategy for Protecting and Restoring the Chesapeake Bay Watershed (pursuant to President Obama's 2009 Executive Order 13508), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's 2010 Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load, and a draft Comprehensive Plan from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers—harmonize with the goals of the 2014 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement and contain objectives for federal agencies and states. As work continues toward the 2025 restoration goals set by state and federal plans, Congress may consider what role the federal government plays in Chesapeake Bay restoration, if any. In considering the federal role in Chesapeake Bay restoration, Congress may weigh issues related to coordination of federal activities and federal agency authority, funding and total cost of activities, and the rate of progress toward restoration."},"documents":{"kind":"list like","value":["The Chesapeake Bay (the Bay) is the largest estuary in the United States. Congress has described it as a \"national treasure\" ( P.L. 106-457 ), and it is recognized as a \"Wetlands of International Importance\" by the Ramsar Convention. The Chesapeake Bay estuary resides in a more than 64,000-square-mile watershed that extends across parts of Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia. It is home to more than 18 million people and thousands of species of plants and animals. Over time, the Bay's ecological conditions have deteriorated due to land-use changes, increased sediment loads and nutrient pollution, the use and spread of chemical contaminants, overfishing and overharvesting of aquatic species, and the introduction of invasive species. These changes have resulted in reductions to economically important fisheries, such as oysters and crabs; the loss of habitat, such as underwater vegetation and sea grass; annual dead zones, as nutrient-driven algal blooms die and decompose; and potential impacts to tourism, recreation, and real estate values. Joint state and federal restoration attempts did not begin until the early 1980s.","Since then, federal agencies have worked together under a watershed-wide agreement and through a restoration program spearheaded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Congress has and may continue to examine Chesapeake Bay restoration efforts. Actions in the Chesapeake watershed have served as examples for other estuary restoration efforts in the United States. This report provides background on the physical and ecological properties of the Bay and watershed, its economic value, the health of the ecosystem over time, and federal governance of Bay restoration efforts. It then discusses issues facing Congress as work continues toward 2025 restoration goals set by several state and federal plans. The Chesapeake Bay receives water from across the Chesapeake Bay watershed, including parts of six states (Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia) and the entirety of the District of Columbia (DC) ( Figure 1 ). The Bay watershed is more than 64,000 square miles in size, and its land-to-water surface area ratio (14:1) is the largest of any coastal water body in the world. More than 100,000 streams and rivers flow into the Chesapeake Bay.","The Bay and its tidal tributaries have almost 11,700 miles of shoreline and an average depth between 26 feet and 33 feet with deep troughs that reach up to 174 feet in depth. The Bay's waters are roughly 50% freshwater and 50% salt water. The Susquehanna River supplies 45% of the Bay's freshwater. Four other rivers, the Rappahannock, York, James, and Potomac, provide another 45%. The remaining 10% of the Bay's freshwater comes from smaller rivers and tributaries. More than 3,600 species of plants, fish, and animals—including 348 species of finfish, 173 species of shellfish, more than 2,700 plant species, and 16 species of underwater grasses—are part of the Bay watershed ecosystem. The Bay is part of the Atlantic Flyway, and at least 140 species of birds regularly use the Bay's aquatic resources; every year, 1 million waterfowl winter in the Bay region. The watershed is also home to 46 plants and 113 animals listed as threatened or endangered species as of August 2014. In 2016, more than 18 million people lived in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), that number is likely to rise to 20 million by 2030.","The Bay's economy centers on seafood, tourism, recreation, and real estate. Few reports estimating the total economic value of the Chesapeake Bay are available. Instead, reports focus on a limited set of industries and services. For example, in 1989, Maryland state economists estimated that the Bay added $678 billion annually to the economies of Maryland and Virginia in annual incomes generated from commercial fishing; activities for the ports, ship and boat building, ship repair, and tourism; and waterfront property premiums. NOAA reported that the commercial seafood industry in Maryland and Virginia landed more than 440 million pounds of seafood, for a total value of nearly $300 million, in 2016. In 2013, researchers estimated that the value of the Chesapeake Bay watershed for selected ecosystem services (food production, climate stability, air pollution treatment, water supply, water regulation, waste treatment, aesthetics, and recreation) was $107 billion per year. According to the researchers, the aesthetic value of the Bay was worth over $38 billion per year and accounted for the largest component of the total. The Chesapeake Bay has experienced various natural and man-made changes over the course of its existence.","Land use has been changing in the watershed, with trends toward loss of forests, wetlands, and underwater vegetation and increases in agricultural, urban, and suburban development. Forest, wetlands, and underwater vegetation regulate water flow and sediment, provide food and habitat for wildlife, and filter contaminants. Some scientists estimate that the Bay's watershed was once fully forested and became primarily used for agriculture by the early 1900s. The most recently available data from 2012 show that forested areas cover about 55% of the watershed ( Figure 2 ), with the remaining land cover divided between agricultural and urban/mixed uses. Wetlands and underwater vegetation (known as submerged aquatic vegetation ) once covered up to 600,000 acres of the Bay and its tidal tributaries but have decreased in area since the 1960s. However, this trend has been reversing. For example, in 2017, scientists found the highest amounts of submerged aquatic vegetation in the Bay since 1984, estimated at more than 100,000 acres. Forest and wetland conversion into agricultural, urban, or suburban areas, and underwater vegetation loss or degradation can affect the Bay's water resources in several ways. Two key effects, according to scientists, are increased sediment loads and nutrient","pollution, as discussed below.","Deforestation, agriculture, and increases in the amount of impervious surfaces from urban and suburban development have lowered the Bay ecosystem's ability to regulate and filter sediment. These land-use changes can accelerate water flow off of the land and into water bodies and increase erosion, transporting sediment along the way. In some parts of the Bay, sedimentation rates have increased by four to five times since the 1800s. In terms of human and wildlife health, sediment can lower light penetration, affecting underwater grasses, and can transport toxic contaminants, diseases, and excess nutrients downstream. Accreted sediments also can cause navigational hazards and block waterways. The Chesapeake Bay also is affected by excess nutrient concentrations. Nutrients, such as nitrogen and phosphorus, enter the Bay from sources such as agricultural runoff, urban runoff, and wastewater treatment plant discharges. High nutrient amounts can lead to the growth of excess algae or blooms, and potentially harmful algal blooms (HABs) that may produce toxins that can pose a threat to human and aquatic ecosystem health.","The decomposition of algal blooms, even when nontoxic, can develop into areas of low oxygen or hypoxia known as dead zones , which are harmful to aquatic life that may not be able to survive in low-oxygen waters ( Figure 3 ). Changes to the land that remove natural filters, such as forests and wetlands, and that increase impervious surfaces can increase nutrient concentrations. The amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus added to the Bay have varied since EPA began monitoring; high amounts of rain and large river flows have correlated with higher amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus. Since 1985, the Bay watershed has hosted an annual dead zone that is, on average, 1.7 cubic miles in volume. Ecologists forecast a larger-than-average dead zone of 1.9 cubic miles in 2018 due to high spring rainfall, which can increase nutrient loads into the bay. Chesapeake Bay waters and sediments contain a wide array of contaminants, such as potentially toxic metals and organics. Chemical contaminants affect humans and wildlife. In wildlife, contaminants may lead to infectious disease and parasite infestations, endocrine disruption, and impaired reproduction. Chemical contaminants also can build up in fish tissue and may affect humans who","consume fish.","Mercury and polychlorinated biphenyl's (PCBs) are the most commonly found metal and organic contaminants across the watershed, respectively. Chemical contaminants are linked to industry and vehicle air pollution, agricultural and stormwater runoff, and wastewater discharge. In 2014, the Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) reported that approximately 80% of the Bay's tidal-water segments were fully or partially impaired due to the presence of toxic chemical contaminants ( Figure 4 ). Recreational fishing data is unavailable, but annual commercial harvests of all fisheries species landed in the Chesapeake Bay more than doubled between 1950 and 1990 with harvests decreasing since 1990. Several factors, such as changes in gear technology, regulations, and environmental conditions, may have led to the increase and subsequent decrease of commercial harvests. For example, eastern oyster, blue crab, menhaden, Atlantic surf clam, Atlantic croaker, striped bass, and alewife harvests have fluctuated over time but generally have decreased since the mid-1990s due to water quality issues and overharvesting. Oysters are a popular recreational fishery and an economic resource for Bay fisherman and the region, worth more than $46 million in commercial harvests in 2016.","Oysters also improve ecological conditions in the Bay by filtering water and providing habitat for other species. Bay commercial oyster landings rose steeply in the late 1800s, reaching more than 120 million pounds, and began to decline in the early 1900s, leading to state and federal regulations on the industry. Oyster populations were further affected by diseases such as Dermo and MSX. Poor water conditions, disease, habitat loss, and overfishing led to harvests of less than 1 million pounds of landings in the 1990s and 2000s ( Figure 5 ). Since 2007, oyster landings have increased relative to its low point, with almost 5 million pounds landed in 2016. Blue crabs are commercially and recreationally harvested and have been affected by habitat loss and overharvesting in the Bay. The Bay blue crab fishery has experienced high and low commercial harvest years ( Figure 5 ). Volume of blue crab landed reached a high point in 1993, with more than 110 million pounds, and a low of approximately 42 million pounds in 1955.","The Bay and its watershed are home to thousands of species of plants and wildlife, including 46 plants and 113 animals listed as threatened or endangered species as of August 2014. Plants and wildlife populations in the Bay are principally affected by loss of habitat and in some cases disease and toxins. For example, the Bay region has one of the highest concentrations of bald eagles and osprey in the country. Although the birds are recovering from the effects of DDT pesticide use in the 20 th century, they continue to be affected by habitat loss. The Bay is also home to more than 300 invasive species, which can have negative ecological and economic effects on native plants and wildlife. For example, nutria, which are semi-aquatic South American rodents introduced to Maryland in 1943, have destroyed some wetlands with their feeding habits. Efforts by federal, state, and local government, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to remove the invasive rodent began in 2002; the known nutria populations were removed by 2016, and monitoring is ongoing.","According to stakeholders, restoring the Bay ecosystem state is a complicated process due to the size of the Bay's watershed, the variety of stakeholders, and the complexity of Chesapeake Bay ecosystems. The Bay transcends geographical and political boundaries and affects numerous jurisdictions. Restoration efforts are challenging because they require cooperation and coordination between multiple federal and state agencies, tribes, local governments, NGOs, and private stakeholders. Planning and implementing complex environmental and ecosystem restoration efforts raises many technical, policy, and organizational issues. Congress began to concentrate on Bay issues in the 1960s, as public and stakeholder pressure grew for federal government involvement in Bay restoration. Congress ordered a series of reports from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the EPA to investigate issues including the decline in fisheries, \"control of noxious weeds,\" water pollution, and water quality control in the Chesapeake Bay. Since then, federal restoration activities have expanded across several federal agencies and are primarily coordinated by the Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP). The CBP was established by the 1983 Chesapeake Bay Agreement.","In 1987, Congress codified the CBP and directed the EPA Administrator to achieve and maintain water quality and to conduct habitat restoration and conservation for the benefit of Bay living resources in Section 117 of the Clean Water Act ( P.L. 100-4 ). The CBP is a partnership of federal, state, and local agencies; tribes; academic institutions; and NGOs, and restoration activity implementation authority lies within individual agency program authorizations and the states. The CBP works with states through a committee structure to develop actions and strategies for restoration. The program's organization has changed over time as partners, agreements, and priorities have shifted. The program's organization may continue to change under the CBP's adaptive management approach. CBP activities have been led by an Executive Council (EC). The EC establishes policy direction for restoring and protecting the Bay and its living resources and is accountable to the public for progress made under the agreement ( Figure 6 ). The EC is supported by the Principals' Staff Committee. Strategic planning, creation of guidance, and implementation of activities toward Agreement goals occur in the five different groups below the Principals' Staff Committee. The entire effort is informed by three","Advisory Committees.","Federal agency representatives are involved at each level of the CBP organization, including membership on the Executive Council; Principals' Staff Committee; Management Board; Goal Implementation Teams; and Science, Technical Analysis, and Reporting group. EPA has been considered the lead federal agency for implementing the program because it was directed by Congress to continue the CBP (33 U.S.C. 1267(b); Figure 6 ). Congress also directed the EPA to maintain an EPA Chesapeake Bay Program office (33 U.S.C. 1267(b)), which is staffed by employees from a number of federal and state agencies, academic institutions, and NGOs. Federal agencies are also partners through formal memoranda of understanding with EPA. The agencies also coordinate through the Federal Leadership Committee (FLC), which was established through President Obama's 2009 Executive Order 13508. In addition, federal agencies have various authorities to implement restoration programs and activities in the Bay on their own, as discussed in the section titled \" What Authorities Are Federal Agencies Working Under to Restore the Chesapeake Bay? \" Each of the states in the Bay watershed conduct restoration efforts on an independent or joint basis. State restoration activities are formally shared and coordinated through proceedings of the CBP Executive","Council.","Congress directed EPA to aid states in developing action plans to reach restoration objectives (33 U.S.C. 1267). In addition to information sharing and coordination, federal agencies may award grants to the states to improve water quality and living resources in the Bay. E.O. 13508 sought to strengthen federal coordination with state and local governments. In its oversight role, Congress continues to weigh if and how Chesapeake Bay federal restoration efforts should continue. If there is a federal role, Congress may consider how Bay restoration is coordinated, how much funding is available and may be needed for Bay restoration efforts, and what progress is being made in restoring the Bay. A large, multi-jurisdictional ecosystem restoration initiative, such as in the Bay, raises several questions for Congress about the federal role in restoration. Congress may consider the mechanisms in place to guide restoration activities, what role the federal government has in Bay restoration, and what federal agency authorities exist or are needed to complete, coordinate, and fund restoration activities in the Bay.","Although various state and federal stakeholders have set forth several frameworks, agreements, and visions for restoring the Chesapeake Bay, which address different jurisdictions, Bay issues and timelines, no single, comprehensive ecosystem restoration plan exists to facilitate coordination of these efforts. There are currently three guiding documents for restoration and one draft plan: the 2010 Strategy for Protecting and Restoring the Chesapeake Bay Watershed (pursuant to President Obama's 2009 E.O. 13508), the EPA's 2010 Chesapeake Bay total maximum daily load (TMDL), the 2014 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement, and the draft 2018 USACE Chesapeake Bay Comprehensive Water Resource and Restoration Plan. Table 1 briefly compares these guiding documents. The extent to which one of these plans guides restoration efforts is unclear. The plans cover different jurisdictions and vary in terms of implementation. The plans also relate to each other in different ways. Select differences include the following: Implementation of the 2010 E.O. strategy, 2010 TMDL, and 2014 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement is led by the EPA, with other federal agencies involved in some cases, and each plan contains two-year work plans or milestones.","In comparison, the 2018 USACE draft comprehensive plan does not specify a certain timeline, contain specific goals or objectives, or require periodic sub-plans. The 2014 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement includes many of the actions outlined in the 2010 E.O. strategy and the 2010 TMDL, and has guided the development of the 2018 USACE draft comprehensive plan. Stakeholders utilize the plans in different ways. The Trump Administration has left the 2009 E.O. in place, but the 2010 E.O. strategy's use as a guiding mechanism is uncertain. Some federal program managers have argued that the 2010 E.O. strategy is no longer a focus and that the 2018 draft USACE comprehensive plan could serve as an organizing document for federal agencies when considering where to focus restoration efforts geographically. Some stakeholders have lauded the 2014 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement's success in obtaining consensus results largely without regulatory or legally required action, in contrast to the actions required by the 2010 TMDL (see next section for more information). Others argue that the voluntary nature of the 2014 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement weakens restoration efforts.","Finally, some may contend that the 2010 TMDL, which is focused on specific water quality factors, is not holistic in terms of addressing the entire ecosystem. Congress may consider other questions related to the plans, such as whether the current plans successfully integrate efforts across agencies, states, and local governments or whether they overlap and may cause confusion. In addition, Congress may continue to consider if the plans are most effective in their current states or with changes to jurisdictions, leadership, and enforcement, and if state and local stakeholders have been or should be equal partners in the implementation of the plans. Congress may examine the federal government's role in restoration efforts. The federal government is authorized to perform restoration activities under several congressional authorizations (see next section). Federal agencies complete restoration activities on their own or in partnership with other agencies. Federal agencies execute these collaborations through memoranda of understanding. Congress may also examine the role of state restoration efforts as they are coordinated and integrated with federal work in the Chesapeake Bay.","With the exception of the statutory relationship between the federal government and states in protecting water quality under the Clean Water Act, the federal and state roles in Bay restoration are not defined by law. This is in contrast to other restoration initiatives, such as the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration, which considers the State of Florida as a nonfederal partner with formal duties under law ( P.L. 106-541 , Title VI, §601). In the Chesapeake Bay, coordination of broad restoration activities between state and federal agencies is largely achieved through the voluntary Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement and CBP, where decisions are determined by consensus. Some have challenged the extent of the federal government's role in managing restoration of the Chesapeake Bay. These stakeholders and Members of Congress contend that the federal government has overreached its authority and intruded upon the states' powers to regulate land use, especially in regard to the EPA TMDL. For example, a lawsuit challenged the extent of EPA's authority and oversight over state actions, in regard to the TMDL, with the Third Circuit of Appeals finding that the EPA had acted within its authority.","In the 115 th Congress, the FY2019 House Interior, Environment, Financial Services, and General Government appropriations bill ( H.R. 6147 ) was amended to include a provision that would prohibit EPA funding for actions against watershed states and DC in the event the jurisdiction did not meet TMDL goals. The Trump Administration has encouraged \"the six Chesapeake Bay states and Washington, D.C. to continue to make progress in restoring the Bay from within [EPA] core water programs\" in the proposed FY2018 EPA budget. In contrast, other stakeholders—such as some environmental groups, local government officials, and other Members of Congress—support federal government involvement in Bay restoration. These stakeholders argue that the federal government should lead restoration efforts and should provide greater federal funding for restoration activities. Several federal agencies conduct restoration activities in the Chesapeake Bay watershed independently or with other agencies under various authorities. In contrast to restoration efforts in other large estuaries, such as the Great Lakes or Everglades, Congress has not authorized restoration work in the Bay under a single comprehensive law. Some of the restoration work is authorized under a variety of Chesapeake Bay-specific laws and regulations ( Appendix C ).","For example, Congress has directed the EPA to maintain a Chesapeake Bay Program (33 U.S.C. §1267), offer Chesapeake Bay restoration-related grants (33 U.S.C. §1267(d) & (e)), and perform annual Bay grass surveys (33 U.S.C. §2803(d)), among other activities. Congress has also authorized federal agencies to perform more general activities that may be applied in the Chesapeake Bay, such as the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. §§1251 et. seq.) and the Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act (16 U.S.C. §§4701 et seq.) ( Appendix C ). Some stakeholders may contend that directing agencies to work together under a specific federal authority and with an organizing structure would encourage more efficient progress toward restoration. Congress has enacted organizing entities for the Great Lakes Task Force, under the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative ( P.L. 111-88 , Title I), and the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force, under the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan ( P.L. 106-541 , Title VI, Section 601). Other stakeholders, however, may note that legislation authorizing coordination and collaboration among federal agencies is not necessary, as restoration activities are already authorized for the EPA and several other agencies under more general authorities.","Further, these individuals may note that federal agencies are coordinating efforts under the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement and through the CBP. Congress continues to consider how much funding has been spent, how much should be allocated to Chesapeake Bay restoration, and the total costs of restoring the Bay. Answering these questions is complicated by the number of federal programs and states involved in restoring the Chesapeake Bay. Congress has been interested in how much has been appropriated for Bay restoration, in part, to evaluate the appropriate level of federal spending on restoration activities. Most federal funding to restore the Chesapeake Bay is discretionary, subject to the annual congressional appropriations process. Until recently, tracking the amounts federal agencies have spent on restoration has been difficult, as many nationwide programs support restoration activities in the watershed but do not specify the level of funding for Chesapeake Bay efforts in their budget. Congress has been interested in tracking costs related to Bay restoration and enacted the Chesapeake Bay Accountability and Recovery Act in 2014 (CBARA; P.L.","113-273 ), which requires the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to compile Chesapeake Bay restoration funding information from the seven federal departments on the FLC in an annual crosscut report. OMB released crosscut reports in 2016 and 2017 for funding information between FY2014 and FY2016, and estimates for FY2017 ( Table 2 ). The reported amounts have specific limitations and assumptions (see text box below). According to the Chesapeake Bay crosscut reports, the federal government had between $460 million and $570 million per year in budget authority for restoration activities in the Bay between FY2014 and FY2017 ( Table 2 ). According to the crosscut, EPA and the Department of Agriculture (USDA) provided the most funding to the overall total budget authority. EPA distributed two-thirds through grants to state and local partners. The remaining EPA funding supported CBP office and personnel, contracts and interagency agreements, and scientific analysis and decision-support tools. USDA distributed most of its restoration funding through the nationwide Natural Resource Conservation Service, which supports conservation easement programs and provides technical and financial assistance to farmers and private landowners.","Stakeholders have various viewpoints on how much funding should be appropriated to Chesapeake Bay restoration that Congress may consider during the appropriations process. For example, some stakeholders and Members of Congress have emphasized that consistent federal funding for activities is key to successful restoration and that the elimination or significant reductions of restoration funding could halt current progress on restoring the Bay. Others contend that the federal government is spending too much on restoration and that financial responsibility for restoring the Bay should fall to the states. For instance, the Trump Administration proposed to eliminate FY2018 funding for the EPA CBP and noted that EPA would \"encourage the six Chesapeake Bay states and Washington, D.C. to continue to make progress in restoring the Bay from within core [EPA] water programs\" and return \"responsibility for funding local environmental efforts and programs to state and local entities.\" In FY2019, the Administration's EPA budget request proposed $7.3 million for the CBP for state and local water quality monitoring and science coordination activities. Some stakeholders may contend that the Chesapeake Bay restoration effort would have a higher chance of receiving consistent funding if the authorization for funding for the CBP","were current.","The CBP authorization for appropriations expired in 2005. Similarly, other stakeholders, who believe that federal restoration efforts receive insufficient funding, may argue that if all federal restoration efforts were authorized and organized under one law, the efforts may receive more funding. For example, Great Lakes restoration activities were supported by appropriations of $888 million to $986 million per year between FY2012 and FY2016, the largest component of which supported the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, a program with dedicated Great Lakes funding, in addition to agency Great Lakes restoration work. Some could disagree by arguing that gathering all restoration activities under one authorization could create a large target for funding decreases, implying that having restoration efforts spread across several authorities is more advantageous for receiving appropriations. Several groups have attempted to estimate the total cost of restoring the Bay and maintaining a restored Bay, with varying results. Cost estimates have ranged from $7 billion for individual state costs to $28 billion for the entire watershed, with additional annual maintenance costs projected once restoration is complete. Costs estimates vary depending on the restoration metrics, assumptions, and measures (e.g., nutrient-reduction technology, agricultural best management practices, etc.) included in the","calculations.","Some stakeholders contend that the increase in social and economic benefits to the watershed will justify the final cost. They add that the current cost of restoration is likely to be less than the cost of restoration in the future. Other stakeholders argue that the costs have and will result in continual, if slow, improvements to Bay conditions. Others, including some Members of Congress, question the justification for funding Bay restoration because a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis of restoration has not been completed. Some stakeholders may also contend that the reported improvements in water quality and habitat do not justify the funding already spent nor the expected final cost to restore the Bay. Congress continues to be interested in whether progress is being made in restoring the Bay. The Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement contains milestones for achieving its goals, and progress toward meeting those goals by 2025 is evaluated periodically. Even with these evaluations, it is unclear whether progress is being made toward the stated goals. Since the CBP's inception, stakeholders have considered whether appropriate progress is being made to restore the Chesapeake Bay and its resources.","Several Chesapeake Bay evaluations are conducted on an ongoing basis to measure the progress of Bay restoration over time, each with unique methodologies. Chesapeake Bay restoration progress results differ among evaluations. The differences may be due to different priorities, methodologies, data sets, metrics, and timescales of interest. The CBP has periodically assessed progress in restoring the Bay since the 1983 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement. Goals set in the Bay agreements have been largely missed, such as in the 2000 Chesapeake Bay Agreement, which aspired to restore the Bay to certain conditions by 2010. The 2014 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement set 2025 as its target year to reach certain goals (and underlying outcomes) and tracks biennial progress toward the goals. For 2016-2017, CBP reports that progress was made in five goals, and five goals showed no progress/regress. For example, progress was made toward the sustainable fisheries goal due to reported increases in the blue crab and oyster populations. In July 2018, the EPA released its midpoint assessment of progress in implementing practices to reach a 60% reduction of nutrients and sediment by 2017, as set in the TMDL.","According to the EPA, jurisdictions have implemented practices to achieve the phosphorus and sediment reductions, but did not reach the nitrogen reduction. In addition to federal reporting, several NGOs have evaluated restoration progress over time. Non-federal evaluations of restoration progress generally have been critical of the level of progress. The 2016 Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) State of the Bay report assigned the Chesapeake Bay a rating of 34 out of 100, a slight increase from the 2014 rating of 32. Since 1998, CBF has rated the Bay between 27 and 34; CBF would consider the Bay restored at a rating of 70. Similar Chesapeake Bay conditions were reported by an evaluation completed by the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science (UMCES). According to UMCES, in 2017 decreased nutrient levels were \"significantly improving\" the Bay, but poor to moderate water clarity and nitrogen, among other indicators, persisted. UMCES rated the Bay at a C, or 54% overall; since 1986, UMCES has rated the Bay between 36% and 55%. Stakeholders have a range of opinions on whether Bay restoration is progressing. Some stakeholders may contend that Bay conditions are improving at an acceptable rate for the resources","being spent on restoration.","Others argue that restoration efforts are progressing even though restoration ratings remain stable or show minor improvements. These stakeholders note that a stable ecosystem is progress since there has been no further deterioration of conditions despite population growth, increasing impermeable surfaces, and growing nutrient loads in the watershed. Others may contend that although the Bay is improving, it could be doing so at a faster pace. Finally, some stakeholders may argue that it may not be possible to restore the Bay to a pristine or semi-pristine level due to the persistence of original problems such as excess nutrients and habitat loss, among others. These stakeholders may argue for lower expectations to measure restoration success or concede that a man-made ecosystem should be the goal of restoration. Since 1983, the progress of the Bay's resources and restoration efforts has received oversight from both the public and different levels of government. Congress, GAO, and the EPA Office of Inspector General (OIG) have addressed the CBP's reporting of Bay health and restoration progress. GAO recommended the establishment of an independent evaluator or peer review in 2005, again in 2008, with the EPA OIG echoing these concerns in 2008 as","well.","President Obama's 2009 Executive Order 13508 called for a consistent, periodic evaluation in coordination with the FLC. In response, some CBP stakeholders argued for the creation of an outside review group, an independent entity within the CBP with an enforcement role, or an internal audit committee. Some noted that the use of a one-time National Academy of Science evaluation in 2011, while helpful to evaluate the short-term scientific and technical efforts of restoration, could not hold the CBP accountable in the long term. Others argued that the CBP's adoption of an adaptive management framework, which allows internal program evaluations, removed the need for external evaluation. In 2014, Congress directed EPA to appoint an independent evaluator to report its findings and recommendations to Congress on a biannual basis (Chesapeake Bay Accountability and Recovery Act; CBARA; P.L. 113-273 ). Under CBARA, EPA must appoint an independent evaluator from a list of nominees provided by the CBP Executive Council. In June 2018, CBP stated that the implementation of an independent evaluator was \"on hold pending direction from the [Principle Staff Committee].\" Appendix A. Chronology Appendix B. Chesapeake Bay Agreement Over Time Appendix C. Selected Federal Authorities Related to Chesapeake","Bay Restoration"],"string":"[\n \"The Chesapeake Bay (the Bay) is the largest estuary in the United States. Congress has described it as a \\\"national treasure\\\" ( P.L. 106-457 ), and it is recognized as a \\\"Wetlands of International Importance\\\" by the Ramsar Convention. The Chesapeake Bay estuary resides in a more than 64,000-square-mile watershed that extends across parts of Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia. It is home to more than 18 million people and thousands of species of plants and animals. Over time, the Bay's ecological conditions have deteriorated due to land-use changes, increased sediment loads and nutrient pollution, the use and spread of chemical contaminants, overfishing and overharvesting of aquatic species, and the introduction of invasive species. These changes have resulted in reductions to economically important fisheries, such as oysters and crabs; the loss of habitat, such as underwater vegetation and sea grass; annual dead zones, as nutrient-driven algal blooms die and decompose; and potential impacts to tourism, recreation, and real estate values. Joint state and federal restoration attempts did not begin until the early 1980s.\",\n \"Since then, federal agencies have worked together under a watershed-wide agreement and through a restoration program spearheaded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Congress has and may continue to examine Chesapeake Bay restoration efforts. Actions in the Chesapeake watershed have served as examples for other estuary restoration efforts in the United States. This report provides background on the physical and ecological properties of the Bay and watershed, its economic value, the health of the ecosystem over time, and federal governance of Bay restoration efforts. It then discusses issues facing Congress as work continues toward 2025 restoration goals set by several state and federal plans. The Chesapeake Bay receives water from across the Chesapeake Bay watershed, including parts of six states (Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia) and the entirety of the District of Columbia (DC) ( Figure 1 ). The Bay watershed is more than 64,000 square miles in size, and its land-to-water surface area ratio (14:1) is the largest of any coastal water body in the world. More than 100,000 streams and rivers flow into the Chesapeake Bay.\",\n \"The Bay and its tidal tributaries have almost 11,700 miles of shoreline and an average depth between 26 feet and 33 feet with deep troughs that reach up to 174 feet in depth. The Bay's waters are roughly 50% freshwater and 50% salt water. The Susquehanna River supplies 45% of the Bay's freshwater. Four other rivers, the Rappahannock, York, James, and Potomac, provide another 45%. The remaining 10% of the Bay's freshwater comes from smaller rivers and tributaries. More than 3,600 species of plants, fish, and animals—including 348 species of finfish, 173 species of shellfish, more than 2,700 plant species, and 16 species of underwater grasses—are part of the Bay watershed ecosystem. The Bay is part of the Atlantic Flyway, and at least 140 species of birds regularly use the Bay's aquatic resources; every year, 1 million waterfowl winter in the Bay region. The watershed is also home to 46 plants and 113 animals listed as threatened or endangered species as of August 2014. In 2016, more than 18 million people lived in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), that number is likely to rise to 20 million by 2030.\",\n \"The Bay's economy centers on seafood, tourism, recreation, and real estate. Few reports estimating the total economic value of the Chesapeake Bay are available. Instead, reports focus on a limited set of industries and services. For example, in 1989, Maryland state economists estimated that the Bay added $678 billion annually to the economies of Maryland and Virginia in annual incomes generated from commercial fishing; activities for the ports, ship and boat building, ship repair, and tourism; and waterfront property premiums. NOAA reported that the commercial seafood industry in Maryland and Virginia landed more than 440 million pounds of seafood, for a total value of nearly $300 million, in 2016. In 2013, researchers estimated that the value of the Chesapeake Bay watershed for selected ecosystem services (food production, climate stability, air pollution treatment, water supply, water regulation, waste treatment, aesthetics, and recreation) was $107 billion per year. According to the researchers, the aesthetic value of the Bay was worth over $38 billion per year and accounted for the largest component of the total. The Chesapeake Bay has experienced various natural and man-made changes over the course of its existence.\",\n \"Land use has been changing in the watershed, with trends toward loss of forests, wetlands, and underwater vegetation and increases in agricultural, urban, and suburban development. Forest, wetlands, and underwater vegetation regulate water flow and sediment, provide food and habitat for wildlife, and filter contaminants. Some scientists estimate that the Bay's watershed was once fully forested and became primarily used for agriculture by the early 1900s. The most recently available data from 2012 show that forested areas cover about 55% of the watershed ( Figure 2 ), with the remaining land cover divided between agricultural and urban/mixed uses. Wetlands and underwater vegetation (known as submerged aquatic vegetation ) once covered up to 600,000 acres of the Bay and its tidal tributaries but have decreased in area since the 1960s. However, this trend has been reversing. For example, in 2017, scientists found the highest amounts of submerged aquatic vegetation in the Bay since 1984, estimated at more than 100,000 acres. Forest and wetland conversion into agricultural, urban, or suburban areas, and underwater vegetation loss or degradation can affect the Bay's water resources in several ways. Two key effects, according to scientists, are increased sediment loads and nutrient\",\n \"pollution, as discussed below.\",\n \"Deforestation, agriculture, and increases in the amount of impervious surfaces from urban and suburban development have lowered the Bay ecosystem's ability to regulate and filter sediment. These land-use changes can accelerate water flow off of the land and into water bodies and increase erosion, transporting sediment along the way. In some parts of the Bay, sedimentation rates have increased by four to five times since the 1800s. In terms of human and wildlife health, sediment can lower light penetration, affecting underwater grasses, and can transport toxic contaminants, diseases, and excess nutrients downstream. Accreted sediments also can cause navigational hazards and block waterways. The Chesapeake Bay also is affected by excess nutrient concentrations. Nutrients, such as nitrogen and phosphorus, enter the Bay from sources such as agricultural runoff, urban runoff, and wastewater treatment plant discharges. High nutrient amounts can lead to the growth of excess algae or blooms, and potentially harmful algal blooms (HABs) that may produce toxins that can pose a threat to human and aquatic ecosystem health.\",\n \"The decomposition of algal blooms, even when nontoxic, can develop into areas of low oxygen or hypoxia known as dead zones , which are harmful to aquatic life that may not be able to survive in low-oxygen waters ( Figure 3 ). Changes to the land that remove natural filters, such as forests and wetlands, and that increase impervious surfaces can increase nutrient concentrations. The amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus added to the Bay have varied since EPA began monitoring; high amounts of rain and large river flows have correlated with higher amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus. Since 1985, the Bay watershed has hosted an annual dead zone that is, on average, 1.7 cubic miles in volume. Ecologists forecast a larger-than-average dead zone of 1.9 cubic miles in 2018 due to high spring rainfall, which can increase nutrient loads into the bay. Chesapeake Bay waters and sediments contain a wide array of contaminants, such as potentially toxic metals and organics. Chemical contaminants affect humans and wildlife. In wildlife, contaminants may lead to infectious disease and parasite infestations, endocrine disruption, and impaired reproduction. Chemical contaminants also can build up in fish tissue and may affect humans who\",\n \"consume fish.\",\n \"Mercury and polychlorinated biphenyl's (PCBs) are the most commonly found metal and organic contaminants across the watershed, respectively. Chemical contaminants are linked to industry and vehicle air pollution, agricultural and stormwater runoff, and wastewater discharge. In 2014, the Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) reported that approximately 80% of the Bay's tidal-water segments were fully or partially impaired due to the presence of toxic chemical contaminants ( Figure 4 ). Recreational fishing data is unavailable, but annual commercial harvests of all fisheries species landed in the Chesapeake Bay more than doubled between 1950 and 1990 with harvests decreasing since 1990. Several factors, such as changes in gear technology, regulations, and environmental conditions, may have led to the increase and subsequent decrease of commercial harvests. For example, eastern oyster, blue crab, menhaden, Atlantic surf clam, Atlantic croaker, striped bass, and alewife harvests have fluctuated over time but generally have decreased since the mid-1990s due to water quality issues and overharvesting. Oysters are a popular recreational fishery and an economic resource for Bay fisherman and the region, worth more than $46 million in commercial harvests in 2016.\",\n \"Oysters also improve ecological conditions in the Bay by filtering water and providing habitat for other species. Bay commercial oyster landings rose steeply in the late 1800s, reaching more than 120 million pounds, and began to decline in the early 1900s, leading to state and federal regulations on the industry. Oyster populations were further affected by diseases such as Dermo and MSX. Poor water conditions, disease, habitat loss, and overfishing led to harvests of less than 1 million pounds of landings in the 1990s and 2000s ( Figure 5 ). Since 2007, oyster landings have increased relative to its low point, with almost 5 million pounds landed in 2016. Blue crabs are commercially and recreationally harvested and have been affected by habitat loss and overharvesting in the Bay. The Bay blue crab fishery has experienced high and low commercial harvest years ( Figure 5 ). Volume of blue crab landed reached a high point in 1993, with more than 110 million pounds, and a low of approximately 42 million pounds in 1955.\",\n \"The Bay and its watershed are home to thousands of species of plants and wildlife, including 46 plants and 113 animals listed as threatened or endangered species as of August 2014. Plants and wildlife populations in the Bay are principally affected by loss of habitat and in some cases disease and toxins. For example, the Bay region has one of the highest concentrations of bald eagles and osprey in the country. Although the birds are recovering from the effects of DDT pesticide use in the 20 th century, they continue to be affected by habitat loss. The Bay is also home to more than 300 invasive species, which can have negative ecological and economic effects on native plants and wildlife. For example, nutria, which are semi-aquatic South American rodents introduced to Maryland in 1943, have destroyed some wetlands with their feeding habits. Efforts by federal, state, and local government, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to remove the invasive rodent began in 2002; the known nutria populations were removed by 2016, and monitoring is ongoing.\",\n \"According to stakeholders, restoring the Bay ecosystem state is a complicated process due to the size of the Bay's watershed, the variety of stakeholders, and the complexity of Chesapeake Bay ecosystems. The Bay transcends geographical and political boundaries and affects numerous jurisdictions. Restoration efforts are challenging because they require cooperation and coordination between multiple federal and state agencies, tribes, local governments, NGOs, and private stakeholders. Planning and implementing complex environmental and ecosystem restoration efforts raises many technical, policy, and organizational issues. Congress began to concentrate on Bay issues in the 1960s, as public and stakeholder pressure grew for federal government involvement in Bay restoration. Congress ordered a series of reports from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the EPA to investigate issues including the decline in fisheries, \\\"control of noxious weeds,\\\" water pollution, and water quality control in the Chesapeake Bay. Since then, federal restoration activities have expanded across several federal agencies and are primarily coordinated by the Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP). The CBP was established by the 1983 Chesapeake Bay Agreement.\",\n \"In 1987, Congress codified the CBP and directed the EPA Administrator to achieve and maintain water quality and to conduct habitat restoration and conservation for the benefit of Bay living resources in Section 117 of the Clean Water Act ( P.L. 100-4 ). The CBP is a partnership of federal, state, and local agencies; tribes; academic institutions; and NGOs, and restoration activity implementation authority lies within individual agency program authorizations and the states. The CBP works with states through a committee structure to develop actions and strategies for restoration. The program's organization has changed over time as partners, agreements, and priorities have shifted. The program's organization may continue to change under the CBP's adaptive management approach. CBP activities have been led by an Executive Council (EC). The EC establishes policy direction for restoring and protecting the Bay and its living resources and is accountable to the public for progress made under the agreement ( Figure 6 ). The EC is supported by the Principals' Staff Committee. Strategic planning, creation of guidance, and implementation of activities toward Agreement goals occur in the five different groups below the Principals' Staff Committee. The entire effort is informed by three\",\n \"Advisory Committees.\",\n \"Federal agency representatives are involved at each level of the CBP organization, including membership on the Executive Council; Principals' Staff Committee; Management Board; Goal Implementation Teams; and Science, Technical Analysis, and Reporting group. EPA has been considered the lead federal agency for implementing the program because it was directed by Congress to continue the CBP (33 U.S.C. 1267(b); Figure 6 ). Congress also directed the EPA to maintain an EPA Chesapeake Bay Program office (33 U.S.C. 1267(b)), which is staffed by employees from a number of federal and state agencies, academic institutions, and NGOs. Federal agencies are also partners through formal memoranda of understanding with EPA. The agencies also coordinate through the Federal Leadership Committee (FLC), which was established through President Obama's 2009 Executive Order 13508. In addition, federal agencies have various authorities to implement restoration programs and activities in the Bay on their own, as discussed in the section titled \\\" What Authorities Are Federal Agencies Working Under to Restore the Chesapeake Bay? \\\" Each of the states in the Bay watershed conduct restoration efforts on an independent or joint basis. State restoration activities are formally shared and coordinated through proceedings of the CBP Executive\",\n \"Council.\",\n \"Congress directed EPA to aid states in developing action plans to reach restoration objectives (33 U.S.C. 1267). In addition to information sharing and coordination, federal agencies may award grants to the states to improve water quality and living resources in the Bay. E.O. 13508 sought to strengthen federal coordination with state and local governments. In its oversight role, Congress continues to weigh if and how Chesapeake Bay federal restoration efforts should continue. If there is a federal role, Congress may consider how Bay restoration is coordinated, how much funding is available and may be needed for Bay restoration efforts, and what progress is being made in restoring the Bay. A large, multi-jurisdictional ecosystem restoration initiative, such as in the Bay, raises several questions for Congress about the federal role in restoration. Congress may consider the mechanisms in place to guide restoration activities, what role the federal government has in Bay restoration, and what federal agency authorities exist or are needed to complete, coordinate, and fund restoration activities in the Bay.\",\n \"Although various state and federal stakeholders have set forth several frameworks, agreements, and visions for restoring the Chesapeake Bay, which address different jurisdictions, Bay issues and timelines, no single, comprehensive ecosystem restoration plan exists to facilitate coordination of these efforts. There are currently three guiding documents for restoration and one draft plan: the 2010 Strategy for Protecting and Restoring the Chesapeake Bay Watershed (pursuant to President Obama's 2009 E.O. 13508), the EPA's 2010 Chesapeake Bay total maximum daily load (TMDL), the 2014 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement, and the draft 2018 USACE Chesapeake Bay Comprehensive Water Resource and Restoration Plan. Table 1 briefly compares these guiding documents. The extent to which one of these plans guides restoration efforts is unclear. The plans cover different jurisdictions and vary in terms of implementation. The plans also relate to each other in different ways. Select differences include the following: Implementation of the 2010 E.O. strategy, 2010 TMDL, and 2014 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement is led by the EPA, with other federal agencies involved in some cases, and each plan contains two-year work plans or milestones.\",\n \"In comparison, the 2018 USACE draft comprehensive plan does not specify a certain timeline, contain specific goals or objectives, or require periodic sub-plans. The 2014 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement includes many of the actions outlined in the 2010 E.O. strategy and the 2010 TMDL, and has guided the development of the 2018 USACE draft comprehensive plan. Stakeholders utilize the plans in different ways. The Trump Administration has left the 2009 E.O. in place, but the 2010 E.O. strategy's use as a guiding mechanism is uncertain. Some federal program managers have argued that the 2010 E.O. strategy is no longer a focus and that the 2018 draft USACE comprehensive plan could serve as an organizing document for federal agencies when considering where to focus restoration efforts geographically. Some stakeholders have lauded the 2014 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement's success in obtaining consensus results largely without regulatory or legally required action, in contrast to the actions required by the 2010 TMDL (see next section for more information). Others argue that the voluntary nature of the 2014 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement weakens restoration efforts.\",\n \"Finally, some may contend that the 2010 TMDL, which is focused on specific water quality factors, is not holistic in terms of addressing the entire ecosystem. Congress may consider other questions related to the plans, such as whether the current plans successfully integrate efforts across agencies, states, and local governments or whether they overlap and may cause confusion. In addition, Congress may continue to consider if the plans are most effective in their current states or with changes to jurisdictions, leadership, and enforcement, and if state and local stakeholders have been or should be equal partners in the implementation of the plans. Congress may examine the federal government's role in restoration efforts. The federal government is authorized to perform restoration activities under several congressional authorizations (see next section). Federal agencies complete restoration activities on their own or in partnership with other agencies. Federal agencies execute these collaborations through memoranda of understanding. Congress may also examine the role of state restoration efforts as they are coordinated and integrated with federal work in the Chesapeake Bay.\",\n \"With the exception of the statutory relationship between the federal government and states in protecting water quality under the Clean Water Act, the federal and state roles in Bay restoration are not defined by law. This is in contrast to other restoration initiatives, such as the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration, which considers the State of Florida as a nonfederal partner with formal duties under law ( P.L. 106-541 , Title VI, §601). In the Chesapeake Bay, coordination of broad restoration activities between state and federal agencies is largely achieved through the voluntary Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement and CBP, where decisions are determined by consensus. Some have challenged the extent of the federal government's role in managing restoration of the Chesapeake Bay. These stakeholders and Members of Congress contend that the federal government has overreached its authority and intruded upon the states' powers to regulate land use, especially in regard to the EPA TMDL. For example, a lawsuit challenged the extent of EPA's authority and oversight over state actions, in regard to the TMDL, with the Third Circuit of Appeals finding that the EPA had acted within its authority.\",\n \"In the 115 th Congress, the FY2019 House Interior, Environment, Financial Services, and General Government appropriations bill ( H.R. 6147 ) was amended to include a provision that would prohibit EPA funding for actions against watershed states and DC in the event the jurisdiction did not meet TMDL goals. The Trump Administration has encouraged \\\"the six Chesapeake Bay states and Washington, D.C. to continue to make progress in restoring the Bay from within [EPA] core water programs\\\" in the proposed FY2018 EPA budget. In contrast, other stakeholders—such as some environmental groups, local government officials, and other Members of Congress—support federal government involvement in Bay restoration. These stakeholders argue that the federal government should lead restoration efforts and should provide greater federal funding for restoration activities. Several federal agencies conduct restoration activities in the Chesapeake Bay watershed independently or with other agencies under various authorities. In contrast to restoration efforts in other large estuaries, such as the Great Lakes or Everglades, Congress has not authorized restoration work in the Bay under a single comprehensive law. Some of the restoration work is authorized under a variety of Chesapeake Bay-specific laws and regulations ( Appendix C ).\",\n \"For example, Congress has directed the EPA to maintain a Chesapeake Bay Program (33 U.S.C. §1267), offer Chesapeake Bay restoration-related grants (33 U.S.C. §1267(d) & (e)), and perform annual Bay grass surveys (33 U.S.C. §2803(d)), among other activities. Congress has also authorized federal agencies to perform more general activities that may be applied in the Chesapeake Bay, such as the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. §§1251 et. seq.) and the Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act (16 U.S.C. §§4701 et seq.) ( Appendix C ). Some stakeholders may contend that directing agencies to work together under a specific federal authority and with an organizing structure would encourage more efficient progress toward restoration. Congress has enacted organizing entities for the Great Lakes Task Force, under the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative ( P.L. 111-88 , Title I), and the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force, under the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan ( P.L. 106-541 , Title VI, Section 601). Other stakeholders, however, may note that legislation authorizing coordination and collaboration among federal agencies is not necessary, as restoration activities are already authorized for the EPA and several other agencies under more general authorities.\",\n \"Further, these individuals may note that federal agencies are coordinating efforts under the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement and through the CBP. Congress continues to consider how much funding has been spent, how much should be allocated to Chesapeake Bay restoration, and the total costs of restoring the Bay. Answering these questions is complicated by the number of federal programs and states involved in restoring the Chesapeake Bay. Congress has been interested in how much has been appropriated for Bay restoration, in part, to evaluate the appropriate level of federal spending on restoration activities. Most federal funding to restore the Chesapeake Bay is discretionary, subject to the annual congressional appropriations process. Until recently, tracking the amounts federal agencies have spent on restoration has been difficult, as many nationwide programs support restoration activities in the watershed but do not specify the level of funding for Chesapeake Bay efforts in their budget. Congress has been interested in tracking costs related to Bay restoration and enacted the Chesapeake Bay Accountability and Recovery Act in 2014 (CBARA; P.L.\",\n \"113-273 ), which requires the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to compile Chesapeake Bay restoration funding information from the seven federal departments on the FLC in an annual crosscut report. OMB released crosscut reports in 2016 and 2017 for funding information between FY2014 and FY2016, and estimates for FY2017 ( Table 2 ). The reported amounts have specific limitations and assumptions (see text box below). According to the Chesapeake Bay crosscut reports, the federal government had between $460 million and $570 million per year in budget authority for restoration activities in the Bay between FY2014 and FY2017 ( Table 2 ). According to the crosscut, EPA and the Department of Agriculture (USDA) provided the most funding to the overall total budget authority. EPA distributed two-thirds through grants to state and local partners. The remaining EPA funding supported CBP office and personnel, contracts and interagency agreements, and scientific analysis and decision-support tools. USDA distributed most of its restoration funding through the nationwide Natural Resource Conservation Service, which supports conservation easement programs and provides technical and financial assistance to farmers and private landowners.\",\n \"Stakeholders have various viewpoints on how much funding should be appropriated to Chesapeake Bay restoration that Congress may consider during the appropriations process. For example, some stakeholders and Members of Congress have emphasized that consistent federal funding for activities is key to successful restoration and that the elimination or significant reductions of restoration funding could halt current progress on restoring the Bay. Others contend that the federal government is spending too much on restoration and that financial responsibility for restoring the Bay should fall to the states. For instance, the Trump Administration proposed to eliminate FY2018 funding for the EPA CBP and noted that EPA would \\\"encourage the six Chesapeake Bay states and Washington, D.C. to continue to make progress in restoring the Bay from within core [EPA] water programs\\\" and return \\\"responsibility for funding local environmental efforts and programs to state and local entities.\\\" In FY2019, the Administration's EPA budget request proposed $7.3 million for the CBP for state and local water quality monitoring and science coordination activities. Some stakeholders may contend that the Chesapeake Bay restoration effort would have a higher chance of receiving consistent funding if the authorization for funding for the CBP\",\n \"were current.\",\n \"The CBP authorization for appropriations expired in 2005. Similarly, other stakeholders, who believe that federal restoration efforts receive insufficient funding, may argue that if all federal restoration efforts were authorized and organized under one law, the efforts may receive more funding. For example, Great Lakes restoration activities were supported by appropriations of $888 million to $986 million per year between FY2012 and FY2016, the largest component of which supported the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, a program with dedicated Great Lakes funding, in addition to agency Great Lakes restoration work. Some could disagree by arguing that gathering all restoration activities under one authorization could create a large target for funding decreases, implying that having restoration efforts spread across several authorities is more advantageous for receiving appropriations. Several groups have attempted to estimate the total cost of restoring the Bay and maintaining a restored Bay, with varying results. Cost estimates have ranged from $7 billion for individual state costs to $28 billion for the entire watershed, with additional annual maintenance costs projected once restoration is complete. Costs estimates vary depending on the restoration metrics, assumptions, and measures (e.g., nutrient-reduction technology, agricultural best management practices, etc.) included in the\",\n \"calculations.\",\n \"Some stakeholders contend that the increase in social and economic benefits to the watershed will justify the final cost. They add that the current cost of restoration is likely to be less than the cost of restoration in the future. Other stakeholders argue that the costs have and will result in continual, if slow, improvements to Bay conditions. Others, including some Members of Congress, question the justification for funding Bay restoration because a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis of restoration has not been completed. Some stakeholders may also contend that the reported improvements in water quality and habitat do not justify the funding already spent nor the expected final cost to restore the Bay. Congress continues to be interested in whether progress is being made in restoring the Bay. The Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement contains milestones for achieving its goals, and progress toward meeting those goals by 2025 is evaluated periodically. Even with these evaluations, it is unclear whether progress is being made toward the stated goals. Since the CBP's inception, stakeholders have considered whether appropriate progress is being made to restore the Chesapeake Bay and its resources.\",\n \"Several Chesapeake Bay evaluations are conducted on an ongoing basis to measure the progress of Bay restoration over time, each with unique methodologies. Chesapeake Bay restoration progress results differ among evaluations. The differences may be due to different priorities, methodologies, data sets, metrics, and timescales of interest. The CBP has periodically assessed progress in restoring the Bay since the 1983 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement. Goals set in the Bay agreements have been largely missed, such as in the 2000 Chesapeake Bay Agreement, which aspired to restore the Bay to certain conditions by 2010. The 2014 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement set 2025 as its target year to reach certain goals (and underlying outcomes) and tracks biennial progress toward the goals. For 2016-2017, CBP reports that progress was made in five goals, and five goals showed no progress/regress. For example, progress was made toward the sustainable fisheries goal due to reported increases in the blue crab and oyster populations. In July 2018, the EPA released its midpoint assessment of progress in implementing practices to reach a 60% reduction of nutrients and sediment by 2017, as set in the TMDL.\",\n \"According to the EPA, jurisdictions have implemented practices to achieve the phosphorus and sediment reductions, but did not reach the nitrogen reduction. In addition to federal reporting, several NGOs have evaluated restoration progress over time. Non-federal evaluations of restoration progress generally have been critical of the level of progress. The 2016 Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) State of the Bay report assigned the Chesapeake Bay a rating of 34 out of 100, a slight increase from the 2014 rating of 32. Since 1998, CBF has rated the Bay between 27 and 34; CBF would consider the Bay restored at a rating of 70. Similar Chesapeake Bay conditions were reported by an evaluation completed by the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science (UMCES). According to UMCES, in 2017 decreased nutrient levels were \\\"significantly improving\\\" the Bay, but poor to moderate water clarity and nitrogen, among other indicators, persisted. UMCES rated the Bay at a C, or 54% overall; since 1986, UMCES has rated the Bay between 36% and 55%. Stakeholders have a range of opinions on whether Bay restoration is progressing. Some stakeholders may contend that Bay conditions are improving at an acceptable rate for the resources\",\n \"being spent on restoration.\",\n \"Others argue that restoration efforts are progressing even though restoration ratings remain stable or show minor improvements. These stakeholders note that a stable ecosystem is progress since there has been no further deterioration of conditions despite population growth, increasing impermeable surfaces, and growing nutrient loads in the watershed. Others may contend that although the Bay is improving, it could be doing so at a faster pace. Finally, some stakeholders may argue that it may not be possible to restore the Bay to a pristine or semi-pristine level due to the persistence of original problems such as excess nutrients and habitat loss, among others. These stakeholders may argue for lower expectations to measure restoration success or concede that a man-made ecosystem should be the goal of restoration. Since 1983, the progress of the Bay's resources and restoration efforts has received oversight from both the public and different levels of government. Congress, GAO, and the EPA Office of Inspector General (OIG) have addressed the CBP's reporting of Bay health and restoration progress. GAO recommended the establishment of an independent evaluator or peer review in 2005, again in 2008, with the EPA OIG echoing these concerns in 2008 as\",\n \"well.\",\n \"President Obama's 2009 Executive Order 13508 called for a consistent, periodic evaluation in coordination with the FLC. In response, some CBP stakeholders argued for the creation of an outside review group, an independent entity within the CBP with an enforcement role, or an internal audit committee. Some noted that the use of a one-time National Academy of Science evaluation in 2011, while helpful to evaluate the short-term scientific and technical efforts of restoration, could not hold the CBP accountable in the long term. Others argued that the CBP's adoption of an adaptive management framework, which allows internal program evaluations, removed the need for external evaluation. In 2014, Congress directed EPA to appoint an independent evaluator to report its findings and recommendations to Congress on a biannual basis (Chesapeake Bay Accountability and Recovery Act; CBARA; P.L. 113-273 ). Under CBARA, EPA must appoint an independent evaluator from a list of nominees provided by the CBP Executive Council. In June 2018, CBP stated that the implementation of an independent evaluator was \\\"on hold pending direction from the [Principle Staff Committee].\\\" Appendix A. Chronology Appendix B. Chesapeake Bay Agreement Over Time Appendix C. Selected Federal Authorities Related to Chesapeake\",\n \"Bay Restoration\"\n]","isConversational":false}}},{"rowIdx":16994,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"string","value":"train_16994"},"question":{"kind":"string","value":"Write a detailed summary of the following government report."},"answer":{"kind":"string","value":"Congress is concerned with the pace of the recovery in the housing and mortgage markets. A series of laws starting with the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 (ESA; P.L. 110-185) were designed to increase the availability and affordability of mortgages in \"high-cost\" areas. This concern about housing and mortgage markets is balanced by attention being paid to possible taxpayer financial risks and the desire to minimize government intervention in economic markets. Two congressionally chartered government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs), Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, provide liquidity to the mortgage market by purchasing residential mortgages from the original lenders and either reselling them as mortgage-backed securities to investors or holding them as investments in their own portfolios. Their charters include a ceiling on the size of loans the GSEs can buy. Since the end of FY2011 (September 30, 2011), the maximum limit in high-cost areas was reduced to $625,500 from $729,750. The current high-cost limit is calculated as 115% of the area median house price, but cannot exceed 150% of the national limit or $625,500. The limit in other areas of the nation remains unchanged since 2006 at $417,000. Securitization of mortgages that exceed the applicable limit—called non-conforming jumbo loans—is done by private financial institutions, although in the present financial environment virtually no jumbo mortgages are being securitized. GSE status allows Fannie and Freddie to issue debt at lower cost than other private firms; part of this subsidy is passed on to home buyers in the form of lower interest rates. Interest rates on jumbo mortgages are slightly higher than those on the conforming loans that the GSEs can purchase. The spread between non-conforming jumbo and conforming loan rates has been elevated since the start of the financial crisis and is now about three-fourths of 1%. According to recent congressional testimony, most recent home purchase mortgages are guaranteed by FHA and securitized by Ginnie Mae; the majority of mortgages purchased recently by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have refinanced existing mortgages. S. 1217, the Housing Finance Reform and Taxpayer Protection Act of 2013, would reduce the maximum high-cost limit from 150% of the national limit ($625,500) to 130% of the national limit ($542,100). H.R. 2767, the Protecting American Taxpayers and Homeowners (PATH) Act of 2013, could reduce the high-cost limit to $525,500. This report analyzes the implications of the higher conforming loan limit in high-cost areas. It will be updated as legislative and market developments warrant."},"documents":{"kind":"list like","value":["Until they were placed under government conservatorship in September 2008, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were stockholder-controlled companies that were chartered by Congress to improve the nation's residential mortgage market and are known as government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs). The charters convey special privileges, but also impose certain restrictions on the GSEs' business activities. Congress enacted the modern conforming loan limit, which establishes the maximum size mortgage that the GSEs can purchase, in the Housing and Community Development Act of 1980. The initial limit was $93,750 for a single-family home (39% above the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) ceiling at the time), and the law provided for annual increases in the loan limit to adjust for rising prices, as reflected in a housing price index published by the Federal Housing Finance Board (FHFB). This loan limit is the maximum value of a mortgage that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac can purchase. The loan limit was initially set at a level significantly higher than the national average home price, and with indexation it has remained higher. In 2007, the conforming loan limit stood at 145% of the average new home price, and 162% of the average resale price of an","existing home.","Since 2006, the basic conforming loan limit has held steady at $417,000. In 2008, the passage of the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 (ESA; P.L. 110-185 ) created a temporary higher loan limit in high-cost areas that was 125% of the area median house price, but no greater than 175% of the national median house price. This resulted in limits greater than $417,000 in areas where the median house price exceeded $333,600. The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA; P.L. 110-289 ) and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA; P.L. 111-5 ) made temporary and permanent changes to the limits for high-cost areas. With the expiration of the Continuing Appropriations Act of 2011, the conforming loan limit in high-cost areas is determined by the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 ( P.L. 110-289 ): 115% of area median house price, but not to exceed 150% of the national conforming loan limit, which results in a high-cost limit of $625,500. This results in limits greater than $417,000 in areas where the median house price exceeds $362,609.","According to a study by Federal Reserve economists, if the HERA limits had applied in 2010, 1.3% of home-purchase mortgages and 1.3% of refinance mortgages that were eligible for GSE purchase would not have been eligible for purchase by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. On the other hand, of those mortgages that would have lost their eligibility, 53.4% of those used to purchase a home and 59.6% of those used to refinance were purchased by the GSEs. The Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act of 2012 ( P.L. 112-55 ) set the high-cost limit for mortgages insured by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) at 125% of area median house price, not to exceed 175% of the national limit or $729,750. Prior to this law, the high-cost FHA mortgage limit was identical to the GSE high-cost conforming loan limit. In other areas, the FHA mortgage limit was and is 65% of the national conforming loan limit or $271,050. The interaction between the 125% of area median house price and the $271,050 national limit raises the high-cost limit in areas where the median house price is greater than $216,840.","According to recent congressional testimony, most recent home purchase mortgages are guaranteed by FHA and securitized by Ginnie Mae; the majority of mortgages purchased recently by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have refinanced existing mortgages. Since 2008, Congress has adjusted the conforming loan limit five times. The first bill was ESA, which enacted a temporary increase in the conforming loan limit. For mortgages originated between July 1, 2007, and December 31, 2008, the loan limit for an area was the greater of (1) the existing limit of $417,000 or (2) 125% of the area median home price, not to exceed a ceiling of 175% of the statutory limit, or $729,750. A total of 71 metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas had higher 2008 conforming loan limits, including 224 counties and cities not in counties. There were 21 counties outside of metropolitan or micropolitan areas with increases in 2008. HERA permanently removed the single conforming loan limit for the contiguous 48 states. The loan limit is higher in metropolitan statistical areas—defined as \"high-cost\"—where the median home sale price exceeds the current conforming loan limit.","Under HERA, the conforming loan limit for those areas was 115% of the median home price in the area, except that increases were to be capped at 150% of the statutory loan limit (the limit that now applies to Alaska, Hawaii, and the two island territories). This system for determining the limit took effect when the temporary limits set by the stimulus act expired on December 31, 2008. Subject to the requirement in their charters that loans purchased be no more than one year old, the GSEs were able to purchase high-cost conforming loans after December 31, 2008. ARRA returned the conforming loan limits for mortgages originated in 2009 in high-cost areas to the 2008 ESA limit, that is, the high-cost limit was set at 175% of the statutory limit or $729,750. The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), which is both regulator and conservator of the GSEs, was authorized to create subarea limits, but has declined to do so. The FY2010 Department of the Interior Appropriations Act ( P.L. 111-88 ) applies the ESA limits to mortgages originated in calendar 2010. The Continuing Appropriations Act of 2011 ( P.L.","111-242 ) continued the ESA limits to mortgages originated in FY2011. They were not continued, however, into FY2012. Therefore the current limits are those set by HERA. A look at median prices in various metropolitan areas of the country shows that the conforming limit is rising in several localities under ESA, and (in fewer areas) has risen under HERA. Table 2 shows the current conforming loan limit for selected areas. Some areas (including Barnstable, MA; Boulder, CO; Miami, FL; and Riverside, CA) are now subject to the nationwide conforming loan limit, but under earlier law were high-cost areas. The existence of high-cost housing areas implies that the benefits of the GSE subsidy are not distributed uniformly. GSE status allows Fannie and Freddie to borrow at lower interest rates than non-GSE financial institutions. A portion of this subsidy is passed on to home buyers whose mortgage loans are purchased and securitized by the GSEs. In 2003, Fannie and Freddie purchased 35.1% of all mortgages (by dollar value) originated nationwide. This percentage varied from state to state. In three states (California, New York, and Connecticut) and the District of Columbia, the GSEs purchased less than 30% of new","mortgages.","In 15 states, on the other hand, the two GSEs purchased more than 40% of new mortgages. In high-cost areas, the GSEs' mortgage purchase and securitization operations are constrained by the conforming loan limit. Loans that exceed the conforming loan limits can only be securitized by non-GSE issuers, and prior to the recent recession, there was a large secondary market for jumbo mortgage loans. In 2006, total prime jumbo loan originations were estimated at $480 billion, while $219 billion in prime jumbo mortgage-backed securities (MBS) were issued, implying a securitization rate for jumbo mortgages of 45.6%. By contrast, Fannie and Freddie securitized 83% of loans originated in 2006 in the conventional, conforming mortgage markets where they are allowed to operate. Conforming mortgage loans tend to carry lower interest rates than nonconforming loans. A number of studies have attempted to measure the spread between conforming mortgage and jumbo loan rates and the extent to which the rate differential can be attributed to the subsidy contained in GSE status. Most estimates of the spread between conforming and jumbo loans have fallen into the range of 18-60 basis points.","(A basis point is one one-hundredth of a percent.) All researchers assume that at least part of this spread is due to the GSE subsidy, but other factors are involved. For example, as properties become more expensive, lenders worry more about price volatility. That is, as the risk of a significant drop in the market value of the house—the loan's collateral—increases, lenders raise rates to compensate for that risk. Second, the existing jumbo secondary market cannot realize certain economies of scale because market participants are largely frozen out of the conforming loan market (due to their inability to compete with the GSEs). These and other factors suggest that allowing the GSEs into the jumbo market would not cause the entire spread to disappear. There is no consensus as to how much of the 18-60 basis point spread is due to the GSE subsidy—estimates range as low as 4 basis points. Thus, it is uncertain how significant the benefits would be if the conforming loan limit were increased during normal times. As a rough guide to the size of potential savings, assume that the interest rate on a 30-year, 4.00% mortgage is reduced to 3.75%.","Over the 10-year average life of a mortgage, the savings would be about $10,750, or approximately $90 per month. Of course, this figure shrinks if some portion of the rate spread persists, if, that is, not all the savings are passed through to borrowers. If the interest rate paid by the hypothetical home buyer in the example above falls by only seven basis points, the monthly payments are lower by about $28 a month, and interest savings would be about $4,400 over 10 years. With the housing market downturn that began in 2006, there is a new rationale for a higher conforming loan limit: to stimulate the jumbo mortgage market, which would in turn provide stimulus for the housing sector and the economy. Credit conditions in the jumbo market are said to be unusually tight—the spread between jumbo and conforming loan rates has widened. In August 2013, the interest rate on a \"conforming jumbo\" was approximately the same as the interest rate on a conforming mortgage and the spread on a \"non-conforming jumbo\" was around 34 basis points.","Since 2007, the market for private, non-GSE mortgage-backed securities has all but disappeared, as investors are unwilling to accept the risks without the GSE guarantee. Another reason why non-conforming loans are more expensive is that in the absence of a secondary market for jumbo loans, lenders must hold the loans on their own books and bear the risk of further drops in home prices and increases in defaults due to the weak economy. Allowing the GSEs to securitize some jumbo loans restored liquidity to the part of the secondary market covered by the higher limits, enabled lenders to transfer the risk of holding jumbo mortgages, and made loans more affordable and available. The conservatorship of Fannie and Freddie and the Treasury financial support are indicative of strong government support for the GSEs that should reduce the risk to lenders of jumbo loans that are purchased by the GSEs.","According to the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA), there has been a very slight resurgence in non-GSE MBS issuance—the value of such bonds issued in the first six months of 2013 was $39.8 billion, compared with $946.4 billion issued by the government agencies: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the Federal Home Loan Banks, and Ginnie Mae. In the first six months of 2012, $16.7 billion of MBS was issued by the private sector as compared with $789.9 billion by government agencies. The case for a higher conforming loan limit is based partly on equity concerns. Home buyers in the conforming mortgage market may receive part of the GSE subsidy in the form of lower interest rates. Because housing prices vary across the nation, the geographical distribution of this benefit is uneven. Before the increases in high-cost areas, the loan limit was $417,000; in many parts of the country, this amount covers all but the top end of the housing market. In high-cost areas such as San Francisco or New York City, on the other hand, a large proportion of real estate transactions exceed that limit.","A counter-argument is that the additional subsidy created by raising the loan limit would go overwhelmingly to mortgage holders with high incomes. If the purpose of the GSEs is to foster home ownership, the impact of raising the limit is likely to be minor: those who would benefit from the change already have high homeownership rates. Another key issue is risk. As noted above, the non-conforming jumbo home market is dormant because perceptions of risk are sharply higher than they were during the boom. Lenders are more cautious because the value of their collateral—the house—may drop further. MBS investors have the same fear, making it harder for lenders to transfer price and credit risk to the secondary market. GSE entry into the jumbo market would appear to meet the needs of both lenders and investors: the GSE (and the implicit Treasury) guarantee would reassure MBS buyers, leading to a resumption of securitization, in turn encouraging lenders to make loans at more affordable rates. But GSE participation would not reduce overall risk in the market, it would simply shift that risk to the taxpayers.","As house prices continue to fall, and delinquencies and foreclosures continue to rise, the GSEs have lost billions of dollars and now depend on special support from the federal government. The ultimate cost to taxpayers of this intervention is unknown. If the current tightness in the mortgage market reflects an overreaction on the part of market participants in the grip of panic, some argue that a higher conforming loan limit may be a useful corrective and avert unnecessary damage to housing markets and the economy. On the other hand, if market fundamentals dictate that home prices decline further, the assumption of more risk by the GSEs (and, more or less implicitly, by the Treasury) could arguably slow the market adjustment process and foster an unwelcome expectation in financial markets that investors will be rescued from the consequences of their own mistakes."],"string":"[\n \"Until they were placed under government conservatorship in September 2008, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were stockholder-controlled companies that were chartered by Congress to improve the nation's residential mortgage market and are known as government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs). The charters convey special privileges, but also impose certain restrictions on the GSEs' business activities. Congress enacted the modern conforming loan limit, which establishes the maximum size mortgage that the GSEs can purchase, in the Housing and Community Development Act of 1980. The initial limit was $93,750 for a single-family home (39% above the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) ceiling at the time), and the law provided for annual increases in the loan limit to adjust for rising prices, as reflected in a housing price index published by the Federal Housing Finance Board (FHFB). This loan limit is the maximum value of a mortgage that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac can purchase. The loan limit was initially set at a level significantly higher than the national average home price, and with indexation it has remained higher. In 2007, the conforming loan limit stood at 145% of the average new home price, and 162% of the average resale price of an\",\n \"existing home.\",\n \"Since 2006, the basic conforming loan limit has held steady at $417,000. In 2008, the passage of the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 (ESA; P.L. 110-185 ) created a temporary higher loan limit in high-cost areas that was 125% of the area median house price, but no greater than 175% of the national median house price. This resulted in limits greater than $417,000 in areas where the median house price exceeded $333,600. The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA; P.L. 110-289 ) and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA; P.L. 111-5 ) made temporary and permanent changes to the limits for high-cost areas. With the expiration of the Continuing Appropriations Act of 2011, the conforming loan limit in high-cost areas is determined by the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 ( P.L. 110-289 ): 115% of area median house price, but not to exceed 150% of the national conforming loan limit, which results in a high-cost limit of $625,500. This results in limits greater than $417,000 in areas where the median house price exceeds $362,609.\",\n \"According to a study by Federal Reserve economists, if the HERA limits had applied in 2010, 1.3% of home-purchase mortgages and 1.3% of refinance mortgages that were eligible for GSE purchase would not have been eligible for purchase by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. On the other hand, of those mortgages that would have lost their eligibility, 53.4% of those used to purchase a home and 59.6% of those used to refinance were purchased by the GSEs. The Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act of 2012 ( P.L. 112-55 ) set the high-cost limit for mortgages insured by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) at 125% of area median house price, not to exceed 175% of the national limit or $729,750. Prior to this law, the high-cost FHA mortgage limit was identical to the GSE high-cost conforming loan limit. In other areas, the FHA mortgage limit was and is 65% of the national conforming loan limit or $271,050. The interaction between the 125% of area median house price and the $271,050 national limit raises the high-cost limit in areas where the median house price is greater than $216,840.\",\n \"According to recent congressional testimony, most recent home purchase mortgages are guaranteed by FHA and securitized by Ginnie Mae; the majority of mortgages purchased recently by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have refinanced existing mortgages. Since 2008, Congress has adjusted the conforming loan limit five times. The first bill was ESA, which enacted a temporary increase in the conforming loan limit. For mortgages originated between July 1, 2007, and December 31, 2008, the loan limit for an area was the greater of (1) the existing limit of $417,000 or (2) 125% of the area median home price, not to exceed a ceiling of 175% of the statutory limit, or $729,750. A total of 71 metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas had higher 2008 conforming loan limits, including 224 counties and cities not in counties. There were 21 counties outside of metropolitan or micropolitan areas with increases in 2008. HERA permanently removed the single conforming loan limit for the contiguous 48 states. The loan limit is higher in metropolitan statistical areas—defined as \\\"high-cost\\\"—where the median home sale price exceeds the current conforming loan limit.\",\n \"Under HERA, the conforming loan limit for those areas was 115% of the median home price in the area, except that increases were to be capped at 150% of the statutory loan limit (the limit that now applies to Alaska, Hawaii, and the two island territories). This system for determining the limit took effect when the temporary limits set by the stimulus act expired on December 31, 2008. Subject to the requirement in their charters that loans purchased be no more than one year old, the GSEs were able to purchase high-cost conforming loans after December 31, 2008. ARRA returned the conforming loan limits for mortgages originated in 2009 in high-cost areas to the 2008 ESA limit, that is, the high-cost limit was set at 175% of the statutory limit or $729,750. The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), which is both regulator and conservator of the GSEs, was authorized to create subarea limits, but has declined to do so. The FY2010 Department of the Interior Appropriations Act ( P.L. 111-88 ) applies the ESA limits to mortgages originated in calendar 2010. The Continuing Appropriations Act of 2011 ( P.L.\",\n \"111-242 ) continued the ESA limits to mortgages originated in FY2011. They were not continued, however, into FY2012. Therefore the current limits are those set by HERA. A look at median prices in various metropolitan areas of the country shows that the conforming limit is rising in several localities under ESA, and (in fewer areas) has risen under HERA. Table 2 shows the current conforming loan limit for selected areas. Some areas (including Barnstable, MA; Boulder, CO; Miami, FL; and Riverside, CA) are now subject to the nationwide conforming loan limit, but under earlier law were high-cost areas. The existence of high-cost housing areas implies that the benefits of the GSE subsidy are not distributed uniformly. GSE status allows Fannie and Freddie to borrow at lower interest rates than non-GSE financial institutions. A portion of this subsidy is passed on to home buyers whose mortgage loans are purchased and securitized by the GSEs. In 2003, Fannie and Freddie purchased 35.1% of all mortgages (by dollar value) originated nationwide. This percentage varied from state to state. In three states (California, New York, and Connecticut) and the District of Columbia, the GSEs purchased less than 30% of new\",\n \"mortgages.\",\n \"In 15 states, on the other hand, the two GSEs purchased more than 40% of new mortgages. In high-cost areas, the GSEs' mortgage purchase and securitization operations are constrained by the conforming loan limit. Loans that exceed the conforming loan limits can only be securitized by non-GSE issuers, and prior to the recent recession, there was a large secondary market for jumbo mortgage loans. In 2006, total prime jumbo loan originations were estimated at $480 billion, while $219 billion in prime jumbo mortgage-backed securities (MBS) were issued, implying a securitization rate for jumbo mortgages of 45.6%. By contrast, Fannie and Freddie securitized 83% of loans originated in 2006 in the conventional, conforming mortgage markets where they are allowed to operate. Conforming mortgage loans tend to carry lower interest rates than nonconforming loans. A number of studies have attempted to measure the spread between conforming mortgage and jumbo loan rates and the extent to which the rate differential can be attributed to the subsidy contained in GSE status. Most estimates of the spread between conforming and jumbo loans have fallen into the range of 18-60 basis points.\",\n \"(A basis point is one one-hundredth of a percent.) All researchers assume that at least part of this spread is due to the GSE subsidy, but other factors are involved. For example, as properties become more expensive, lenders worry more about price volatility. That is, as the risk of a significant drop in the market value of the house—the loan's collateral—increases, lenders raise rates to compensate for that risk. Second, the existing jumbo secondary market cannot realize certain economies of scale because market participants are largely frozen out of the conforming loan market (due to their inability to compete with the GSEs). These and other factors suggest that allowing the GSEs into the jumbo market would not cause the entire spread to disappear. There is no consensus as to how much of the 18-60 basis point spread is due to the GSE subsidy—estimates range as low as 4 basis points. Thus, it is uncertain how significant the benefits would be if the conforming loan limit were increased during normal times. As a rough guide to the size of potential savings, assume that the interest rate on a 30-year, 4.00% mortgage is reduced to 3.75%.\",\n \"Over the 10-year average life of a mortgage, the savings would be about $10,750, or approximately $90 per month. Of course, this figure shrinks if some portion of the rate spread persists, if, that is, not all the savings are passed through to borrowers. If the interest rate paid by the hypothetical home buyer in the example above falls by only seven basis points, the monthly payments are lower by about $28 a month, and interest savings would be about $4,400 over 10 years. With the housing market downturn that began in 2006, there is a new rationale for a higher conforming loan limit: to stimulate the jumbo mortgage market, which would in turn provide stimulus for the housing sector and the economy. Credit conditions in the jumbo market are said to be unusually tight—the spread between jumbo and conforming loan rates has widened. In August 2013, the interest rate on a \\\"conforming jumbo\\\" was approximately the same as the interest rate on a conforming mortgage and the spread on a \\\"non-conforming jumbo\\\" was around 34 basis points.\",\n \"Since 2007, the market for private, non-GSE mortgage-backed securities has all but disappeared, as investors are unwilling to accept the risks without the GSE guarantee. Another reason why non-conforming loans are more expensive is that in the absence of a secondary market for jumbo loans, lenders must hold the loans on their own books and bear the risk of further drops in home prices and increases in defaults due to the weak economy. Allowing the GSEs to securitize some jumbo loans restored liquidity to the part of the secondary market covered by the higher limits, enabled lenders to transfer the risk of holding jumbo mortgages, and made loans more affordable and available. The conservatorship of Fannie and Freddie and the Treasury financial support are indicative of strong government support for the GSEs that should reduce the risk to lenders of jumbo loans that are purchased by the GSEs.\",\n \"According to the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA), there has been a very slight resurgence in non-GSE MBS issuance—the value of such bonds issued in the first six months of 2013 was $39.8 billion, compared with $946.4 billion issued by the government agencies: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the Federal Home Loan Banks, and Ginnie Mae. In the first six months of 2012, $16.7 billion of MBS was issued by the private sector as compared with $789.9 billion by government agencies. The case for a higher conforming loan limit is based partly on equity concerns. Home buyers in the conforming mortgage market may receive part of the GSE subsidy in the form of lower interest rates. Because housing prices vary across the nation, the geographical distribution of this benefit is uneven. Before the increases in high-cost areas, the loan limit was $417,000; in many parts of the country, this amount covers all but the top end of the housing market. In high-cost areas such as San Francisco or New York City, on the other hand, a large proportion of real estate transactions exceed that limit.\",\n \"A counter-argument is that the additional subsidy created by raising the loan limit would go overwhelmingly to mortgage holders with high incomes. If the purpose of the GSEs is to foster home ownership, the impact of raising the limit is likely to be minor: those who would benefit from the change already have high homeownership rates. Another key issue is risk. As noted above, the non-conforming jumbo home market is dormant because perceptions of risk are sharply higher than they were during the boom. Lenders are more cautious because the value of their collateral—the house—may drop further. MBS investors have the same fear, making it harder for lenders to transfer price and credit risk to the secondary market. GSE entry into the jumbo market would appear to meet the needs of both lenders and investors: the GSE (and the implicit Treasury) guarantee would reassure MBS buyers, leading to a resumption of securitization, in turn encouraging lenders to make loans at more affordable rates. But GSE participation would not reduce overall risk in the market, it would simply shift that risk to the taxpayers.\",\n \"As house prices continue to fall, and delinquencies and foreclosures continue to rise, the GSEs have lost billions of dollars and now depend on special support from the federal government. The ultimate cost to taxpayers of this intervention is unknown. If the current tightness in the mortgage market reflects an overreaction on the part of market participants in the grip of panic, some argue that a higher conforming loan limit may be a useful corrective and avert unnecessary damage to housing markets and the economy. On the other hand, if market fundamentals dictate that home prices decline further, the assumption of more risk by the GSEs (and, more or less implicitly, by the Treasury) could arguably slow the market adjustment process and foster an unwelcome expectation in financial markets that investors will be rescued from the consequences of their own mistakes.\"\n]","isConversational":false}}},{"rowIdx":16995,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"string","value":"train_16995"},"question":{"kind":"string","value":"Write a detailed summary of the following government report."},"answer":{"kind":"string","value":"This report examines the two patent law cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in its October 2015 Term. The first patent case, decided on June 13, 2016, Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., concerns the circumstances in which the awarding of enhanced damages in a patent infringement case are warranted and the discretion of the district courts to award them. Section 284 of the Patent Act provides that the court may increase damages up to three times the amount found by a jury or assessed by the court, but does not provide any guidance to the court, or any express limits or conditions, in how to exercise its discretion to do so. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit), a specialized tribunal established by Congress that has exclusive appellate jurisdiction in patent cases, limited such awards to cases of \"willful infringement.\" Specifically, in its 2007 opinion, In re Seagate Technology, the Federal Circuit established a two-part test that must be met before the district court can exercise its discretion to increase damages under Section 284. This strict standard arguably made such awards very difficult for patent holders to recover. In a unanimous opinion, the Halo Supreme Court rejected the Seagate test for enhanced damages, determining that it was unduly rigid and inconsistent with the statutory grant of discretion to courts to decide when to award punitive damages. In invalidating the strict Seagate test, the Halo opinion advised district courts to exercise their discretion to award enhanced damages in a manner consistent with Supreme Court precedent that generally reserves such punishment for \"egregious cases of misconduct beyond typical infringement.\" The Court's second patent opinion of its October 2015 Term, issued on June 20, 2016, involves the \"claim construction\" standard used by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) in an administrative proceeding called an inter partes review (IPR), where members of the public may challenge the validity of issued patents. In Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, the Court upheld a USPTO regulation that requires the PTAB, in IPR proceedings, to read a disputed patent claim according to its \"broadest reasonable interpretation.\" Such an interpretive standard arguably makes it more likely that the PTAB finds a patent claim to be obvious or not novel (and thus subject to invalidation), compared to in a judicial proceeding in which a court construes patent claims according to the \"plain and ordinary meaning\" of the claims' language (a narrower standard). Furthermore, the Cuozzo Court held that a provision of the Patent Act precludes judicial review of the USPTO's decision whether to institute an IPR proceeding. The Halo opinion arguably favors patent holders by improving the chances of receiving enhanced damages in patent infringement cases, while Cuozzo leaves in place a process that may help third parties seeking to challenge the validity of issued patents. However, the impact of these decisions could be affected in the future by Congress, as some Members have expressed their disagreement with the Halo decision, and legislation pending in the 114th Congress (the Innovation Act (H.R. 9)) and the Protecting American Talent and Entrepreneurship Act (PATENT Act (S. 1137)) would require that the PTAB use the same claim construction standard in IPR proceedings that is applied by federal courts."},"documents":{"kind":"list like","value":["This report pr ovides an overview and analysis of the two patent cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court during its October 2015 Term, Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc. (regarding the award of enhanced damages in \"egregious\" patent infringement cases) and Cuozzo Speed Technologies , LLC v. Lee (assessing the claim construction standard applied by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in certain patent revocation proceedings). The report will begin with a review of the general principles of patent law. It will then describe the law governing enhanced damages and patent revocation proceedings prior to these two opinions. After providing that context, the report will discuss and analyze how the Supreme Court's opinions in Halo and Cuozzo affect current patent law. One of the primary purposes for United States patent law is to provide individuals, companies, and institutions with economic incentives to engage in research and development that lead to new products or processes. By granting inventors a limited monopoly over the use of their inventions and discoveries, patent holders will be able to receive a return on investment from their creations.","Without patent protection, competitors could \"free ride\" on the inventor's research and development efforts and easily duplicate or otherwise practice the new inventions without having incurred the costs to develop them. According to Section 101 of the Patent Act (or the Act), one who \"invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or any composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.\" Thus, an invention is eligible for patent protection if it falls within one of the four statutory categories of patent-eligible subject matter: processes, machines, manufactures, and compositions of matter. Whether the discovery is patentable subject matter is a threshold inquiry that \"must precede the determination of whether that discovery is, in fact, new or obvious.\" The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issues a patent to an inventor after its examiners approve the submitted patent application for an allegedly new invention.","An application for a patent consists of two primary parts: (1) a \"specification,\" which is a written description of the invention enabling those skilled in the art to practice the invention, and (2) one or more claims that define the scope of the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. These claims define the scope of the patentee's rights under the patent. Before a patent may be granted, the USPTO examiners must find that the new invention (1) is patentable subject matter and (2) satisfies several substantive requirements set forth in the Act. One of the statutory requirements for patentability of an invention is \"novelty.\" For an invention to be considered \"novel,\" the subject matter must be different than, and not be wholly \"anticipated\" by, the so-called \"prior art,\" or public domain materials such as publications and other patents. Another statutory requirement is that the subject matter of an alleged invention must be \"nonobvious\" at the time of its creation.","A patent claim is invalid if \"the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.\" Finally, the invention must also be \"useful,\" which means that the invention provides a \"significant and presently available,\" \"well-defined and particular benefit to the public.\" Once a patent is issued by the USPTO, it is presumed to be valid; however, members of the public may challenge the agency's decision to grant the patent either in litigation or in an administrative proceeding, as discussed in detail later in this report. A patent holder has the exclusive right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling their patented invention throughout the United States, or importing the invention into the United States. Whoever performs any one of these five acts during the term of the invention's patent, without the patent holder's authorization, is liable for infringement.","A patent holder may file a civil action against an alleged infringer in order to enjoin him or her from further infringing acts (by securing an injunction, also referred to as injunctive relief). The Act also provides federal courts with discretion to award damages to the patent holder that are \"adequate to compensate for the infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by the infringer.\" The usual term of patent protection is 20 years from the date the patent application is filed. At the end of that period, others may use the invention without regard to the expired patent. Because the Act expressly provides that \"patents shall have the attributes of personal property,\" patent holders may sell their patent rights in a legal transfer called an \"assignment.\" Alternatively, patent holders may grant others a \"license\" to exercise one of the five statutory patent rights. A license is not a transfer of ownership of the patent, but rather is the patent holder's permission to another entity to use the invention in a limited way, typically in exchange for periodic royalty payments during the term of the patent.","A patent holder may grant to a licensee the right to practice the invention through a contract (typically known as a patent licensing agreement). The terms of the licensing agreement, however, may include conditions upon the grant of rights—for example, restricting the licensee from making the invention but allowing that party to sell it. A licensee that performs an act that exceeds the scope of the license (through a violation of the limitations and conditions of the grant of rights) or refuses to comply with the terms of the license agreement (such as by refusing to pay the required royalties) is potentially liable to the patent holder for breach of contract as well as for patent infringement. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) is a specialized tribunal established by Congress that has exclusive appellate jurisdiction in patent cases. Parties dissatisfied with the Federal Circuit's rulings may petition the U.S. Supreme Court to review the appellate court's decision. However, the Supreme Court is not required to entertain the appeal; it has discretion to decide whether to grant certiorari to review the case.","The next section of the report will describe the law governing the award of enhanced damages in patent infringement cases and how the Supreme Court's June 2016 opinion in Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc. may affect it. The Patent Act provides that a court \"may increase the damages up to three times the amount found or assessed\" The Patent Act does not specify the circumstances in which \"treble\" damages are appropriate, and thus, an award of enhanced damages in patent infringement cases, as well as the amount by which the damages will be increased, falls within the district court's discretion. Nonetheless, the Federal Circuit has limited enhanced damages awards to cases of \"willful infringement.\" The appellate court has explained that willful infringement occurs when \"the infringer acted in wanton disregard of the patentee's patent rights\" based upon such circumstances as whether the infringer deliberately copied the ideas or design of the patentee, the closeness of the willfulness determination, the infringer's concealment of its conduct, and the infringer's motivations.","The court opined that willful infringement \"is not simply a conduit for enhancement of damages; it is a statement that patent infringement, like other civil wrongs, is disfavored, and intentional disregard of legal rights warrants deterrence.\" A 1992 Federal Circuit opinion stated that: Willfulness is a determination as to a state of mind. One who has actual notice of another's patent rights has an affirmative duty to respect those rights. That affirmative duty normally entails obtaining advice of legal counsel although the absence of such advice does not mandate a finding of willfulness. Under the willful infringement doctrine that existed since the 1980s until 2007, courts assessed whether the adjudicated infringer knew of the patent before being charged with infringement in court, or if the infringer acted with the reasonable belief that the patent was not infringed or that it was invalid. During this time period, Federal Circuit decisions emphasized the affirmative duty of someone with actual notice of a competitor's patent to exercise due care in determining if his or her acts will infringe that patent.","Prior to 2004, the Federal Circuit held that when an accused infringer invoked the attorney-client or work-product privilege in refusing to answer interrogatories on whether the party had obtained the advice of legal counsel before it began allegedly infringing acts, courts were permitted to reach an adverse inference that either (1) no advice of counsel had been obtained or (2) the legal opinion had been obtained and was contrary to the infringer's desire to continue practicing the patented invention. However, in its 2004 decision Knorr-Bremse Systeme fuer Nutzfahrzeuge GmbH v. Dana Corp. , the Federal Circuit expressly rejected this principle and eliminated the adverse inference. The appellate court emphasized that a court may not draw an adverse inference with respect to willful infringement when the defendant in an infringement suit invokes the attorney-client or work-product privilege (because of the inappropriate burden it may place on the attorney-client relationship in patent cases) or when the defendant has failed to seek legal advice (because of the burdens and costs of such a requirement).","Following the Knorr-Bremse opinion, willful infringement determinations are based upon \"the totality of circumstances, but without the evidentiary contribution or presumptive weight of an adverse inference that any opinion of counsel was or would have been unfavorable.\" In 2011, Congress essentially codified the holding of Knorr-Bremse with the passage of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, which included language specifying that the \"failure of an infringer to obtain the advice of counsel ... may not be used to prove that the accused infringer willfully infringed the patent.... \" The Federal Circuit made significant changes to the willful infringement doctrine in its 2007 decision, In re Seagate Technology . The appellate court overturned two decades of its precedent by opting to \"abandon the affirmative duty of due care.\" The Federal Circuit instead explained that accused infringers had no obligation to obtain an opinion of counsel.","Rather, \"proof of willful infringement permitting enhanced damages requires at least a showing of objective recklessness.\" Under this view, which the appellate court believed was required by Supreme Court precedent, the \"state of mind of the accused infringer is not relevant to this objective inquiry.\" Thus, in order for a patent holder to establish willful infringement, \"a patentee must show by clear and convincing evidence that the infringer acted despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of a valid patent.\" Furthermore, if this objective standard is met, the patent holder must also demonstrate (also by clear and convincing evidence) that the infringer knew or should have known of the objectively high risk of infringement. Seagate thus requires a two-prong analysis, involving both an objective and subjective inquiry, that must be satisfied before the district court can exercise its discretion to increase damages pursuant to Section 284 of the Patent Act. In addition, Federal Circuit precedent establishes a multipart standard of appellate review of an award of enhanced damages in patent cases: 1. Part one of the Seagate test regarding objective recklessness is subject to de novo review. 2.","Part two of the Seagate test regarding subjective knowledge is reviewed under a substantial evidence standard. 3. The final decision by the court to award enhanced damages is reviewed for abuse of discretion. The Seagate standard was used by courts until the Supreme Court heard Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc. , as discussed in detail below. Both Halo Electronics and Pulse Electronics are suppliers of electronic components. Halo believed that Pulse had infringed its patents pertaining to the design of certain types of electronics that are to be mounted onto the surface of printed circuit boards inside devices such as computers and Internet routers. In 2002, Halo sent letters to Pulse offering to license Halo's patents, but the letters did not accuse Pulse of infringement. However, after an engineer working for Pulse determined that Halo's patents were invalid, Pulse continued to sell the electronic components at issue independent of any agreement with Halo. Pulse did not obtain the advice of counsel on the validity of Halo's patents after the engineer had reviewed the patents. In March 2007, Halo filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Pulse in the U.S. District Court for the District of","Nevada.","The jury found that Pulse had directly infringed Halo's patents and awarded Halo $1.5 million in reasonable royalty damages. The jury also found that it \"was highly probable that Pulse's infringement was willful.\" However, the district court concluded there was no willful infringement because Pulse had presented a defense at trial (claiming Halo's patents were invalid for obviousness) that, while ultimately unsuccessful, \"was not objectively baseless.\" Thus, the district court held that the \"objective prong\" of the Seagate willfulness inquiry was not satisfied in this case. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to decline an award of enhanced damages. The appellate court agreed with the district court that Pulse's obviousness defense was not objectively unreasonable and thus Pulse did not willfully infringe Halo's patents. In July 2015, Halo petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to review the Federal Circuit's judgment, which the Court granted. On June 13, 2016, in a unanimous opinion authored by Chief Justice Roberts, the Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Circuit's Seagate test for enhanced damages was inconsistent with Section 284 of the Patent Act.","In addition, the Court rejected Seagate 's requirement that a patent holder must prove recklessness by clear and convincing evidence because Section 284 \"supplied no basis for imposing such a heightened standard.\" Instead, the appropriate standard of proof is a preponderance of the evidence, a lesser standard. The Court also rejected the Federal Circuit's multi-part standard for appellate review of an award of enhanced damages, explaining that a district court's discretion to award enhanced damages under Section 284 against adjudged patent infringers is reviewable on appeal for abuse of that discretion. Because the district court and Federal Circuit had applied the now-invalidated Seagate framework to Halo , the Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the Federal Circuit and remanded the case. In reaching its conclusions in Halo , the Court relied significantly on its 2014 opinions, Octane Fitness LLC v. Icon Health & Fitness , Inc. and Highmark, Inc. v. Allcare Health Management Systems, Inc., which concerned Section 285 of the Patent Act ( granting courts discretion to award \"reasonable\" attorney's fees to the prevailing party \"in exceptional cases\").","Similar to its Seagate two-prong test for enhanced damages under Section 284, the Federal Circuit had articulated a two-part test for determining when a case was sufficiently \"exceptional\" under Section 285 to warrant the award of attorney's fees—when the claim asserted is both (1) brought in subjective bad faith and (2) objectively baseless. However, the Supreme Court in Octane Fitness invalidated the Federal Circuit's test for exceptional cases because the standard improperly confined the ability of district courts to exercise the discretion to award attorney's fees that the Patent Act commits to them. The Octane Fitness Court also rejected the Federal Circuit's requirement that prevailing parties establish their entitlement to attorney's fees by \"clear and convincing evidence\" and instead embraced a \"preponderance of the evidence\" standard. In Highmark, an opinion issued on the same day as Octane Fitness, the Court rejected the Federal Circuit's position that a district court's \"exceptional case\" determination is to be reviewed on appeal \"de novo\" and \"without deference.\" Instead, the Court held that the district court's determination must be reviewed on appeal under an abuse-of-discretion standard.","The Halo Court explained that the reasoning and holdings in Octane Fitness and Highmark are \"instructive\" for its analysis of the Seagate test and the Federal Circuit's tripartite framework for appellate review of enhanced damages. The Court noted that the express language of Section 284 \"contains no explicit limit or condition,\" nor does the statutory text provide a \"precise rule or formula\" for awarding enhanced damages. In contrast, the Court found that the Seagate test \"is unduly rigid, and it impermissibly encumbers the statutory grant of discretion to the district courts.\" According to the Court, the consequence of the Seagate approach is that \"it can have the effect of insulating some of the worst patent infringers from any liability for enhanced damages.\" The Court explained that the \"principal problem\" with the Seagate test is that it requires a court to determine, as a threshold matter, that the defendant's infringement was \"objectively\" reckless, as a prerequisite to the possibility of awarding enhanced damages.","Instead, the Court stated that \"the subjective willfulness of a patent infringer, intentional or knowing, may warrant enhanced damages, without regard to whether his infringement was objectively reckless.\" Furthermore, the Seagate test \"aggravates the problem\" because it allows an adjudged infringer to avoid enhanced damages by offering a reasonable defense at trial, \"even if he did not act on the basis of the defense or was even aware of it.\" While the Halo opinion frees district courts from the constraints of the mechanical Seagate analysis in deciding whether to award enhanced damages (and in what amount), the Court cautioned district courts to exercise their discretion in a manner consistent with Supreme Court precedent that generally reserves such punishment for \"egregious cases of misconduct beyond typical infringement.\" The Court explained that \"[t]he sort of conduct warranting enhanced damages has been variously described in our cases as willful, wanton, malicious, bad-faith, deliberate, consciously wrongful, flagrant, or—indeed—characteristic of a pirate.\" Justice Breyer issued a concurring opinion, joined by Justices Kennedy and Alito, that expressed his understanding of the limits on district courts' discretion to award enhanced damages.","He first explained that \"the Court's references to 'willful misconduct' do not mean that a court may award enhanced damages simply because the evidence shows that the infringer knew about the patent and nothing more. \" Rather, courts must examine whether the circumstances in the case \"transform[] simple knowledge into such egregious behavior\" that merits a punitive sanction. Second, Justice Breyer emphasized that the Court's interpretation of Section 284 is not intended to diminish or otherwise affect a new section of the Patent Act added by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act that states: \"The failure of an infringer to obtain the advice of counsel with respect to any allegedly infringed patent ... may not be used to prove that the accused infringer willfully infringed the patent....","\" He cited the likely high costs to small businesses and individual inventors in obtaining an opinion of counsel to determine if their products infringe a particular patent or if the patent is probably invalid; such costs could prevent or \"discourag[e] lawful innovation.\" By enacting this section of the Patent Act, \"Congress has thus left it to the potential infringer to decide whether to consult counsel—without the threat of treble damages influencing that decision.\" Finally, Justice Breyer urged courts to carefully use their discretion in awarding enhanced damages, ensuring that such punitive measures be limited to cases involving egregious misconduct. If increased damages are more readily available in any case involving intentional infringement, innovation could be hindered, he warned. As an example, he specifically mentioned the risk that small businesses face when they receive \"demand letters\" sent by \"patent assertion entities\" (firms that do not develop, manufacture, or sell any product, but rather use patents primarily to obtain licensing fees from others): How is a growing business to react to the arrival of such a letter, particularly if that letter carries with it a serious risk of treble damages?","Does the letter put the company \"on notice\" of the patent? Will a jury find that the company behaved \"recklessly,\" simply for failing to spend considerable time, effort, and money obtaining expert views about whether some or all of the patents described in the letter apply to its activities (and whether those patents are even valid)? These investigative activities can be costly. Hence, the risk of treble damages can encourage the company to settle, or even abandon any challenged activity. Some patent practitioners have called the Halo decision a significant victory for patent owners because the Federal Circuit's Seagate test had made it almost impossible for patentees to recover enhanced damages in cases of willful infringement. Other observers were not surprised by the outcome in Halo, given the Court's 2014 Octane Fitness opinion. One organization that represents technology companies such as Amazon, Cisco, and Google, raised concerns that the Halo decision may incentivize patent assertion entities (sometimes pejoratively referred to by their critics as \"patent trolls\") to file more lawsuits and may also encourage patent holders to \"forum shop\" for district courts that have a reputation for being more willing to award enhanced damages.","In an effort to demonstrate his disagreement with the Supreme Court's Halo decision, Senator Orrin Hatch filed a \"sense of Congress\" amendment to the Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations Bill that expressed Congress's views on willful infringement in patent cases. The amendment's findings section indicates that Congress, in enacting the America Invents Act in 2011, was \"well aware of the Seagate standard\" and chose not to substantively amend Section 284 at that time, \"knowing that no action from Congress would be required to ensure that the standard established in Seagate would remain in place and continue to govern the enhancement analysis under that section.\" The amendment then expressed the sense of Congress that \"(1) the Seagate standard has governed and continues to govern the enhanced damages analysis under section 284 of title 35, United States Code; and (2) this intent of Congress should be considered in any decisions interpreting that section.\" As of the date of this Report, the Senate has not voted on this legislation or the amendment.","In January 2016, Senator Hatch had filed an amicus brief in the Halo case, joined by Senators Leahy and Bennet and Representatives Bob Goodlatte, Lamar Smith, and Steven Chabot, that urged the Court not to alter or overturn the Seagate standard. By rejecting the stringent Seagate test and lowering the patent holder's evidentiary burden of proof to establish an infringer's reckless actions, the Halo decision may possibly make it easier for patent holders to receive enhanced damages in certain circumstances. In addition, once a patent holder is awarded enhanced damages by the district court, the Federal Circuit is unlikely to overturn that decision under Halo's \"abuse of discretion\" standard of appellate review.","However, a patent practitioner has argued that \"[t]he percentage of cases where district courts actually award enhanced damages may not go up much because the Supreme Court has set a high bar of 'egregious' behavior.\" Another practitioner notes that, as a practical matter, the challenge facing patent holders and third parties \"is predicting where the line will ultimately fall between typical infringement and egregious cases, as well as what an accused infringer should do—or must do—to be on the safe side of that line.\" In future cases, courts will likely need to determine the range of \"egregious misconduct\" that may warrant enhanced damages under the Halo standard. The remaining portion of this report will describe the mechanics of the USPTO's patent reexamination proceedings, including the claim construction standard that applies to them. It will then discuss the impact of the Supreme Court's June 2016 opinion in Cuozzo Speed Technologies v. Lee on these proceedings. Although patents issued by the USPTO are presumed to be valid, accused infringers may assert in court that a patent is invalid or unenforceable on a number of grounds.","The accused infringer could raise this argument as an affirmative defense or counterclaim when sued for patent infringement. A party could also preemptively file a \"declaratory judgment action\" against a patent owner to challenge a patent's validity if there is a case or controversy between them. However, the constitutionally based \"case or controversy\" requirement for federal judicial proceedings significantly limits the ability of members of the general public to challenge the USPTO's decision to grant a patent. Unless the patent holder becomes involved in an actual, continuing controversy with another person, that person may have difficulty requesting that a federal court determine that a patent is invalid. To address this perceived deficiency, Congress in 1980 established an administrative reexamination mechanism through which the USPTO may reconsider its initial decision to approve a patent application. Members of the public may challenge the validity of an issued patent in these patent reexamination proceedings, which need not satisfy the constitutional \"case or controversy\" requirement because the proceedings are administrative in nature and do not involve a use of the federal judicial power. Furthermore, the proceedings serve as a potentially faster and cheaper alternative to judicial determinations of patent validity.","There are several possible outcomes of reexamination proceedings: a certificate confirming the patentability of the original claims, an amended patent with narrower claims, or a declaration of patent invalidity. Subtitle F of the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999, entitled the Optional Inter Partes Reexamination Procedure Act of 1999, renamed the original reexamination proceeding as an \"ex parte reexamination\" and also provided a new administrative proceeding called an \"inter partes reexamination.\" The inter partes reexamination allowed the patent challenger to participate more fully in the proceedings through the submission of arguments and the filing of appeals. However, the number of requests for reexamination under either type of proceeding was fewer than some observers had anticipated. Some commentators also questioned the proceedings' effectiveness. In 2011, Congress enacted the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA), which made significant changes to the USPTO's reexamination proceedings. The AIA first created the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) within the USPTO to handle these proceedings. The PTAB's membership consists of the USPTO director, deputy director, the Commissioner for Patents, the Commissioner for Trademarks, and the administrative patent judges.","A panel of at least three members of the PTAB, who are designated by the USPTO director, hears challenges to a patent's validity. The AIA introduced a new proceeding called \"post-grant review\" (PGR) and also replaced the existing inter partes reexamination system with an \"inter partes review\" proceeding (IPR). In a PGR proceeding, petitioners may challenge the validity of an issued patent based on any ground of patentability (such as unpatentable subject matter, or failure to meet the statutory standards of novelty and nonobviousness). A petition to initiate a PGR must be filed with the USPTO within nine months of the date of patent grant. To authorize a PGR to be instituted, the USPTO director must determine that the petitioner has presented information in the petition that, if not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is \"more likely than not that at least one of the claims\" is unpatentable. A PGR must be completed within a year of its commencement, with an extension of six months possible for good cause shown.","A challenger to a patent may file a petition with the USPTO requesting the institution of an IPR proceeding nine months after a patent issues or reissues , or the conclusion of any post-grant review, whichever occurs later. In an IPR proceeding, petitioners may challenge the validity of an issued patent only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications. As a result, patent challenges under IPR are limited to the patentability issues of novelty and nonobviousness. To authorize an IPR to be instituted, the USPTO director must determine that the petitioner has provided information in the petition that there is a \"reasonable likelihood\" that he or she would prevail with respect to at least one claim. An accused infringer may not petition for an IPR if he or she has already filed a declaratory judgment action in federal court challenging the patent, or more than a year has passed since the date the accused infringer was served with a complaint alleging infringement of that patent.","Should the patent survive the IPR proceeding, the individual who commenced the proceeding, along with his privies, are barred in the future from raising issues that were \"raised or reasonably could have been raised.\" An IPR must be completed within a year of its commencement, with an extension of six months possible for good cause shown. The timing and scope of the two USPTO patent revocation proceedings described above are as follows: 1. A patent may be challenged at the USPTO on any basis of any patentability issue within nine months from the date the patent issued (by filing a petition for a PGR proceeding). 2. Thereafter, and throughout its entire term, a patent may be challenged at the USPTO only on the grounds of novelty and nonobviousness (via an IPR). In an IPR or PGR proceeding, \"the petitioner shall have the burden of proving a proposition of unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence.\" A party dissatisfied with the PTAB's final written decision in an IPR or PGR proceeding may appeal directly to the Federal Circuit.","As described earlier in this report, an application for a patent consists of a \"specification,\" which is a written description of the invention, and one or more \"claims,\" which define the scope of the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. \"Claim construction\" refers to the interpretation of the language of these claims; specifically, to construe the meaning of a patent claim to establish the boundaries of the invention. Patent claim interpretation is the process in which a court and the USPTO determine the scope of the patent holder's proprietary rights. The AIA is silent on what claim construction standard is appropriate in the IPR and PGR proceedings conducted by the PTAB. However, the AIA granted the agency authority to issue \"regulations … establishing and governing inter partes review under this chapter.\" Exercising this authority, the USPTO promulgated a regulation in August 2012 that provided the following standard for claim construction in an IPR: \"[a] claim in an unexpired patent shall be given its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears.\" Such an interpretive standard is also referred to as the \"broadest reasonable interpretation\" (BRI).","The BRI standard arguably makes it more likely that the PTAB finds a patent claim to be obvious or not novel (and thus subject to invalidation in an IPR), compared to in a judicial proceeding in which a court construes patent claims according to the \"plain and ordinary meaning\" of the claims' language (a narrower standard). The AIA includes a provision designed to prevent a court from considering a challenge to the USPTO's decision regarding the institution of an IPR, stating that \"[t]he determination by the Director whether to institute an inter partes review under this section shall be final and nonappealable.\" Elements of the IPR process, including the claim construction standard, were considered by the Supreme Court in the recent case Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee , discussed in detail below. Cuozzo Speed Technologies (Cuozzo) holds the patent at issue in this case (Cuozzo Patent). The patent's 20 claims pertain to a speedometer that displays a vehicle's current speed as well as the speed limit, thereby showing a driver when he or she is driving above the limit.","In September 2012, a car GPS device manufacturer, Garmin, filed a petition with the USPTO to institute IPR of the Cuozzo Patent's claims 10, 14, and 17, arguing that claim 17 was invalid for obviousness in light of three prior patents, though it was silent on the grounds for challenging claims 10 and 14. The USPTO agreed to review the Cuozzo Patent's claim 17, as well as claims 10 and 14. The PTAB acknowledged that Garmin had not expressly identified in its IPR petition the specific grounds on which it was challenging claims 10 and 14. However, \"believing that 'claim 17 depends on claim 14 which depends on claim 10,' the [PTAB] reasoned that Garmin had 'implicitly' challenged claims 10 and 14 on the basis of the same prior inventions.\" The PTAB conducted the IPR proceedings and determined that claims 10, 14, and 17 of the Cuozzo Patent were obvious in light of the patents that Garmin had cited and ordered the cancellation of those claims.","Cuozzo appealed the PTAB's decision to the Federal Circuit, arguing that the USPTO had improperly instituted IPR with respect to claims 10 and 14 because the agency had found that Garmin only implicitly challenged those claims, in apparent violation of the Patent Act's requirement that IPR petitions must state \"with particularity\" the grounds on which the challenge for each claim is based. Cuozzo also asserted that the PTAB had improperly used the \"broadest reasonable interpretation\" standard in construing patent claims in an IPR; instead, the company argued that the PTAB should apply the same claim construction standard used by federal courts when assessing a patent's validity (\"i.e., it should have given those claims their 'ordinary meaning … as understood by a person of skill in the art.'\"). In February 2015, a divided panel of the Federal Circuit rejected both of Cuozzo's arguments. First, the appellate court asserted that Section 314(d) of the Patent Act precludes its review of the USPTO's decision to institute IPR.","The court then upheld the PTAB's use of the BRI standard in claim construction, holding that the USPTO's regulation requiring such a standard was a reasonable exercise of the agency's rulemaking authority that had been granted by the AIA. The Federal Circuit explained that by applying the BRI standard, the USPTO \"reduce[s] the possibility that, after the patent is granted, the claims may be interpreted as giving broader coverage than is justified.\" The appellate court noted that the USPTO has long applied the BRI standard in a variety of proceedings, including initial examinations, interferences, and reissue and reexamination proceedings. Finally, the court observed that \"[t]here is no indication that the AIA was designed to change the claim construction standard that the PTO has applied for more than 100 years. Congress is presumed to legislate against the background of the kind of longstanding, consistent existing law that is present here.\" Thus, according to the Federal Circuit, \"Congress implicitly adopted the broadest reasonable interpretation standard in enacting the AIA.\" In July 2015, the Federal Circuit, by a narrow vote of 6 to 5, denied Cuozzo's petition for rehearing en banc (by the full court).","In October 2015, Cuozzo filed a petition with the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to review the Federal Circuit's judgment, which the Court granted. In an opinion authored by Justice Breyer, the Supreme Court in Cuozzo held that Section 314(d) of the Patent Act \"bar[s] judicial review of the kind of mine-run claim at issue here, involving the Patent Office's decision to institute inter partes review,\" though it may not prevent courts from considering a constitutional question. This conclusion was supported by six justices, with two dissenting. Second, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Congress had given the USPTO the statutory authority to issue the regulation specifying that the PTAB apply the broadest reasonable interpretation standard in construing patent claims in an IPR proceeding. The Supreme Court's majority opinion on this first question agreed with the Federal Circuit that the decision of the USPTO whether to institute an IPR is nonappealable.","Although recognizing the \"strong presumption\" in favor of judicial review, even for statutes that purport to limit or preclude review, the Court noted that the presumption can \"be overcome by clear and convincing indications, drawn from specific language, specific legislative history, and inferences of intent drawn from the statutory scheme as a whole, that Congress intended to bar review.\" The Court found that this standard was satisfied in this case. In the AIA, Congress elected to make the USPTO's decision on whether an IPR should proceed \"final and nonappealable\"; thus, the Court's \"conclusion that courts may not revisit this initial determination gives effect to this statutory command.\" However, the majority opinion explained that its conclusion applies to issues relating specifically to IPR proceedings and not necessarily those that involve constitutional questions, other sections of the Patent Act, or other federal statutes: We emphasize that our interpretation applies where the grounds for attacking the decision to institute inter partes review consist of questions that are closely tied to the application and interpretation of statutes related to the Patent Office's decision to initiate inter partes review.","… This means that we need not, and do not, decide the precise effect of § 314(d) on appeals that implicate constitutional questions, that depend on other less closely related statutes, or that present other questions of interpretation that reach, in terms of scope and impact, well beyond \"this section.\" Justice Alito wrote a dissenting opinion to this part of the Cuozzo opinion , which was joined by Justice Sotomayor, in which he disagreed with the majority's view that Congress intended to shield \"from all judicial scrutiny\" the USPTO's compliance (or noncompliance) with statutory requirements that govern the agency's decision to institute an IPR proceeding.","He first observed that Section 314(d) \"does not say that an institution decision is 'not subject to review,'\" but rather makes such decision \"nonappealable.\" He would interpret this statutory language to \"bar only an appeal from the institution decision itself, while allowing review of institution-related issues in an appeal from the Patent Office's final written decision at the end of the proceeding.\" Under Justice Alito's interpretation of Section 314(d), a court cannot prevent an IPR proceeding from commencing (because the decision to institute IPR is \"final and nonappealable\"), but \"the question whether it was lawful to institute review will not escape judicial scrutiny.\" However, he then took \"the Court at its word that today's opinion will not permit the Patent Office to act outside its statutory limits.\" Nevertheless, he argued that the Court should have held that Section 314(d) \"does not bar judicial review of the Patent Office's compliance with any of the limits Congress imposed on the institution of patent review proceedings,\" which would include the statutory condition that Cuozzo alleged was violated by Garmin in this case, i.e., Section 312(a)(3) of the Patent Act's requirement that IPR petitioners must state the grounds on which","the challenge for each claim is based \"with particularity\".","Regarding the other question presented in Cuozzo's certiorari petition , a unanimous Supreme Court agreed that the Federal Circuit did not err in holding that the Patent Act grants the USPTO the legal authority to require the PTAB to apply the BRI standard to claim construction in IPR proceedings. The Court first noted that no part of the IPR statute \"unambiguously directs the agency to use\" the BRI standard or the standard used by federal courts, which construe the claims in an issued patent according to their \"plain and ordinary meaning\". Because the statute leaves a \"gap\" or is \"ambiguous\" on this matter, courts \"typically interpret it as granting the agency leeway to enact rules that are reasonable in light of the text, nature, and purpose of the statute.\" In addition, the Court observed that Section 316(a)(4) of the Patent Act expressly delegated rulemaking authority to the USPTO to issue \"regulations ... establishing and governing inter partes review under this chapter,\" which would include the power to promulgate a rule filling that gap in the IPR statute with the BRI standard.","Furthermore, the Court could not find anything in the statutory language, its purpose, or its legislative history to \"suggest that Congress considered what standard the agency should apply when reviewing a patent claim in inter partes review.\" The Court then held that the BRI regulation is a reasonable exercise of the USPTO's rulemaking authority, for several reasons. First, in the Court's view, applying a BRI standard to claim construction helps to protect the public interest: Because an examiner's (or re-examiner's) use of the broadest reasonable construction standard increases the possibility that the examiner will find the claim too broad (and deny it), use of that standard encourages the applicant to draft narrowly. This helps ensure precision while avoiding overly broad claims, and thereby helps prevent a patent from tying up too much knowledge, while helping members of the public draw useful information from the disclosed invention and better understand the lawful limits of the claim. Second, the Court explained that the USPTO has used the BRI standard for over a century in its administrative proceedings, and thus this precedent supports the reasonableness of its regulation in this case.","The Court stated that \"we cannot find unreasonable the Patent Office's decision to prefer a degree of inconsistency in the standards used between the courts and the agency, rather than among agency proceedings.\" Finally, the Court downplayed Cuozzo's concern that the use of different claim construction standards by the USPTO and the courts to interpret the same patent claims may lead to inconsistent and conflicting results, such that a court could uphold the validity of a patent claim while the agency may cancel that same claim in an IPR proceeding: This possibility … has long been present in our patent system, which provides different tracks—one in the Patent Office and one in the courts—for the review and adjudication of patent claims. As we have explained above, inter partes review imposes a different burden of proof on the challenger. These different evidentiary burdens mean that the possibility of inconsistent results is inherent to Congress' regulatory design.","Some observers have called Cuozzo a victory for companies, particularly those in the technology industry, that want to utilize the faster and cheaper IPR proceedings to invalidate \"bad patents.\" On the other hand, some believe that Cuozzo leaves in place a process that may negatively impact companies that value strong patent protections, such as those in the pharmaceutical drug and biotechnology industries. It remains to be seen whether Congress will legislatively \"overrule\" parts of the Cuozzo opinion. Legislation in the 114 th Congress, the Innovation Act and the PATENT Act, would require that the PTAB, in IPR proceedings, use the same claim construction standard that is applied by federal courts; that is, the PTAB would need to construe a patent claim \"in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent\" rather than use the BRI standard. However, this legislation has not been enacted into law."],"string":"[\n \"This report pr ovides an overview and analysis of the two patent cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court during its October 2015 Term, Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc. (regarding the award of enhanced damages in \\\"egregious\\\" patent infringement cases) and Cuozzo Speed Technologies , LLC v. Lee (assessing the claim construction standard applied by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in certain patent revocation proceedings). The report will begin with a review of the general principles of patent law. It will then describe the law governing enhanced damages and patent revocation proceedings prior to these two opinions. After providing that context, the report will discuss and analyze how the Supreme Court's opinions in Halo and Cuozzo affect current patent law. One of the primary purposes for United States patent law is to provide individuals, companies, and institutions with economic incentives to engage in research and development that lead to new products or processes. By granting inventors a limited monopoly over the use of their inventions and discoveries, patent holders will be able to receive a return on investment from their creations.\",\n \"Without patent protection, competitors could \\\"free ride\\\" on the inventor's research and development efforts and easily duplicate or otherwise practice the new inventions without having incurred the costs to develop them. According to Section 101 of the Patent Act (or the Act), one who \\\"invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or any composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.\\\" Thus, an invention is eligible for patent protection if it falls within one of the four statutory categories of patent-eligible subject matter: processes, machines, manufactures, and compositions of matter. Whether the discovery is patentable subject matter is a threshold inquiry that \\\"must precede the determination of whether that discovery is, in fact, new or obvious.\\\" The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issues a patent to an inventor after its examiners approve the submitted patent application for an allegedly new invention.\",\n \"An application for a patent consists of two primary parts: (1) a \\\"specification,\\\" which is a written description of the invention enabling those skilled in the art to practice the invention, and (2) one or more claims that define the scope of the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. These claims define the scope of the patentee's rights under the patent. Before a patent may be granted, the USPTO examiners must find that the new invention (1) is patentable subject matter and (2) satisfies several substantive requirements set forth in the Act. One of the statutory requirements for patentability of an invention is \\\"novelty.\\\" For an invention to be considered \\\"novel,\\\" the subject matter must be different than, and not be wholly \\\"anticipated\\\" by, the so-called \\\"prior art,\\\" or public domain materials such as publications and other patents. Another statutory requirement is that the subject matter of an alleged invention must be \\\"nonobvious\\\" at the time of its creation.\",\n \"A patent claim is invalid if \\\"the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.\\\" Finally, the invention must also be \\\"useful,\\\" which means that the invention provides a \\\"significant and presently available,\\\" \\\"well-defined and particular benefit to the public.\\\" Once a patent is issued by the USPTO, it is presumed to be valid; however, members of the public may challenge the agency's decision to grant the patent either in litigation or in an administrative proceeding, as discussed in detail later in this report. A patent holder has the exclusive right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling their patented invention throughout the United States, or importing the invention into the United States. Whoever performs any one of these five acts during the term of the invention's patent, without the patent holder's authorization, is liable for infringement.\",\n \"A patent holder may file a civil action against an alleged infringer in order to enjoin him or her from further infringing acts (by securing an injunction, also referred to as injunctive relief). The Act also provides federal courts with discretion to award damages to the patent holder that are \\\"adequate to compensate for the infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by the infringer.\\\" The usual term of patent protection is 20 years from the date the patent application is filed. At the end of that period, others may use the invention without regard to the expired patent. Because the Act expressly provides that \\\"patents shall have the attributes of personal property,\\\" patent holders may sell their patent rights in a legal transfer called an \\\"assignment.\\\" Alternatively, patent holders may grant others a \\\"license\\\" to exercise one of the five statutory patent rights. A license is not a transfer of ownership of the patent, but rather is the patent holder's permission to another entity to use the invention in a limited way, typically in exchange for periodic royalty payments during the term of the patent.\",\n \"A patent holder may grant to a licensee the right to practice the invention through a contract (typically known as a patent licensing agreement). The terms of the licensing agreement, however, may include conditions upon the grant of rights—for example, restricting the licensee from making the invention but allowing that party to sell it. A licensee that performs an act that exceeds the scope of the license (through a violation of the limitations and conditions of the grant of rights) or refuses to comply with the terms of the license agreement (such as by refusing to pay the required royalties) is potentially liable to the patent holder for breach of contract as well as for patent infringement. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) is a specialized tribunal established by Congress that has exclusive appellate jurisdiction in patent cases. Parties dissatisfied with the Federal Circuit's rulings may petition the U.S. Supreme Court to review the appellate court's decision. However, the Supreme Court is not required to entertain the appeal; it has discretion to decide whether to grant certiorari to review the case.\",\n \"The next section of the report will describe the law governing the award of enhanced damages in patent infringement cases and how the Supreme Court's June 2016 opinion in Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc. may affect it. The Patent Act provides that a court \\\"may increase the damages up to three times the amount found or assessed\\\" The Patent Act does not specify the circumstances in which \\\"treble\\\" damages are appropriate, and thus, an award of enhanced damages in patent infringement cases, as well as the amount by which the damages will be increased, falls within the district court's discretion. Nonetheless, the Federal Circuit has limited enhanced damages awards to cases of \\\"willful infringement.\\\" The appellate court has explained that willful infringement occurs when \\\"the infringer acted in wanton disregard of the patentee's patent rights\\\" based upon such circumstances as whether the infringer deliberately copied the ideas or design of the patentee, the closeness of the willfulness determination, the infringer's concealment of its conduct, and the infringer's motivations.\",\n \"The court opined that willful infringement \\\"is not simply a conduit for enhancement of damages; it is a statement that patent infringement, like other civil wrongs, is disfavored, and intentional disregard of legal rights warrants deterrence.\\\" A 1992 Federal Circuit opinion stated that: Willfulness is a determination as to a state of mind. One who has actual notice of another's patent rights has an affirmative duty to respect those rights. That affirmative duty normally entails obtaining advice of legal counsel although the absence of such advice does not mandate a finding of willfulness. Under the willful infringement doctrine that existed since the 1980s until 2007, courts assessed whether the adjudicated infringer knew of the patent before being charged with infringement in court, or if the infringer acted with the reasonable belief that the patent was not infringed or that it was invalid. During this time period, Federal Circuit decisions emphasized the affirmative duty of someone with actual notice of a competitor's patent to exercise due care in determining if his or her acts will infringe that patent.\",\n \"Prior to 2004, the Federal Circuit held that when an accused infringer invoked the attorney-client or work-product privilege in refusing to answer interrogatories on whether the party had obtained the advice of legal counsel before it began allegedly infringing acts, courts were permitted to reach an adverse inference that either (1) no advice of counsel had been obtained or (2) the legal opinion had been obtained and was contrary to the infringer's desire to continue practicing the patented invention. However, in its 2004 decision Knorr-Bremse Systeme fuer Nutzfahrzeuge GmbH v. Dana Corp. , the Federal Circuit expressly rejected this principle and eliminated the adverse inference. The appellate court emphasized that a court may not draw an adverse inference with respect to willful infringement when the defendant in an infringement suit invokes the attorney-client or work-product privilege (because of the inappropriate burden it may place on the attorney-client relationship in patent cases) or when the defendant has failed to seek legal advice (because of the burdens and costs of such a requirement).\",\n \"Following the Knorr-Bremse opinion, willful infringement determinations are based upon \\\"the totality of circumstances, but without the evidentiary contribution or presumptive weight of an adverse inference that any opinion of counsel was or would have been unfavorable.\\\" In 2011, Congress essentially codified the holding of Knorr-Bremse with the passage of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, which included language specifying that the \\\"failure of an infringer to obtain the advice of counsel ... may not be used to prove that the accused infringer willfully infringed the patent.... \\\" The Federal Circuit made significant changes to the willful infringement doctrine in its 2007 decision, In re Seagate Technology . The appellate court overturned two decades of its precedent by opting to \\\"abandon the affirmative duty of due care.\\\" The Federal Circuit instead explained that accused infringers had no obligation to obtain an opinion of counsel.\",\n \"Rather, \\\"proof of willful infringement permitting enhanced damages requires at least a showing of objective recklessness.\\\" Under this view, which the appellate court believed was required by Supreme Court precedent, the \\\"state of mind of the accused infringer is not relevant to this objective inquiry.\\\" Thus, in order for a patent holder to establish willful infringement, \\\"a patentee must show by clear and convincing evidence that the infringer acted despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of a valid patent.\\\" Furthermore, if this objective standard is met, the patent holder must also demonstrate (also by clear and convincing evidence) that the infringer knew or should have known of the objectively high risk of infringement. Seagate thus requires a two-prong analysis, involving both an objective and subjective inquiry, that must be satisfied before the district court can exercise its discretion to increase damages pursuant to Section 284 of the Patent Act. In addition, Federal Circuit precedent establishes a multipart standard of appellate review of an award of enhanced damages in patent cases: 1. Part one of the Seagate test regarding objective recklessness is subject to de novo review. 2.\",\n \"Part two of the Seagate test regarding subjective knowledge is reviewed under a substantial evidence standard. 3. The final decision by the court to award enhanced damages is reviewed for abuse of discretion. The Seagate standard was used by courts until the Supreme Court heard Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc. , as discussed in detail below. Both Halo Electronics and Pulse Electronics are suppliers of electronic components. Halo believed that Pulse had infringed its patents pertaining to the design of certain types of electronics that are to be mounted onto the surface of printed circuit boards inside devices such as computers and Internet routers. In 2002, Halo sent letters to Pulse offering to license Halo's patents, but the letters did not accuse Pulse of infringement. However, after an engineer working for Pulse determined that Halo's patents were invalid, Pulse continued to sell the electronic components at issue independent of any agreement with Halo. Pulse did not obtain the advice of counsel on the validity of Halo's patents after the engineer had reviewed the patents. In March 2007, Halo filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Pulse in the U.S. District Court for the District of\",\n \"Nevada.\",\n \"The jury found that Pulse had directly infringed Halo's patents and awarded Halo $1.5 million in reasonable royalty damages. The jury also found that it \\\"was highly probable that Pulse's infringement was willful.\\\" However, the district court concluded there was no willful infringement because Pulse had presented a defense at trial (claiming Halo's patents were invalid for obviousness) that, while ultimately unsuccessful, \\\"was not objectively baseless.\\\" Thus, the district court held that the \\\"objective prong\\\" of the Seagate willfulness inquiry was not satisfied in this case. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to decline an award of enhanced damages. The appellate court agreed with the district court that Pulse's obviousness defense was not objectively unreasonable and thus Pulse did not willfully infringe Halo's patents. In July 2015, Halo petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to review the Federal Circuit's judgment, which the Court granted. On June 13, 2016, in a unanimous opinion authored by Chief Justice Roberts, the Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Circuit's Seagate test for enhanced damages was inconsistent with Section 284 of the Patent Act.\",\n \"In addition, the Court rejected Seagate 's requirement that a patent holder must prove recklessness by clear and convincing evidence because Section 284 \\\"supplied no basis for imposing such a heightened standard.\\\" Instead, the appropriate standard of proof is a preponderance of the evidence, a lesser standard. The Court also rejected the Federal Circuit's multi-part standard for appellate review of an award of enhanced damages, explaining that a district court's discretion to award enhanced damages under Section 284 against adjudged patent infringers is reviewable on appeal for abuse of that discretion. Because the district court and Federal Circuit had applied the now-invalidated Seagate framework to Halo , the Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the Federal Circuit and remanded the case. In reaching its conclusions in Halo , the Court relied significantly on its 2014 opinions, Octane Fitness LLC v. Icon Health & Fitness , Inc. and Highmark, Inc. v. Allcare Health Management Systems, Inc., which concerned Section 285 of the Patent Act ( granting courts discretion to award \\\"reasonable\\\" attorney's fees to the prevailing party \\\"in exceptional cases\\\").\",\n \"Similar to its Seagate two-prong test for enhanced damages under Section 284, the Federal Circuit had articulated a two-part test for determining when a case was sufficiently \\\"exceptional\\\" under Section 285 to warrant the award of attorney's fees—when the claim asserted is both (1) brought in subjective bad faith and (2) objectively baseless. However, the Supreme Court in Octane Fitness invalidated the Federal Circuit's test for exceptional cases because the standard improperly confined the ability of district courts to exercise the discretion to award attorney's fees that the Patent Act commits to them. The Octane Fitness Court also rejected the Federal Circuit's requirement that prevailing parties establish their entitlement to attorney's fees by \\\"clear and convincing evidence\\\" and instead embraced a \\\"preponderance of the evidence\\\" standard. In Highmark, an opinion issued on the same day as Octane Fitness, the Court rejected the Federal Circuit's position that a district court's \\\"exceptional case\\\" determination is to be reviewed on appeal \\\"de novo\\\" and \\\"without deference.\\\" Instead, the Court held that the district court's determination must be reviewed on appeal under an abuse-of-discretion standard.\",\n \"The Halo Court explained that the reasoning and holdings in Octane Fitness and Highmark are \\\"instructive\\\" for its analysis of the Seagate test and the Federal Circuit's tripartite framework for appellate review of enhanced damages. The Court noted that the express language of Section 284 \\\"contains no explicit limit or condition,\\\" nor does the statutory text provide a \\\"precise rule or formula\\\" for awarding enhanced damages. In contrast, the Court found that the Seagate test \\\"is unduly rigid, and it impermissibly encumbers the statutory grant of discretion to the district courts.\\\" According to the Court, the consequence of the Seagate approach is that \\\"it can have the effect of insulating some of the worst patent infringers from any liability for enhanced damages.\\\" The Court explained that the \\\"principal problem\\\" with the Seagate test is that it requires a court to determine, as a threshold matter, that the defendant's infringement was \\\"objectively\\\" reckless, as a prerequisite to the possibility of awarding enhanced damages.\",\n \"Instead, the Court stated that \\\"the subjective willfulness of a patent infringer, intentional or knowing, may warrant enhanced damages, without regard to whether his infringement was objectively reckless.\\\" Furthermore, the Seagate test \\\"aggravates the problem\\\" because it allows an adjudged infringer to avoid enhanced damages by offering a reasonable defense at trial, \\\"even if he did not act on the basis of the defense or was even aware of it.\\\" While the Halo opinion frees district courts from the constraints of the mechanical Seagate analysis in deciding whether to award enhanced damages (and in what amount), the Court cautioned district courts to exercise their discretion in a manner consistent with Supreme Court precedent that generally reserves such punishment for \\\"egregious cases of misconduct beyond typical infringement.\\\" The Court explained that \\\"[t]he sort of conduct warranting enhanced damages has been variously described in our cases as willful, wanton, malicious, bad-faith, deliberate, consciously wrongful, flagrant, or—indeed—characteristic of a pirate.\\\" Justice Breyer issued a concurring opinion, joined by Justices Kennedy and Alito, that expressed his understanding of the limits on district courts' discretion to award enhanced damages.\",\n \"He first explained that \\\"the Court's references to 'willful misconduct' do not mean that a court may award enhanced damages simply because the evidence shows that the infringer knew about the patent and nothing more. \\\" Rather, courts must examine whether the circumstances in the case \\\"transform[] simple knowledge into such egregious behavior\\\" that merits a punitive sanction. Second, Justice Breyer emphasized that the Court's interpretation of Section 284 is not intended to diminish or otherwise affect a new section of the Patent Act added by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act that states: \\\"The failure of an infringer to obtain the advice of counsel with respect to any allegedly infringed patent ... may not be used to prove that the accused infringer willfully infringed the patent....\",\n \"\\\" He cited the likely high costs to small businesses and individual inventors in obtaining an opinion of counsel to determine if their products infringe a particular patent or if the patent is probably invalid; such costs could prevent or \\\"discourag[e] lawful innovation.\\\" By enacting this section of the Patent Act, \\\"Congress has thus left it to the potential infringer to decide whether to consult counsel—without the threat of treble damages influencing that decision.\\\" Finally, Justice Breyer urged courts to carefully use their discretion in awarding enhanced damages, ensuring that such punitive measures be limited to cases involving egregious misconduct. If increased damages are more readily available in any case involving intentional infringement, innovation could be hindered, he warned. As an example, he specifically mentioned the risk that small businesses face when they receive \\\"demand letters\\\" sent by \\\"patent assertion entities\\\" (firms that do not develop, manufacture, or sell any product, but rather use patents primarily to obtain licensing fees from others): How is a growing business to react to the arrival of such a letter, particularly if that letter carries with it a serious risk of treble damages?\",\n \"Does the letter put the company \\\"on notice\\\" of the patent? Will a jury find that the company behaved \\\"recklessly,\\\" simply for failing to spend considerable time, effort, and money obtaining expert views about whether some or all of the patents described in the letter apply to its activities (and whether those patents are even valid)? These investigative activities can be costly. Hence, the risk of treble damages can encourage the company to settle, or even abandon any challenged activity. Some patent practitioners have called the Halo decision a significant victory for patent owners because the Federal Circuit's Seagate test had made it almost impossible for patentees to recover enhanced damages in cases of willful infringement. Other observers were not surprised by the outcome in Halo, given the Court's 2014 Octane Fitness opinion. One organization that represents technology companies such as Amazon, Cisco, and Google, raised concerns that the Halo decision may incentivize patent assertion entities (sometimes pejoratively referred to by their critics as \\\"patent trolls\\\") to file more lawsuits and may also encourage patent holders to \\\"forum shop\\\" for district courts that have a reputation for being more willing to award enhanced damages.\",\n \"In an effort to demonstrate his disagreement with the Supreme Court's Halo decision, Senator Orrin Hatch filed a \\\"sense of Congress\\\" amendment to the Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations Bill that expressed Congress's views on willful infringement in patent cases. The amendment's findings section indicates that Congress, in enacting the America Invents Act in 2011, was \\\"well aware of the Seagate standard\\\" and chose not to substantively amend Section 284 at that time, \\\"knowing that no action from Congress would be required to ensure that the standard established in Seagate would remain in place and continue to govern the enhancement analysis under that section.\\\" The amendment then expressed the sense of Congress that \\\"(1) the Seagate standard has governed and continues to govern the enhanced damages analysis under section 284 of title 35, United States Code; and (2) this intent of Congress should be considered in any decisions interpreting that section.\\\" As of the date of this Report, the Senate has not voted on this legislation or the amendment.\",\n \"In January 2016, Senator Hatch had filed an amicus brief in the Halo case, joined by Senators Leahy and Bennet and Representatives Bob Goodlatte, Lamar Smith, and Steven Chabot, that urged the Court not to alter or overturn the Seagate standard. By rejecting the stringent Seagate test and lowering the patent holder's evidentiary burden of proof to establish an infringer's reckless actions, the Halo decision may possibly make it easier for patent holders to receive enhanced damages in certain circumstances. In addition, once a patent holder is awarded enhanced damages by the district court, the Federal Circuit is unlikely to overturn that decision under Halo's \\\"abuse of discretion\\\" standard of appellate review.\",\n \"However, a patent practitioner has argued that \\\"[t]he percentage of cases where district courts actually award enhanced damages may not go up much because the Supreme Court has set a high bar of 'egregious' behavior.\\\" Another practitioner notes that, as a practical matter, the challenge facing patent holders and third parties \\\"is predicting where the line will ultimately fall between typical infringement and egregious cases, as well as what an accused infringer should do—or must do—to be on the safe side of that line.\\\" In future cases, courts will likely need to determine the range of \\\"egregious misconduct\\\" that may warrant enhanced damages under the Halo standard. The remaining portion of this report will describe the mechanics of the USPTO's patent reexamination proceedings, including the claim construction standard that applies to them. It will then discuss the impact of the Supreme Court's June 2016 opinion in Cuozzo Speed Technologies v. Lee on these proceedings. Although patents issued by the USPTO are presumed to be valid, accused infringers may assert in court that a patent is invalid or unenforceable on a number of grounds.\",\n \"The accused infringer could raise this argument as an affirmative defense or counterclaim when sued for patent infringement. A party could also preemptively file a \\\"declaratory judgment action\\\" against a patent owner to challenge a patent's validity if there is a case or controversy between them. However, the constitutionally based \\\"case or controversy\\\" requirement for federal judicial proceedings significantly limits the ability of members of the general public to challenge the USPTO's decision to grant a patent. Unless the patent holder becomes involved in an actual, continuing controversy with another person, that person may have difficulty requesting that a federal court determine that a patent is invalid. To address this perceived deficiency, Congress in 1980 established an administrative reexamination mechanism through which the USPTO may reconsider its initial decision to approve a patent application. Members of the public may challenge the validity of an issued patent in these patent reexamination proceedings, which need not satisfy the constitutional \\\"case or controversy\\\" requirement because the proceedings are administrative in nature and do not involve a use of the federal judicial power. Furthermore, the proceedings serve as a potentially faster and cheaper alternative to judicial determinations of patent validity.\",\n \"There are several possible outcomes of reexamination proceedings: a certificate confirming the patentability of the original claims, an amended patent with narrower claims, or a declaration of patent invalidity. Subtitle F of the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999, entitled the Optional Inter Partes Reexamination Procedure Act of 1999, renamed the original reexamination proceeding as an \\\"ex parte reexamination\\\" and also provided a new administrative proceeding called an \\\"inter partes reexamination.\\\" The inter partes reexamination allowed the patent challenger to participate more fully in the proceedings through the submission of arguments and the filing of appeals. However, the number of requests for reexamination under either type of proceeding was fewer than some observers had anticipated. Some commentators also questioned the proceedings' effectiveness. In 2011, Congress enacted the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA), which made significant changes to the USPTO's reexamination proceedings. The AIA first created the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) within the USPTO to handle these proceedings. The PTAB's membership consists of the USPTO director, deputy director, the Commissioner for Patents, the Commissioner for Trademarks, and the administrative patent judges.\",\n \"A panel of at least three members of the PTAB, who are designated by the USPTO director, hears challenges to a patent's validity. The AIA introduced a new proceeding called \\\"post-grant review\\\" (PGR) and also replaced the existing inter partes reexamination system with an \\\"inter partes review\\\" proceeding (IPR). In a PGR proceeding, petitioners may challenge the validity of an issued patent based on any ground of patentability (such as unpatentable subject matter, or failure to meet the statutory standards of novelty and nonobviousness). A petition to initiate a PGR must be filed with the USPTO within nine months of the date of patent grant. To authorize a PGR to be instituted, the USPTO director must determine that the petitioner has presented information in the petition that, if not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is \\\"more likely than not that at least one of the claims\\\" is unpatentable. A PGR must be completed within a year of its commencement, with an extension of six months possible for good cause shown.\",\n \"A challenger to a patent may file a petition with the USPTO requesting the institution of an IPR proceeding nine months after a patent issues or reissues , or the conclusion of any post-grant review, whichever occurs later. In an IPR proceeding, petitioners may challenge the validity of an issued patent only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications. As a result, patent challenges under IPR are limited to the patentability issues of novelty and nonobviousness. To authorize an IPR to be instituted, the USPTO director must determine that the petitioner has provided information in the petition that there is a \\\"reasonable likelihood\\\" that he or she would prevail with respect to at least one claim. An accused infringer may not petition for an IPR if he or she has already filed a declaratory judgment action in federal court challenging the patent, or more than a year has passed since the date the accused infringer was served with a complaint alleging infringement of that patent.\",\n \"Should the patent survive the IPR proceeding, the individual who commenced the proceeding, along with his privies, are barred in the future from raising issues that were \\\"raised or reasonably could have been raised.\\\" An IPR must be completed within a year of its commencement, with an extension of six months possible for good cause shown. The timing and scope of the two USPTO patent revocation proceedings described above are as follows: 1. A patent may be challenged at the USPTO on any basis of any patentability issue within nine months from the date the patent issued (by filing a petition for a PGR proceeding). 2. Thereafter, and throughout its entire term, a patent may be challenged at the USPTO only on the grounds of novelty and nonobviousness (via an IPR). In an IPR or PGR proceeding, \\\"the petitioner shall have the burden of proving a proposition of unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence.\\\" A party dissatisfied with the PTAB's final written decision in an IPR or PGR proceeding may appeal directly to the Federal Circuit.\",\n \"As described earlier in this report, an application for a patent consists of a \\\"specification,\\\" which is a written description of the invention, and one or more \\\"claims,\\\" which define the scope of the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. \\\"Claim construction\\\" refers to the interpretation of the language of these claims; specifically, to construe the meaning of a patent claim to establish the boundaries of the invention. Patent claim interpretation is the process in which a court and the USPTO determine the scope of the patent holder's proprietary rights. The AIA is silent on what claim construction standard is appropriate in the IPR and PGR proceedings conducted by the PTAB. However, the AIA granted the agency authority to issue \\\"regulations … establishing and governing inter partes review under this chapter.\\\" Exercising this authority, the USPTO promulgated a regulation in August 2012 that provided the following standard for claim construction in an IPR: \\\"[a] claim in an unexpired patent shall be given its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears.\\\" Such an interpretive standard is also referred to as the \\\"broadest reasonable interpretation\\\" (BRI).\",\n \"The BRI standard arguably makes it more likely that the PTAB finds a patent claim to be obvious or not novel (and thus subject to invalidation in an IPR), compared to in a judicial proceeding in which a court construes patent claims according to the \\\"plain and ordinary meaning\\\" of the claims' language (a narrower standard). The AIA includes a provision designed to prevent a court from considering a challenge to the USPTO's decision regarding the institution of an IPR, stating that \\\"[t]he determination by the Director whether to institute an inter partes review under this section shall be final and nonappealable.\\\" Elements of the IPR process, including the claim construction standard, were considered by the Supreme Court in the recent case Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee , discussed in detail below. Cuozzo Speed Technologies (Cuozzo) holds the patent at issue in this case (Cuozzo Patent). The patent's 20 claims pertain to a speedometer that displays a vehicle's current speed as well as the speed limit, thereby showing a driver when he or she is driving above the limit.\",\n \"In September 2012, a car GPS device manufacturer, Garmin, filed a petition with the USPTO to institute IPR of the Cuozzo Patent's claims 10, 14, and 17, arguing that claim 17 was invalid for obviousness in light of three prior patents, though it was silent on the grounds for challenging claims 10 and 14. The USPTO agreed to review the Cuozzo Patent's claim 17, as well as claims 10 and 14. The PTAB acknowledged that Garmin had not expressly identified in its IPR petition the specific grounds on which it was challenging claims 10 and 14. However, \\\"believing that 'claim 17 depends on claim 14 which depends on claim 10,' the [PTAB] reasoned that Garmin had 'implicitly' challenged claims 10 and 14 on the basis of the same prior inventions.\\\" The PTAB conducted the IPR proceedings and determined that claims 10, 14, and 17 of the Cuozzo Patent were obvious in light of the patents that Garmin had cited and ordered the cancellation of those claims.\",\n \"Cuozzo appealed the PTAB's decision to the Federal Circuit, arguing that the USPTO had improperly instituted IPR with respect to claims 10 and 14 because the agency had found that Garmin only implicitly challenged those claims, in apparent violation of the Patent Act's requirement that IPR petitions must state \\\"with particularity\\\" the grounds on which the challenge for each claim is based. Cuozzo also asserted that the PTAB had improperly used the \\\"broadest reasonable interpretation\\\" standard in construing patent claims in an IPR; instead, the company argued that the PTAB should apply the same claim construction standard used by federal courts when assessing a patent's validity (\\\"i.e., it should have given those claims their 'ordinary meaning … as understood by a person of skill in the art.'\\\"). In February 2015, a divided panel of the Federal Circuit rejected both of Cuozzo's arguments. First, the appellate court asserted that Section 314(d) of the Patent Act precludes its review of the USPTO's decision to institute IPR.\",\n \"The court then upheld the PTAB's use of the BRI standard in claim construction, holding that the USPTO's regulation requiring such a standard was a reasonable exercise of the agency's rulemaking authority that had been granted by the AIA. The Federal Circuit explained that by applying the BRI standard, the USPTO \\\"reduce[s] the possibility that, after the patent is granted, the claims may be interpreted as giving broader coverage than is justified.\\\" The appellate court noted that the USPTO has long applied the BRI standard in a variety of proceedings, including initial examinations, interferences, and reissue and reexamination proceedings. Finally, the court observed that \\\"[t]here is no indication that the AIA was designed to change the claim construction standard that the PTO has applied for more than 100 years. Congress is presumed to legislate against the background of the kind of longstanding, consistent existing law that is present here.\\\" Thus, according to the Federal Circuit, \\\"Congress implicitly adopted the broadest reasonable interpretation standard in enacting the AIA.\\\" In July 2015, the Federal Circuit, by a narrow vote of 6 to 5, denied Cuozzo's petition for rehearing en banc (by the full court).\",\n \"In October 2015, Cuozzo filed a petition with the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to review the Federal Circuit's judgment, which the Court granted. In an opinion authored by Justice Breyer, the Supreme Court in Cuozzo held that Section 314(d) of the Patent Act \\\"bar[s] judicial review of the kind of mine-run claim at issue here, involving the Patent Office's decision to institute inter partes review,\\\" though it may not prevent courts from considering a constitutional question. This conclusion was supported by six justices, with two dissenting. Second, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Congress had given the USPTO the statutory authority to issue the regulation specifying that the PTAB apply the broadest reasonable interpretation standard in construing patent claims in an IPR proceeding. The Supreme Court's majority opinion on this first question agreed with the Federal Circuit that the decision of the USPTO whether to institute an IPR is nonappealable.\",\n \"Although recognizing the \\\"strong presumption\\\" in favor of judicial review, even for statutes that purport to limit or preclude review, the Court noted that the presumption can \\\"be overcome by clear and convincing indications, drawn from specific language, specific legislative history, and inferences of intent drawn from the statutory scheme as a whole, that Congress intended to bar review.\\\" The Court found that this standard was satisfied in this case. In the AIA, Congress elected to make the USPTO's decision on whether an IPR should proceed \\\"final and nonappealable\\\"; thus, the Court's \\\"conclusion that courts may not revisit this initial determination gives effect to this statutory command.\\\" However, the majority opinion explained that its conclusion applies to issues relating specifically to IPR proceedings and not necessarily those that involve constitutional questions, other sections of the Patent Act, or other federal statutes: We emphasize that our interpretation applies where the grounds for attacking the decision to institute inter partes review consist of questions that are closely tied to the application and interpretation of statutes related to the Patent Office's decision to initiate inter partes review.\",\n \"… This means that we need not, and do not, decide the precise effect of § 314(d) on appeals that implicate constitutional questions, that depend on other less closely related statutes, or that present other questions of interpretation that reach, in terms of scope and impact, well beyond \\\"this section.\\\" Justice Alito wrote a dissenting opinion to this part of the Cuozzo opinion , which was joined by Justice Sotomayor, in which he disagreed with the majority's view that Congress intended to shield \\\"from all judicial scrutiny\\\" the USPTO's compliance (or noncompliance) with statutory requirements that govern the agency's decision to institute an IPR proceeding.\",\n \"He first observed that Section 314(d) \\\"does not say that an institution decision is 'not subject to review,'\\\" but rather makes such decision \\\"nonappealable.\\\" He would interpret this statutory language to \\\"bar only an appeal from the institution decision itself, while allowing review of institution-related issues in an appeal from the Patent Office's final written decision at the end of the proceeding.\\\" Under Justice Alito's interpretation of Section 314(d), a court cannot prevent an IPR proceeding from commencing (because the decision to institute IPR is \\\"final and nonappealable\\\"), but \\\"the question whether it was lawful to institute review will not escape judicial scrutiny.\\\" However, he then took \\\"the Court at its word that today's opinion will not permit the Patent Office to act outside its statutory limits.\\\" Nevertheless, he argued that the Court should have held that Section 314(d) \\\"does not bar judicial review of the Patent Office's compliance with any of the limits Congress imposed on the institution of patent review proceedings,\\\" which would include the statutory condition that Cuozzo alleged was violated by Garmin in this case, i.e., Section 312(a)(3) of the Patent Act's requirement that IPR petitioners must state the grounds on which\",\n \"the challenge for each claim is based \\\"with particularity\\\".\",\n \"Regarding the other question presented in Cuozzo's certiorari petition , a unanimous Supreme Court agreed that the Federal Circuit did not err in holding that the Patent Act grants the USPTO the legal authority to require the PTAB to apply the BRI standard to claim construction in IPR proceedings. The Court first noted that no part of the IPR statute \\\"unambiguously directs the agency to use\\\" the BRI standard or the standard used by federal courts, which construe the claims in an issued patent according to their \\\"plain and ordinary meaning\\\". Because the statute leaves a \\\"gap\\\" or is \\\"ambiguous\\\" on this matter, courts \\\"typically interpret it as granting the agency leeway to enact rules that are reasonable in light of the text, nature, and purpose of the statute.\\\" In addition, the Court observed that Section 316(a)(4) of the Patent Act expressly delegated rulemaking authority to the USPTO to issue \\\"regulations ... establishing and governing inter partes review under this chapter,\\\" which would include the power to promulgate a rule filling that gap in the IPR statute with the BRI standard.\",\n \"Furthermore, the Court could not find anything in the statutory language, its purpose, or its legislative history to \\\"suggest that Congress considered what standard the agency should apply when reviewing a patent claim in inter partes review.\\\" The Court then held that the BRI regulation is a reasonable exercise of the USPTO's rulemaking authority, for several reasons. First, in the Court's view, applying a BRI standard to claim construction helps to protect the public interest: Because an examiner's (or re-examiner's) use of the broadest reasonable construction standard increases the possibility that the examiner will find the claim too broad (and deny it), use of that standard encourages the applicant to draft narrowly. This helps ensure precision while avoiding overly broad claims, and thereby helps prevent a patent from tying up too much knowledge, while helping members of the public draw useful information from the disclosed invention and better understand the lawful limits of the claim. Second, the Court explained that the USPTO has used the BRI standard for over a century in its administrative proceedings, and thus this precedent supports the reasonableness of its regulation in this case.\",\n \"The Court stated that \\\"we cannot find unreasonable the Patent Office's decision to prefer a degree of inconsistency in the standards used between the courts and the agency, rather than among agency proceedings.\\\" Finally, the Court downplayed Cuozzo's concern that the use of different claim construction standards by the USPTO and the courts to interpret the same patent claims may lead to inconsistent and conflicting results, such that a court could uphold the validity of a patent claim while the agency may cancel that same claim in an IPR proceeding: This possibility … has long been present in our patent system, which provides different tracks—one in the Patent Office and one in the courts—for the review and adjudication of patent claims. As we have explained above, inter partes review imposes a different burden of proof on the challenger. These different evidentiary burdens mean that the possibility of inconsistent results is inherent to Congress' regulatory design.\",\n \"Some observers have called Cuozzo a victory for companies, particularly those in the technology industry, that want to utilize the faster and cheaper IPR proceedings to invalidate \\\"bad patents.\\\" On the other hand, some believe that Cuozzo leaves in place a process that may negatively impact companies that value strong patent protections, such as those in the pharmaceutical drug and biotechnology industries. It remains to be seen whether Congress will legislatively \\\"overrule\\\" parts of the Cuozzo opinion. Legislation in the 114 th Congress, the Innovation Act and the PATENT Act, would require that the PTAB, in IPR proceedings, use the same claim construction standard that is applied by federal courts; that is, the PTAB would need to construe a patent claim \\\"in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent\\\" rather than use the BRI standard. However, this legislation has not been enacted into law.\"\n]","isConversational":false}}},{"rowIdx":16996,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"string","value":"train_16996"},"question":{"kind":"string","value":"Write a detailed summary of the following government report."},"answer":{"kind":"string","value":"The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) was signed into law by President Obama on February 17, 2009 (P.L. 111-5). The primary purposes of the ARRA focus on promoting economic recovery, assisting those most affected by the recession, improving economic efficiency by \"spurring technological advances in science and health,\" investing in infrastructure, and stabilizing state and local government budgets. The ARRA provides funds to several existing education programs administered by the U.S. Department of Education (ED), including programs authorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and the Higher Education Act (HEA). It also provides general state fiscal stabilization grants to support education at the elementary, secondary, and postsecondary levels, as well as \"public safety and other government services.\" Funds made available through the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund may be used for modernization, renovation, or repair of public school or higher education facilities. Under the House and Senate versions of H.R. 1, funds also would have been provided to several existing education programs administered by the U.S. Department of Education (ED), including programs authorized by the ESEA, IDEA, and HEA. The House bill, but not the Senate bill, would have created new programs to support school modernization, renovation, and repair at the elementary, secondary, and postsecondary education levels. Both the House bill and the Senate bill would have provided general funds for education to support state fiscal stabilization. This report provides a brief overview of the key provisions related to education programs that are or will be administered by ED that were included in the ARRA under Division A, Title VIII, Department of Education, and under Title XIV, State Fiscal Stabilization Fund. It also includes a discussion of relevant provisions that were included in the House and Senate bills. Education-related tax provisions, as well as Vocational Rehabilitation programs administered by ED, are beyond the scope of this report. The report will be updated as warranted by legislative or administrative action."},"documents":{"kind":"list like","value":["On February 13, 2009, both the House and Senate passed the conference version of H.R. 1 , the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). Subsequently, the ARRA was signed into law by President Obama on February 17, 2009 ( P.L. 111-5 ). The primary purposes of the ARRA focus on promoting economic recovery, assisting those most affected by the recession, improving economic efficiency by \"spurring technological advances in science and health,\" investing in infrastructure, and stabilizing state and local government budgets. The House had previously passed its version of H.R. 1 on January 28, 2009, while the Senate passed S.Amdt. 570 , an amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 1 , on February 10, 2009. The ARRA provides funds to several existing education programs administered by the U.S. Department of Education (ED), including programs authorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and the Higher Education Act (HEA).","It also provides general state fiscal stabilization grants to support education at the elementary, secondary, and postsecondary levels, as well as \"public safety and other government services.\" Funds made available through the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund may be used for modernization, renovation, or repair of public school or higher education facilities. Under the House and Senate versions of H.R. 1 (hereafter referred to the House bill and the Senate bill, respectively), funds also would have been provided to several existing education programs administered by the U.S. Department of Education (ED), including programs authorized by the ESEA, IDEA, and HEA. The House bill, but not the Senate bill, would have created new programs to support school modernization, renovation, and repair at the elementary, secondary, and postsecondary education levels. Both the House bill and the Senate bill would have provided general funds for education to support state fiscal stabilization. This report provides a brief overview of the key provisions related to education programs that are or will be administered by ED that were included in the ARRA under Division A, Title VIII, Department of Education and under Title XIV, State Fiscal Stabilization Fund.","It also includes a discussion of relevant provisions that were included in the House and Senate versions of H.R. 1 . Education-related tax provisions, as well as Vocational Rehabilitation programs administered by ED, are beyond the scope of this report. The report begins with a discussion of provisions related to elementary and secondary education. The next section of the report examines provisions related to higher education, followed by a discussion of provisions related to the Institute for Education Sciences. The report concludes with an examination of the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund and a discussion of fiscal accountability issues. The ARRA provides $96.764 billion in discretionary appropriations for education programs that are or will be administered by the U.S. Department of Education (ED). Funds provided for education are considered FY2009 appropriations, and generally, all funds are available for obligation until September 30, 2010. Appropriations provided under the ARRA are in addition to funds provided under regular FY2009 appropriations legislation for ED, enacted subsequent to the ARRA under P.L. 111-8 , the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009.","Section 807 of the ARRA includes a provision allowing the Secretary to award FY2009 funds appropriated in Title VIII of the bill on the basis of state and LEA eligibility for FY2008 awards and to require states to make \"prompt\" allocations to LEAs. Of these funds, about $43.164 billion were appropriated for existing education programs, including Title I-A, Education for the Disadvantaged, authorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Part B Grants to States. Most of the funds for existing elementary education programs have been appropriated for programs that provide formula grants directly to states or local educational agencies (LEAs), while most funds at the postsecondary level were appropriated for Pell Grants, which go directly to students. For some programs, these appropriations provide a substantial increase over the amount of funding provided through the regular appropriations process in recent years. For example, the ARRA provides $10.000 billion for Title I-A Grants to LEAs, authorized by the ESEA, while this program received $13.899 billion in FY2008 and $14.492 billion in regular appropriations for FY2009.","Thus, the total appropriation for this program in FY2009 is $24.492 billion, a 76.2% increase over its FY2008 appropriation level. Similarly, the ARRA provides $11.300 billion for IDEA, Part B Grants to States, while the program received $10.948 billion in FY2008 and $11.505 in FY2009 through the regular appropriations process. Thus, the total appropriation for this program in FY2009 is $22.805 billion, a 108.3% increase over its FY2008 appropriation level. At the postsecondary level, the ARRA provides $15.640 billion for Pell Grants, while the program received $14.215 billion in FY2008 and $17.288 billion in FY2009. Thus, the total discretionary appropriation for this program in FY2009 is $32.928 billion, a 131.6% increase over its FY2008 appropriation level. Overall, discretionary programs that existed prior to the enactment of the ARRA received $43.164 billion through the ARRA. These programs received $42.746 billion in FY2008 and $47.134 billion in FY2009. Thus, total FY2009 appropriations for these programs are $90.298 billion, a 111.2% increase over their FY2008 appropriation levels. The remaining $53.600 billion in discretionary funding provided for education programs was appropriated for the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund. This is a new program that is being administered by ED.","After making reservations from the appropriation, including a $5 billion reservation for the Secretary of Education to provide State Incentive Grants and establish an Innovation Fund, $48.318 billion will be provided to governors through formula grants to each state that chooses to apply for funding through this program. Table 1 , below, provides appropriations for FY2008, FY2009, and the ARRA for all ED programs that received funding through the ARRA. Note in particular that Table 1 includes Vocational Rehabilitation programs administered by ED, although these programs are not discussed further in this report. The ARRA specifies that the funding provided through the act is considered emergency funding (Section 5). Further, appropriations provided through the ARRA have no effect on the availability of the amount provided under the Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2009 (Division A of P.L. 110-329 ), and the amounts appropriated or made available under the ARRA are in addition to amounts otherwise appropriated for the fiscal year involved (Section 1601). On April 1, 2009, ED simultaneously released the first round of ARRA funding and issued guidance for several programs receiving funding under the ARRA, including Title I-A; IDEA, Part B; and the State Fiscal Stabilization","Fund.","Of the $44 billion released, ED provided 50% of the total funds available under Title I-A; IDEA, Part B Grants to States; IDEA, Part B Preschool Grants; IDEA, Part C Grants to Infants and Toddlers; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; Independent Living; and Services for Older Individuals who are Blind. The funds were released to states without requiring states to submit applications to receive funds. Remaining funds available under these programs will be released prior to the end of the FY2009, but, in some cases, may only be released contingent upon receiving additional information from states. ED also released 67% ($32.6 billion) of the total funds available under the State Fiscal Stabilization Funds. States are required to submit an application (also made available on April 1) to receive these funds.","ED has indicated that it will release funds to states within two weeks of receiving an \"approvable application.\" Generally, states are eligible to receive 67% of their estimated total allocation, but states may apply for up to 90% of their grants under this program if they demonstrate that the amount of funds they would otherwise receive in phase one is \"insufficient to prevent the immediate layoff of personnel by LEAs, state educational agencies, or public institutions of higher education.\" The remainder of states' SFSF grants will be distributed after July 1, 2009, after states submit applications detailing their strategies for meeting performance requirements for the SFSF (discussed below). On April 10, 2009, ED released funding and guidance for the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Program and Impact Aid Construction grants. ED distributed all of the funds for McKinney-Vento that were provided under the ARRA, and distributed $39.6 million of the funds available under Impact Aid. The latter funds were used to make 180 grants by formula. The remaining Impact Aid funds will be distributed through a competitive grant process later this year.","The ARRA provides funding for a number of existing education programs, including the two federal education programs that provide the largest amounts of funding for elementary and secondary education—Title I-A Grants to Local Educational Agencies (ESEA) and IDEA, Part B Grants to States. It also provides funding for School Improvement Grants (ESEA Title I-A); Education Technology (ESEA Title II-D); IDEA, Part C (Grants for Infants and Toddlers); IDEA, Part B (Preschool Grants); and the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act. Both the House and Senate bills would have provided funds for all of these purposes, except that the House bill would not have provided funding for IDEA, Part B (Preschool Grants). The ARRA includes funding for the Fund for the Improvement of Education (FIE, ESEA Title V-D-1) and Impact Aid Section 8007 (Grants for Construction, ESEA Title VIII). Funds for these programs would have been provided only under the House bill. The House bill only also would have provided funding for Credit Enhancement Initiatives to Assist Charter Schools (ESEA Title V-B-2) and a new program to provide school construction funds to LEAs.","The ARRA does not provide funds for these specific programs, although funds under the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (see subsequent discussion) could be used for school modernization, renovation, and repair, and possibly construction as well. Provisions applicable to each of these programs are discussed below. The primary source of federal aid to K-12 education is the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, particularly its Title I, Part A program of Education for the Disadvantaged. The ESEA was initially enacted in 1965 (P.L. 89-10), and was most recently amended and reauthorized by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB, P.L. 107-110 ). Other major ESEA programs provide grants to support the education of migrant students; recruitment of and professional development for teachers; language instruction for limited English proficient (LEP) students; drug abuse prevention programs; after-school instruction and care; expansion of charter schools and other forms of public school choice; education services for Native American, Native Hawaiian, and Alaska Native students; Impact Aid to compensate local educational agencies for taxes foregone due to certain federal activities; and a wide variety of innovative educational approaches or instruction to meet particular student needs.","This section discusses ESEA programs that would receive additional funding through the House and Senate bills and, where appropriate, provides estimates of the amounts that states would receive. Title I, Part A, of the ESEA authorizes federal aid to local educational agencies (LEAs) for the education of disadvantaged children. Title I-A grants provide supplementary educational and related services to low-achieving and other pupils attending pre-kindergarten through grade 12 schools with relatively high concentrations of pupils from low-income families. For FY2008, the program received an annual appropriation of $13.9 billion. Portions of each annual appropriation for Title I-A are allocated under four different formulas—Basic, Concentration, Targeted, and Education Finance Incentive Grants (EFIG)—although funds allocated under all of these formulas are combined and used for the same purposes by recipient LEAs. Although the allocation formulas have several distinctive elements, the primary factors used in all four formulas are estimated numbers of children aged 5-17 in poor families plus a state expenditure factor based on average expenditures per pupil for public K-12 education.","Other factors included in one or more formulas include weighting schemes designed to increase aid to LEAs with the highest concentrations of poverty, and a factor to increase grants to states with high levels of expenditure equity among their LEAs. Under three of the formulas—Basic, Concentration, and Targeted Grants—funds are calculated initially at the LEA level, and state total grants are the total of allocations for LEAs in the state, adjusted to apply state minimum grant provisions. Under the fourth formula, Education Finance Incentive Grants, grants are first calculated for each state overall, with state totals subsequently suballocated by LEA using a different formula. A primary rationale for using four different formulas to allocate shares of the funds for a single program is that the formulas have distinct allocation patterns, providing varying shares of allocated funds to different types of LEAs or states (e.g., LEAs with high poverty rates or states with comparatively equal levels of spending per pupil among their LEAs). The House and Senate bills would have provided $11 billion in supplemental appropriations for Title I-A Grants to LEAs.","The House bill would have made $5.5 billion available on July 1, 2009, and $5.5 billion available on July 1, 2010. The Senate bill would have made the entire $11 billion available in FY2009. Under both bills, funds would have been allocated through the Targeted Grant and EFIG formulas only. Half of the available funds for a given fiscal year would have been appropriated through each formula. For example, for funds made available under the House bill on July 1, 2009, $2.75 billion would have been appropriated through the Targeted grant formula and $2.75 billion would have been appropriated through the EFIG formula. While both bills would have required funds to be used for the purposes authorized in Title I-A of the ESEA, the Senate bill would also have added requirements for LEAs receiving these funds. First, LEAs would have been required to use at least 15% of the funds received for activities serving children who are not yet at a grade level at which the LEA provides a free public education and to support preschool programs for children.","Second, the Senate bill would have required each LEA to file a school-by-school listing of per pupil expenditures from state and local sources for the 2008-2009 school year with the state educational agency (SEA) by December 1, 2009. The ARRA provides $10 billion in supplemental FY2009 appropriations for Title I-A. As with both the House and Senate bills, the funds will be provided equally through the Targeted Grant and EFIG formulas only (i.e., $5 billion through each formula). One feature of these formulas is that LEAs with an estimated school-age child poverty rate of less than 5.0% are not eligible for grants. According to H.Rept. 111-16 , these funds should be available to LEAs during school year 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 to help LEAs \"mitigate the effect of the recent reduction in local revenues and state support for education.\" While the ARRA did not retain the Senate provision that at least 15% of funds received by LEAs had to be used for preschool programs, the ARRA does retain the Senate provision requiring reporting on per-pupil expenditures.","More specifically, each LEA is required to file a school-by-school listing of per-pupil expenditures from state and local sources during the 2008-2009 school year by December 1, 2009. Further, the ARRA requires the SEA to report these data to the Secretary of Education (hereafter referred to as the Secretary) by March 31, 2010. School Improvement Grants (authorized under ESEA, Section 1003(g)) provide supplementary funds to states and LEAs for school improvement purposes. States are eligible to apply for these grants, which are allocated in proportion to each state's share of funds received under ESEA Title I, Parts A, C (Migrant Education Program), and D (Neglected and Delinquent Children and Youth). States must use at least 95% of the funds received to make subgrants to LEAs. Subgrants made to LEAs must be between $50,000 and $500,000 for each school, and must be renewable for up to two additional years if schools meet the goals of their school improvement plans. Subgrants must be used by LEAs to support school improvement (ESEA, Sections 1116 and 1117).","LEAs with the lowest-achieving schools and the greatest commitment to ensuring that such funds are used to provide \"adequate resources\" to enable the lowest-achieving schools to meet the goals under school and LEA improvement plans must be given priority in the awarding of subgrants. In FY2008, this program received an annual appropriation of $491 million. In addition to separately appropriated funds, states are generally required to reserve 4% of their Title I-A grants to LEAs for school improvement activities. The House bill would have appropriated $2 billion in supplemental appropriations for School Improvement Grants with $1 billion becoming available on July 1, 2009, and the remaining funds becoming available on July 1, 2010. The Senate bill would have appropriated $1.4 billion in supplemental appropriations for this program and made all funds available in FY2009. In addition, the Senate, but not the House bill, would have required ED to encourage states to use 40% of their allocations for middle and high schools. The ARRA provides $3 billion in supplemental FY2009 appropriations for School Improvement Grants. According to H.Rept.","111-16 , these funds should be available to LEAs during school year 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 to help LEAs \"mitigate the effect of the recent reduction in local revenues and state support for education.\" The ARRA requires each LEA to file a school-by-school listing of per-pupil expenditures from state and local sources during the 2008-2009 school year by December 1, 2009. SEAs are then required to report these data to the Secretary by March 31, 2010. In addition, according to H.Rept. 111-16 , ED is required to encourage states to use 40% of their School Improvement Grants for middle and high schools. The EdTech program provides grants to SEAs and LEAs to increase access to educational technology, support the integration of technology into instruction, enhance technological literacy, and support technology-related professional development of teachers. Funds are allocated to states in proportion to Title I-A grants, with a state minimum grant amount of 0.5% of total funding for state grants. At least 95% of state grants must be allocated to LEAs (and consortia of LEAs and other entities)—50% by formula, in proportion to Title I-A grants, and 50% competitively. In FY2008, this program received an annual appropriation of","$267 million.","Both the House and Senate bills would have appropriated $1 billion in supplemental appropriations for EdTech. The House bill would have made $500 million available on July 1, 2009, and the remaining funds available on July 1, 2010, while the Senate would have made all funds available in FY2009. The ARRA provides $650 million in supplemental FY2009 appropriations for EdTech. According to H.Rept. 111-16 , these funds should be available to LEAs during school year 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 to help LEAs \"mitigate the effect of the recent reduction in local revenues and state support for education.\" Under the Credit Enhancement program, competitive grants are awarded to enhance the availability of financing for the acquisition, construction, or renovation of public charter school facilities. Grants are made to at least three entities that have been approved by the Secretary as having demonstrated innovative methods of assisting charter schools in addressing the costs of acquiring, constructing, and renovating facilities by enhancing the availability of loans or bond financing. The House bill would have provided a one-time grant of $25 million in supplemental appropriations for this program. The Senate bill would not have appropriated additional funds for this program.","The ARRA does not provide funds for the Credit Enhancement program. ESEA Title V-D authorizes a series of competitive grant programs intended to support a variety of innovative K-12 educational activities. It includes both a broad authority for innovative activities selected at the discretion of the Secretary of Education, and a series of required studies, in Subpart 1. It also authorizes a number of specific activities (e.g., Elementary and Secondary School Counseling Programs, Partnerships in Character Education, Smaller Learning Communities) in Subparts 2 through 21. In FY2008, Title V-D-1 received an annual appropriation of $122 million. The House bill, but not the Senate bill, would have provided $200 million in supplemental FY2009 appropriations specifically for Subpart 1 activities to be used for purposes specified in FY2008 appropriations. These funds had to be used to provide competitive grants to LEAs, states, or partnerships of an LEA, state, or both and at least one non-profit organization to develop and implement performance-based teacher and principal compensation systems in high-need schools under the Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF) program.","These systems would have had to consider gains in student academic achievement as well as classroom evaluations conducted at multiple times during the school year among other factors and provide educators with incentives to take on leadership roles and additional responsibilities. Up to 5% of the $200 million would have been available for technical assistance, training, peer review of applications, program outreach, and evaluation activities. Further, the House bill specified that a portion of these funds had to be used by the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) to conduct an evaluation of the impact of performance-based teacher and principal compensation systems supported by the competitive grants on teacher and principal recruitment in high-need schools and subjects. The ARRA provides $200 million in supplemental FY2009 appropriations for the same purposes required in the House bill. The ARRA, however, permits the Secretary to reserve up to 1% of the $200 million for management and oversight of the activities supported with the funds appropriated. The Impact Aid program compensates LEAs for \"substantial and continuing financial burden\" resulting from federal activities.","These activities include federal ownership of certain lands, as well as the enrollments in LEAs of children of parents who work or live on federal land (e.g., children of parents in the military and children living on Indian lands). Section 8007 specifically provides funds for construction and facilities upgrading to certain LEAs with high percentages of children living on Indian lands or children of military parents. These funds are used to make formula and competitive grants. In FY2008, $18 million was appropriated for Section 8007 payments. Under the statute, 40% of the funds appropriated under Section 8007 are used to make construction payments by formula to LEAs receiving Impact Aid Section 8003 payments and in which students living on Indian land constitute at least 50% of the LEA's total student enrollment or military students living on or off base constitute at least 50% of the LEA's total student enrollment. The funds available for construction payments are divided equally between these two groups of LEAs (20% of the total Section 8007 appropriation going to each group). The remaining 60% of Section 8007 appropriations are used to make school facility emergency and modernization competitive grants.","Emergency repair grants must be used to repair, renovate, or alter a K-12 public school facility to ensure the health and safety of students and staff. Modernization grants may be used to relieve overcrowding or upgrade facilities to support a \"contemporary educational program.\" The House bill would have provided $100 million in supplemental appropriations for Section 8007 in FY2009. The Senate bill would not have appropriated funds for this purpose. The ARRA provides $100 million supplemental FY2009 appropriations for Impact Aid Section 8007. While 40% of the Section 8007 funds will be made available by formula and 60% of the Section 8007 funds will be made available by competitive grant (as is done in current law), the ARRA modifies some of the eligibility and priority criteria for receiving funds. For example, the 40% of funds provided through formula grants will be based on each LEA's proportion of military children and children living on Indian lands.","In addition, the ARRA drops the requirements that at least 50% of an LEA's student enrollment must be composed of military children or children living on Indian lands to receive a grant, and that the 40% of funds available be divided equally between LEAs enrolling at least 50% military children and those enrolling at least 50% children living on Indian lands. According to H.Rept. 111-16 , modifications to the current statutory provisions were made to allow for the greater participation of LEAs serving both military students and students living on Indian lands and to allow funding to be better targeted to LEAs with \"shovel ready\" projects. IDEA is the major federal statute that supports special education and related services for children with disabilities. As a condition of accepting IDEA funding, the act requires that states and LEAs provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to each eligible child with a disability. The IDEA is divided into four parts. Part A contains the general provisions, including the purposes of the act and definitions.","Part B, the most often discussed part of the act, contains provisions relating to the education of school aged children (grants to states) and a state grant program for preschool children with disabilities (Section 619). Part C authorizes state grants for programs serving infants and toddlers with disabilities, while Part D contains the requirements for various national activities designed to improve the education of children with disabilities. In FY2008, IDEA, Part B Grants to States received an annual appropriation of $10.9 billion; IDEA, Part C received an annual appropriation of $436 million; and IDEA, Part D received an annual appropriation of $225 million. Both the House and Senate bills would have provided supplemental FY2009 appropriations for IDEA, Part B (grants to states) and Part C. For Part B, the House bill would have provided a total of $13 billion with $6 billion made available on July 1, 2009, and $7 billion made available on July 1, 2010. The Senate bill, as detailed in its report ( S.Rept. 111-3 ) would have provided $13 billion for FY2009.","Actual and proposed Part B grants to states are often discussed in terms of the percent of the \"excess\" cost of educating children with disabilities that the federal government will pay. The metric for determining this excess cost is based on the national average per-pupil expenditure (APPE). In 1975, with the enactment of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act ( P.L. 94-142 ), it was determined that the federal government would pay up to 40% of this excess cost. For FY2008, the estimated percentage of APPE provided by the federal government under IDEA, Part B was 17.2%. The estimated percentage for FY2009 based on regular appropriations and funding provided through the House bill would have been 26.3%. For FY2010, based on regular appropriations and funding provided through the House bill, the estimated percentage would have been 26.8%. The estimated percentage based on the Senate bill and regular appropriations for FY2009 would have been 37.6%. For Part C, the House bill would have provided a total of $600 million for Part C with $300 million becoming available on July 1, 2009, and the remaining funds becoming available on July 1, 2010.","The Senate bill, as detailed in its report ( S.Rept. 111-3 ), would have provided $500 million for FY2009. Under Part C, the Secretary is required to reserve 15% of any funds appropriated in excess of $460 million for incentive grants to states to continue early intervention services until kindergarten as described in Section 635(c). The Senate bill would have required that each LEA receiving funds for Part B use not less than 15% of the funds for special education and related services for preschool children (Section 619.) The House bill had no comparable provision. The ARRA provides $11.3 billion in supplemental FY2009 appropriations for IDEA Part B, which will be available during school years 2009-2010 and 2010-2011. The estimated percentage of the \"excess\" cost of educating children with disabilities that the federal government will pay based on the ARRA and regular appropriations for FY2009 is 34.2%. The ARRA also provides $500 million in FY2009 funds for IDEA Part C, which will be available during school years 2009-2010 and 2010-2011.","Like both the House and Senate bills, the ARRA specifies that any funds remaining after the incentive grants are awarded are to be allocated to states by formula in accordance with section 643(e). Finally, the ARRA provides $400 million for the IDEA preschool program (Section 619). Special issues have arisen with respect to the share of IDEA funds provided under H.R. 1 that might be allocated to outlying areas or the Bureau of Indian Affairs. This program, also known as the Education for Homeless Children and Youth program, provides assistance to SEAs to ensure that all homeless children and youth have equal access to the same free, appropriate public education, including public preschool education, that is provided to other children and youth. Funds are allocated to states in proportion to ESEA Title I-A grants, with a state minimum of $150,000 or 0.25% of total grants, whichever is greater. In FY2008, $64 million was appropriated for this program. Competitive grants made by SEAs to LEAs under this program must be used to facilitate the enrollment, attendance, and success in school of homeless children and youth.","The LEAs may use the funds for activities such as tutoring, supplemental instruction, and referral services for homeless children and youth, as well as providing them with medical, dental, mental, and other health services. In order to receive funds, each state must submit a plan indicating how homeless children and youth will be identified, how assurances will be put in place that homeless children will participate in federal, state, and local food programs if eligible, and how the state will address such problems as transportation, immunization, residency requirements, and the lack of birth certificates or school records. The House bill would have provided a total of $66 million for this program in supplemental FY2009 appropriations, with $33 million becoming available on July 1, 2009, and $33 million becoming available on July 1, 2010. These funds would have been allocated to states using the formula authorized in current statute. States would have made subgrants to LEAs on a competitive basis as is done under current law. The Senate bill would have provided $70 million for this program in supplemental FY2009 appropriations. These funds would not have been allocated to states using the current formula.","Rather, funds would have been allocated in proportion to the number of homeless students identified by the state during the 2007-2008 school year relative to the number of homeless students identified nationally during the 2007-2008 school year. States would have made subgrants to LEAs on a competitive basis or using a formula based on the number of homeless students identified by LEAs in the state. The ARRA provides $70 million in supplemental FY2009 appropriations for this program. According to H.Rept. 111-16 , these funds should be available to LEAs during school year 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 to help LEAs \"mitigate the effect of the recent reduction in local revenues and state support for education.\" Grants will be allocated to states in proportion to the number of homeless students identified by the state during the 2007-2008 school year relative to the number of homeless students identified nationally during the 2007-2008 school year, rather than under existing statutory provisions. SEAs will make subgrants to LEAs on a competitive basis or using a formula based on the number of homeless students identified by LEAs in the state.","The Secretary is required to make grants to states not later than 60 days after the data of enactment. Subsequently, SEAs must make subgrants to LEAs not later than 120 days after receiving funds from the Secretary. Currently, there are no federal education programs dedicated specifically to providing grants for the modernization, renovation, or repair of elementary and secondary schools (hereafter referred to as funds for school renovation). The House bill, but not the Senate bill, would have provided a dedicated source of funding in FY2009 for these purposes. The House bill would have provided $14 billion in supplemental FY2009 appropriations for school renovation. After a reservation of 1% for the outlying areas and the Secretary of the Interior to provide assistance to Bureau of Indian Affairs schools, and a reservation of $6 million for the Secretary of Education for administration and oversight, the remaining funds would have been allocated to each state in proportion to the amount of FY2008 Title I-A funding received by all the LEAs in the state relative to the total amount received by all the LEAs in every state.","States would have been permitted to reserve up to 1% of their allocations for providing technical assistance; developing a database that includes an inventory of public school facilities in the state and their modernization, renovation, and repair needs; and developing a school energy efficiency quality plan. The remaining funds would have been allocated to LEAs in proportion to the amount of FY2008 Title I-A funding received by the LEA relative to the total amount of funding received by all LEAs in the state. The minimum grant amount for LEAs would have been $5,000. Under general provisions (Sec. 1109), the House bill would have prohibited any funds from being used for an aquarium, zoo, golf course, or swimming pool. The ARRA does not include a dedicated source of federal funds for school modernization. However, school modernization, renovation, and repair, and possibly construction as well, are allowable uses of funds under the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (see subsequent discussion). The ARRA provides supplemental appropriations for several programs authorized under the Higher Education Act (HEA).","It provides $16 billion in discretionary appropriations for the Federal Pell Grant program, the Federal Work-Study (FWS) program, and the Teacher Quality Partnership Grant program, and for the administration of federal student aid programs authorized under Title IV of the HEA. The ARRA also provides $1.474 billion in mandatory appropriations for the Federal Pell Grant program. The House bill would have provided $16.276 billion in discretionary funding for the Federal Pell Grant program, the FWS program, and the Teacher Quality Partnership Grant program, and for the administration of federal student aid programs. It would also have provided $1.474 billion in mandatory funding for the Federal Pell Grant program. The House bill would have amended the federal student loan programs by increasing borrowing limits on Stafford Loans made to undergraduate students. In addition, the House bill would have provided $6 billion in discretionary funding for a new program of grants to state higher education agencies (SEAs) for higher education facility modernization, renovation and repair.","The Senate bill would have provided $13.980 in discretionary funding for the three HEA programs (the Federal Pell Grant program, the Federal Perkins Loan program, the Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant program), but would not have provided any funding for higher education modernization, renovation, and repair. Funding for higher education as proposed under the House and Senate bills, and as enacted under the ARRA, is briefly discussed below. Under the Federal Pell Grant program, grants are made available to low-income undergraduate students to help offset their costs associated with obtaining a postsecondary education. The Pell Grant program is the largest source of federal grant aid to postsecondary students. Pell Grants are portable, in that the grant aid follows students to the eligible postsecondary education institutions in which they enroll. The Pell Grant award amount is primarily based on the financial resources that a student and the student's family are expected to contribute toward postsecondary education expenses—the student's expected family contribution (EFC). The Pell Grant award is considered to be the foundation of a student's financial aid package because all other forms of federal student aid (e.g., federal student loans) are awarded after the Pell Grant award amount","has been determined.","Both discretionary and mandatory appropriations fund the Federal Pell Grant program; and in general, annual appropriations measures specify maximum individual Pell Grant award amounts. A mandatory Pell Grant add-on has the effect of increasing the individual Pell Grant award amount above the amount available from funds provided in discretionary appropriation measures. For FY2008, $14.215 billion in discretionary funding, and $2.030 billion in mandatory funding was provided for the Pell Grant program. For the 2008-2009 award year, the maximum appropriated Pell Grant award amount was $4,731. This was comprised of a discretionary maximum award amount of $4,241, and a mandatory add-on of $490. The House bill would have provided $15.636 billion for the Federal Pell Grant program, to be made available through September 30, 2011. These funds would have been in addition to discretionary funds anticipated to be appropriated for the Federal Pell Grant program as part of a separate FY2009 discretionary appropriations measure under which the appropriated maximum Pell Grant award amount would be $4,360. As a result of both appropriations measures, the discretionary maximum Pell Grant award amount for the 2009-2010 award year would have been increased to $4,860.","Combined with the mandatory add-on of $490, under the House bill, the maximum Pell Grant award amount for the 2009-2010 award year would have been increased to $5,350. The House bill also would have increased the mandatory appropriations provided for the Federal Pell Grant program for FY2009 by $643 million, from $2.090 billion to $2.733 billion; and for FY2010 by $831 million, from $3.030 billion to $3.861 billion. The Senate bill would have provided $13.869 billion for the Federal Pell Grant program, to be made available through September 30, 2011. These funds would be provided in addition to amounts anticipated to be separately appropriated for FY2009. Funding provided under the Senate bill would have increased the maximum Pell Grant award amount by $281 above the maximum award amount to be provided for the 2009-2010 award year. For the 2010-2011 award year, the Senate bill would have also increased the maximum Pell Grant award amount by $400 above the 2008-2009 award year maximum Pell Grant award amount ($4,731). Finally, the Senate bill specified that funds would have been provided to reduce or eliminate the Pell Grant shortfall.","The ARRA provides $15.64 billion in supplemental discretionary appropriations for the Federal Pell Grant program for FY2009. The ARRA also provides $1.474 billion in mandatory appropriations for the Federal Pell Grant program, with $643 million provided for FY2009, and $831 million provided for FY2010. For the 2009-2010 award year, the maximum Pell Grant award will be $5,350. This will consist of a discretionary maximum award amount of $4,860 (funded by the combination of appropriations provided under the ARRA and appropriations anticipated to be provided under a separate FY2009 appropriations measure) and an add-on of $490 (funded by mandatory appropriations). The mandatory appropriations provided for FY2010 are to assure sufficient funding for the statutorily specified mandatory add-on of $690 for the 2010-2011 award year. The FWS program is a need-based federal student aid program that provides undergraduate, graduate, and professional students the opportunity for paid employment in a field related to their course of study or in community service. Students receive FWS aid as compensation for the hours they have worked. FWS aid may be provided to any student demonstrating financial need.","Awards typically are based on factors such as each student's financial need, the availability of FWS funds, and whether a student requests FWS employment and is willing to work. Federal funding for the FWS program is provided to institutions of higher education (IHEs) for the purpose of making available need-based federal student aid to students enrolled at those IHEs. Funds are awarded to IHEs according to a complex two-stage procedure, with a portion of funds allocated based on what the IHE received in prior years, and a portion based on an institutional need-based allocation formula. Under the FWS program, students are compensated with a combination of federal funding and a matching amount provided by the student's employer, which may be the IHE or another entity. In most instances, the maximum federal share of compensation is 75%. For FY2008, $980.5 million was provided for the FWS program. The House bill would have provided $490 million in supplemental FY2009 appropriations for the FWS program, with funding to remain through September 30, 2011. Of this amount, $245 million would have been made available on October 1, 2009. The Senate bill would not have provided any supplemental funding for the","FWS program.","The ARRA provides $200 million in supplemental discretionary appropriations for the FWS program for FY2009. This funding is in addition to any amount that may be provided for the FWS program under a separate FY2009 appropriations measure. The Federal Perkins Loan program operates as an institutional revolving loan fund under which IHEs make available low-interest (5%) federal student loans to undergraduate, graduate, and professional students enrolled in participating institutions. Undergraduate students may borrow up to $5,000 per year; and graduate and professional students may borrow up to $8,000 per year. Borrowers of Perkins Loans who are employed in certain public service jobs may qualify for loan cancellation benefits. Under the Federal Perkins Loan program, federal funding is authorized to be provided for federal capital contributions to the revolving loan funds of participating IHEs. Federal funding for Perkins Loan federal capital contributions is provided to IHEs according to a two-stage formula similar to that used for the FWS program—IHEs are first allocated funds based on what they received in prior years, and any funds remaining from the annual appropriation are subsequently allocated to IHEs according to an institutional need-based allocation formula.","(Separately, federal funding is also provided to IHEs to reimburse them for the cost of cancelling loans made to students who become employed in public service jobs.) For FY2008, no funding was provided for Federal Perkins Loan program federal capital contributions, and $64.3 million was provided to reimburse IHEs for Federal Perkins Loan cancellations. The Senate bill would have provided $61 million for the Federal Perkins Loan program to be allocated to participating institutions as federal capital contributions to their revolving loan funds. The House bill would not have provided any funding for the Federal Perkins Loan program. No funding is provided for the Federal Perkins Loan program under the ARRA. The House bill would have provided $50 million in FY2009 supplemental appropriations to the Department of Education for student aid administration of the Federal Pell Grant program, the Academic Competitiveness (AC) grant and National Science and Mathematics Access to Retain Talent (SMART) grant program, the Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant (FSEOG) program, the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) program, the FWS program, the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan (DL) program, and the Federal Perkins Loan program.","(For FY2008, $695.8 million was provided for student aid administration.) The House bill also would have required funds from the supplemental appropriation to be available for an independent audit of the federal student loan purchase programs enacted under the Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act of 2008 (ECASLA; P.L. 110-227 ), and authorized under HEA, § 459A. The Senate bill would not have provided any supplemental funding specifically for student aid administration. The ARRA provides $60 million in FY2009 supplemental appropriations to the Department of Education for student aid administration of the Federal Pell Grant program, the AC/SMART grant program, the FSEOG program, FFEL program, the FWS program, the DL program, and the Federal Perkins Loan program. Title II, Part A of the HEA authorizes Teacher Quality Partnership Grants for improving teacher education programs, strengthening teacher recruitment efforts, and providing training for prospective teachers. For FY2008, $33.7 million was provided for the Title II-A program. The House bill would have provided $100 million in supplemental FY2009 appropriations for Teacher Quality Partnership Grants; and the Senate bill would have provided $50 million. The ARRA provides $100 million in supplemental FY2009 appropriations for Teacher Quality Partnership Grants.","For FY2009, the House bill would have provided $6 billion for a new grant program to support higher education facility modernization, renovation, and repair, with $6 million to be reserved for the Secretary of Education for administration and oversight. Grants would have been allocated to SEAs in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and each of the outlying areas in proportion to the number of full-time equivalent (FTE) undergraduate students enrolled in public and private not-for-profit postsecondary education schools in each jurisdiction. According to the House bill, SEAs would have used grant funds to make subgrants to public and private not-for-profit postsecondary schools to modernize, renovate, or repair facilities that are primarily used for instruction, research, or student housing.","SEAs would have been required to give priority in the awarding of subgrants to minority serving institutions (e.g., those eligible for assistance under Title III or Title V of the HEA), to IHEs that have been impacted by a major disaster or emergency declared by the President, and to IHEs that would carry out projects to increase their energy efficiency and that would comply with the United States Green Building Council Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) green building rating system. The ARRA does not include a dedicated source of federal funds for higher education facilities modernization. Facilities modernization, however, is an allowable use of funds under the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (see subsequent discussion). The federal government operates two major student loan programs: the FFEL program, authorized under Title IV, Part B of the Higher Education Act (HEA), and the DL program, authorized under Title IV, Part D of the HEA. These programs make available loans to undergraduate, graduate and professional students, and the parents of undergraduate dependent students, to help them finance the costs of postsecondary education.","The loans made through the FFEL and DL programs are low-interest loans, with maximum interest rates for each type of loan established by statute. Subsidized Stafford Loans are need-based loans and are only available to students demonstrating financial need. The Secretary pays the interest that accrues on Subsidized Stafford Loans while borrowers are in school, during a six-month grace period, and during authorized periods of deferment. Unsubsidized Stafford Loans and PLUS Loans are non-need-based loans and are available to borrowers without regard to their financial need. Borrowers are fully responsible for paying the interest that accrues on these loans. The amounts students may borrow in need-based Subsidized Stafford Loans and non-need-based Unsubsidized Stafford Loans are constrained by statutory loan limits. One set of limits applies to the annual and aggregate amounts students may borrow in Subsidized Stafford Loans. Another set of limits applies to the total annual and aggregate amounts students may borrow in combined Subsidized Stafford Loans and Unsubsidized Stafford Loans (hereafter, referred to as total Stafford Loans). The terms and conditions for Subsidized Stafford Loans are more favorable to students than for Unsubsidized Stafford Loans.","Until the enactment of the ECASLA, the same annual Subsidized Stafford Loan limits and total Stafford Loan limits applied to dependent undergraduate students for each comparable educational level. However, annual total Stafford Loan limits that were higher than annual Subsidized Stafford Loan limits applied to independent undergraduate students, graduate and professional students, and dependent undergraduate students whose parents are unable to obtain PLUS Loans, for each comparable educational level. The ECASLA increased annual and aggregate borrowing limits for total Stafford Loans for dependent undergraduate students, independent undergraduate students, and dependent undergraduate students whose parents are unable to obtain a PLUS Loan, effective for loans first disbursed on or after July 1, 2008. Technical changes to these amended loan limits were made under the Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA; P.L. 110-315 ). In general, the ECASLA increased annual total Stafford Loan limits by $2,000 for most undergraduate student borrowers. The ECASLA also increased aggregate borrowing limits by $8,000 for dependent undergraduate students; and by $11,500 for independent undergraduate students. The House bill would have further increased annual and aggregate total Stafford Loan limits for undergraduate student borrowers for loans first disbursed on or after January 1, 2009.","In general, annual total Stafford Loan limits would have been increased by an additional $2,000 for most undergraduate student borrowers. Also, aggregate total Stafford Loan borrowing limits would have been increased by an additional $8,000 for all undergraduate student borrowers. The Senate bill would not have made any changes to loan limits. Under the ARRA, no changes are made to Stafford Loan limits. Under the FFEL program, lenders receive a federal subsidy on the loans they make when the interest rate paid by borrowers does not provide them a statutorily specified level of return. This is called the special allowance payment (SAP). The SAP amount is determined quarterly under a statutory formula. The special allowance paid for each loan is dependent on the formula in effect when the loan was disbursed. The federal government pays any special allowance due lenders from the time the loan is disbursed through the entire repayment period. On loans for which the first disbursement was made on or after January 1, 2000, the SAP is determined through the use of a series of special allowance payment formulas indexed to three-month Commercial Paper (CP) rates.","The House bill would have made a technical amendment to the SAP formula by temporarily changing the index used from the three-month CP rate to the three-month London Inter-Bank Offered Rate (LIBOR) for United States dollars. This change would have been applicable to loans first disbursed on or after January 1, 2000 and would have been effective for the quarter beginning October 1, 2008, and ending December 31, 2008. The Senate bill would not have made any changes to the SAP formula. Under the ARRA, no changes are made to the SAP formula. IES is charged with conducting research, evaluation, and dissemination activities in areas of demonstrated national need. Its activities are designed to inform education practice and policy. Only the House bill would have provided $250 million in FY2009 to carry out Section 208 of the Educational Technical Assistance Act (ETTA; P.L. 107-279 ). Section 208 authorizes a competitive grant program for SEAs to support the design, development, and implementation of statewide longitudinal data systems to enable states to use, manage, and analyze individual student data in ways consistent with the ESEA.","The House bill specified that these statewide data systems could include data systems that contain postsecondary and workforce information. Up to $5 million of the funds could have been used for state data coordinators or for awards to public or private organizations to improve data collection. The ARRA includes $250 million for IES to carry out Section 208 of the ETTA. Similar to the House bill, the ARRA allows statewide data systems to include postsecondary education and workforce information and allows up to $5 million of the funds appropriated to be used for state data coordinators and for awards to public or private organizations to improve data collection. Both the House and Senate bills would have provided supplemental FY2009 appropriations for a State Fiscal Stabilization Fund. The total amount provided would have been $79 billion under the House bill and $39 billion under the Senate bill. The House bill would have made $39.5 billion available on July 1, 2009, and another $39.5 billion available on July 1, 2010, while the Senate bill would have made $39 billion available in FY2009. Both the House and Senate bills would have made reservations from these funds prior to making","grants to states.","Under the House bill, from the total annual appropriation, up to 0.5% would have been reserved for the outlying areas. The Secretary could have reserved up to $12.5 million each year for administration and oversight, including program evaluation. In addition, the Secretary would have been required to reserve $7.5 billion annually to provide State Incentive Grants and establish an Innovation Fund. The Senate bill would also have reserved up to 0.5% of the total appropriation for the outlying areas. It also would have allowed the Secretary to reserve $25 million for administration and oversight—the same level that the House bill would have allowed over the two-year period during which funds would have been made available. Finally, the Senate bill would have required the Secretary to reserve $7.5 billion to provide State Incentive Grants and establish an Innovation Fund. After making these reservations, $31.790 billion would have been made available on July 1, 2009, and on July 1, 2010, under the House bill for grants to states, while $31.280 billion would have remained for grants to states in FY2009 under the Senate bill.","Under both bills, these funds would have been allocated to states using two population measures: 61% of each state's grant would have been based on the state's relative population of individuals ages 5 to 24, and 39% of each state's grant would have been based on the state's relative total population. Under the House bill, once funds were received at the state level, the state's governor would have been required to use at least 61% of the state's allocation to support elementary, secondary, and postsecondary education, while under the Senate bill all funds would have been used for this purpose as well as for early childhood education programs. Under both bills, the governor would have been required to use these funds to provide the amount of funds, through the state's principal elementary and secondary education funding formula, that was needed to restore state funding for elementary and secondary education to its FY2008 level. The Senate bill also would have allowed funds to be used to pay for state formula increases for FY2009-FY2011, as well as funding state equity and adequacy adjustments that were enacted before July 1, 2008.","In addition, under both bills the governor would have been required to use these funds to provide the amount of funds to public institutions of higher education in the state needed to restore state support for postsecondary education (not including support for capital projects or for research and development) to the FY2008 level. If the amount of funds provided through the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund was insufficient to restore state support for elementary, secondary, and postsecondary education to the FY2008 levels, plus formula increases and equity/adequacy adjustments for elementary and secondary education under the Senate bill, the governor would have been required to allocate funds between elementary and secondary education and postsecondary education in proportion to the relative shortfall in state support at each level of education. If, however, funds remained after restoring funds to the FY2008 level, the governor would have been required to use the remainder of the 61% of the state allocation (House bill) or all remaining funds (Senate bill) to provide grants to LEAs based on their share of Title I-A funding for the most recent year for which data were available.","Under the House bill, the governor would have been able to use up to 39% of the state funds for public safety and government services. These funds, however, could have been used to provide additional assistance for elementary and secondary education and for public institutions of higher education. As noted earlier, under the Senate bill, all funds provided to states under the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund would have been used for education. In applying for funds from the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, both bills would have required states to provide four assurances to ED. It is unclear how many states would have been able to provide all of the required assurances. Both the House and Senate bills would have required that the state agree to maintain support for elementary and secondary education at least at the level provided in FY2006, for FY2009 and FY2010; and the state agree to maintain support for public institutions of higher education at least at the FY2006 level, for FY2009 and FY2010. They both also would have required that the state establish a longitudinal data system as described in Section 6401(e)(2)(D) of the America COMPETES Act.","Both bills would have required states to provide assurances related to the equitable distribution of teachers between high- and low-poverty schools, but they approached this assurance in different ways. Under the House bill, the state would have been required to take actions to comply with requirements in ESEA, Section 1111(b)(8)(C) related to the provision of highly qualified teachers in schools receiving Title I-A funding to eliminate inequities in the distribution of teachers between high- and low-poverty schools and ensure that low-income and minority children are not taught at higher rates than other students by inexperienced, unqualified, or out-of field teachers. Under the Senate bill, states would have been required to take action, including implementing activities authorized in ESEA, Section 2113(c), such as reforming teacher and principal certification and establishing alternative routes for teacher state certification, to increase the number and improve the distribution of \"effective\" teachers and principals in high-poverty schools and LEAs.","Finally, under both the House and Senate bills, the state would have had to agree to enhance the quality of its state assessments used to measure student achievement in reading, mathematics, and science through activities described in ESEA, Section 6112(a), including collaborating with institutions of higher education or other organizations to improve the quality, validity, and reliability of state assessments. Second, the state would have been required to agree to comply with requirements in the ESEA and IDEA related to the inclusion of children with disabilities and limited English proficient students in state assessments, the development of valid and reliable assessments for those students, and the provision of accommodations to facilitate their participation in state assessments. The Senate bill only would have required states to improve state academic content standards and student academic achievement standards consistent with requirements in the America COMPETES Act.","The applicable requirements in the America COMPETES Act focus on identifying and making changes to a state's secondary school academic content and academic achievement standards in order to align these standards with the knowledge and skills necessary for success in credit-bearing postsecondary education coursework, the 21 st century workforce, and the Armed Forces without the need for remediation. Further, the Senate bill would have required states to ensure compliance with requirements related to schools identified for corrective actions and restructuring under ESEA Title I-A. As noted earlier, each bill would have required the Secretary to reserve $7.5 billion to provide State Incentive Grants and, at his or her discretion, establish an Innovation Fund. State Incentive Grants would have been awarded by the Secretary to states that made significant progress in meeting the requirements described in the preceding paragraph. At least 50% of each state grant would have been allocated to LEAs in proportion to their ESEA Title I-A grants for the most recent year.","If the Secretary choose to establish an Innovation Fund, up to $325 million of the funds made available on July 1, 2009, and on July 1, 2010, (House bill) or $650 million for FY2009 (Senate bill) could have been reserved for discretionary grants to eligible entities (states, LEAs or schools under the House bill; LEAs or partnerships between nonprofit organizations and LEAs or schools under the Senate bill). Grants would have been made by the Secretary to eligible grantees demonstrating significant gains in closing academic achievement gaps between pupil groups, and grantees would use these funds to expand their activities and serve as models for best practices. Both the House and Senate bills included comparable provisions regarding the authorized uses of funds by educational agencies, schools, and institutions of higher education (IHEs) under the proposed State Fiscal Stabilization program. Funds for elementary and secondary education could have been used for any purpose authorized under the ESEA, IDEA, or the Carl. D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act (Perkins Act). Together, these acts cover a very wide range of K-12 educational activities, including the hiring of teachers and paraprofessionals.","Funds could not have been used for capital expenditures except those authorized under those acts (such uses are highly limited). No funds could have been used to provide financial assistance for pupils to attend private schools except (under the Senate bill) to provide special education and related services to pupils with disabilities as authorized by the IDEA. Under both the House and Senate bills, funds for higher education could have been used by public IHEs for educational and general expenditures, including expenditures \"to mitigate the need to raise tuition and fees for in-State students.\" Funds could not have been used by IHEs to raise their endowments or for construction, renovation, or repair of facilities. The ARRA provides $53.6 billion in supplemental FY2009 appropriations for a State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF). The specific provisions associated with this fund include provisions from both the House and Senate bills. This section provides a summary of the key aspects of the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund under P.L. 111-5 . From the $53.6 billion appropriated for the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, the Secretary may reserve up to 0.5% for the outlying areas (i.e., maximum reservation of $268 million).","These funds are to be distributed to the outlying areas based on their respective needs as determined by the Secretary of Education in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior. Outlying areas are required to use these funds for activities consistent with those authorized under the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund under such terms and conditions as determined by the Secretary of Education. The Secretary is also permitted or required to make two additional reservations of funds. First, the Secretary may reserve up to $14 million for administration, oversight, and evaluation of the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund. Second, the Secretary must reserve $5 billion to provide State Incentive Grants and establish an Innovation Fund. Assuming that each of these reservations are made at the maximum level, $48.318 billion will be available for grants to states. These funds will be allocated to states using two population measures: 61% of each state's grant will be based on the state's relative population of individuals ages 5 to 24, and 39% of each state's grant will be based on the state's relative total population.","Once funds are received at the state level, the state's governor must use 81.8% of the state's allocation to support elementary, secondary, and postsecondary education, and, as applicable, early childhood education programs and services. The governor must use these funds to provide the amount of funds, through the state's principal elementary and secondary education funding formula, needed to restore state funding for elementary and secondary education in FY2009, FY2010, and FY2011 through the formula to the greater of the FY2008 or FY2009 level, and, if applicable, to allow state formula increases to support elementary and secondary education for FY2010 and FY2011 to be implemented and to fund the phasing in of state equity and adequacy adjustments if these increases were enacted in state law prior to October 1, 2008. According to guidance published by ED on April 7, 2009, in providing funds through the state's funding formula, funds must be provided directly to LEAs. The governor is also required to use these funds to provide the amount of funds needed to restore state support for public IHEs (excluding tuition and fees paid by students) to the greater of FY2008 or FY2009 level for FY2009, FY2010, and","FY2011.","If the amount of funds provided through the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund is insufficient to restore state support for elementary, secondary, and postsecondary education to the greater of the FY2008 or FY2009 level, plus support formula increases and equity/adequacy adjustments, if applicable, for FY2009, FY2010, and FY2011, the governor is required to allocate funds between elementary and secondary education and postsecondary education in proportion to the relative shortfall in state support at each level of education. If, however, funds remained after restoring state support for education, the governor is required to use the remainder of the 81.8% of the state allocation to provide grants to LEAs based on their share of Title I-A funding for the most recent year for which data are available. The governor is required to use the remaining 18.2% of the state allocation for \"public safety and other government services,\" which may include assistance for elementary and secondary education and public IHEs, and for modernization, renovation, and repair of public school facilities and IHEs' facilities. Funds used for the latter purposes may be, but are not required to be, consistent with a recognized green building rating system.","If the governor chooses to use these funds for IHEs, the governor shall not consider type or mission of an IHE and shall consider any IHE in the state for facility modernization, renovation, or repair funding if the IHE meets the Higher Education Act (HEA), Section 101 definition of an IHE and is eligible to participate in the federal student aid programs authorized by Title IV of the HEA. The ARRA includes specific provisions related to the use of funds by LEAs and IHEs. Funds for elementary and secondary education can be used for any activity authorized under the ESEA, IDEA, the Adult and Family Literacy Act, or the Carl. D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act (Perkins Act), or for the modernization, renovation, and repair of school facilities, including modernization, renovation, and repairs that are consistent with a recognized green building system. LEAs are prohibited from engaging in any school modernization, renovation, or repair that is inconsistent with state law. This language implicitly allows LEAs to use funds under the SFSF for an exceptionally wide array of activities and purposes.","In particular, the ESEA includes the Impact Aid programs (Title VIII), under which funds can be used for any purpose or activity authorized under state and local law for LEAs. Through the Impact Aid program, funds are provided to LEAs to compensate them for the activities of the federal government, such as the education of children living on a military base. The federal government provides payments to LEAs to make up for this lost tax revenue. According to ED policy guidance: School districts use Impact Aid for a wide variety of expenses, including the salaries of teachers and teacher aides; purchasing textbooks, computers, and other equipment; after school programs and remedial tutoring; advanced placement classes; and special enrichment programs. Most Impact Aid funds are considered general aid to the recipient school districts and may be used in whatever manner they choose, in accordance with state and local requirements. Although most school districts use Impact Aid for current expenditures, funds may also be used for capital expenditures.","In guidance released April 1, 2009, ED explicitly states that LEAs may use funds provided through the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund for any purpose or activity authorized under the ESEA, including those authorized by the Impact Aid program. An LEA does not have to receive Impact Aid funds through the regular appropriations process to be able to use funds provided under the State Fiscal Stabilization Funds for these purposes. Thus, LEAs will be able to use funds provided through the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund for any purpose or activity authorized under state and local law , including new construction , except purposes specifically prohibited by the SFSF (such as those in the following paragraph) . No funds may be used to provide financial assistance for pupils to attend private schools, except (according to H.Rept. 111-16 ) as authorized by ESEA, IDEA, the Adult and Family Literacy Act, or the Perkins Act.","LEAs are prohibited from using State Fiscal Stabilization Funds for: (1) maintenance costs; (2) stadiums or other facilities used primarily for athletic contests or other exhibitions or other events for which admission is charged to the general public; (3) the purchase or upgrade of vehicles; or (4) the improvement of stand-alone facilities whose purpose is not the education of children. Public IHEs that receive State Fiscal Stabilization Funds must use the funds for: (1) education and general expenditures, and in such a way \"to mitigate the need to raise tuition and fees for in-State students,\" or (2) modernization, renovation, or repair of IHE facilities that are primarily used for instruction, research, or student housing, including modernization, renovation, or repairs that are consistent with a recognized green building rating system. It should be noted that these required uses of funds appear to apply only to public IHEs. Non-public IHEs meeting the aforementioned criteria may receive funds from the 18.2% of state funds available for public safety and other government services, so it is unclear how these IHEs may use any funds received. The ARRA includes several prohibitions on the use of funds by IHEs that apply to","all IHEs.","Funds may not be used to increase an IHE's endowment. In addition, funds may not be sued for: (1) the maintenance of systems, equipment, or facilities; (2) modernization, renovation, or repair of stadiums or other facilities primarily used for athletic contests or other exhibitions or other events for which admission is charged to the general public; or (3) modernization, renovation, or repair of facilities used for sectarian or religious instruction or in which a substantial portion of the functions of the facilities are religious in nature. In applying for funds from the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, the ARRA requires states to submit an application to the Secretary that provides information required by the Secretary as well as five assurances (discussed below), baseline data demonstrating states' current status with respect to each of the five assurances, and a discussion of how the State Fiscal Stabilization Funds will be used, including whether the state will use funds to meet maintenance of effort requirements under ESEA and IDEA. The four assurances that the state must provide focus on state support for education, equity in teacher distribution, data collection, standards and assessments, and support for struggling schools.","Each of the five assurances is discussed below. 1. Maintenance of effort: The state must agree to maintain support for elementary and secondary education and for public institutions of higher education (not including support for capital projects or for research or development or tuition and fees paid by students) at least at the level of support provided in FY2006 for FY2009, FY2010, and FY2011. 2. Achieving equity in teacher distribution: The state must provide an assurance related to the equitable distribution of teachers between high- and low-poverty schools. The state must take actions to comply with requirements in ESEA, Section 1111(b)(8)(C) related to the provision of highly qualified teachers in schools receiving Title I-A funding to eliminate inequities in the distribution of teachers between high- and low-poverty schools and ensure that low-income and minority children are not taught at higher rates than other students by inexperienced, unqualified, or out-of field teachers. 3. Improving collection and use of data: The state is required to establish a longitudinal data system as described in Section 6401(e)(2)(D) of the America COMPETES Act. 4.","Standards and assessments: The state must agree to enhance the quality of its state assessments used to measure student achievement in reading, mathematics, and science through activities described in ESEA, Section 6112(a), including collaborating with institutions of higher education or other organizations to improve the quality, validity, and reliability of state assessments. Second, the state must agree to comply with requirements in the ESEA and IDEA related to the inclusion of children with disabilities and limited English proficient students in state assessments, the development of valid and reliable assessments for those students, and the provision of accommodations to facilitate their participation in state assessments. Third, the state must agree to improve state academic content standards and student academic achievement standards consistent with requirements in the America COMPETES Act. The applicable requirements in the America COMPETES Act focus on identifying and making changes to a state's secondary school academic content and academic achievement standards in order to align these standards with the knowledge and skills necessary for success in credit-bearing postsecondary education coursework, the 21 st century workforce, and the Armed Forces without the need for remediation. 5.","Supporting struggling schools: The state must ensure compliance with requirements related to schools identified for corrective actions and restructuring under ESEA Title I-A. As noted earlier, the ARRA requires the Secretary to reserve $5 billion to provide State Incentive Grants and, at his or her discretion, establish an Innovation Fund. The Secretary may reserve 1% of the funds not being used for Innovation Fund to provide technical assistance to states in meeting the aforementioned assurances. The remaining funds will be used to provide State Incentive Grants in FY2010 to states that have made \"significant progress\" in meeting last four assurances discussed above. By historical standards, this is an unusually large amount of funding to be allocated at the Secretary's discretion. In order to receive a State Incentive Grant, states must submit an application to the Secretary.","The application must describe (1) the state's progress in meeting the last four assurances discussed above; (2) strategies the state is using to ensure that economically disadvantaged students, students from major racial and ethnic groups, students with disabilities, and students with limited English proficiency (hereafter referred to as subgroups of students) are making progress toward meeting state student academic achievement standards; (3) the achievement and graduation rates of public elementary and secondary education students and strategies being employed to ensure the aforementioned subgroups of students are making progress toward meeting state student academic achievement standards; (4) how the state would use its grant funding to improve student academic achievement; (5) and the state plan for evaluating state progress in closing achievement gaps. The Secretary will determine which states receive grants and the amount of those grants based on information provided in the state application and other such criteria determined by the Secretary, which may include a state's need for assistance in meeting the last four assurances discussed above.","Each state that receives a State Incentive Grant must use at least 50% of the grant to provide subgrants to LEAs based on each LEAs relative share of funding under Title I-A for the most recent year. The Secretary is permitted to use up to $650 million of the $5 billion reserved for additional programs to establish an Innovation Fund. The Innovation Fund will be used to provide academic achievement awards to LEAs or partnerships between a nonprofit organization and one or more LEAs or a consortium of schools (hereafter referred to as eligible entities).","To be eligible to receive an award, an eligible entity must: (1) have \"significantly closed\" the achievement gaps among the aforementioned subgroups of students and students overall; (2) have exceeded the state's annual measurable objectives for two or more consecutive years or demonstrated success in \"significantly\" increasing student achievement based on another measure; (3) have made \"significant improvement\" in other areas (e.g., graduation rates, recruitment of high-quality teachers) that can be demonstrated with \"meaningful\" data; and (4) demonstrate that they have established partnerships with the private sector and that the private sector is contributing matching funds to help bring \"results to scale.\" Funds received by eligible entities will be used to allow eligible entities to expand their work and serve as best practice models, work in partnership with the private sector and philanthropic community, and identify and document best practices that can be shared and replicated.","States receiving funds under the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund are required to submit a report to the Secretary based on a timetable established by the Secretary that discusses how funds were used, how funds were distributed, the estimated number of jobs saved or created using the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, tax increases that were averted, the state's progress in meeting the aforementioned assurances, increases in tuition and fees at public IHEs, changes in enrollment in public IHEs, and each modernization, renovation, and repair project funded. The Secretary is required to submit a report to the relevant authorizing and appropriating committees no later than six months following the submission of the state reports that evaluates the information contained in the state reports and the uses of funds that states included in their application for funds. In addition, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) is required to evaluate the State Incentive Grants and Innovation Fund, if applicable, programs.","In its consideration of education-related provisions in economic stimulus funding proposals, some of the debate in Congress has centered on the extent to which states and LEAs should be given added flexibility with respect to certain fiscal accountability requirements that current statutes place on states and/or LEAs with respect to the use of federal education funds. A related issue is whether funds provided under the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund could be treated in some cases as \"non-federal\" funds in determining whether states and LEAs meet certain fiscal accountability requirements. A long-standing principle of federal aid to elementary and secondary education is that federal funding should add to, not substitute for, state and local education funding – i.e., that federal funds should provide a net increase in financial resources for specific types of educational services (such as the education of disadvantaged pupils or pupils with disabilities), rather than effectively providing general subsidies to state and local governments.","All of the fiscal accountability requirements included in federal elementary and secondary education programs are intended to provide that all federal funds represent a net increase in the level of financial resources available to serve eligible pupils, and that they do not ultimately replace funds that states or LEAs would provide in the absence of federal aid. One or more of three types of fiscal accountability requirements are applicable to major federal K-12 education aid programs. The first two of these are common to many federal assistance programs, while the third is unique to ESEA Title I-A. To meet the first requirement, maintenance of effort (MOE) , recipient LEAs must provide, from state and local sources, a level of funding (either aggregate or per pupil) in the preceding year that is at least a specified percentage of the amount in the second preceding year. A second fiscal accountability requirement provides that federal funds must be used to supplement, and not supplant (SNS) , state and local funds that would otherwise be available for the education of pupils eligible to be served under the federal program in question.","SNS provisions prohibit states and/or LEAs from using federal funds: (1) to provide services that state and/or local funds have provided or purchased in the past, (2) to provide services that are required to be provided under federal, state, or local law, or (3) to provide services for some pupils (e.g., those eligible under specific federal programs) that are provided to other pupils with non-federal funds. The third, distinctive, fiscal requirement under ESEA Title I-A is comparability —services provided with state and local funds in schools participating in ESEA Title I-A must be comparable to those in non-Title I-A schools of the same LEA. (If all of an LEA's schools participate in Title I-A, then services funded from state and local revenues must be \"substantially comparable\" in each school of the LEA.) Since the comparability requirement only applies to ESEA Title I-A, and is not currently a subject of debate or proposed waiver authority with respect to the ARRA, it will not be discussed further in this report.","With respect to current major federal K-12 education programs, for MOE , the requirement is that in order to be eligible to receive ESEA Title I-A grants, LEAs must spend, from state and local sources, in the preceding year an amount equal to at least 90% of the amount in the second preceding year, on either an aggregate or per pupil basis (whichever is more beneficial to the LEA). The ESEA provision is based on total state and local funding for public K-12 education, not funding for specific purposes. If the requirement is not met, the LEA still receives a grant that is reduced by the proportion to which the requirement is not met. The MOE requirement for Title I-A and other ESEA programs may be waived by the Secretary in cases of \"exceptional or uncontrollable circumstances\" or a \"precipitous decline in the financial resources\" (ESEA Section 9521). In the case of IDEA, MOE applies to both SEAs and LEAs, and in general is based on 100%, not 90%, of previous spending levels.","However, the IDEA includes a provision allowing LEAs, and possibly some states, to reduce funding by an amount of up to 50% of annual increases in IDEA allocations, if these funds are used for specified purposes. In addition, the MOE provision under IDEA is based on spending for special education services for pupils with disabilities, not total state and local spending. As under the ESEA, if the MOE requirement is not met, the SEA or LEA still receives a grant that is reduced by the proportion to which the requirement is not met. In addition, the state MOE requirement under IDEA may be waived by the Secretary in cases of \"exceptional or uncontrollable circumstances such as a natural disaster or a precipitous and unforeseen decline in the financial resources of the State\" (IDEA, Section 612(a)(18)(C)(i)). Further, the state SNS requirements under IDEA may be waived only if \"the State provides clear and convincing evidence that all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education\" (FAPE) and the Secretary of Education concurs with this evidence (IDEA Section 612(a)(17)(C)).","Beyond this, it might be argued that IDEA incorporates an effective MOE at the level of services to individual pupils, with its requirement that FAPE be provided to pupils with disabilities in participating states. In contrast to MOE, SNS is applied to both SEAs and LEAs under Title I-A, and there is generally no authority for the Secretary of Education to waive SNS under ESEA, and only a very restrictive authority to do so under IDEA, as it contingent upon the requirement in the previous sentence. Authority to waive SNS, as well as MOE, under ESEA programs was granted to areas affected by the 2005 Gulf Coast hurricanes for FY2006 and 2007. In particular, the broad waiver authorities included in ESEA Title IX, Part D, and the Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999 ( P.L. 106-25 , as amended) specifically exempt all three fiscal accountability provisions from authority to be waived (beyond the specific MOE waiver authority noted above). The ARRA implicitly applies current statutory provisions regarding MOE and SNS to increased appropriations for ESEA Title I-A and the IDEA.","For the State Fiscal Stabilization program, a MOE based on state-source revenues for public K-12 education and higher education in FY2006 would apply to states, but there is no SNS requirement at any level and no MOE requirement for LEAs with respect to funds provided under this program. The MOE requirement for the Fiscal Stabilization program could be waived or modified by the Secretary of Education for any of FY2009-FY2011 if the Secretary determines that the state receiving the waiver will not provide a lower percentage of the total funds available for elementary and secondary education than in the preceding fiscal year. In addition, under the ARRA, states or LEAs may, with prior approval of the Secretary, treat State Fiscal Stabilization Fund grants used for education as \"non-federal funds\" for purposes of meeting MOE requirements under any ED program, including ESEA Title I-A and the IDEA, for FY2009, FY2010, or FY2011.","In determining whether to provide approval to allow states and LEAs to use State Fiscal Stabilization Funds as non-federal funds to meet MOE requirements, ED has indicated that it will be \"concerned\" if a state has reduced the proportion of total state revenues that are spent on education. If this proportion has been reduced, the Secretary will consider whether the reductions were due to exceptional or uncontrollable circumstances, the extent to which available financial resources have declined, and whether there have been changes in the demand for services. Required levels of state and local funding in subsequent years will not be reduced as a result of this provision. This might allow approved states to reduce their level of spending for K-12 education without jeopardizing their eligibility for funding under the IDEA or Title I-A and other ESEA programs. However, the potential impact of this authority is not fully clear, particularly since SNS requirements would continue to apply to ESEA Title I-A, IDEA, and similar programs. Earlier versions of this report included estimated state grants for various education programs.","CRS prepared those state grant estimates to support congressional decision-making by providing comparisons of the relative impact of alternative formulas or funding levels on the legislative process. These estimates were also provided to inform Members of Congress seeking information on legislation being considered for a vote. After a measure is enacted, however, it is the responsibility of the executive branch (e.g., U.S. Department of Education) to develop allocations and implement the law. CRS estimates produced during legislative consideration of a bill may differ from actual allocations due to differences in data used (e.g., actual allocations calculated by executive branch agencies may be based on data that are not yet available or have recently become available) or differences in interpretation of statutory language. Once executive branch agencies develop state allocations for formula grants (e.g., Title I-A Grants to LEAs), the executive branch agencies are the authoritative sources on grant amounts. CRS estimates are no longer included in this report because ED has released estimated state grants under the ARRA. The House-passed version of H.R.","1 would have provided about $145.005 billion for education programs that are or would have been administered by ED, while the Senate bill would have provided $79.964 billion for such programs. While funds generally would have been appropriated in FY2009, the House bill would have made some funding available in FY2009 and some funding available in FY2010. The Senate bill would have appropriated and made funds available in FY2009. Table A-1 provides an overview of the specific funding provided by the ARRA, and the funding that would have been provided under the House and Senate bills."],"string":"[\n \"On February 13, 2009, both the House and Senate passed the conference version of H.R. 1 , the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). Subsequently, the ARRA was signed into law by President Obama on February 17, 2009 ( P.L. 111-5 ). The primary purposes of the ARRA focus on promoting economic recovery, assisting those most affected by the recession, improving economic efficiency by \\\"spurring technological advances in science and health,\\\" investing in infrastructure, and stabilizing state and local government budgets. The House had previously passed its version of H.R. 1 on January 28, 2009, while the Senate passed S.Amdt. 570 , an amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 1 , on February 10, 2009. The ARRA provides funds to several existing education programs administered by the U.S. Department of Education (ED), including programs authorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and the Higher Education Act (HEA).\",\n \"It also provides general state fiscal stabilization grants to support education at the elementary, secondary, and postsecondary levels, as well as \\\"public safety and other government services.\\\" Funds made available through the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund may be used for modernization, renovation, or repair of public school or higher education facilities. Under the House and Senate versions of H.R. 1 (hereafter referred to the House bill and the Senate bill, respectively), funds also would have been provided to several existing education programs administered by the U.S. Department of Education (ED), including programs authorized by the ESEA, IDEA, and HEA. The House bill, but not the Senate bill, would have created new programs to support school modernization, renovation, and repair at the elementary, secondary, and postsecondary education levels. Both the House bill and the Senate bill would have provided general funds for education to support state fiscal stabilization. This report provides a brief overview of the key provisions related to education programs that are or will be administered by ED that were included in the ARRA under Division A, Title VIII, Department of Education and under Title XIV, State Fiscal Stabilization Fund.\",\n \"It also includes a discussion of relevant provisions that were included in the House and Senate versions of H.R. 1 . Education-related tax provisions, as well as Vocational Rehabilitation programs administered by ED, are beyond the scope of this report. The report begins with a discussion of provisions related to elementary and secondary education. The next section of the report examines provisions related to higher education, followed by a discussion of provisions related to the Institute for Education Sciences. The report concludes with an examination of the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund and a discussion of fiscal accountability issues. The ARRA provides $96.764 billion in discretionary appropriations for education programs that are or will be administered by the U.S. Department of Education (ED). Funds provided for education are considered FY2009 appropriations, and generally, all funds are available for obligation until September 30, 2010. Appropriations provided under the ARRA are in addition to funds provided under regular FY2009 appropriations legislation for ED, enacted subsequent to the ARRA under P.L. 111-8 , the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009.\",\n \"Section 807 of the ARRA includes a provision allowing the Secretary to award FY2009 funds appropriated in Title VIII of the bill on the basis of state and LEA eligibility for FY2008 awards and to require states to make \\\"prompt\\\" allocations to LEAs. Of these funds, about $43.164 billion were appropriated for existing education programs, including Title I-A, Education for the Disadvantaged, authorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Part B Grants to States. Most of the funds for existing elementary education programs have been appropriated for programs that provide formula grants directly to states or local educational agencies (LEAs), while most funds at the postsecondary level were appropriated for Pell Grants, which go directly to students. For some programs, these appropriations provide a substantial increase over the amount of funding provided through the regular appropriations process in recent years. For example, the ARRA provides $10.000 billion for Title I-A Grants to LEAs, authorized by the ESEA, while this program received $13.899 billion in FY2008 and $14.492 billion in regular appropriations for FY2009.\",\n \"Thus, the total appropriation for this program in FY2009 is $24.492 billion, a 76.2% increase over its FY2008 appropriation level. Similarly, the ARRA provides $11.300 billion for IDEA, Part B Grants to States, while the program received $10.948 billion in FY2008 and $11.505 in FY2009 through the regular appropriations process. Thus, the total appropriation for this program in FY2009 is $22.805 billion, a 108.3% increase over its FY2008 appropriation level. At the postsecondary level, the ARRA provides $15.640 billion for Pell Grants, while the program received $14.215 billion in FY2008 and $17.288 billion in FY2009. Thus, the total discretionary appropriation for this program in FY2009 is $32.928 billion, a 131.6% increase over its FY2008 appropriation level. Overall, discretionary programs that existed prior to the enactment of the ARRA received $43.164 billion through the ARRA. These programs received $42.746 billion in FY2008 and $47.134 billion in FY2009. Thus, total FY2009 appropriations for these programs are $90.298 billion, a 111.2% increase over their FY2008 appropriation levels. The remaining $53.600 billion in discretionary funding provided for education programs was appropriated for the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund. This is a new program that is being administered by ED.\",\n \"After making reservations from the appropriation, including a $5 billion reservation for the Secretary of Education to provide State Incentive Grants and establish an Innovation Fund, $48.318 billion will be provided to governors through formula grants to each state that chooses to apply for funding through this program. Table 1 , below, provides appropriations for FY2008, FY2009, and the ARRA for all ED programs that received funding through the ARRA. Note in particular that Table 1 includes Vocational Rehabilitation programs administered by ED, although these programs are not discussed further in this report. The ARRA specifies that the funding provided through the act is considered emergency funding (Section 5). Further, appropriations provided through the ARRA have no effect on the availability of the amount provided under the Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2009 (Division A of P.L. 110-329 ), and the amounts appropriated or made available under the ARRA are in addition to amounts otherwise appropriated for the fiscal year involved (Section 1601). On April 1, 2009, ED simultaneously released the first round of ARRA funding and issued guidance for several programs receiving funding under the ARRA, including Title I-A; IDEA, Part B; and the State Fiscal Stabilization\",\n \"Fund.\",\n \"Of the $44 billion released, ED provided 50% of the total funds available under Title I-A; IDEA, Part B Grants to States; IDEA, Part B Preschool Grants; IDEA, Part C Grants to Infants and Toddlers; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; Independent Living; and Services for Older Individuals who are Blind. The funds were released to states without requiring states to submit applications to receive funds. Remaining funds available under these programs will be released prior to the end of the FY2009, but, in some cases, may only be released contingent upon receiving additional information from states. ED also released 67% ($32.6 billion) of the total funds available under the State Fiscal Stabilization Funds. States are required to submit an application (also made available on April 1) to receive these funds.\",\n \"ED has indicated that it will release funds to states within two weeks of receiving an \\\"approvable application.\\\" Generally, states are eligible to receive 67% of their estimated total allocation, but states may apply for up to 90% of their grants under this program if they demonstrate that the amount of funds they would otherwise receive in phase one is \\\"insufficient to prevent the immediate layoff of personnel by LEAs, state educational agencies, or public institutions of higher education.\\\" The remainder of states' SFSF grants will be distributed after July 1, 2009, after states submit applications detailing their strategies for meeting performance requirements for the SFSF (discussed below). On April 10, 2009, ED released funding and guidance for the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Program and Impact Aid Construction grants. ED distributed all of the funds for McKinney-Vento that were provided under the ARRA, and distributed $39.6 million of the funds available under Impact Aid. The latter funds were used to make 180 grants by formula. The remaining Impact Aid funds will be distributed through a competitive grant process later this year.\",\n \"The ARRA provides funding for a number of existing education programs, including the two federal education programs that provide the largest amounts of funding for elementary and secondary education—Title I-A Grants to Local Educational Agencies (ESEA) and IDEA, Part B Grants to States. It also provides funding for School Improvement Grants (ESEA Title I-A); Education Technology (ESEA Title II-D); IDEA, Part C (Grants for Infants and Toddlers); IDEA, Part B (Preschool Grants); and the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act. Both the House and Senate bills would have provided funds for all of these purposes, except that the House bill would not have provided funding for IDEA, Part B (Preschool Grants). The ARRA includes funding for the Fund for the Improvement of Education (FIE, ESEA Title V-D-1) and Impact Aid Section 8007 (Grants for Construction, ESEA Title VIII). Funds for these programs would have been provided only under the House bill. The House bill only also would have provided funding for Credit Enhancement Initiatives to Assist Charter Schools (ESEA Title V-B-2) and a new program to provide school construction funds to LEAs.\",\n \"The ARRA does not provide funds for these specific programs, although funds under the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (see subsequent discussion) could be used for school modernization, renovation, and repair, and possibly construction as well. Provisions applicable to each of these programs are discussed below. The primary source of federal aid to K-12 education is the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, particularly its Title I, Part A program of Education for the Disadvantaged. The ESEA was initially enacted in 1965 (P.L. 89-10), and was most recently amended and reauthorized by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB, P.L. 107-110 ). Other major ESEA programs provide grants to support the education of migrant students; recruitment of and professional development for teachers; language instruction for limited English proficient (LEP) students; drug abuse prevention programs; after-school instruction and care; expansion of charter schools and other forms of public school choice; education services for Native American, Native Hawaiian, and Alaska Native students; Impact Aid to compensate local educational agencies for taxes foregone due to certain federal activities; and a wide variety of innovative educational approaches or instruction to meet particular student needs.\",\n \"This section discusses ESEA programs that would receive additional funding through the House and Senate bills and, where appropriate, provides estimates of the amounts that states would receive. Title I, Part A, of the ESEA authorizes federal aid to local educational agencies (LEAs) for the education of disadvantaged children. Title I-A grants provide supplementary educational and related services to low-achieving and other pupils attending pre-kindergarten through grade 12 schools with relatively high concentrations of pupils from low-income families. For FY2008, the program received an annual appropriation of $13.9 billion. Portions of each annual appropriation for Title I-A are allocated under four different formulas—Basic, Concentration, Targeted, and Education Finance Incentive Grants (EFIG)—although funds allocated under all of these formulas are combined and used for the same purposes by recipient LEAs. Although the allocation formulas have several distinctive elements, the primary factors used in all four formulas are estimated numbers of children aged 5-17 in poor families plus a state expenditure factor based on average expenditures per pupil for public K-12 education.\",\n \"Other factors included in one or more formulas include weighting schemes designed to increase aid to LEAs with the highest concentrations of poverty, and a factor to increase grants to states with high levels of expenditure equity among their LEAs. Under three of the formulas—Basic, Concentration, and Targeted Grants—funds are calculated initially at the LEA level, and state total grants are the total of allocations for LEAs in the state, adjusted to apply state minimum grant provisions. Under the fourth formula, Education Finance Incentive Grants, grants are first calculated for each state overall, with state totals subsequently suballocated by LEA using a different formula. A primary rationale for using four different formulas to allocate shares of the funds for a single program is that the formulas have distinct allocation patterns, providing varying shares of allocated funds to different types of LEAs or states (e.g., LEAs with high poverty rates or states with comparatively equal levels of spending per pupil among their LEAs). The House and Senate bills would have provided $11 billion in supplemental appropriations for Title I-A Grants to LEAs.\",\n \"The House bill would have made $5.5 billion available on July 1, 2009, and $5.5 billion available on July 1, 2010. The Senate bill would have made the entire $11 billion available in FY2009. Under both bills, funds would have been allocated through the Targeted Grant and EFIG formulas only. Half of the available funds for a given fiscal year would have been appropriated through each formula. For example, for funds made available under the House bill on July 1, 2009, $2.75 billion would have been appropriated through the Targeted grant formula and $2.75 billion would have been appropriated through the EFIG formula. While both bills would have required funds to be used for the purposes authorized in Title I-A of the ESEA, the Senate bill would also have added requirements for LEAs receiving these funds. First, LEAs would have been required to use at least 15% of the funds received for activities serving children who are not yet at a grade level at which the LEA provides a free public education and to support preschool programs for children.\",\n \"Second, the Senate bill would have required each LEA to file a school-by-school listing of per pupil expenditures from state and local sources for the 2008-2009 school year with the state educational agency (SEA) by December 1, 2009. The ARRA provides $10 billion in supplemental FY2009 appropriations for Title I-A. As with both the House and Senate bills, the funds will be provided equally through the Targeted Grant and EFIG formulas only (i.e., $5 billion through each formula). One feature of these formulas is that LEAs with an estimated school-age child poverty rate of less than 5.0% are not eligible for grants. According to H.Rept. 111-16 , these funds should be available to LEAs during school year 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 to help LEAs \\\"mitigate the effect of the recent reduction in local revenues and state support for education.\\\" While the ARRA did not retain the Senate provision that at least 15% of funds received by LEAs had to be used for preschool programs, the ARRA does retain the Senate provision requiring reporting on per-pupil expenditures.\",\n \"More specifically, each LEA is required to file a school-by-school listing of per-pupil expenditures from state and local sources during the 2008-2009 school year by December 1, 2009. Further, the ARRA requires the SEA to report these data to the Secretary of Education (hereafter referred to as the Secretary) by March 31, 2010. School Improvement Grants (authorized under ESEA, Section 1003(g)) provide supplementary funds to states and LEAs for school improvement purposes. States are eligible to apply for these grants, which are allocated in proportion to each state's share of funds received under ESEA Title I, Parts A, C (Migrant Education Program), and D (Neglected and Delinquent Children and Youth). States must use at least 95% of the funds received to make subgrants to LEAs. Subgrants made to LEAs must be between $50,000 and $500,000 for each school, and must be renewable for up to two additional years if schools meet the goals of their school improvement plans. Subgrants must be used by LEAs to support school improvement (ESEA, Sections 1116 and 1117).\",\n \"LEAs with the lowest-achieving schools and the greatest commitment to ensuring that such funds are used to provide \\\"adequate resources\\\" to enable the lowest-achieving schools to meet the goals under school and LEA improvement plans must be given priority in the awarding of subgrants. In FY2008, this program received an annual appropriation of $491 million. In addition to separately appropriated funds, states are generally required to reserve 4% of their Title I-A grants to LEAs for school improvement activities. The House bill would have appropriated $2 billion in supplemental appropriations for School Improvement Grants with $1 billion becoming available on July 1, 2009, and the remaining funds becoming available on July 1, 2010. The Senate bill would have appropriated $1.4 billion in supplemental appropriations for this program and made all funds available in FY2009. In addition, the Senate, but not the House bill, would have required ED to encourage states to use 40% of their allocations for middle and high schools. The ARRA provides $3 billion in supplemental FY2009 appropriations for School Improvement Grants. According to H.Rept.\",\n \"111-16 , these funds should be available to LEAs during school year 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 to help LEAs \\\"mitigate the effect of the recent reduction in local revenues and state support for education.\\\" The ARRA requires each LEA to file a school-by-school listing of per-pupil expenditures from state and local sources during the 2008-2009 school year by December 1, 2009. SEAs are then required to report these data to the Secretary by March 31, 2010. In addition, according to H.Rept. 111-16 , ED is required to encourage states to use 40% of their School Improvement Grants for middle and high schools. The EdTech program provides grants to SEAs and LEAs to increase access to educational technology, support the integration of technology into instruction, enhance technological literacy, and support technology-related professional development of teachers. Funds are allocated to states in proportion to Title I-A grants, with a state minimum grant amount of 0.5% of total funding for state grants. At least 95% of state grants must be allocated to LEAs (and consortia of LEAs and other entities)—50% by formula, in proportion to Title I-A grants, and 50% competitively. In FY2008, this program received an annual appropriation of\",\n \"$267 million.\",\n \"Both the House and Senate bills would have appropriated $1 billion in supplemental appropriations for EdTech. The House bill would have made $500 million available on July 1, 2009, and the remaining funds available on July 1, 2010, while the Senate would have made all funds available in FY2009. The ARRA provides $650 million in supplemental FY2009 appropriations for EdTech. According to H.Rept. 111-16 , these funds should be available to LEAs during school year 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 to help LEAs \\\"mitigate the effect of the recent reduction in local revenues and state support for education.\\\" Under the Credit Enhancement program, competitive grants are awarded to enhance the availability of financing for the acquisition, construction, or renovation of public charter school facilities. Grants are made to at least three entities that have been approved by the Secretary as having demonstrated innovative methods of assisting charter schools in addressing the costs of acquiring, constructing, and renovating facilities by enhancing the availability of loans or bond financing. The House bill would have provided a one-time grant of $25 million in supplemental appropriations for this program. The Senate bill would not have appropriated additional funds for this program.\",\n \"The ARRA does not provide funds for the Credit Enhancement program. ESEA Title V-D authorizes a series of competitive grant programs intended to support a variety of innovative K-12 educational activities. It includes both a broad authority for innovative activities selected at the discretion of the Secretary of Education, and a series of required studies, in Subpart 1. It also authorizes a number of specific activities (e.g., Elementary and Secondary School Counseling Programs, Partnerships in Character Education, Smaller Learning Communities) in Subparts 2 through 21. In FY2008, Title V-D-1 received an annual appropriation of $122 million. The House bill, but not the Senate bill, would have provided $200 million in supplemental FY2009 appropriations specifically for Subpart 1 activities to be used for purposes specified in FY2008 appropriations. These funds had to be used to provide competitive grants to LEAs, states, or partnerships of an LEA, state, or both and at least one non-profit organization to develop and implement performance-based teacher and principal compensation systems in high-need schools under the Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF) program.\",\n \"These systems would have had to consider gains in student academic achievement as well as classroom evaluations conducted at multiple times during the school year among other factors and provide educators with incentives to take on leadership roles and additional responsibilities. Up to 5% of the $200 million would have been available for technical assistance, training, peer review of applications, program outreach, and evaluation activities. Further, the House bill specified that a portion of these funds had to be used by the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) to conduct an evaluation of the impact of performance-based teacher and principal compensation systems supported by the competitive grants on teacher and principal recruitment in high-need schools and subjects. The ARRA provides $200 million in supplemental FY2009 appropriations for the same purposes required in the House bill. The ARRA, however, permits the Secretary to reserve up to 1% of the $200 million for management and oversight of the activities supported with the funds appropriated. The Impact Aid program compensates LEAs for \\\"substantial and continuing financial burden\\\" resulting from federal activities.\",\n \"These activities include federal ownership of certain lands, as well as the enrollments in LEAs of children of parents who work or live on federal land (e.g., children of parents in the military and children living on Indian lands). Section 8007 specifically provides funds for construction and facilities upgrading to certain LEAs with high percentages of children living on Indian lands or children of military parents. These funds are used to make formula and competitive grants. In FY2008, $18 million was appropriated for Section 8007 payments. Under the statute, 40% of the funds appropriated under Section 8007 are used to make construction payments by formula to LEAs receiving Impact Aid Section 8003 payments and in which students living on Indian land constitute at least 50% of the LEA's total student enrollment or military students living on or off base constitute at least 50% of the LEA's total student enrollment. The funds available for construction payments are divided equally between these two groups of LEAs (20% of the total Section 8007 appropriation going to each group). The remaining 60% of Section 8007 appropriations are used to make school facility emergency and modernization competitive grants.\",\n \"Emergency repair grants must be used to repair, renovate, or alter a K-12 public school facility to ensure the health and safety of students and staff. Modernization grants may be used to relieve overcrowding or upgrade facilities to support a \\\"contemporary educational program.\\\" The House bill would have provided $100 million in supplemental appropriations for Section 8007 in FY2009. The Senate bill would not have appropriated funds for this purpose. The ARRA provides $100 million supplemental FY2009 appropriations for Impact Aid Section 8007. While 40% of the Section 8007 funds will be made available by formula and 60% of the Section 8007 funds will be made available by competitive grant (as is done in current law), the ARRA modifies some of the eligibility and priority criteria for receiving funds. For example, the 40% of funds provided through formula grants will be based on each LEA's proportion of military children and children living on Indian lands.\",\n \"In addition, the ARRA drops the requirements that at least 50% of an LEA's student enrollment must be composed of military children or children living on Indian lands to receive a grant, and that the 40% of funds available be divided equally between LEAs enrolling at least 50% military children and those enrolling at least 50% children living on Indian lands. According to H.Rept. 111-16 , modifications to the current statutory provisions were made to allow for the greater participation of LEAs serving both military students and students living on Indian lands and to allow funding to be better targeted to LEAs with \\\"shovel ready\\\" projects. IDEA is the major federal statute that supports special education and related services for children with disabilities. As a condition of accepting IDEA funding, the act requires that states and LEAs provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to each eligible child with a disability. The IDEA is divided into four parts. Part A contains the general provisions, including the purposes of the act and definitions.\",\n \"Part B, the most often discussed part of the act, contains provisions relating to the education of school aged children (grants to states) and a state grant program for preschool children with disabilities (Section 619). Part C authorizes state grants for programs serving infants and toddlers with disabilities, while Part D contains the requirements for various national activities designed to improve the education of children with disabilities. In FY2008, IDEA, Part B Grants to States received an annual appropriation of $10.9 billion; IDEA, Part C received an annual appropriation of $436 million; and IDEA, Part D received an annual appropriation of $225 million. Both the House and Senate bills would have provided supplemental FY2009 appropriations for IDEA, Part B (grants to states) and Part C. For Part B, the House bill would have provided a total of $13 billion with $6 billion made available on July 1, 2009, and $7 billion made available on July 1, 2010. The Senate bill, as detailed in its report ( S.Rept. 111-3 ) would have provided $13 billion for FY2009.\",\n \"Actual and proposed Part B grants to states are often discussed in terms of the percent of the \\\"excess\\\" cost of educating children with disabilities that the federal government will pay. The metric for determining this excess cost is based on the national average per-pupil expenditure (APPE). In 1975, with the enactment of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act ( P.L. 94-142 ), it was determined that the federal government would pay up to 40% of this excess cost. For FY2008, the estimated percentage of APPE provided by the federal government under IDEA, Part B was 17.2%. The estimated percentage for FY2009 based on regular appropriations and funding provided through the House bill would have been 26.3%. For FY2010, based on regular appropriations and funding provided through the House bill, the estimated percentage would have been 26.8%. The estimated percentage based on the Senate bill and regular appropriations for FY2009 would have been 37.6%. For Part C, the House bill would have provided a total of $600 million for Part C with $300 million becoming available on July 1, 2009, and the remaining funds becoming available on July 1, 2010.\",\n \"The Senate bill, as detailed in its report ( S.Rept. 111-3 ), would have provided $500 million for FY2009. Under Part C, the Secretary is required to reserve 15% of any funds appropriated in excess of $460 million for incentive grants to states to continue early intervention services until kindergarten as described in Section 635(c). The Senate bill would have required that each LEA receiving funds for Part B use not less than 15% of the funds for special education and related services for preschool children (Section 619.) The House bill had no comparable provision. The ARRA provides $11.3 billion in supplemental FY2009 appropriations for IDEA Part B, which will be available during school years 2009-2010 and 2010-2011. The estimated percentage of the \\\"excess\\\" cost of educating children with disabilities that the federal government will pay based on the ARRA and regular appropriations for FY2009 is 34.2%. The ARRA also provides $500 million in FY2009 funds for IDEA Part C, which will be available during school years 2009-2010 and 2010-2011.\",\n \"Like both the House and Senate bills, the ARRA specifies that any funds remaining after the incentive grants are awarded are to be allocated to states by formula in accordance with section 643(e). Finally, the ARRA provides $400 million for the IDEA preschool program (Section 619). Special issues have arisen with respect to the share of IDEA funds provided under H.R. 1 that might be allocated to outlying areas or the Bureau of Indian Affairs. This program, also known as the Education for Homeless Children and Youth program, provides assistance to SEAs to ensure that all homeless children and youth have equal access to the same free, appropriate public education, including public preschool education, that is provided to other children and youth. Funds are allocated to states in proportion to ESEA Title I-A grants, with a state minimum of $150,000 or 0.25% of total grants, whichever is greater. In FY2008, $64 million was appropriated for this program. Competitive grants made by SEAs to LEAs under this program must be used to facilitate the enrollment, attendance, and success in school of homeless children and youth.\",\n \"The LEAs may use the funds for activities such as tutoring, supplemental instruction, and referral services for homeless children and youth, as well as providing them with medical, dental, mental, and other health services. In order to receive funds, each state must submit a plan indicating how homeless children and youth will be identified, how assurances will be put in place that homeless children will participate in federal, state, and local food programs if eligible, and how the state will address such problems as transportation, immunization, residency requirements, and the lack of birth certificates or school records. The House bill would have provided a total of $66 million for this program in supplemental FY2009 appropriations, with $33 million becoming available on July 1, 2009, and $33 million becoming available on July 1, 2010. These funds would have been allocated to states using the formula authorized in current statute. States would have made subgrants to LEAs on a competitive basis as is done under current law. The Senate bill would have provided $70 million for this program in supplemental FY2009 appropriations. These funds would not have been allocated to states using the current formula.\",\n \"Rather, funds would have been allocated in proportion to the number of homeless students identified by the state during the 2007-2008 school year relative to the number of homeless students identified nationally during the 2007-2008 school year. States would have made subgrants to LEAs on a competitive basis or using a formula based on the number of homeless students identified by LEAs in the state. The ARRA provides $70 million in supplemental FY2009 appropriations for this program. According to H.Rept. 111-16 , these funds should be available to LEAs during school year 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 to help LEAs \\\"mitigate the effect of the recent reduction in local revenues and state support for education.\\\" Grants will be allocated to states in proportion to the number of homeless students identified by the state during the 2007-2008 school year relative to the number of homeless students identified nationally during the 2007-2008 school year, rather than under existing statutory provisions. SEAs will make subgrants to LEAs on a competitive basis or using a formula based on the number of homeless students identified by LEAs in the state.\",\n \"The Secretary is required to make grants to states not later than 60 days after the data of enactment. Subsequently, SEAs must make subgrants to LEAs not later than 120 days after receiving funds from the Secretary. Currently, there are no federal education programs dedicated specifically to providing grants for the modernization, renovation, or repair of elementary and secondary schools (hereafter referred to as funds for school renovation). The House bill, but not the Senate bill, would have provided a dedicated source of funding in FY2009 for these purposes. The House bill would have provided $14 billion in supplemental FY2009 appropriations for school renovation. After a reservation of 1% for the outlying areas and the Secretary of the Interior to provide assistance to Bureau of Indian Affairs schools, and a reservation of $6 million for the Secretary of Education for administration and oversight, the remaining funds would have been allocated to each state in proportion to the amount of FY2008 Title I-A funding received by all the LEAs in the state relative to the total amount received by all the LEAs in every state.\",\n \"States would have been permitted to reserve up to 1% of their allocations for providing technical assistance; developing a database that includes an inventory of public school facilities in the state and their modernization, renovation, and repair needs; and developing a school energy efficiency quality plan. The remaining funds would have been allocated to LEAs in proportion to the amount of FY2008 Title I-A funding received by the LEA relative to the total amount of funding received by all LEAs in the state. The minimum grant amount for LEAs would have been $5,000. Under general provisions (Sec. 1109), the House bill would have prohibited any funds from being used for an aquarium, zoo, golf course, or swimming pool. The ARRA does not include a dedicated source of federal funds for school modernization. However, school modernization, renovation, and repair, and possibly construction as well, are allowable uses of funds under the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (see subsequent discussion). The ARRA provides supplemental appropriations for several programs authorized under the Higher Education Act (HEA).\",\n \"It provides $16 billion in discretionary appropriations for the Federal Pell Grant program, the Federal Work-Study (FWS) program, and the Teacher Quality Partnership Grant program, and for the administration of federal student aid programs authorized under Title IV of the HEA. The ARRA also provides $1.474 billion in mandatory appropriations for the Federal Pell Grant program. The House bill would have provided $16.276 billion in discretionary funding for the Federal Pell Grant program, the FWS program, and the Teacher Quality Partnership Grant program, and for the administration of federal student aid programs. It would also have provided $1.474 billion in mandatory funding for the Federal Pell Grant program. The House bill would have amended the federal student loan programs by increasing borrowing limits on Stafford Loans made to undergraduate students. In addition, the House bill would have provided $6 billion in discretionary funding for a new program of grants to state higher education agencies (SEAs) for higher education facility modernization, renovation and repair.\",\n \"The Senate bill would have provided $13.980 in discretionary funding for the three HEA programs (the Federal Pell Grant program, the Federal Perkins Loan program, the Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant program), but would not have provided any funding for higher education modernization, renovation, and repair. Funding for higher education as proposed under the House and Senate bills, and as enacted under the ARRA, is briefly discussed below. Under the Federal Pell Grant program, grants are made available to low-income undergraduate students to help offset their costs associated with obtaining a postsecondary education. The Pell Grant program is the largest source of federal grant aid to postsecondary students. Pell Grants are portable, in that the grant aid follows students to the eligible postsecondary education institutions in which they enroll. The Pell Grant award amount is primarily based on the financial resources that a student and the student's family are expected to contribute toward postsecondary education expenses—the student's expected family contribution (EFC). The Pell Grant award is considered to be the foundation of a student's financial aid package because all other forms of federal student aid (e.g., federal student loans) are awarded after the Pell Grant award amount\",\n \"has been determined.\",\n \"Both discretionary and mandatory appropriations fund the Federal Pell Grant program; and in general, annual appropriations measures specify maximum individual Pell Grant award amounts. A mandatory Pell Grant add-on has the effect of increasing the individual Pell Grant award amount above the amount available from funds provided in discretionary appropriation measures. For FY2008, $14.215 billion in discretionary funding, and $2.030 billion in mandatory funding was provided for the Pell Grant program. For the 2008-2009 award year, the maximum appropriated Pell Grant award amount was $4,731. This was comprised of a discretionary maximum award amount of $4,241, and a mandatory add-on of $490. The House bill would have provided $15.636 billion for the Federal Pell Grant program, to be made available through September 30, 2011. These funds would have been in addition to discretionary funds anticipated to be appropriated for the Federal Pell Grant program as part of a separate FY2009 discretionary appropriations measure under which the appropriated maximum Pell Grant award amount would be $4,360. As a result of both appropriations measures, the discretionary maximum Pell Grant award amount for the 2009-2010 award year would have been increased to $4,860.\",\n \"Combined with the mandatory add-on of $490, under the House bill, the maximum Pell Grant award amount for the 2009-2010 award year would have been increased to $5,350. The House bill also would have increased the mandatory appropriations provided for the Federal Pell Grant program for FY2009 by $643 million, from $2.090 billion to $2.733 billion; and for FY2010 by $831 million, from $3.030 billion to $3.861 billion. The Senate bill would have provided $13.869 billion for the Federal Pell Grant program, to be made available through September 30, 2011. These funds would be provided in addition to amounts anticipated to be separately appropriated for FY2009. Funding provided under the Senate bill would have increased the maximum Pell Grant award amount by $281 above the maximum award amount to be provided for the 2009-2010 award year. For the 2010-2011 award year, the Senate bill would have also increased the maximum Pell Grant award amount by $400 above the 2008-2009 award year maximum Pell Grant award amount ($4,731). Finally, the Senate bill specified that funds would have been provided to reduce or eliminate the Pell Grant shortfall.\",\n \"The ARRA provides $15.64 billion in supplemental discretionary appropriations for the Federal Pell Grant program for FY2009. The ARRA also provides $1.474 billion in mandatory appropriations for the Federal Pell Grant program, with $643 million provided for FY2009, and $831 million provided for FY2010. For the 2009-2010 award year, the maximum Pell Grant award will be $5,350. This will consist of a discretionary maximum award amount of $4,860 (funded by the combination of appropriations provided under the ARRA and appropriations anticipated to be provided under a separate FY2009 appropriations measure) and an add-on of $490 (funded by mandatory appropriations). The mandatory appropriations provided for FY2010 are to assure sufficient funding for the statutorily specified mandatory add-on of $690 for the 2010-2011 award year. The FWS program is a need-based federal student aid program that provides undergraduate, graduate, and professional students the opportunity for paid employment in a field related to their course of study or in community service. Students receive FWS aid as compensation for the hours they have worked. FWS aid may be provided to any student demonstrating financial need.\",\n \"Awards typically are based on factors such as each student's financial need, the availability of FWS funds, and whether a student requests FWS employment and is willing to work. Federal funding for the FWS program is provided to institutions of higher education (IHEs) for the purpose of making available need-based federal student aid to students enrolled at those IHEs. Funds are awarded to IHEs according to a complex two-stage procedure, with a portion of funds allocated based on what the IHE received in prior years, and a portion based on an institutional need-based allocation formula. Under the FWS program, students are compensated with a combination of federal funding and a matching amount provided by the student's employer, which may be the IHE or another entity. In most instances, the maximum federal share of compensation is 75%. For FY2008, $980.5 million was provided for the FWS program. The House bill would have provided $490 million in supplemental FY2009 appropriations for the FWS program, with funding to remain through September 30, 2011. Of this amount, $245 million would have been made available on October 1, 2009. The Senate bill would not have provided any supplemental funding for the\",\n \"FWS program.\",\n \"The ARRA provides $200 million in supplemental discretionary appropriations for the FWS program for FY2009. This funding is in addition to any amount that may be provided for the FWS program under a separate FY2009 appropriations measure. The Federal Perkins Loan program operates as an institutional revolving loan fund under which IHEs make available low-interest (5%) federal student loans to undergraduate, graduate, and professional students enrolled in participating institutions. Undergraduate students may borrow up to $5,000 per year; and graduate and professional students may borrow up to $8,000 per year. Borrowers of Perkins Loans who are employed in certain public service jobs may qualify for loan cancellation benefits. Under the Federal Perkins Loan program, federal funding is authorized to be provided for federal capital contributions to the revolving loan funds of participating IHEs. Federal funding for Perkins Loan federal capital contributions is provided to IHEs according to a two-stage formula similar to that used for the FWS program—IHEs are first allocated funds based on what they received in prior years, and any funds remaining from the annual appropriation are subsequently allocated to IHEs according to an institutional need-based allocation formula.\",\n \"(Separately, federal funding is also provided to IHEs to reimburse them for the cost of cancelling loans made to students who become employed in public service jobs.) For FY2008, no funding was provided for Federal Perkins Loan program federal capital contributions, and $64.3 million was provided to reimburse IHEs for Federal Perkins Loan cancellations. The Senate bill would have provided $61 million for the Federal Perkins Loan program to be allocated to participating institutions as federal capital contributions to their revolving loan funds. The House bill would not have provided any funding for the Federal Perkins Loan program. No funding is provided for the Federal Perkins Loan program under the ARRA. The House bill would have provided $50 million in FY2009 supplemental appropriations to the Department of Education for student aid administration of the Federal Pell Grant program, the Academic Competitiveness (AC) grant and National Science and Mathematics Access to Retain Talent (SMART) grant program, the Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant (FSEOG) program, the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) program, the FWS program, the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan (DL) program, and the Federal Perkins Loan program.\",\n \"(For FY2008, $695.8 million was provided for student aid administration.) The House bill also would have required funds from the supplemental appropriation to be available for an independent audit of the federal student loan purchase programs enacted under the Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act of 2008 (ECASLA; P.L. 110-227 ), and authorized under HEA, § 459A. The Senate bill would not have provided any supplemental funding specifically for student aid administration. The ARRA provides $60 million in FY2009 supplemental appropriations to the Department of Education for student aid administration of the Federal Pell Grant program, the AC/SMART grant program, the FSEOG program, FFEL program, the FWS program, the DL program, and the Federal Perkins Loan program. Title II, Part A of the HEA authorizes Teacher Quality Partnership Grants for improving teacher education programs, strengthening teacher recruitment efforts, and providing training for prospective teachers. For FY2008, $33.7 million was provided for the Title II-A program. The House bill would have provided $100 million in supplemental FY2009 appropriations for Teacher Quality Partnership Grants; and the Senate bill would have provided $50 million. The ARRA provides $100 million in supplemental FY2009 appropriations for Teacher Quality Partnership Grants.\",\n \"For FY2009, the House bill would have provided $6 billion for a new grant program to support higher education facility modernization, renovation, and repair, with $6 million to be reserved for the Secretary of Education for administration and oversight. Grants would have been allocated to SEAs in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and each of the outlying areas in proportion to the number of full-time equivalent (FTE) undergraduate students enrolled in public and private not-for-profit postsecondary education schools in each jurisdiction. According to the House bill, SEAs would have used grant funds to make subgrants to public and private not-for-profit postsecondary schools to modernize, renovate, or repair facilities that are primarily used for instruction, research, or student housing.\",\n \"SEAs would have been required to give priority in the awarding of subgrants to minority serving institutions (e.g., those eligible for assistance under Title III or Title V of the HEA), to IHEs that have been impacted by a major disaster or emergency declared by the President, and to IHEs that would carry out projects to increase their energy efficiency and that would comply with the United States Green Building Council Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) green building rating system. The ARRA does not include a dedicated source of federal funds for higher education facilities modernization. Facilities modernization, however, is an allowable use of funds under the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (see subsequent discussion). The federal government operates two major student loan programs: the FFEL program, authorized under Title IV, Part B of the Higher Education Act (HEA), and the DL program, authorized under Title IV, Part D of the HEA. These programs make available loans to undergraduate, graduate and professional students, and the parents of undergraduate dependent students, to help them finance the costs of postsecondary education.\",\n \"The loans made through the FFEL and DL programs are low-interest loans, with maximum interest rates for each type of loan established by statute. Subsidized Stafford Loans are need-based loans and are only available to students demonstrating financial need. The Secretary pays the interest that accrues on Subsidized Stafford Loans while borrowers are in school, during a six-month grace period, and during authorized periods of deferment. Unsubsidized Stafford Loans and PLUS Loans are non-need-based loans and are available to borrowers without regard to their financial need. Borrowers are fully responsible for paying the interest that accrues on these loans. The amounts students may borrow in need-based Subsidized Stafford Loans and non-need-based Unsubsidized Stafford Loans are constrained by statutory loan limits. One set of limits applies to the annual and aggregate amounts students may borrow in Subsidized Stafford Loans. Another set of limits applies to the total annual and aggregate amounts students may borrow in combined Subsidized Stafford Loans and Unsubsidized Stafford Loans (hereafter, referred to as total Stafford Loans). The terms and conditions for Subsidized Stafford Loans are more favorable to students than for Unsubsidized Stafford Loans.\",\n \"Until the enactment of the ECASLA, the same annual Subsidized Stafford Loan limits and total Stafford Loan limits applied to dependent undergraduate students for each comparable educational level. However, annual total Stafford Loan limits that were higher than annual Subsidized Stafford Loan limits applied to independent undergraduate students, graduate and professional students, and dependent undergraduate students whose parents are unable to obtain PLUS Loans, for each comparable educational level. The ECASLA increased annual and aggregate borrowing limits for total Stafford Loans for dependent undergraduate students, independent undergraduate students, and dependent undergraduate students whose parents are unable to obtain a PLUS Loan, effective for loans first disbursed on or after July 1, 2008. Technical changes to these amended loan limits were made under the Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA; P.L. 110-315 ). In general, the ECASLA increased annual total Stafford Loan limits by $2,000 for most undergraduate student borrowers. The ECASLA also increased aggregate borrowing limits by $8,000 for dependent undergraduate students; and by $11,500 for independent undergraduate students. The House bill would have further increased annual and aggregate total Stafford Loan limits for undergraduate student borrowers for loans first disbursed on or after January 1, 2009.\",\n \"In general, annual total Stafford Loan limits would have been increased by an additional $2,000 for most undergraduate student borrowers. Also, aggregate total Stafford Loan borrowing limits would have been increased by an additional $8,000 for all undergraduate student borrowers. The Senate bill would not have made any changes to loan limits. Under the ARRA, no changes are made to Stafford Loan limits. Under the FFEL program, lenders receive a federal subsidy on the loans they make when the interest rate paid by borrowers does not provide them a statutorily specified level of return. This is called the special allowance payment (SAP). The SAP amount is determined quarterly under a statutory formula. The special allowance paid for each loan is dependent on the formula in effect when the loan was disbursed. The federal government pays any special allowance due lenders from the time the loan is disbursed through the entire repayment period. On loans for which the first disbursement was made on or after January 1, 2000, the SAP is determined through the use of a series of special allowance payment formulas indexed to three-month Commercial Paper (CP) rates.\",\n \"The House bill would have made a technical amendment to the SAP formula by temporarily changing the index used from the three-month CP rate to the three-month London Inter-Bank Offered Rate (LIBOR) for United States dollars. This change would have been applicable to loans first disbursed on or after January 1, 2000 and would have been effective for the quarter beginning October 1, 2008, and ending December 31, 2008. The Senate bill would not have made any changes to the SAP formula. Under the ARRA, no changes are made to the SAP formula. IES is charged with conducting research, evaluation, and dissemination activities in areas of demonstrated national need. Its activities are designed to inform education practice and policy. Only the House bill would have provided $250 million in FY2009 to carry out Section 208 of the Educational Technical Assistance Act (ETTA; P.L. 107-279 ). Section 208 authorizes a competitive grant program for SEAs to support the design, development, and implementation of statewide longitudinal data systems to enable states to use, manage, and analyze individual student data in ways consistent with the ESEA.\",\n \"The House bill specified that these statewide data systems could include data systems that contain postsecondary and workforce information. Up to $5 million of the funds could have been used for state data coordinators or for awards to public or private organizations to improve data collection. The ARRA includes $250 million for IES to carry out Section 208 of the ETTA. Similar to the House bill, the ARRA allows statewide data systems to include postsecondary education and workforce information and allows up to $5 million of the funds appropriated to be used for state data coordinators and for awards to public or private organizations to improve data collection. Both the House and Senate bills would have provided supplemental FY2009 appropriations for a State Fiscal Stabilization Fund. The total amount provided would have been $79 billion under the House bill and $39 billion under the Senate bill. The House bill would have made $39.5 billion available on July 1, 2009, and another $39.5 billion available on July 1, 2010, while the Senate bill would have made $39 billion available in FY2009. Both the House and Senate bills would have made reservations from these funds prior to making\",\n \"grants to states.\",\n \"Under the House bill, from the total annual appropriation, up to 0.5% would have been reserved for the outlying areas. The Secretary could have reserved up to $12.5 million each year for administration and oversight, including program evaluation. In addition, the Secretary would have been required to reserve $7.5 billion annually to provide State Incentive Grants and establish an Innovation Fund. The Senate bill would also have reserved up to 0.5% of the total appropriation for the outlying areas. It also would have allowed the Secretary to reserve $25 million for administration and oversight—the same level that the House bill would have allowed over the two-year period during which funds would have been made available. Finally, the Senate bill would have required the Secretary to reserve $7.5 billion to provide State Incentive Grants and establish an Innovation Fund. After making these reservations, $31.790 billion would have been made available on July 1, 2009, and on July 1, 2010, under the House bill for grants to states, while $31.280 billion would have remained for grants to states in FY2009 under the Senate bill.\",\n \"Under both bills, these funds would have been allocated to states using two population measures: 61% of each state's grant would have been based on the state's relative population of individuals ages 5 to 24, and 39% of each state's grant would have been based on the state's relative total population. Under the House bill, once funds were received at the state level, the state's governor would have been required to use at least 61% of the state's allocation to support elementary, secondary, and postsecondary education, while under the Senate bill all funds would have been used for this purpose as well as for early childhood education programs. Under both bills, the governor would have been required to use these funds to provide the amount of funds, through the state's principal elementary and secondary education funding formula, that was needed to restore state funding for elementary and secondary education to its FY2008 level. The Senate bill also would have allowed funds to be used to pay for state formula increases for FY2009-FY2011, as well as funding state equity and adequacy adjustments that were enacted before July 1, 2008.\",\n \"In addition, under both bills the governor would have been required to use these funds to provide the amount of funds to public institutions of higher education in the state needed to restore state support for postsecondary education (not including support for capital projects or for research and development) to the FY2008 level. If the amount of funds provided through the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund was insufficient to restore state support for elementary, secondary, and postsecondary education to the FY2008 levels, plus formula increases and equity/adequacy adjustments for elementary and secondary education under the Senate bill, the governor would have been required to allocate funds between elementary and secondary education and postsecondary education in proportion to the relative shortfall in state support at each level of education. If, however, funds remained after restoring funds to the FY2008 level, the governor would have been required to use the remainder of the 61% of the state allocation (House bill) or all remaining funds (Senate bill) to provide grants to LEAs based on their share of Title I-A funding for the most recent year for which data were available.\",\n \"Under the House bill, the governor would have been able to use up to 39% of the state funds for public safety and government services. These funds, however, could have been used to provide additional assistance for elementary and secondary education and for public institutions of higher education. As noted earlier, under the Senate bill, all funds provided to states under the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund would have been used for education. In applying for funds from the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, both bills would have required states to provide four assurances to ED. It is unclear how many states would have been able to provide all of the required assurances. Both the House and Senate bills would have required that the state agree to maintain support for elementary and secondary education at least at the level provided in FY2006, for FY2009 and FY2010; and the state agree to maintain support for public institutions of higher education at least at the FY2006 level, for FY2009 and FY2010. They both also would have required that the state establish a longitudinal data system as described in Section 6401(e)(2)(D) of the America COMPETES Act.\",\n \"Both bills would have required states to provide assurances related to the equitable distribution of teachers between high- and low-poverty schools, but they approached this assurance in different ways. Under the House bill, the state would have been required to take actions to comply with requirements in ESEA, Section 1111(b)(8)(C) related to the provision of highly qualified teachers in schools receiving Title I-A funding to eliminate inequities in the distribution of teachers between high- and low-poverty schools and ensure that low-income and minority children are not taught at higher rates than other students by inexperienced, unqualified, or out-of field teachers. Under the Senate bill, states would have been required to take action, including implementing activities authorized in ESEA, Section 2113(c), such as reforming teacher and principal certification and establishing alternative routes for teacher state certification, to increase the number and improve the distribution of \\\"effective\\\" teachers and principals in high-poverty schools and LEAs.\",\n \"Finally, under both the House and Senate bills, the state would have had to agree to enhance the quality of its state assessments used to measure student achievement in reading, mathematics, and science through activities described in ESEA, Section 6112(a), including collaborating with institutions of higher education or other organizations to improve the quality, validity, and reliability of state assessments. Second, the state would have been required to agree to comply with requirements in the ESEA and IDEA related to the inclusion of children with disabilities and limited English proficient students in state assessments, the development of valid and reliable assessments for those students, and the provision of accommodations to facilitate their participation in state assessments. The Senate bill only would have required states to improve state academic content standards and student academic achievement standards consistent with requirements in the America COMPETES Act.\",\n \"The applicable requirements in the America COMPETES Act focus on identifying and making changes to a state's secondary school academic content and academic achievement standards in order to align these standards with the knowledge and skills necessary for success in credit-bearing postsecondary education coursework, the 21 st century workforce, and the Armed Forces without the need for remediation. Further, the Senate bill would have required states to ensure compliance with requirements related to schools identified for corrective actions and restructuring under ESEA Title I-A. As noted earlier, each bill would have required the Secretary to reserve $7.5 billion to provide State Incentive Grants and, at his or her discretion, establish an Innovation Fund. State Incentive Grants would have been awarded by the Secretary to states that made significant progress in meeting the requirements described in the preceding paragraph. At least 50% of each state grant would have been allocated to LEAs in proportion to their ESEA Title I-A grants for the most recent year.\",\n \"If the Secretary choose to establish an Innovation Fund, up to $325 million of the funds made available on July 1, 2009, and on July 1, 2010, (House bill) or $650 million for FY2009 (Senate bill) could have been reserved for discretionary grants to eligible entities (states, LEAs or schools under the House bill; LEAs or partnerships between nonprofit organizations and LEAs or schools under the Senate bill). Grants would have been made by the Secretary to eligible grantees demonstrating significant gains in closing academic achievement gaps between pupil groups, and grantees would use these funds to expand their activities and serve as models for best practices. Both the House and Senate bills included comparable provisions regarding the authorized uses of funds by educational agencies, schools, and institutions of higher education (IHEs) under the proposed State Fiscal Stabilization program. Funds for elementary and secondary education could have been used for any purpose authorized under the ESEA, IDEA, or the Carl. D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act (Perkins Act). Together, these acts cover a very wide range of K-12 educational activities, including the hiring of teachers and paraprofessionals.\",\n \"Funds could not have been used for capital expenditures except those authorized under those acts (such uses are highly limited). No funds could have been used to provide financial assistance for pupils to attend private schools except (under the Senate bill) to provide special education and related services to pupils with disabilities as authorized by the IDEA. Under both the House and Senate bills, funds for higher education could have been used by public IHEs for educational and general expenditures, including expenditures \\\"to mitigate the need to raise tuition and fees for in-State students.\\\" Funds could not have been used by IHEs to raise their endowments or for construction, renovation, or repair of facilities. The ARRA provides $53.6 billion in supplemental FY2009 appropriations for a State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF). The specific provisions associated with this fund include provisions from both the House and Senate bills. This section provides a summary of the key aspects of the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund under P.L. 111-5 . From the $53.6 billion appropriated for the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, the Secretary may reserve up to 0.5% for the outlying areas (i.e., maximum reservation of $268 million).\",\n \"These funds are to be distributed to the outlying areas based on their respective needs as determined by the Secretary of Education in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior. Outlying areas are required to use these funds for activities consistent with those authorized under the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund under such terms and conditions as determined by the Secretary of Education. The Secretary is also permitted or required to make two additional reservations of funds. First, the Secretary may reserve up to $14 million for administration, oversight, and evaluation of the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund. Second, the Secretary must reserve $5 billion to provide State Incentive Grants and establish an Innovation Fund. Assuming that each of these reservations are made at the maximum level, $48.318 billion will be available for grants to states. These funds will be allocated to states using two population measures: 61% of each state's grant will be based on the state's relative population of individuals ages 5 to 24, and 39% of each state's grant will be based on the state's relative total population.\",\n \"Once funds are received at the state level, the state's governor must use 81.8% of the state's allocation to support elementary, secondary, and postsecondary education, and, as applicable, early childhood education programs and services. The governor must use these funds to provide the amount of funds, through the state's principal elementary and secondary education funding formula, needed to restore state funding for elementary and secondary education in FY2009, FY2010, and FY2011 through the formula to the greater of the FY2008 or FY2009 level, and, if applicable, to allow state formula increases to support elementary and secondary education for FY2010 and FY2011 to be implemented and to fund the phasing in of state equity and adequacy adjustments if these increases were enacted in state law prior to October 1, 2008. According to guidance published by ED on April 7, 2009, in providing funds through the state's funding formula, funds must be provided directly to LEAs. The governor is also required to use these funds to provide the amount of funds needed to restore state support for public IHEs (excluding tuition and fees paid by students) to the greater of FY2008 or FY2009 level for FY2009, FY2010, and\",\n \"FY2011.\",\n \"If the amount of funds provided through the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund is insufficient to restore state support for elementary, secondary, and postsecondary education to the greater of the FY2008 or FY2009 level, plus support formula increases and equity/adequacy adjustments, if applicable, for FY2009, FY2010, and FY2011, the governor is required to allocate funds between elementary and secondary education and postsecondary education in proportion to the relative shortfall in state support at each level of education. If, however, funds remained after restoring state support for education, the governor is required to use the remainder of the 81.8% of the state allocation to provide grants to LEAs based on their share of Title I-A funding for the most recent year for which data are available. The governor is required to use the remaining 18.2% of the state allocation for \\\"public safety and other government services,\\\" which may include assistance for elementary and secondary education and public IHEs, and for modernization, renovation, and repair of public school facilities and IHEs' facilities. Funds used for the latter purposes may be, but are not required to be, consistent with a recognized green building rating system.\",\n \"If the governor chooses to use these funds for IHEs, the governor shall not consider type or mission of an IHE and shall consider any IHE in the state for facility modernization, renovation, or repair funding if the IHE meets the Higher Education Act (HEA), Section 101 definition of an IHE and is eligible to participate in the federal student aid programs authorized by Title IV of the HEA. The ARRA includes specific provisions related to the use of funds by LEAs and IHEs. Funds for elementary and secondary education can be used for any activity authorized under the ESEA, IDEA, the Adult and Family Literacy Act, or the Carl. D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act (Perkins Act), or for the modernization, renovation, and repair of school facilities, including modernization, renovation, and repairs that are consistent with a recognized green building system. LEAs are prohibited from engaging in any school modernization, renovation, or repair that is inconsistent with state law. This language implicitly allows LEAs to use funds under the SFSF for an exceptionally wide array of activities and purposes.\",\n \"In particular, the ESEA includes the Impact Aid programs (Title VIII), under which funds can be used for any purpose or activity authorized under state and local law for LEAs. Through the Impact Aid program, funds are provided to LEAs to compensate them for the activities of the federal government, such as the education of children living on a military base. The federal government provides payments to LEAs to make up for this lost tax revenue. According to ED policy guidance: School districts use Impact Aid for a wide variety of expenses, including the salaries of teachers and teacher aides; purchasing textbooks, computers, and other equipment; after school programs and remedial tutoring; advanced placement classes; and special enrichment programs. Most Impact Aid funds are considered general aid to the recipient school districts and may be used in whatever manner they choose, in accordance with state and local requirements. Although most school districts use Impact Aid for current expenditures, funds may also be used for capital expenditures.\",\n \"In guidance released April 1, 2009, ED explicitly states that LEAs may use funds provided through the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund for any purpose or activity authorized under the ESEA, including those authorized by the Impact Aid program. An LEA does not have to receive Impact Aid funds through the regular appropriations process to be able to use funds provided under the State Fiscal Stabilization Funds for these purposes. Thus, LEAs will be able to use funds provided through the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund for any purpose or activity authorized under state and local law , including new construction , except purposes specifically prohibited by the SFSF (such as those in the following paragraph) . No funds may be used to provide financial assistance for pupils to attend private schools, except (according to H.Rept. 111-16 ) as authorized by ESEA, IDEA, the Adult and Family Literacy Act, or the Perkins Act.\",\n \"LEAs are prohibited from using State Fiscal Stabilization Funds for: (1) maintenance costs; (2) stadiums or other facilities used primarily for athletic contests or other exhibitions or other events for which admission is charged to the general public; (3) the purchase or upgrade of vehicles; or (4) the improvement of stand-alone facilities whose purpose is not the education of children. Public IHEs that receive State Fiscal Stabilization Funds must use the funds for: (1) education and general expenditures, and in such a way \\\"to mitigate the need to raise tuition and fees for in-State students,\\\" or (2) modernization, renovation, or repair of IHE facilities that are primarily used for instruction, research, or student housing, including modernization, renovation, or repairs that are consistent with a recognized green building rating system. It should be noted that these required uses of funds appear to apply only to public IHEs. Non-public IHEs meeting the aforementioned criteria may receive funds from the 18.2% of state funds available for public safety and other government services, so it is unclear how these IHEs may use any funds received. The ARRA includes several prohibitions on the use of funds by IHEs that apply to\",\n \"all IHEs.\",\n \"Funds may not be used to increase an IHE's endowment. In addition, funds may not be sued for: (1) the maintenance of systems, equipment, or facilities; (2) modernization, renovation, or repair of stadiums or other facilities primarily used for athletic contests or other exhibitions or other events for which admission is charged to the general public; or (3) modernization, renovation, or repair of facilities used for sectarian or religious instruction or in which a substantial portion of the functions of the facilities are religious in nature. In applying for funds from the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, the ARRA requires states to submit an application to the Secretary that provides information required by the Secretary as well as five assurances (discussed below), baseline data demonstrating states' current status with respect to each of the five assurances, and a discussion of how the State Fiscal Stabilization Funds will be used, including whether the state will use funds to meet maintenance of effort requirements under ESEA and IDEA. The four assurances that the state must provide focus on state support for education, equity in teacher distribution, data collection, standards and assessments, and support for struggling schools.\",\n \"Each of the five assurances is discussed below. 1. Maintenance of effort: The state must agree to maintain support for elementary and secondary education and for public institutions of higher education (not including support for capital projects or for research or development or tuition and fees paid by students) at least at the level of support provided in FY2006 for FY2009, FY2010, and FY2011. 2. Achieving equity in teacher distribution: The state must provide an assurance related to the equitable distribution of teachers between high- and low-poverty schools. The state must take actions to comply with requirements in ESEA, Section 1111(b)(8)(C) related to the provision of highly qualified teachers in schools receiving Title I-A funding to eliminate inequities in the distribution of teachers between high- and low-poverty schools and ensure that low-income and minority children are not taught at higher rates than other students by inexperienced, unqualified, or out-of field teachers. 3. Improving collection and use of data: The state is required to establish a longitudinal data system as described in Section 6401(e)(2)(D) of the America COMPETES Act. 4.\",\n \"Standards and assessments: The state must agree to enhance the quality of its state assessments used to measure student achievement in reading, mathematics, and science through activities described in ESEA, Section 6112(a), including collaborating with institutions of higher education or other organizations to improve the quality, validity, and reliability of state assessments. Second, the state must agree to comply with requirements in the ESEA and IDEA related to the inclusion of children with disabilities and limited English proficient students in state assessments, the development of valid and reliable assessments for those students, and the provision of accommodations to facilitate their participation in state assessments. Third, the state must agree to improve state academic content standards and student academic achievement standards consistent with requirements in the America COMPETES Act. The applicable requirements in the America COMPETES Act focus on identifying and making changes to a state's secondary school academic content and academic achievement standards in order to align these standards with the knowledge and skills necessary for success in credit-bearing postsecondary education coursework, the 21 st century workforce, and the Armed Forces without the need for remediation. 5.\",\n \"Supporting struggling schools: The state must ensure compliance with requirements related to schools identified for corrective actions and restructuring under ESEA Title I-A. As noted earlier, the ARRA requires the Secretary to reserve $5 billion to provide State Incentive Grants and, at his or her discretion, establish an Innovation Fund. The Secretary may reserve 1% of the funds not being used for Innovation Fund to provide technical assistance to states in meeting the aforementioned assurances. The remaining funds will be used to provide State Incentive Grants in FY2010 to states that have made \\\"significant progress\\\" in meeting last four assurances discussed above. By historical standards, this is an unusually large amount of funding to be allocated at the Secretary's discretion. In order to receive a State Incentive Grant, states must submit an application to the Secretary.\",\n \"The application must describe (1) the state's progress in meeting the last four assurances discussed above; (2) strategies the state is using to ensure that economically disadvantaged students, students from major racial and ethnic groups, students with disabilities, and students with limited English proficiency (hereafter referred to as subgroups of students) are making progress toward meeting state student academic achievement standards; (3) the achievement and graduation rates of public elementary and secondary education students and strategies being employed to ensure the aforementioned subgroups of students are making progress toward meeting state student academic achievement standards; (4) how the state would use its grant funding to improve student academic achievement; (5) and the state plan for evaluating state progress in closing achievement gaps. The Secretary will determine which states receive grants and the amount of those grants based on information provided in the state application and other such criteria determined by the Secretary, which may include a state's need for assistance in meeting the last four assurances discussed above.\",\n \"Each state that receives a State Incentive Grant must use at least 50% of the grant to provide subgrants to LEAs based on each LEAs relative share of funding under Title I-A for the most recent year. The Secretary is permitted to use up to $650 million of the $5 billion reserved for additional programs to establish an Innovation Fund. The Innovation Fund will be used to provide academic achievement awards to LEAs or partnerships between a nonprofit organization and one or more LEAs or a consortium of schools (hereafter referred to as eligible entities).\",\n \"To be eligible to receive an award, an eligible entity must: (1) have \\\"significantly closed\\\" the achievement gaps among the aforementioned subgroups of students and students overall; (2) have exceeded the state's annual measurable objectives for two or more consecutive years or demonstrated success in \\\"significantly\\\" increasing student achievement based on another measure; (3) have made \\\"significant improvement\\\" in other areas (e.g., graduation rates, recruitment of high-quality teachers) that can be demonstrated with \\\"meaningful\\\" data; and (4) demonstrate that they have established partnerships with the private sector and that the private sector is contributing matching funds to help bring \\\"results to scale.\\\" Funds received by eligible entities will be used to allow eligible entities to expand their work and serve as best practice models, work in partnership with the private sector and philanthropic community, and identify and document best practices that can be shared and replicated.\",\n \"States receiving funds under the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund are required to submit a report to the Secretary based on a timetable established by the Secretary that discusses how funds were used, how funds were distributed, the estimated number of jobs saved or created using the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, tax increases that were averted, the state's progress in meeting the aforementioned assurances, increases in tuition and fees at public IHEs, changes in enrollment in public IHEs, and each modernization, renovation, and repair project funded. The Secretary is required to submit a report to the relevant authorizing and appropriating committees no later than six months following the submission of the state reports that evaluates the information contained in the state reports and the uses of funds that states included in their application for funds. In addition, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) is required to evaluate the State Incentive Grants and Innovation Fund, if applicable, programs.\",\n \"In its consideration of education-related provisions in economic stimulus funding proposals, some of the debate in Congress has centered on the extent to which states and LEAs should be given added flexibility with respect to certain fiscal accountability requirements that current statutes place on states and/or LEAs with respect to the use of federal education funds. A related issue is whether funds provided under the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund could be treated in some cases as \\\"non-federal\\\" funds in determining whether states and LEAs meet certain fiscal accountability requirements. A long-standing principle of federal aid to elementary and secondary education is that federal funding should add to, not substitute for, state and local education funding – i.e., that federal funds should provide a net increase in financial resources for specific types of educational services (such as the education of disadvantaged pupils or pupils with disabilities), rather than effectively providing general subsidies to state and local governments.\",\n \"All of the fiscal accountability requirements included in federal elementary and secondary education programs are intended to provide that all federal funds represent a net increase in the level of financial resources available to serve eligible pupils, and that they do not ultimately replace funds that states or LEAs would provide in the absence of federal aid. One or more of three types of fiscal accountability requirements are applicable to major federal K-12 education aid programs. The first two of these are common to many federal assistance programs, while the third is unique to ESEA Title I-A. To meet the first requirement, maintenance of effort (MOE) , recipient LEAs must provide, from state and local sources, a level of funding (either aggregate or per pupil) in the preceding year that is at least a specified percentage of the amount in the second preceding year. A second fiscal accountability requirement provides that federal funds must be used to supplement, and not supplant (SNS) , state and local funds that would otherwise be available for the education of pupils eligible to be served under the federal program in question.\",\n \"SNS provisions prohibit states and/or LEAs from using federal funds: (1) to provide services that state and/or local funds have provided or purchased in the past, (2) to provide services that are required to be provided under federal, state, or local law, or (3) to provide services for some pupils (e.g., those eligible under specific federal programs) that are provided to other pupils with non-federal funds. The third, distinctive, fiscal requirement under ESEA Title I-A is comparability —services provided with state and local funds in schools participating in ESEA Title I-A must be comparable to those in non-Title I-A schools of the same LEA. (If all of an LEA's schools participate in Title I-A, then services funded from state and local revenues must be \\\"substantially comparable\\\" in each school of the LEA.) Since the comparability requirement only applies to ESEA Title I-A, and is not currently a subject of debate or proposed waiver authority with respect to the ARRA, it will not be discussed further in this report.\",\n \"With respect to current major federal K-12 education programs, for MOE , the requirement is that in order to be eligible to receive ESEA Title I-A grants, LEAs must spend, from state and local sources, in the preceding year an amount equal to at least 90% of the amount in the second preceding year, on either an aggregate or per pupil basis (whichever is more beneficial to the LEA). The ESEA provision is based on total state and local funding for public K-12 education, not funding for specific purposes. If the requirement is not met, the LEA still receives a grant that is reduced by the proportion to which the requirement is not met. The MOE requirement for Title I-A and other ESEA programs may be waived by the Secretary in cases of \\\"exceptional or uncontrollable circumstances\\\" or a \\\"precipitous decline in the financial resources\\\" (ESEA Section 9521). In the case of IDEA, MOE applies to both SEAs and LEAs, and in general is based on 100%, not 90%, of previous spending levels.\",\n \"However, the IDEA includes a provision allowing LEAs, and possibly some states, to reduce funding by an amount of up to 50% of annual increases in IDEA allocations, if these funds are used for specified purposes. In addition, the MOE provision under IDEA is based on spending for special education services for pupils with disabilities, not total state and local spending. As under the ESEA, if the MOE requirement is not met, the SEA or LEA still receives a grant that is reduced by the proportion to which the requirement is not met. In addition, the state MOE requirement under IDEA may be waived by the Secretary in cases of \\\"exceptional or uncontrollable circumstances such as a natural disaster or a precipitous and unforeseen decline in the financial resources of the State\\\" (IDEA, Section 612(a)(18)(C)(i)). Further, the state SNS requirements under IDEA may be waived only if \\\"the State provides clear and convincing evidence that all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education\\\" (FAPE) and the Secretary of Education concurs with this evidence (IDEA Section 612(a)(17)(C)).\",\n \"Beyond this, it might be argued that IDEA incorporates an effective MOE at the level of services to individual pupils, with its requirement that FAPE be provided to pupils with disabilities in participating states. In contrast to MOE, SNS is applied to both SEAs and LEAs under Title I-A, and there is generally no authority for the Secretary of Education to waive SNS under ESEA, and only a very restrictive authority to do so under IDEA, as it contingent upon the requirement in the previous sentence. Authority to waive SNS, as well as MOE, under ESEA programs was granted to areas affected by the 2005 Gulf Coast hurricanes for FY2006 and 2007. In particular, the broad waiver authorities included in ESEA Title IX, Part D, and the Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999 ( P.L. 106-25 , as amended) specifically exempt all three fiscal accountability provisions from authority to be waived (beyond the specific MOE waiver authority noted above). The ARRA implicitly applies current statutory provisions regarding MOE and SNS to increased appropriations for ESEA Title I-A and the IDEA.\",\n \"For the State Fiscal Stabilization program, a MOE based on state-source revenues for public K-12 education and higher education in FY2006 would apply to states, but there is no SNS requirement at any level and no MOE requirement for LEAs with respect to funds provided under this program. The MOE requirement for the Fiscal Stabilization program could be waived or modified by the Secretary of Education for any of FY2009-FY2011 if the Secretary determines that the state receiving the waiver will not provide a lower percentage of the total funds available for elementary and secondary education than in the preceding fiscal year. In addition, under the ARRA, states or LEAs may, with prior approval of the Secretary, treat State Fiscal Stabilization Fund grants used for education as \\\"non-federal funds\\\" for purposes of meeting MOE requirements under any ED program, including ESEA Title I-A and the IDEA, for FY2009, FY2010, or FY2011.\",\n \"In determining whether to provide approval to allow states and LEAs to use State Fiscal Stabilization Funds as non-federal funds to meet MOE requirements, ED has indicated that it will be \\\"concerned\\\" if a state has reduced the proportion of total state revenues that are spent on education. If this proportion has been reduced, the Secretary will consider whether the reductions were due to exceptional or uncontrollable circumstances, the extent to which available financial resources have declined, and whether there have been changes in the demand for services. Required levels of state and local funding in subsequent years will not be reduced as a result of this provision. This might allow approved states to reduce their level of spending for K-12 education without jeopardizing their eligibility for funding under the IDEA or Title I-A and other ESEA programs. However, the potential impact of this authority is not fully clear, particularly since SNS requirements would continue to apply to ESEA Title I-A, IDEA, and similar programs. Earlier versions of this report included estimated state grants for various education programs.\",\n \"CRS prepared those state grant estimates to support congressional decision-making by providing comparisons of the relative impact of alternative formulas or funding levels on the legislative process. These estimates were also provided to inform Members of Congress seeking information on legislation being considered for a vote. After a measure is enacted, however, it is the responsibility of the executive branch (e.g., U.S. Department of Education) to develop allocations and implement the law. CRS estimates produced during legislative consideration of a bill may differ from actual allocations due to differences in data used (e.g., actual allocations calculated by executive branch agencies may be based on data that are not yet available or have recently become available) or differences in interpretation of statutory language. Once executive branch agencies develop state allocations for formula grants (e.g., Title I-A Grants to LEAs), the executive branch agencies are the authoritative sources on grant amounts. CRS estimates are no longer included in this report because ED has released estimated state grants under the ARRA. The House-passed version of H.R.\",\n \"1 would have provided about $145.005 billion for education programs that are or would have been administered by ED, while the Senate bill would have provided $79.964 billion for such programs. While funds generally would have been appropriated in FY2009, the House bill would have made some funding available in FY2009 and some funding available in FY2010. The Senate bill would have appropriated and made funds available in FY2009. Table A-1 provides an overview of the specific funding provided by the ARRA, and the funding that would have been provided under the House and Senate bills.\"\n]","isConversational":false}}},{"rowIdx":16997,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"string","value":"train_16997"},"question":{"kind":"string","value":"Write a detailed summary of the following government report."},"answer":{"kind":"string","value":"Almost all assessments of the attacks of September 11, 2001, have concluded that U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies had failed to share information that might have provided advance warning of the plot. This realization led Congress to approve provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act (P.L. 107-56) and subsequent legislation that removed barriers to information sharing between intelligence and law enforcement agencies, and mandated exchanges of information relating to terrorist threats. Most experts agreed that statutory changes, albeit difficult to enact, were essential to change the approaches taken by executive branch agencies. The barriers that existed prior to September 2001 had a long history based on a determination to prevent government spying on U.S. persons. This had led to the establishment of high statutory barriers to the sharing of law enforcement and intelligence information. The statutes laid the foundation of the so-called \"wall\" between intelligence and law enforcement that was buttressed by regulations, Justice Department policies, and guidance from the judicial branch. Despite the widespread acceptance of a barrier between law enforcement and intelligence, by the early 1990s it had become apparent to some that the two communities could mutually support efforts to combat international criminal activities including narcotics smuggling. Later in the decade dangerous threats to the U.S. posed by international terrorists came into sharper focus. Nevertheless, efforts to adjust laws, regulations, and practices did not succeed, drawing strong opposition from civil libertarians. Only the tragedy of the 9/11 attacks overcame earlier concerns and led Congress and the executive branch to remove most statutory barriers to information sharing. Laws and regulations have changed significantly since September 2001 and an Information Sharing Executive (ISE) has been established within the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to design and implement information sharing procedures. It is clear, however, that sustaining the exchange of law enforcement and intelligence information remains a challenge. In particular, there is continued concern about sharing of information that might in some way jeopardize the rights of free speech or association of U.S. persons. This opposition has contributed to the difficulty Congress has had in addressing legislation in this area and can be expected to continue. Some argue that, given the extent of legislation enacted in recent years, extensive oversight of information sharing efforts may be an appropriate way to ensure that the balance between ensuring domestic security and protecting civil liberties can be maintained. This report will be updated as additional information becomes available."},"documents":{"kind":"list like","value":["The failure of the U.S. Intelligence Community to provide better warning of the September 11, 2001, attacks has been widely attributed to the existence of \"walls\" between intelligence and law enforcement agencies. The walls arguably kept analysts from talking to each other and from sharing pieces of information that, if they had been viewed in close relationship, might have yielded a coherent picture of the emerging plot. This theory cannot of course be fully proven—the overall plot might not have been discerned even if the best analysts had had access to all available information in every agency. Nevertheless, the fact that available data had not in fact been shared focused public and congressional attention on the real or perceived walls that inhibited the exchange of information among agencies. A consensus emerged that the walls should be torn down.","In December 2002, the Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001, established by the two congressional intelligence committees, made a factual finding that the \"important point is that the Intelligence Community, for a variety of reasons, did not bring together and fully appreciate a range of information that could have greatly enhanced its chances of uncovering and preventing Usama Bin Ladin's plan to attack the United States on September 11, 2001.\" The Inquiry also made a systemic finding that: Within the Intelligence Community, agencies did not adequately share relevant counterterrorism information, prior to September 11. This breakdown in communications was the result of a number of factors, including differences in the agencies' missions, legal authorities and cultures. Information was not sufficiently shared, not only between different Intelligence Community agencies, but also within individual agencies, and between the intelligence and law enforcement agencies.","Similar conclusions were reached in July 2004 by the 9/11 Commission (the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States) carefully documented the failures of pre-9/11 information sharing among agencies and within different offices of the Justice Department and recommended a number of initiatives to encourage unity of effort in sharing information. The failure to share information prior to 9/11 had not occurred by happenstance. Law enforcement and intelligence information was not routinely shared and collectors and analysts were walled off from one another through a complex arrangement of constitutional principles, statutes, policies, and practices. These regulations had their origin in longstanding divisions of labor that reached back far into pre-World War II practices and in the provision of the National Security Act of 1947 requiring that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) \"have no police, subpoena, or law enforcement powers or internal security functions.\" The regulations were significantly strengthened in the 1970s when, in reaction to domestic intelligence gathering activities during the Vietnam War era, Congress undertook extensive investigations of intelligence activities and enacted legislation regulating domestic surveillance activities.","Ultimately, in response to recommendations derived from this investigation, in 1978 Congress passed and President Jimmy Carter signed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), P.L. 95-511 . FISA provides a statutory framework for electronic surveillance in foreign intelligence investigations while electronic surveillance in criminal investigations continues to be governed by Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control Act of 1968 (usually referred to as Title III). The implementation of FISA came to have an important influence on the relationship between law enforcement and intelligence. FISA required that \"the purpose\" of domestic electronic surveillance (or a physical search) had to be the gathering of foreign intelligence information. FISA permitted the dissemination to the law enforcement community of information relating to criminal activity incidentally acquired during a FISA electronic surveillance or physical search. When such dissemination was challenged by defense attorneys as running afoul of the Fourth Amendment, a number of federal courts of appeals had upheld the government's contention in several cases that the \"primary purpose\" of an electronic surveillance or physical search had been the collection of foreign intelligence information. Thus, this use of FISA was held to be not inconsistent with Fourth Amendment requirements for","criminal cases.","Before 9/11 a considerable body of government practice and Justice Department policy increasingly reflected an understanding that adhering to the primary purpose standard effectively precluded Fourth Amendment challenges. The concern was to avoid letting aggressive criminal investigators obtain FISA court orders when they were interested in obtaining evidence of criminal activities. There was a pervasive concern within the Justice Department that a court in a criminal trial would suppress information obtained through a FISA investigation on the grounds that it was primarily being used, not to collect foreign intelligence, but to gather criminal evidence or even that FISA itself would be overturned. In practice, information collected by intelligence agencies (including the parts of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) dealing with counterterrorism and counterintelligence) was kept apart from information collected for the use of prosecutors. FISA's requirements appear not to have posed major problems until the mid-1990s, but law enforcement and intelligence agencies tended to function in separate worlds.","Concern about these divisions did exist and there had been major initiatives largely as a result of concerns about the development of barriers between law enforcement and intelligence agencies in the aftermath of the controversy surrounding the illegal activities of the Banca Nazionale del Lavoro (BNL) and the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) in the early 1990s. The controversy involved complex banking fraud and other criminal activities undertaken by the two foreign banks. Congressional investigators developed information that the CIA had obtained information indicating suspicious activities by the two banks that had not been passed to prosecutors in large measure because channels of communications had not been established between intelligence and law enforcement agencies. The Senate Intelligence Committee investigators concluded that: The fundamental policy governing the relationship between law enforcement and intelligence needs to be addressed by the Attorney General and the DCI [Director of Central Intelligence], in conjunction with the congressional oversight committees. Confusion is apparent on both sides as to what the proper role (and authority) of intelligence agencies is in circumstances like those presented in the BNL case.","The reaction to the BNL/BCCI affairs reflected a shift away from emphasis on a strict separation of law enforcement and intelligence efforts to an appreciation by Congress of the need for closer cooperation. As a result of congressional concerns, the DCI and the Attorney General directed that a review of the intelligence-law enforcement relationship be conducted. The review, undertaken by a group of senior executive branch officials known as the Joint Task Force on Intelligence and Law Enforcement, submitted a report in August 1994. The Task Force described the failure by intelligence and law enforcement agencies to make use of all available information on the activities of the two foreign banks. It called for a number of bureaucratic mechanisms to ensure greater information exchanges in the future, but argued that no statutory changes were called for: What is required is not new legislation radically altering the relationship [between intelligence and law enforcement agencies], but rather a different approach to the existing relationship—one that is more interactive on a number of fronts, yet maintains the important distinctions between these two communities based on law, culture, and mission.","The Joint Task Force Report led to the establishment of a series of interagency coordinative mechanisms—the Intelligence-Law Enforcement Policy Board, the Joint Intelligence-Law Enforcement Working Group (JICLE)—at various levels to encourage information exchanges and resolve difficulties. Although the Task Force provided a perceptive analysis of the difficulties that then existed and officials assigned to the resultant interagency bodies worked diligently at overcoming obstacles, progress was limited. By the 1990s, the threat of new forms of international terrorism was becoming apparent. Middle Eastern terrorists were operating against U.S. forces overseas and, occasionally, within the U.S. (as in the 1993 World Trade Center attacks). Observers believed that both intelligence and law enforcement agencies were collecting relevant information on international terrorism. Members of Congress began to seek administrative and statutory changes that could facilitate information sharing in this area. Pursuant to P.L. 105-277 , a supplemental appropriations act passed in 1998, the National Commission on Terrorism, headed by former Ambassador L. Paul Bremer, was established to review the laws, regulations, directives, policies and practices for preventing and punishing international terrorism. The Bremer Commission's June 2000 report highlighted concerns about the inadequate sharing of terrorism-related information.","It recommended the elimination of barriers to the aggressive collection of information on terrorists and suggested that the FBI suffered from bureaucratic and cultural obstacles to gathering terrorism information. It found that the \"Department of Justice applies the statute governing electronic surveillance and physical searches of international terrorists in a cumbersome and overly cautious manner.\" Although it noted that the FISA application process had been recently streamlined, it recommended that the Justice Department's Office of Intelligence Policy Review (OIPR) should not require the inclusion of information in excess of that which was actually mandated by FISA. It also recommended that OIPR be substantially expanded and that it be directed to cooperate with the FBI. The Commission further concluded: Law enforcement agencies are traditionally reluctant to share information outside of their circles so as not to jeopardize any potential prosecution. The FBI does promptly share information warning about specific terrorist threats with the CIA and other agencies. But the FBI is far less likely to disseminate terrorist information that may not relate to an immediate threat even though this could be of immense long-term or cumulative value to the intelligence community. . . .","Moreover, certain laws limit the sharing of law enforcement information, such as grand jury or criminal wiretap information, with the intelligence community. These laws are subject to different interpretations, so that in some cases it is unclear whether the restrictions apply.\" The Commission did not indicate a need for immediate statutory changes, but recommended that the \"Attorney General should clarify what information can be shared and direct maximum dissemination of terrorist-related information to policymakers and intelligence analysts consistent with the law.\" Members of Congress did propose various approaches to address the lack of information sharing. S. 2089 as introduced in February 2000 by Senator Specter, would have required that the Attorney General prescribe in regulations the circumstances under which information acquired pursuant to FISA \"shall be disclosed for law enforcement purposes.\" The bill would also have required two reports addressing issues of information sharing.","First, it would have tasked the Director of the FBI to submit a report on \"the feasibility of establishing within the Bureau a comprehensive intelligence reporting function having the responsibility for disseminating among the elements of the intelligence community information collected and assembled by the Bureau on international terrorism and other national security matters.\" Secondly, the bill would have required the President to submit a report on the legal authorities that govern the sharing of criminal wiretap information with intelligence agencies and with recommendations to improve the capability of the Justice Department to share \"foreign intelligence information or counterintelligence information with elements of the United States intelligence community on matters such as counterterrorism.\" In its report on the bill, the Senate Intelligence Committee argued: For the intelligence mission of the United States to be successful, there must be a cooperative and concerted effort among intelligence agencies. Any information collected by one agency under foreign intelligence authorities that could assist another agency in executing its lawful mission should be shared fully and promptly....","The Committee has been briefed on the recent efforts by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Central Intelligence Agency to enhance their ability to share valuable information collected under FISA orders. The Committee commends these efforts and expects them to continue and to be broadened to include all areas of the foreign intelligence mission. As reported to the Senate in July 2000, S. 2089 was modified to include only a request for reports from the Attorney General on mechanisms for determinations of disclosure of FISA-derived information for law enforcement purposes and on actions taken by the Department of Justice (DOJ) to coordinate the dissemination of intelligence information within DOJ. Congressional concern about the growing threat of terrorism was also demonstrated in S. 3205 , introduced in October 2000 and known as the Kyl-Feinstein Counterterrorism Act of 2000, which was based directly on recommendations of the Bremer Commission that had been released in August. The bill took notice of the attack on the U.S.S. Cole , which had occurred on October 12, 2000, and aimed to discourage financial support of terrorist organizations.","This bill also addressed information sharing issues; section 9 would have required a report on the feasibility of assigning the FBI responsibility for disseminating among the elements of the Intelligence Community information collected and assembled by the FBI on international terrorism and other national security matters. Section 10 of the bill would have required a report on the legal authorities that govern the sharing of criminal wiretap information with various law enforcement agencies and intelligence agencies and \"recommendations, if any,\" for legislative language that would improve the Justice Department's capabilities to share information on matters such as counterterrorism with intelligence agencies \"with elements of the United States intelligence community on matters such as counterterrorism.\" Consideration of the legislation reflected many of the same privacy and civil liberties concerns that had influenced existing procedures in the Justice Department. Criticisms of the approach taken by the legislation were voiced by some civil libertarians. One group opposed the sharing of information obtained by electronic surveillance conducted under Title III authorities with intelligence agencies.","Such an effort, it was argued, \"breaches the well-established and constitutionally vital line between law enforcement and intelligence activities.\" Concern was also expressed about the potential use of such information by the CIA and other intelligence agencies: \"The secretive data gathering, storage and retention practices of the intelligence agencies are appropriate only when conducted overseas for national defense and foreign policy purposes and only when directed against people who are not U.S. citizens or permanent residents.\" Further concern was directed at the potential use of information gathered under counterintelligence authorities (presumably FISA) in criminal proceedings: Since the period of ... the Church committee, it has been recognized that the rights of Americans are better protected (and the FBI may be more effective) when international terrorism and national security investigations are conducted under the rules for criminal investigations. Such views reflected a continuing distrust of intelligence agencies and a fear that past practices might be revived. In floor debate, Senator Leahy noted that initial drafts of S.","3205 had posed \"serious constitutional problems and risks to important civil liberties we hold dear.\" After modifications, however, \"no longer does the bill require a change in the wiretap statute allowing the permissive disclosure of information obtained in a Title III wiretap to the intelligence agencies.\" The Clinton Administration Justice Department took a different approach, arguing that then-current statutes and regulations provided law enforcement agencies with \"authority under current law to share Title III information regarding terrorism with intelligence agencies when the information is of over-riding importance to the national security.\" Any change \"must accommodate legal constraints such as Criminal Rule 6(e) and the need to protect equities relating to ongoing criminal investigations.\" Accordingly, the Justice Department specifically opposed the provision in the bill that would permit the sharing of foreign intelligence or counterintelligence information collected under Title III by investigative or law enforcement officer with intelligence agencies. The Kyl-Feinstein bill would not have changed statutory language, but only asked for reports on the issue of information.","Even so, according to Senator Leahy, the initial proposal to mandate such changes \"prompted a firestorm of controversy from civil liberties and human rights organizations, as well as the Department of Justice.\" Even though the House took no action on this bill, passage of the legislation by the Senate reflected concerns at the end of 2000 regarding the possible need to adjust information sharing mechanisms, coupled with a determination to move cautiously before implementing changes that could affect civil liberties. Ultimately, the legislation was adopted by the Senate on November 14, 2000, but it was not sent to the House before the adjournment of the 106 th Congress. The FY2001 Intelligence Authorization Act, P.L. 106-567 , signed on December 27, 2000, reflected the concerns that had inspired both S. 2089 and S. 3205 . It included a requirement for a report from the Attorney General on \"the authorities and procedures utilized by the Department of Justice for determining whether or not to disclose information acquired under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C.","1801 et seq.) for law enforcement purposes.\" This Act also formalized procedures for authorizing FISA surveillance, expanded grounds for establishing probable cause, established new procedures for physical searches within FISA, and specified mechanisms to facilitate the use of intelligence in counterintelligence investigations. It provided increased funding for OIPR subsequent to the submission of a report indicating efforts taken to streamline and improve the FISA application process. It included a provision (in section 606) derived from S. 2089 requiring a report from the Attorney General on actions taken to \"coordinate the dissemination of intelligence information within the appropriate components of the [Justice] Department and the formulation of policy on national security issues.\" It did not, however, address the question of making information from law enforcement sources available to the Intelligence Community. Clearly, the problems created by the existence of the \"wall\" had not been unrecognized prior to 9/11. The Justice Department's opposition in 2000 to legislative proposals to remove barriers has been noted.","On the other hand, some argue that the primary factor in preventing statutory changes was, as one observer has claimed, that \"in most instances both the Department of Justice and The White House turned down the requests because it was firmly believed by senior members of the Executive Branch that the United States Congress would not allow the IC [Intelligence Community] to have broader surveillance powers.\" This view would be expressed by former Attorney General William Barr in testimony to the 9/11 Commission: For three decades leading up to 9/11, Congress was at the fore of a steady campaign to curtail the Bureau's domestic intelligence activities and impose on all its activities the standards and process of the criminal justice system. These concerns made it extremely difficult for the Bureau to pursue domestic security matters outside the strictures of the criminal justice process.","Prohibitions on sharing grand jury information with intelligence agencies and with using intelligence information in criminal investigations created a 'wall of separation.' It is clear in retrospect that there were those in both the Executive Branch and Congress who realized the need to lower barriers to sharing law enforcement and intelligence information, but their views did not, prior to 9/11, reflect a consensus in either branch. Those opposed to greater information sharing did so in large measure because of their awareness of the past history of domestic surveillance and a distrust of intelligence organizations. The result was a number of very tentative steps that, in the event, proved wholly inadequate to task of gathering information about al Qaeda's plot. The FY2001 Intelligence Authorization Act included some minimalist provisions, but the wall was left in place. Neither the Clinton Administration or the Bush Administration, in the first eight months of 2001, sought to amend the relevant laws. The problem was recognized but proposed solutions faced strong opposition. The attacks of September 11, 2001, destroyed the World Trade Center and a portion of the Pentagon; they also demolished the wall between U.S. law enforcement and intelligence.","After 9/11, it was almost immediately accepted that counterterrorism would have to involve all parts of the U.S. Government, including law enforcement agencies and the Intelligence Community. It was agreed that the counterterrorism effort must be based on sharing information from whatever source. The problem for both Congress and the executive branch was to establish appropriate mechanisms for information sharing with adequate safeguards for using the information in future criminal trials. Congress immediately set about to consider the most appropriate legislative response that could be quickly enacted. Former Attorney General John Ashcroft writes, \"The 9/11 attacks occurred on a Tuesday. By Saturday, we had a full-blown legislative proposal. Part of the reasons we were able to move so quickly was that a number of the provisions had been proposed to Congress in 1996, and Congress had rejected them.\" Attention focused on various proposals and recommendations of commissions that had looked at international terrorism and related issues and to earlier legislative proposals that had not been adopted. A wide number of proposals came together as the USA PATRIOT Act ( P.L. 107-56 ) that would be debated in the final weeks of September and early October 2001.","The USA PATRIOT Act changed the requirement that \"the purpose\" of a FISA surveillance be to collect foreign intelligence information, to require that collecting such information be \"a significant purpose\" of FISA electronic surveillance or physical search. This provided latitude to use FISA authority for electronic surveillance or physical searches where the primary purpose was criminal investigation, as long as a significant foreign intelligence purpose was also present. The USA PATRIOT Act also addressed concerns about sharing intelligence and law enforcement information. Although a discussion of all the complex provisions that were included in the USA PATRIOT Act lies beyond the scope of this Report, several provisions address the sharing of law enforcement and intelligence information. Section 203 of the Act removed some of the restrictions on federal government attorneys sharing grand jury information. Subsection 203(a) authorized federal government attorneys to share matters occurring before the grand jury involving foreign intelligence, counterintelligence, or foreign intelligence information with a federal law enforcement, intelligence, protective, immigration, national defense, or national security official to assist that official in the performance of his or her duties.","Subsection (a) authorized the sharing of grand jury information \"when the matters involve foreign intelligence or counterintelligence.\" Subsection 203(b) permitted investigative and law enforcement officers and Government attorneys to share information acquired under or derived from the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication under Title III with any other federal law enforcement, intelligence, protective, immigration, national defense or national security official for use in his or her official duties to the extent that the contents of that communication include foreign intelligence or counterintelligence information. Subsection (c) provides authority for the Attorney General to establish implementing procedures. Subsection 203(d) permitted the disclosure of foreign intelligence, counterintelligence, or foreign intelligence information obtained as part of a federal criminal investigation, notwithstanding any other provision of law, to any federal law enforcement, intelligence, protective, immigrations, national defense, or national security official in order to assist that official in carrying out his or her official duties, subject to any limitations on the unauthorized disclosure of that information.","Section 504 permitted federal officers conducting electronic surveillance or physical searches under FISA to consult with federal law enforcement officers or state or local law enforcement personnel to coordinate against actual or potential attacks or other grave hostile acts of a foreign power or its agent; sabotage or international terrorism by a foreign power or its agent, or clandestine intelligence activities by an intelligence service or network of a foreign power or its agent. Section 905 requires the Attorney General or heads of other Federal agencies with law enforcement responsibilities to disclose expeditiously to the DCI (later replaced by the Director of National Intelligence (DNI)), under relevant guidelines, foreign intelligence acquired in the course of a criminal investigation. Exceptions could be made where the disclosure of such foreign intelligence would jeopardize an ongoing law enforcement investigation or impair other significant law enforcement interests.","In addition, Section 905 required the Attorney General, in consultation with the DCI (now the DNI), to develop procedures to give the Director timely notice of the Attorney General's decision to begin or decline to begin a criminal investigation based on information from an element of the intelligence community regarding possible criminal activity of a foreign intelligence source or potential source. The provisions included in the USA PATRIOT Act and DOJ's effort to implement them were far-reaching and to some extent were not welcomed by the FISA Court.","In particular, the FISA Court in In re all Matters Submitted to the Foreign Intelligence Court found that proposed 2002 procedures issued by the Attorney General \"eliminate[d] the bright line in the 1995 procedures prohibiting direction and control by prosecutors on which the Court has relied to moderate the broad acquisition[,] retention, and dissemination of FISA information in overlapping intelligence and criminal investigations.\" The FISA Court thus attempted to \"reinstate the bright line used in the 1995 procedures, on which the Court has relied.\" Concerned that its proposed procedures were rejected, the Justice Department appealed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court's granting of a request modified in accordance with its earlier ruling in In re All Matters Submitted to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court . The appeal went to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review and was the first appeal to that court. In a sweeping decision, the Court of Review overruled the limitations imposed by the FISA Court, along with a considerable amount of customary FISA practice. The Court of Review expressed concern that the FISA Court had overstepped its role by prescribing the internal procedures for handling surveillances within the Justice Department.","The Court of Review maintained that the FISA Court \"determined an investigation became primarily criminal when the Criminal Division played a lead role. This approach has led, over time, to the quite intrusive organizational and personnel tasking the FISA [C]ourt adopted. Putting aside the impropriety of an Article III court imposing such organizational strictures ... [the wall] was unstable because it generates dangerous confusion and creates perverse organizational incentives.\" The Court of Review thereby gave the final blow to the legal structure supporting the wall between law enforcement and intelligence information. Implementation of the information-sharing provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act and other legislation is underway. The Homeland Security Act of 2002 ( P.L. 107-296 ) and the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 ( P.L. 108-458 ) required that procedures be established under which federal agencies can share intelligence and law enforcement information about international terrorism. The Intelligence Reform Act mandated the creation of an Information Sharing Environment (ISE) that combines policies, procedures, and technologies to link information collections and users. In November 2006 the Administration released a lengthy implementation plan for the ISE.","The plan sets forth procedures for sharing information among agencies at federal, state, and local levels and seeks to promote a culture of information sharing. It also provides procedures for protecting information privacy and civil liberties. Congress may choose to review the implementation of the ISE during coming months. A fundamental issue that faces both Congress and the U.S. public remains the need to balance the advantages to be gained by sharing information from all sources with the possibility that the availability of data accumulations could be used to undermine lawful political or religious activities. An unstable balance between these two separate goals—often portrayed as competing—greatly complicated the counterterrorism and counterintelligence effort prior to 9/11. The fact that public opinion appeared deeply ambivalent made procedural changes difficult and contributed to the luxuriant growth of complex regulations adopted by DOJ and endorsed by the FISA Court. After 9/11, public opinion shifted dramatically, resulting in the rapid passage of the USA PATRIOT Act and other legislation. The need to encourage the sharing of information and the connection of dots is now unquestioned, but there are lingering concerns about the risks that widespread information sharing may jeopardize civil liberties.","Congress will undoubtedly seek to determine whether the new statutes, regulations, and procedures that have been adopted will prove both effective and sensitive to individual rights. The importance of sharing intelligence and law enforcement information is not limited to issues relating to international terrorism but extends to banking fraud, narcotics smuggling, and a variety of international concerns. Narcotics smuggling, for instance, can be addressed by encouraging other countries to halt the cultivation of opium poppies or coca, as well as by law enforcement in the U.S. Terrorism, of course, is uniquely threatening and in combating terrorists more vigorous non-law enforcement approaches are considered more legitimate than is the case with drug smugglers or embezzlers. What is advantageous in all cases is assembling the full range of information about the activity and subjecting it to rigorous analysis. There is, however, the possibility that the current consensus may unravel. The political controversy surrounding NSA's electronic surveillance efforts and other data mining programs may come to focus on the sharing of information that some argue was not lawfully obtained, and this concern could lead to efforts to restrict information sharing across the boards.","There is also a possibility that the use of information obtained by surveillance in accordance with FISA might ultimately not be allowed in court cases out of concern that the Fourth Amendment has been bypassed. Despite the widespread acceptance of the need for information sharing, concerns that sharing information could lead to governmental abuses persists across the political spectrum. These concerns are tenaciously held, and have in the past made legislating very controversial. There is no reason to believe that they will not resurface should the threat from international terrorism seem less menacing. The potential threat to civil liberties does not, of course, represent the full extent of the issues raised by increased information sharing. Sharing sensitive information inevitably raises the danger that intelligence sources and methods may be compromised either accidentally or purposefully. For intelligence professionals, in particular, the danger to valuable sources that may have taken years to develop is a fundamental concern. Moreover, when a human source is compromised there is not only a danger to a particular individual, but also a potential loss of confidence in U.S. intelligence agencies by other actual or potential sources.","The role of Congress in dealing with information sharing issues is especially important. There are delicate questions of liberty and security involved and a sensitive balance is crucial. Air Force General Michael V. Hayden, who now serves as CIA Director, in the past argued that Members of Congress are in close touch with their constituents and \"What I really need you to do is talk to your constituents and find out where the American people want that line between security and liberty to be.\" Congress also can provide the ongoing oversight to ensure that the sorts of abuses that occurred in the 1960s and 1970s do not recur. Ultimately, an information sharing policy that is largely consistent with public opinion and is held to account by rigorous oversight should enhance the chances that the dots can be connected without jeopardizing the rights of Americans. Observers see a danger, however, that gridlock in both the Executive and Legislative Branches might inhibit the government's ability to find effective and sensible ways to acquire and analyze information on new threats to the national security."],"string":"[\n \"The failure of the U.S. Intelligence Community to provide better warning of the September 11, 2001, attacks has been widely attributed to the existence of \\\"walls\\\" between intelligence and law enforcement agencies. The walls arguably kept analysts from talking to each other and from sharing pieces of information that, if they had been viewed in close relationship, might have yielded a coherent picture of the emerging plot. This theory cannot of course be fully proven—the overall plot might not have been discerned even if the best analysts had had access to all available information in every agency. Nevertheless, the fact that available data had not in fact been shared focused public and congressional attention on the real or perceived walls that inhibited the exchange of information among agencies. A consensus emerged that the walls should be torn down.\",\n \"In December 2002, the Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001, established by the two congressional intelligence committees, made a factual finding that the \\\"important point is that the Intelligence Community, for a variety of reasons, did not bring together and fully appreciate a range of information that could have greatly enhanced its chances of uncovering and preventing Usama Bin Ladin's plan to attack the United States on September 11, 2001.\\\" The Inquiry also made a systemic finding that: Within the Intelligence Community, agencies did not adequately share relevant counterterrorism information, prior to September 11. This breakdown in communications was the result of a number of factors, including differences in the agencies' missions, legal authorities and cultures. Information was not sufficiently shared, not only between different Intelligence Community agencies, but also within individual agencies, and between the intelligence and law enforcement agencies.\",\n \"Similar conclusions were reached in July 2004 by the 9/11 Commission (the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States) carefully documented the failures of pre-9/11 information sharing among agencies and within different offices of the Justice Department and recommended a number of initiatives to encourage unity of effort in sharing information. The failure to share information prior to 9/11 had not occurred by happenstance. Law enforcement and intelligence information was not routinely shared and collectors and analysts were walled off from one another through a complex arrangement of constitutional principles, statutes, policies, and practices. These regulations had their origin in longstanding divisions of labor that reached back far into pre-World War II practices and in the provision of the National Security Act of 1947 requiring that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) \\\"have no police, subpoena, or law enforcement powers or internal security functions.\\\" The regulations were significantly strengthened in the 1970s when, in reaction to domestic intelligence gathering activities during the Vietnam War era, Congress undertook extensive investigations of intelligence activities and enacted legislation regulating domestic surveillance activities.\",\n \"Ultimately, in response to recommendations derived from this investigation, in 1978 Congress passed and President Jimmy Carter signed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), P.L. 95-511 . FISA provides a statutory framework for electronic surveillance in foreign intelligence investigations while electronic surveillance in criminal investigations continues to be governed by Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control Act of 1968 (usually referred to as Title III). The implementation of FISA came to have an important influence on the relationship between law enforcement and intelligence. FISA required that \\\"the purpose\\\" of domestic electronic surveillance (or a physical search) had to be the gathering of foreign intelligence information. FISA permitted the dissemination to the law enforcement community of information relating to criminal activity incidentally acquired during a FISA electronic surveillance or physical search. When such dissemination was challenged by defense attorneys as running afoul of the Fourth Amendment, a number of federal courts of appeals had upheld the government's contention in several cases that the \\\"primary purpose\\\" of an electronic surveillance or physical search had been the collection of foreign intelligence information. Thus, this use of FISA was held to be not inconsistent with Fourth Amendment requirements for\",\n \"criminal cases.\",\n \"Before 9/11 a considerable body of government practice and Justice Department policy increasingly reflected an understanding that adhering to the primary purpose standard effectively precluded Fourth Amendment challenges. The concern was to avoid letting aggressive criminal investigators obtain FISA court orders when they were interested in obtaining evidence of criminal activities. There was a pervasive concern within the Justice Department that a court in a criminal trial would suppress information obtained through a FISA investigation on the grounds that it was primarily being used, not to collect foreign intelligence, but to gather criminal evidence or even that FISA itself would be overturned. In practice, information collected by intelligence agencies (including the parts of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) dealing with counterterrorism and counterintelligence) was kept apart from information collected for the use of prosecutors. FISA's requirements appear not to have posed major problems until the mid-1990s, but law enforcement and intelligence agencies tended to function in separate worlds.\",\n \"Concern about these divisions did exist and there had been major initiatives largely as a result of concerns about the development of barriers between law enforcement and intelligence agencies in the aftermath of the controversy surrounding the illegal activities of the Banca Nazionale del Lavoro (BNL) and the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) in the early 1990s. The controversy involved complex banking fraud and other criminal activities undertaken by the two foreign banks. Congressional investigators developed information that the CIA had obtained information indicating suspicious activities by the two banks that had not been passed to prosecutors in large measure because channels of communications had not been established between intelligence and law enforcement agencies. The Senate Intelligence Committee investigators concluded that: The fundamental policy governing the relationship between law enforcement and intelligence needs to be addressed by the Attorney General and the DCI [Director of Central Intelligence], in conjunction with the congressional oversight committees. Confusion is apparent on both sides as to what the proper role (and authority) of intelligence agencies is in circumstances like those presented in the BNL case.\",\n \"The reaction to the BNL/BCCI affairs reflected a shift away from emphasis on a strict separation of law enforcement and intelligence efforts to an appreciation by Congress of the need for closer cooperation. As a result of congressional concerns, the DCI and the Attorney General directed that a review of the intelligence-law enforcement relationship be conducted. The review, undertaken by a group of senior executive branch officials known as the Joint Task Force on Intelligence and Law Enforcement, submitted a report in August 1994. The Task Force described the failure by intelligence and law enforcement agencies to make use of all available information on the activities of the two foreign banks. It called for a number of bureaucratic mechanisms to ensure greater information exchanges in the future, but argued that no statutory changes were called for: What is required is not new legislation radically altering the relationship [between intelligence and law enforcement agencies], but rather a different approach to the existing relationship—one that is more interactive on a number of fronts, yet maintains the important distinctions between these two communities based on law, culture, and mission.\",\n \"The Joint Task Force Report led to the establishment of a series of interagency coordinative mechanisms—the Intelligence-Law Enforcement Policy Board, the Joint Intelligence-Law Enforcement Working Group (JICLE)—at various levels to encourage information exchanges and resolve difficulties. Although the Task Force provided a perceptive analysis of the difficulties that then existed and officials assigned to the resultant interagency bodies worked diligently at overcoming obstacles, progress was limited. By the 1990s, the threat of new forms of international terrorism was becoming apparent. Middle Eastern terrorists were operating against U.S. forces overseas and, occasionally, within the U.S. (as in the 1993 World Trade Center attacks). Observers believed that both intelligence and law enforcement agencies were collecting relevant information on international terrorism. Members of Congress began to seek administrative and statutory changes that could facilitate information sharing in this area. Pursuant to P.L. 105-277 , a supplemental appropriations act passed in 1998, the National Commission on Terrorism, headed by former Ambassador L. Paul Bremer, was established to review the laws, regulations, directives, policies and practices for preventing and punishing international terrorism. The Bremer Commission's June 2000 report highlighted concerns about the inadequate sharing of terrorism-related information.\",\n \"It recommended the elimination of barriers to the aggressive collection of information on terrorists and suggested that the FBI suffered from bureaucratic and cultural obstacles to gathering terrorism information. It found that the \\\"Department of Justice applies the statute governing electronic surveillance and physical searches of international terrorists in a cumbersome and overly cautious manner.\\\" Although it noted that the FISA application process had been recently streamlined, it recommended that the Justice Department's Office of Intelligence Policy Review (OIPR) should not require the inclusion of information in excess of that which was actually mandated by FISA. It also recommended that OIPR be substantially expanded and that it be directed to cooperate with the FBI. The Commission further concluded: Law enforcement agencies are traditionally reluctant to share information outside of their circles so as not to jeopardize any potential prosecution. The FBI does promptly share information warning about specific terrorist threats with the CIA and other agencies. But the FBI is far less likely to disseminate terrorist information that may not relate to an immediate threat even though this could be of immense long-term or cumulative value to the intelligence community. . . .\",\n \"Moreover, certain laws limit the sharing of law enforcement information, such as grand jury or criminal wiretap information, with the intelligence community. These laws are subject to different interpretations, so that in some cases it is unclear whether the restrictions apply.\\\" The Commission did not indicate a need for immediate statutory changes, but recommended that the \\\"Attorney General should clarify what information can be shared and direct maximum dissemination of terrorist-related information to policymakers and intelligence analysts consistent with the law.\\\" Members of Congress did propose various approaches to address the lack of information sharing. S. 2089 as introduced in February 2000 by Senator Specter, would have required that the Attorney General prescribe in regulations the circumstances under which information acquired pursuant to FISA \\\"shall be disclosed for law enforcement purposes.\\\" The bill would also have required two reports addressing issues of information sharing.\",\n \"First, it would have tasked the Director of the FBI to submit a report on \\\"the feasibility of establishing within the Bureau a comprehensive intelligence reporting function having the responsibility for disseminating among the elements of the intelligence community information collected and assembled by the Bureau on international terrorism and other national security matters.\\\" Secondly, the bill would have required the President to submit a report on the legal authorities that govern the sharing of criminal wiretap information with intelligence agencies and with recommendations to improve the capability of the Justice Department to share \\\"foreign intelligence information or counterintelligence information with elements of the United States intelligence community on matters such as counterterrorism.\\\" In its report on the bill, the Senate Intelligence Committee argued: For the intelligence mission of the United States to be successful, there must be a cooperative and concerted effort among intelligence agencies. Any information collected by one agency under foreign intelligence authorities that could assist another agency in executing its lawful mission should be shared fully and promptly....\",\n \"The Committee has been briefed on the recent efforts by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Central Intelligence Agency to enhance their ability to share valuable information collected under FISA orders. The Committee commends these efforts and expects them to continue and to be broadened to include all areas of the foreign intelligence mission. As reported to the Senate in July 2000, S. 2089 was modified to include only a request for reports from the Attorney General on mechanisms for determinations of disclosure of FISA-derived information for law enforcement purposes and on actions taken by the Department of Justice (DOJ) to coordinate the dissemination of intelligence information within DOJ. Congressional concern about the growing threat of terrorism was also demonstrated in S. 3205 , introduced in October 2000 and known as the Kyl-Feinstein Counterterrorism Act of 2000, which was based directly on recommendations of the Bremer Commission that had been released in August. The bill took notice of the attack on the U.S.S. Cole , which had occurred on October 12, 2000, and aimed to discourage financial support of terrorist organizations.\",\n \"This bill also addressed information sharing issues; section 9 would have required a report on the feasibility of assigning the FBI responsibility for disseminating among the elements of the Intelligence Community information collected and assembled by the FBI on international terrorism and other national security matters. Section 10 of the bill would have required a report on the legal authorities that govern the sharing of criminal wiretap information with various law enforcement agencies and intelligence agencies and \\\"recommendations, if any,\\\" for legislative language that would improve the Justice Department's capabilities to share information on matters such as counterterrorism with intelligence agencies \\\"with elements of the United States intelligence community on matters such as counterterrorism.\\\" Consideration of the legislation reflected many of the same privacy and civil liberties concerns that had influenced existing procedures in the Justice Department. Criticisms of the approach taken by the legislation were voiced by some civil libertarians. One group opposed the sharing of information obtained by electronic surveillance conducted under Title III authorities with intelligence agencies.\",\n \"Such an effort, it was argued, \\\"breaches the well-established and constitutionally vital line between law enforcement and intelligence activities.\\\" Concern was also expressed about the potential use of such information by the CIA and other intelligence agencies: \\\"The secretive data gathering, storage and retention practices of the intelligence agencies are appropriate only when conducted overseas for national defense and foreign policy purposes and only when directed against people who are not U.S. citizens or permanent residents.\\\" Further concern was directed at the potential use of information gathered under counterintelligence authorities (presumably FISA) in criminal proceedings: Since the period of ... the Church committee, it has been recognized that the rights of Americans are better protected (and the FBI may be more effective) when international terrorism and national security investigations are conducted under the rules for criminal investigations. Such views reflected a continuing distrust of intelligence agencies and a fear that past practices might be revived. In floor debate, Senator Leahy noted that initial drafts of S.\",\n \"3205 had posed \\\"serious constitutional problems and risks to important civil liberties we hold dear.\\\" After modifications, however, \\\"no longer does the bill require a change in the wiretap statute allowing the permissive disclosure of information obtained in a Title III wiretap to the intelligence agencies.\\\" The Clinton Administration Justice Department took a different approach, arguing that then-current statutes and regulations provided law enforcement agencies with \\\"authority under current law to share Title III information regarding terrorism with intelligence agencies when the information is of over-riding importance to the national security.\\\" Any change \\\"must accommodate legal constraints such as Criminal Rule 6(e) and the need to protect equities relating to ongoing criminal investigations.\\\" Accordingly, the Justice Department specifically opposed the provision in the bill that would permit the sharing of foreign intelligence or counterintelligence information collected under Title III by investigative or law enforcement officer with intelligence agencies. The Kyl-Feinstein bill would not have changed statutory language, but only asked for reports on the issue of information.\",\n \"Even so, according to Senator Leahy, the initial proposal to mandate such changes \\\"prompted a firestorm of controversy from civil liberties and human rights organizations, as well as the Department of Justice.\\\" Even though the House took no action on this bill, passage of the legislation by the Senate reflected concerns at the end of 2000 regarding the possible need to adjust information sharing mechanisms, coupled with a determination to move cautiously before implementing changes that could affect civil liberties. Ultimately, the legislation was adopted by the Senate on November 14, 2000, but it was not sent to the House before the adjournment of the 106 th Congress. The FY2001 Intelligence Authorization Act, P.L. 106-567 , signed on December 27, 2000, reflected the concerns that had inspired both S. 2089 and S. 3205 . It included a requirement for a report from the Attorney General on \\\"the authorities and procedures utilized by the Department of Justice for determining whether or not to disclose information acquired under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C.\",\n \"1801 et seq.) for law enforcement purposes.\\\" This Act also formalized procedures for authorizing FISA surveillance, expanded grounds for establishing probable cause, established new procedures for physical searches within FISA, and specified mechanisms to facilitate the use of intelligence in counterintelligence investigations. It provided increased funding for OIPR subsequent to the submission of a report indicating efforts taken to streamline and improve the FISA application process. It included a provision (in section 606) derived from S. 2089 requiring a report from the Attorney General on actions taken to \\\"coordinate the dissemination of intelligence information within the appropriate components of the [Justice] Department and the formulation of policy on national security issues.\\\" It did not, however, address the question of making information from law enforcement sources available to the Intelligence Community. Clearly, the problems created by the existence of the \\\"wall\\\" had not been unrecognized prior to 9/11. The Justice Department's opposition in 2000 to legislative proposals to remove barriers has been noted.\",\n \"On the other hand, some argue that the primary factor in preventing statutory changes was, as one observer has claimed, that \\\"in most instances both the Department of Justice and The White House turned down the requests because it was firmly believed by senior members of the Executive Branch that the United States Congress would not allow the IC [Intelligence Community] to have broader surveillance powers.\\\" This view would be expressed by former Attorney General William Barr in testimony to the 9/11 Commission: For three decades leading up to 9/11, Congress was at the fore of a steady campaign to curtail the Bureau's domestic intelligence activities and impose on all its activities the standards and process of the criminal justice system. These concerns made it extremely difficult for the Bureau to pursue domestic security matters outside the strictures of the criminal justice process.\",\n \"Prohibitions on sharing grand jury information with intelligence agencies and with using intelligence information in criminal investigations created a 'wall of separation.' It is clear in retrospect that there were those in both the Executive Branch and Congress who realized the need to lower barriers to sharing law enforcement and intelligence information, but their views did not, prior to 9/11, reflect a consensus in either branch. Those opposed to greater information sharing did so in large measure because of their awareness of the past history of domestic surveillance and a distrust of intelligence organizations. The result was a number of very tentative steps that, in the event, proved wholly inadequate to task of gathering information about al Qaeda's plot. The FY2001 Intelligence Authorization Act included some minimalist provisions, but the wall was left in place. Neither the Clinton Administration or the Bush Administration, in the first eight months of 2001, sought to amend the relevant laws. The problem was recognized but proposed solutions faced strong opposition. The attacks of September 11, 2001, destroyed the World Trade Center and a portion of the Pentagon; they also demolished the wall between U.S. law enforcement and intelligence.\",\n \"After 9/11, it was almost immediately accepted that counterterrorism would have to involve all parts of the U.S. Government, including law enforcement agencies and the Intelligence Community. It was agreed that the counterterrorism effort must be based on sharing information from whatever source. The problem for both Congress and the executive branch was to establish appropriate mechanisms for information sharing with adequate safeguards for using the information in future criminal trials. Congress immediately set about to consider the most appropriate legislative response that could be quickly enacted. Former Attorney General John Ashcroft writes, \\\"The 9/11 attacks occurred on a Tuesday. By Saturday, we had a full-blown legislative proposal. Part of the reasons we were able to move so quickly was that a number of the provisions had been proposed to Congress in 1996, and Congress had rejected them.\\\" Attention focused on various proposals and recommendations of commissions that had looked at international terrorism and related issues and to earlier legislative proposals that had not been adopted. A wide number of proposals came together as the USA PATRIOT Act ( P.L. 107-56 ) that would be debated in the final weeks of September and early October 2001.\",\n \"The USA PATRIOT Act changed the requirement that \\\"the purpose\\\" of a FISA surveillance be to collect foreign intelligence information, to require that collecting such information be \\\"a significant purpose\\\" of FISA electronic surveillance or physical search. This provided latitude to use FISA authority for electronic surveillance or physical searches where the primary purpose was criminal investigation, as long as a significant foreign intelligence purpose was also present. The USA PATRIOT Act also addressed concerns about sharing intelligence and law enforcement information. Although a discussion of all the complex provisions that were included in the USA PATRIOT Act lies beyond the scope of this Report, several provisions address the sharing of law enforcement and intelligence information. Section 203 of the Act removed some of the restrictions on federal government attorneys sharing grand jury information. Subsection 203(a) authorized federal government attorneys to share matters occurring before the grand jury involving foreign intelligence, counterintelligence, or foreign intelligence information with a federal law enforcement, intelligence, protective, immigration, national defense, or national security official to assist that official in the performance of his or her duties.\",\n \"Subsection (a) authorized the sharing of grand jury information \\\"when the matters involve foreign intelligence or counterintelligence.\\\" Subsection 203(b) permitted investigative and law enforcement officers and Government attorneys to share information acquired under or derived from the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication under Title III with any other federal law enforcement, intelligence, protective, immigration, national defense or national security official for use in his or her official duties to the extent that the contents of that communication include foreign intelligence or counterintelligence information. Subsection (c) provides authority for the Attorney General to establish implementing procedures. Subsection 203(d) permitted the disclosure of foreign intelligence, counterintelligence, or foreign intelligence information obtained as part of a federal criminal investigation, notwithstanding any other provision of law, to any federal law enforcement, intelligence, protective, immigrations, national defense, or national security official in order to assist that official in carrying out his or her official duties, subject to any limitations on the unauthorized disclosure of that information.\",\n \"Section 504 permitted federal officers conducting electronic surveillance or physical searches under FISA to consult with federal law enforcement officers or state or local law enforcement personnel to coordinate against actual or potential attacks or other grave hostile acts of a foreign power or its agent; sabotage or international terrorism by a foreign power or its agent, or clandestine intelligence activities by an intelligence service or network of a foreign power or its agent. Section 905 requires the Attorney General or heads of other Federal agencies with law enforcement responsibilities to disclose expeditiously to the DCI (later replaced by the Director of National Intelligence (DNI)), under relevant guidelines, foreign intelligence acquired in the course of a criminal investigation. Exceptions could be made where the disclosure of such foreign intelligence would jeopardize an ongoing law enforcement investigation or impair other significant law enforcement interests.\",\n \"In addition, Section 905 required the Attorney General, in consultation with the DCI (now the DNI), to develop procedures to give the Director timely notice of the Attorney General's decision to begin or decline to begin a criminal investigation based on information from an element of the intelligence community regarding possible criminal activity of a foreign intelligence source or potential source. The provisions included in the USA PATRIOT Act and DOJ's effort to implement them were far-reaching and to some extent were not welcomed by the FISA Court.\",\n \"In particular, the FISA Court in In re all Matters Submitted to the Foreign Intelligence Court found that proposed 2002 procedures issued by the Attorney General \\\"eliminate[d] the bright line in the 1995 procedures prohibiting direction and control by prosecutors on which the Court has relied to moderate the broad acquisition[,] retention, and dissemination of FISA information in overlapping intelligence and criminal investigations.\\\" The FISA Court thus attempted to \\\"reinstate the bright line used in the 1995 procedures, on which the Court has relied.\\\" Concerned that its proposed procedures were rejected, the Justice Department appealed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court's granting of a request modified in accordance with its earlier ruling in In re All Matters Submitted to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court . The appeal went to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review and was the first appeal to that court. In a sweeping decision, the Court of Review overruled the limitations imposed by the FISA Court, along with a considerable amount of customary FISA practice. The Court of Review expressed concern that the FISA Court had overstepped its role by prescribing the internal procedures for handling surveillances within the Justice Department.\",\n \"The Court of Review maintained that the FISA Court \\\"determined an investigation became primarily criminal when the Criminal Division played a lead role. This approach has led, over time, to the quite intrusive organizational and personnel tasking the FISA [C]ourt adopted. Putting aside the impropriety of an Article III court imposing such organizational strictures ... [the wall] was unstable because it generates dangerous confusion and creates perverse organizational incentives.\\\" The Court of Review thereby gave the final blow to the legal structure supporting the wall between law enforcement and intelligence information. Implementation of the information-sharing provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act and other legislation is underway. The Homeland Security Act of 2002 ( P.L. 107-296 ) and the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 ( P.L. 108-458 ) required that procedures be established under which federal agencies can share intelligence and law enforcement information about international terrorism. The Intelligence Reform Act mandated the creation of an Information Sharing Environment (ISE) that combines policies, procedures, and technologies to link information collections and users. In November 2006 the Administration released a lengthy implementation plan for the ISE.\",\n \"The plan sets forth procedures for sharing information among agencies at federal, state, and local levels and seeks to promote a culture of information sharing. It also provides procedures for protecting information privacy and civil liberties. Congress may choose to review the implementation of the ISE during coming months. A fundamental issue that faces both Congress and the U.S. public remains the need to balance the advantages to be gained by sharing information from all sources with the possibility that the availability of data accumulations could be used to undermine lawful political or religious activities. An unstable balance between these two separate goals—often portrayed as competing—greatly complicated the counterterrorism and counterintelligence effort prior to 9/11. The fact that public opinion appeared deeply ambivalent made procedural changes difficult and contributed to the luxuriant growth of complex regulations adopted by DOJ and endorsed by the FISA Court. After 9/11, public opinion shifted dramatically, resulting in the rapid passage of the USA PATRIOT Act and other legislation. The need to encourage the sharing of information and the connection of dots is now unquestioned, but there are lingering concerns about the risks that widespread information sharing may jeopardize civil liberties.\",\n \"Congress will undoubtedly seek to determine whether the new statutes, regulations, and procedures that have been adopted will prove both effective and sensitive to individual rights. The importance of sharing intelligence and law enforcement information is not limited to issues relating to international terrorism but extends to banking fraud, narcotics smuggling, and a variety of international concerns. Narcotics smuggling, for instance, can be addressed by encouraging other countries to halt the cultivation of opium poppies or coca, as well as by law enforcement in the U.S. Terrorism, of course, is uniquely threatening and in combating terrorists more vigorous non-law enforcement approaches are considered more legitimate than is the case with drug smugglers or embezzlers. What is advantageous in all cases is assembling the full range of information about the activity and subjecting it to rigorous analysis. There is, however, the possibility that the current consensus may unravel. The political controversy surrounding NSA's electronic surveillance efforts and other data mining programs may come to focus on the sharing of information that some argue was not lawfully obtained, and this concern could lead to efforts to restrict information sharing across the boards.\",\n \"There is also a possibility that the use of information obtained by surveillance in accordance with FISA might ultimately not be allowed in court cases out of concern that the Fourth Amendment has been bypassed. Despite the widespread acceptance of the need for information sharing, concerns that sharing information could lead to governmental abuses persists across the political spectrum. These concerns are tenaciously held, and have in the past made legislating very controversial. There is no reason to believe that they will not resurface should the threat from international terrorism seem less menacing. The potential threat to civil liberties does not, of course, represent the full extent of the issues raised by increased information sharing. Sharing sensitive information inevitably raises the danger that intelligence sources and methods may be compromised either accidentally or purposefully. For intelligence professionals, in particular, the danger to valuable sources that may have taken years to develop is a fundamental concern. Moreover, when a human source is compromised there is not only a danger to a particular individual, but also a potential loss of confidence in U.S. intelligence agencies by other actual or potential sources.\",\n \"The role of Congress in dealing with information sharing issues is especially important. There are delicate questions of liberty and security involved and a sensitive balance is crucial. Air Force General Michael V. Hayden, who now serves as CIA Director, in the past argued that Members of Congress are in close touch with their constituents and \\\"What I really need you to do is talk to your constituents and find out where the American people want that line between security and liberty to be.\\\" Congress also can provide the ongoing oversight to ensure that the sorts of abuses that occurred in the 1960s and 1970s do not recur. Ultimately, an information sharing policy that is largely consistent with public opinion and is held to account by rigorous oversight should enhance the chances that the dots can be connected without jeopardizing the rights of Americans. Observers see a danger, however, that gridlock in both the Executive and Legislative Branches might inhibit the government's ability to find effective and sensible ways to acquire and analyze information on new threats to the national security.\"\n]","isConversational":false}}},{"rowIdx":16998,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"string","value":"train_16998"},"question":{"kind":"string","value":"Write a detailed summary of the following government report."},"answer":{"kind":"string","value":"The elderly nutrition services program, authorized under Title III of the Older Americans Act (OAA), provides grants to state agencies on aging to support congregate and home-delivered meals (commonly referred to as \"meals on wheels\") programs for people aged 60 and older. The program is designed to address problems of food insecurity, promote socialization, and promote the health and well-being of older persons through nutrition and nutrition-related services. In 2012, a reported 8.8% of U.S. households with one elderly member were food insecure, defined as households reporting low or very low food security. As the largest Older Americans Act program, the Title III nutrition services program received $814.7 million in FY2014, accounting for 44% of the act's total funding ($1.871 billion). In 2006, Congress enacted the Older Americans Act Amendments of 2006 (P.L. 109-365), which extended the act's authorizations of appropriations through FY2011. However, Congress has continued to appropriate funding for OAA activities. The 113th Congress may consider comprehensive reauthorization of the OAA and as a result may modify existing authorities, including those related to nutrition services. The Administration on Aging (AOA) within the Administration for Community Living (ACL) in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) administers the nutrition services program, which includes (1) the Congregate Nutrition Services Program, (2) the Home-Delivered Nutrition Services Program, (3) and the Nutrition Services Incentive Program (NSIP). For the congregate and home-delivered programs, services must be targeted at older persons with the greatest social and economic need. Particular attention is paid to low-income older persons, including low-income minority older persons, older persons with limited English proficiency, older persons residing in rural areas, and those at risk for institutionalization. In FY2011, the most recent year for which data are available, more than 223 million meals were served to just under 2.5 million people; 61% were served to frail older people living at home, and 39% were served in congregate settings. Of the total $814.7 million appropriated for the nutrition services program in FY2014, $438.2 million was for congregate nutrition (54%), $216.4 million for home-delivered nutrition (27%), and $160.1 million for nutrition services incentive grants (19%). When adjusted for inflation, the total amount of funding appropriated for OAA nutrition services has decreased substantially over the past two decades ($814.7 million in FY2014 compared to $1,052.4 million in FY1990). This decline in relative funding has been experienced by the congregate nutrition and NSIP programs, while funding levels for the home-delivered nutrition programs have increased over the same time period. As a result, the number of home-delivered meals served has outpaced congregate meals, growing by 35% from FY1990 to FY2011; the number of congregate meals served declined by 40%. The faster growth in home-delivered meals is partially due to relatively higher growth in federal funding for home-delivered meals over that time period, as well as state decisions to focus funds on frail older people living at home. This report describes the nutrition services program authorized under OAA Title III, including the program's legislative history, purpose, and FY2014 funding level. It also provides information on service delivery requirements and program data regarding the number of meals served and program participation. The report briefly discusses former and more recent efforts to evaluate these programs. Finally, the report identifies selected issues for federal policymakers, including the status of Older Americans Act reauthorization, measuring unmet need for nutrition services, additional funding flexibility, and increased cost-sharing."},"documents":{"kind":"list like","value":["The elderly nutrition services program, authorized under Title III of the Older Americans Act (OAA), provides grants to state agencies on aging to support congregate and home-delivered meals to people aged 60 and older. The program is the largest component of the act, accounting for $814.7 million, over 44%, of the act's total FY2014 funding of $1.871 billion. The program is designed to address problems of food insecurity, promote socialization, and promote the health and well-being of older persons through nutrition and nutrition-related services. It evolved from demonstration projects first funded in 1968. In 1972, Congress authorized the program as a separate title of the act and, in 1978, incorporated it into Title III. In 2006, Congress enacted P.L. 109-365 , which extended the act's authorizations of appropriations through FY2011. However, Congress has continued to appropriate funding for OAA activities. The 113 th Congress may consider reauthorization of the OAA and as a result may modify existing authorities, including those related to the nutrition services program. This report describes the nutrition services program authorized under Title III of the Older Americans Act.","Other federal and state programs, such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly the Food Stamp Program) and the Seniors Farmers' Market Nutrition Program, may provide similar nutrition services to older adults who meet certain income and other requirements. These programs, administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), are not the focus of this report. For further information on the range of domestic food assistance programs, see CRS Report R42353, Domestic Food Assistance: Summary of Programs , by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed]. The Older Americans Act Amendments of 2006, P.L. 109-365 , added a new purpose statement for the nutrition services program emphasizing its nutritional and socialization aspects, as well as its importance in promoting the health of older people. The purposes of the program as stipulated in the law are to (1) reduce hunger and food insecurity, (2) promote socialization of older individuals, and (3) promote the health and well-being of older individuals by assisting them to access nutrition and other disease prevention and health promotion services to delay the onset of adverse health conditions resulting from poor nutritional health or sedentary behavior.","According to USDA analysis of Current Population Survey (CPS) data, 8.8% of U.S. households with one elderly member were food insecure in 2012, defined as households reporting low or very low food security. Households in which elderly lived alone reported a slightly higher rate of food insecurity, at 9.1% in 2012. The Administration on Aging (AOA) in the Administration for Community Living (ACL) within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) administers the nutrition services program, which includes (1) the Congregate Nutrition Services Program, (2) the Home-Delivered Nutrition Services Program, (3) and the Nutrition Services Incentive Program (NSIP). For the Congregate and Home-Delivered Programs, services must be targeted at persons with the greatest social and economic need, with particular attention to low-income older persons, including low-income minority older persons, older persons with limited English proficiency, older persons residing in rural areas, and older persons at risk for institutionalization. Means tests for program participation are prohibited, but older persons are encouraged to contribute to the costs of nutrition services, including meals. Older individuals may not be denied services for failure to contribute. The following describes these programs in greater detail.","Congregate nutrition services provide meals and related nutrition services to older individuals at a variety of sites, such as senior centers, community centers, schools, and adult day care centers. Congregate nutrition service providers can also offer a variety of nutrition related services at meal sites, such as nutrition education and screening, nutrition assessment, and counseling as appropriate. The program also provides seniors with opportunities for social engagement and volunteer opportunities. Individuals aged 60 or older and their spouses of any age may participate in the congregate nutrition program. The following groups may also receive meals: persons under age 60 with disabilities who reside in housing facilities occupied primarily by the elderly where congregate meals are served; persons with disabilities who reside at home with, and accompany, older persons to meals; and volunteers who provide services during the meal hours. In FY2011, the most recent year for which data are available, almost 4 in 10 meals (39%) were served in congregate settings. These meals were served to two-thirds of all OAA nutrition program participants. A total of 85.9 million congregate meals were served to more than 1.6 million meal participants (see Figure 1 ).","Home-delivered nutrition services (commonly referred to as \"meals on wheels\") provide meals and related nutrition services to older individuals with priority to homebound older individuals. According to AOA, home-delivered meals are often the first in-home service that an older adult receives, and the program is a primary access point for other home and community-based services. Like congregate nutrition service providers, home-delivered service providers can offer services such as nutrition screening and education, nutrition assessment, and counseling as appropriate. Home-delivered meals are also an important service for many family caregivers as they may assist family members with their caregiving responsibilities and, for some, help them maintain their own health and personal well-being. Individuals aged 60 or older and their spouses of any age may participate in the home-delivered nutrition program. Services may be available to individuals who are under age 60 with disabilities if they reside at home with the older individual. In FY2011, approximately 6 in 10 meals (61%) were home-delivered. These meals were delivered to one-third of all OAA nutrition program participants. A total of 137.2 million home-delivered meals were provided to just under 847,000 meal participants (see Figure 1 ).","Congregate meal participants represent a larger proportion of all meal participants but a smaller proportion of total meals served. On the other hand, home-delivered meal participants are relatively fewer but likely to receive more meals. Many home-delivered meals participants receive more than one meal delivered during a week. Congregate meal settings are designed to serve many participants but may serve meals less frequently. In addition, congregate meal participants may partake in meals on a less than frequent basis, compared to home-delivered meals participants. The Nutrition Services Incentive Program (NSIP) provides funds to states, territories, and Indian tribal organizations to purchase food or to cover the costs of food commodities provided by the USDA for the congregate and home-delivered nutrition programs. Originally established by the OAA in 1974 as the Nutrition Program for the Elderly and administered by USDA, Congress transferred the administration of NSIP from USDA to AOA in 2003. However, states and other entities may still choose to receive all or part of their NSIP allotments in the form of commodities. Obligations for commodity procurement for NSIP are funded under an agreement between USDA and HHS.","The AOA awards separate allotments of funds for the congregate nutrition services program and home-delivered nutrition services program to states and U.S. territories. State agencies or State Units on Aging (SUAs), in turn, award nutrition services funds to the 618 Area Agencies on Aging (AAAs) that administer the program in their respective planning and service areas. The AOA also awards a separate allotment to states, territories, and Indian tribal organizations for NSIP funds. Funds for congregate and home-delivered nutrition services are allotted to states and U.S. territories according to a formula based on each entity's relative share of the population aged 60 and over; however, the law stipulates that no entity is to receive less than it received in FY2006. States are required to provide a matching share of 15% in order to receive funds for congregate and home-delivered nutrition programs. NSIP funds are allotted to states and other entities based on each state's share of total meals served by the nutrition services program (both congregate and home-delivered meals) in all states, U.S. territories, and tribes during the prior year.","As previously mentioned, entities receive their share of NSIP funds in cash, but may elect to use some or all of their funds to purchase commodities through the USDA. Most entities choose to receive their share of funds in cash, rather than commodities. There is no matching requirement for NSIP funds. In FY2014, of the total $814.7 million appropriated for the Title III nutrition services program, $438.2 million was for congregate nutrition (54%), $216.4 million for home-delivered nutrition (27%), and $160.1 million for nutrition services incentive grants (19%) ( Table 1 ). Funding for nutrition services represents 64% of FY2014 funding for Title III ($1.281 billion); Title III also funds a wide array of social services, family caregiver support activities, and disease prevention and health promotion services for older individuals. When adjusted for inflation, the total amount of funding appropriated for OAA nutrition services has decreased substantially over the past two decades ($814.7 million for FY2014 compared to $1,052.4 million in FY1990). This decline in relative funding has been experienced by the congregate meals and NSIP programs, while funding levels for the home-delivered meals programs have increased over the same time period.","In constant 2014 dollars, the total appropriation for congregate meals, home-delivered meals, and NSIP fell from $1,052.4 million in 1990 to $814.7 million in 2014, a decline of $237.7 million, or 23%. The amount appropriated for congregate meals fell from $644.7 million to $438.2 million, a decline of $206.5 million, or 32%. The amount appropriated for NSIP fell from $262.9 million to $160.1 million, a decline of $102.8 million, or 39%. Only the amount appropriated for home-delivered meals increased in real terms from 1990 to 2014, rising from $144.7 million to $216.4 million, an increase of $71.7 million, or 50%. Overall, this reduction in purchasing power has affected the number of meals served, which declined by 21.1 million meals (or 8.6%) from FY1990 to FY2011, the most recent year for which data are available. Over this same time period, the number of individuals age 60 and older has increased substantially from just under 42 million in1990 to about 62 million in 2013, an increase of almost 50%.","Another way to look at the decline in purchasing power compared to the potential increase in demand for services is to compare per person spending in constant 2013 dollars, which has declined by about half during this time period. In 1990, total federal funding for nutrition services was about $25 per older individual, as compared to just over $12 per older individual in 2013. It is important to note that OAA funding is not the only source of funding that state agencies use to provide nutrition services to older individuals. States rely on other funding sources, such as funding from other federal programs (e.g., Social Services Block Grant, Medicaid home- and community-based services), state and local governments, private sources, and clients. GAO found that OAA funds comprised an estimated 42% of local AAA's Title III program budgets for FY2009. In FY2011, more than 223 million meals were provided to older adults (see Table 2 ). While overall the number of meals served has declined over the past two decades, proportionately the number of home-delivered meals served has increased. In FY1990, home-delivered meals represented 42% of total meals served, but by FY2011, the share had climbed to","62% of total meals.","From 1990 to 2011, the number of home-delivered meals served grew by 35%, while the number of congregate meals served actually declined by 40%. A number of reasons account for this, including the trend by states to transfer funds from their congregate services allotments to home-delivered services; greater growth in federal funding for home-delivered services relative to the congregate nutrition program funds; state initiatives to expand home care services for frail older persons; and successful leveraging of non-federal funds for home-delivered services. With respect to state transfer of funds, as previously mentioned, states receive separate allotments for congregate and home-delivered nutrition services, as well as for supportive services. However, they are allowed to transfer allotted funds among these three programs (up to 40% of funds between congregate and home-delivered nutrition services allotments with waivers for higher amounts if approved by the Assistant Secretary for Aging; and up to 30% among supportive services and congregate and home-delivered nutrition services allotments). States may not transfer NSIP allotted funds among these programs. In recent years, state funding transfers have resulted in a decrease of funds available for congregate nutrition services.","In FY2012, states transferred $82.3 million out of their congregate nutrition services allotments to either the home-delivered nutrition or supportive services allotments. These funding transfers resulted in a decrease of 18.8% in funds that were originally allotted to states for the congregate program. As a result of funding transfers, available funds for home-delivered meals and supportive services increased by 14.7% and 13.8%, respectively. State initiatives to respond to the demand for home-based services by frail homebound older persons are an important factor in their decisions to transfer funds. According to GAO, state and local officials reportedly moved funds out of congregate meals because of a greater need for home-delivered meals and supportive services. AOA data show that for FY2011, the U.S. average expenditure for congregate meals was $7.31, ranging from $1.56 in Puerto Rico to $18.81 in Alaska. The average expenditure for home-delivered meals in 2011 was $5.61, ranging from $1.66 in Puerto Rico to $12.61 in Alaska. Congregate and home-delivered nutrition services providers are required to offer at least one meal per day, five or more days per week (except in rural areas where less frequency is allowed).","Meals provided must comply with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans published by the Secretary of HHS and the Secretary of Agriculture. Providers must serve meals that meet certain dietary requirements based on the number of meals served by the project each day. Providers that serve one meal per day must provide to each participant a minimum of one-third of the daily recommended dietary reference intakes (DRIs) established by the Food and Nutrition Board of the Institute of Medicine (IOM). Providers that serve two meals per day must provide a minimum of two-thirds of the DRIs, and those that serve three meals per day must provide 100% of the DRIs. Providers must provide meals that comply with state or local laws regarding safe and sanitary handling of food, equipment, and supplies that are used to store, prepare and deliver meals, and must carry out meal programs using the advice of dietitians and meal participants. The law requires providers to offer nutrition screening and education to participants, and where appropriate, nutrition assessment and counseling. Providers are encouraged to make arrangements with schools and other facilities serving meals to children in order to promote intergenerational meals programs. P.L.","109-365 noted that while diet is the preferred source of nutrition, evidence suggests that the use of a single daily multivitamin-mineral supplement may be an effective way to address poor nutrition among older people. Also, it noted that Title III nutrition service providers should consider whether congregate and home-delivered participants would benefit from a multivitamin-mineral supplement that is in compliance with government quality standards and that provides at least two-thirds of essential vitamins and minerals at 100% of daily value levels as determined by the Commissioner of Food and Drugs. The act, however, did not authorize Title III providers to actually provide a daily vitamin to meals participants. A National Survey of OAA participants shows that in 2012, 53% of congregate nutrition survey respondents were age 75 and older; 46% lived alone; 11% had annual income of $10,000 or less; more than half (51%) reported that the congregate meals program provided one-half or more of their daily food intake. Furthermore, many congregate nutrition recipients reported these meals have fostered greater socialization, with 81% saying that they see friends more often due to meals.","This 2012 survey found that 70% of home-delivered respondents were age 75 and older; 58% lived alone; 22% had annual income of $10,000 or less; and 54% said that the home-delivered meals program provided at least one-half of their daily food intake. According to the survey, home-delivered meals recipients are particularly frail and are at risk for institutionalization, in part due to the requirement that participants be homebound. Almost four out of ten recipients (38%) reported needing assistance with one or more activities of daily living (ADLs, such as bathing, dressing, eating, and using the toilet); 11% of these recipients needed assistance with three or more ADLs. In addition, 83% reported needing assistance with one or more instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs, such as shopping, telephoning, housework, and getting around inside the home). The last major national evaluation of the nutrition program was completed in 1996. It showed that, compared to the total elderly population, nutrition program participants were older and more likely to be poor, to live alone, and to be members of minority groups.","Almost half of home-delivered meal recipients and more than one-third of congregate meal recipients had income below the federal poverty level, compared to about 15% of the total U.S. population age 60 and over (at the time of the evaluation). Recipients were also more likely to have health and functional limitations that place them at nutritional risk. The report found the program plays an important role in participants' overall nutrition and that meals consumed by participants are their primary source of daily nutrients. The evaluation also found that the program leverages a fairly significant amount of nonfederal dollars: for every federal dollar spent, the program leveraged (at that time) on average $1.70 for congregate meals, and $3.35 for home-delivered meals from a variety of sources, including state, local, and private funds as well as participant contributions toward the cost of meals. The 2006 reauthorization legislation stipulated that the Institute of Medicine (IOM) conduct an evidence-based study of the program.","The study is to include (1) an evaluation of the effect of nutrition projects on the health and nutrition status of participants, prevention of hunger and food insecurity, and ability of participants to remain living independently; (2) a cost-benefit analysis of nutrition projects, including their potential to affect Medicaid costs; and (3) recommendations on how nutrition projects may be modified to improve outcomes, and the nutritional quality of meals. To date, AOA has not conducted this study. However, prior to the 2006 reauthorization AOA had begun the process to conduct a new evaluation of the Title III nutrition services program. According to AOA, this evaluation will contain (1) an evaluation of program impacts on participants' nutrition, health and well-being, socialization, and food insecurity; (2) a cost analysis that describes the cost per meal by cost categories and method of meal production; and (3) a process evaluation that examines the implementation of the program at the state and local levels and includes an assessment of the nutritional quality of the program meals.","The participant outcomes component will involve a matched comparison group and similar survey methods as those used in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Study (NHANES) to allow for comparison of research results to the previous evaluation, a matched comparison group, and national estimates from NHANES and other national data. As the nation prepares for a growing older population and potential increase in demand for health and social services that can promote the well-being of older persons to assist them in living independently in the community, ensuring access to home- and community-based long-term services and supports will likely be an issue for federal policymakers. The OAA Amendments of 2006 ( P.L. 109-365 ) authorized appropriations for OAA-funded activities, including the Title III nutrition programs, through FY2011. The 113 th Congress may choose to reauthorize the act. In doing so, federal policymakers may consider amending or deleting existing authorities under the act or establishing new authorities, including those related to nutrition services. In addition, Congress will likely consider annual appropriations for these activities. The following sections discuss several issues for congressional consideration, such as measuring unmet need for nutrition services, additional funding flexibility, and increased cost-sharing.","These issues were among those discussed by GAO in its February 11, 2011 report, Older Americans Act: More Should Be Done to Measure the Extent of Unmet Need for Services (GAO-11-23711), and in GAO testimony before the Subcommittee on Primary Health and Aging, Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions on June 21, 2011 (GAO-11-782T). According to a national analysis by GAO, meals services provided in 2008 served some, but not most, low-income older adults who are likely in need of such services. State agency officials identified several reasons why an older adult may need but not receive meals services, including (1) greater demand for home-delivered meals than available funds can provide, (2) lack of knowledge or awareness among eligible older adults that meals services exist, and (3) lack of appeal with the meals served or the time of day meals are provided in congregate settings. Overall, GAO found that the lack of federal guidance and data make it difficult for states to estimate the full extent of need and unmet need for OAA Title III services, including nutrition services.","The OAA requires that AOA design and implement uniform data collection procedures for states to assess receipt of services, as well as need and unmet need for Title III services. Although AOA does provide uniform procedures for states to measure receipt of services, the agency does not provide standardized definitions or measurement for states to use in measuring need or unmet need for services. As a result, states use a variety of approaches that are often limited in their ability to fully estimate need and unmet need among older adults. These approaches include maintaining waitlists, obtaining information and data from service providers, and surveying current recipients. GAO recommends that HHS partner with governmental agencies that provide services to older Americans and convene researchers and agency officials to develop consistent definitions of need and unmet needs for uniform data collection purposes. Most states and a number of AAAs use the statutory flexibilities under current law to transfer funding among Title III programs. According to GAO, some states recommended consolidating funding for nutrition services programs into one single funding stream. However, other state officials did not see the need to alter the current process for transferring Title III","funds.","The AOA also identifies consolidating nutrition program funding between home-delivered and congregate nutrition programs as a targeted change for the next OAA reauthorization, so as to allow \"states more flexibility to direct services to identified needs, and allow more local input into funding allocations.\" Congress may consider whether additional flexibilities are necessary, possibly consolidating Title III funding streams or increasing the proportion of funds available for states and AAAs to transfer, affording those entities that choose to transfer funds greater latitude to do so. Conversely, Congress may be concerned that funding transfers provide states and AAAs the ability to reallocate funding to services at a level different than otherwise appropriated. As a result, Congress may seek to further specify or limit funding flexibility. Congress may also decide that funding flexibilities under current law are sufficient for states and AAAs current needs and choose to maintain the status quo. Clients can, and some do, contribute to the cost of their meals. GAO found that almost all local AAAs permit voluntary contributions for Title III services, including the nutrition services program. For FY2009, voluntary contributions comprised 4% of AAA budgets.","Some AAAs indicated to GAO that voluntary contributions make up a significant portion of their nutrition services program budget. Although the OAA authorizes states to implement cost-sharing as a requirement for some Title III services, the act does not permit cost-sharing as a requirement for participation in congregate and home-delivered meals programs. According to GAO, additional cost-sharing arrangements could provide additional funding for Title III programs. GAO also recommends that the HHS Secretary study the implementation of cost-sharing for OAA services with respect to \"the real and perceived burdens to implementing cost sharing for OAA services,\" which could include recommending legislative changes to the act. The AOA also identifies expanding consumer contributions as a targeted change for the next OAA reauthorization. Under this proposal, states could request a waiver to test either cost-sharing for nutrition and case management services, or to deny service to an individual for failure to make cost-sharing payments. Prior to waiver approval, states would be required to demonstrate no negative results from cost-sharing implementation. Furthermore, low-income individuals would continue to be excluded from these cost-sharing arrangements."],"string":"[\n \"The elderly nutrition services program, authorized under Title III of the Older Americans Act (OAA), provides grants to state agencies on aging to support congregate and home-delivered meals to people aged 60 and older. The program is the largest component of the act, accounting for $814.7 million, over 44%, of the act's total FY2014 funding of $1.871 billion. The program is designed to address problems of food insecurity, promote socialization, and promote the health and well-being of older persons through nutrition and nutrition-related services. It evolved from demonstration projects first funded in 1968. In 1972, Congress authorized the program as a separate title of the act and, in 1978, incorporated it into Title III. In 2006, Congress enacted P.L. 109-365 , which extended the act's authorizations of appropriations through FY2011. However, Congress has continued to appropriate funding for OAA activities. The 113 th Congress may consider reauthorization of the OAA and as a result may modify existing authorities, including those related to the nutrition services program. This report describes the nutrition services program authorized under Title III of the Older Americans Act.\",\n \"Other federal and state programs, such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly the Food Stamp Program) and the Seniors Farmers' Market Nutrition Program, may provide similar nutrition services to older adults who meet certain income and other requirements. These programs, administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), are not the focus of this report. For further information on the range of domestic food assistance programs, see CRS Report R42353, Domestic Food Assistance: Summary of Programs , by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed]. The Older Americans Act Amendments of 2006, P.L. 109-365 , added a new purpose statement for the nutrition services program emphasizing its nutritional and socialization aspects, as well as its importance in promoting the health of older people. The purposes of the program as stipulated in the law are to (1) reduce hunger and food insecurity, (2) promote socialization of older individuals, and (3) promote the health and well-being of older individuals by assisting them to access nutrition and other disease prevention and health promotion services to delay the onset of adverse health conditions resulting from poor nutritional health or sedentary behavior.\",\n \"According to USDA analysis of Current Population Survey (CPS) data, 8.8% of U.S. households with one elderly member were food insecure in 2012, defined as households reporting low or very low food security. Households in which elderly lived alone reported a slightly higher rate of food insecurity, at 9.1% in 2012. The Administration on Aging (AOA) in the Administration for Community Living (ACL) within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) administers the nutrition services program, which includes (1) the Congregate Nutrition Services Program, (2) the Home-Delivered Nutrition Services Program, (3) and the Nutrition Services Incentive Program (NSIP). For the Congregate and Home-Delivered Programs, services must be targeted at persons with the greatest social and economic need, with particular attention to low-income older persons, including low-income minority older persons, older persons with limited English proficiency, older persons residing in rural areas, and older persons at risk for institutionalization. Means tests for program participation are prohibited, but older persons are encouraged to contribute to the costs of nutrition services, including meals. Older individuals may not be denied services for failure to contribute. The following describes these programs in greater detail.\",\n \"Congregate nutrition services provide meals and related nutrition services to older individuals at a variety of sites, such as senior centers, community centers, schools, and adult day care centers. Congregate nutrition service providers can also offer a variety of nutrition related services at meal sites, such as nutrition education and screening, nutrition assessment, and counseling as appropriate. The program also provides seniors with opportunities for social engagement and volunteer opportunities. Individuals aged 60 or older and their spouses of any age may participate in the congregate nutrition program. The following groups may also receive meals: persons under age 60 with disabilities who reside in housing facilities occupied primarily by the elderly where congregate meals are served; persons with disabilities who reside at home with, and accompany, older persons to meals; and volunteers who provide services during the meal hours. In FY2011, the most recent year for which data are available, almost 4 in 10 meals (39%) were served in congregate settings. These meals were served to two-thirds of all OAA nutrition program participants. A total of 85.9 million congregate meals were served to more than 1.6 million meal participants (see Figure 1 ).\",\n \"Home-delivered nutrition services (commonly referred to as \\\"meals on wheels\\\") provide meals and related nutrition services to older individuals with priority to homebound older individuals. According to AOA, home-delivered meals are often the first in-home service that an older adult receives, and the program is a primary access point for other home and community-based services. Like congregate nutrition service providers, home-delivered service providers can offer services such as nutrition screening and education, nutrition assessment, and counseling as appropriate. Home-delivered meals are also an important service for many family caregivers as they may assist family members with their caregiving responsibilities and, for some, help them maintain their own health and personal well-being. Individuals aged 60 or older and their spouses of any age may participate in the home-delivered nutrition program. Services may be available to individuals who are under age 60 with disabilities if they reside at home with the older individual. In FY2011, approximately 6 in 10 meals (61%) were home-delivered. These meals were delivered to one-third of all OAA nutrition program participants. A total of 137.2 million home-delivered meals were provided to just under 847,000 meal participants (see Figure 1 ).\",\n \"Congregate meal participants represent a larger proportion of all meal participants but a smaller proportion of total meals served. On the other hand, home-delivered meal participants are relatively fewer but likely to receive more meals. Many home-delivered meals participants receive more than one meal delivered during a week. Congregate meal settings are designed to serve many participants but may serve meals less frequently. In addition, congregate meal participants may partake in meals on a less than frequent basis, compared to home-delivered meals participants. The Nutrition Services Incentive Program (NSIP) provides funds to states, territories, and Indian tribal organizations to purchase food or to cover the costs of food commodities provided by the USDA for the congregate and home-delivered nutrition programs. Originally established by the OAA in 1974 as the Nutrition Program for the Elderly and administered by USDA, Congress transferred the administration of NSIP from USDA to AOA in 2003. However, states and other entities may still choose to receive all or part of their NSIP allotments in the form of commodities. Obligations for commodity procurement for NSIP are funded under an agreement between USDA and HHS.\",\n \"The AOA awards separate allotments of funds for the congregate nutrition services program and home-delivered nutrition services program to states and U.S. territories. State agencies or State Units on Aging (SUAs), in turn, award nutrition services funds to the 618 Area Agencies on Aging (AAAs) that administer the program in their respective planning and service areas. The AOA also awards a separate allotment to states, territories, and Indian tribal organizations for NSIP funds. Funds for congregate and home-delivered nutrition services are allotted to states and U.S. territories according to a formula based on each entity's relative share of the population aged 60 and over; however, the law stipulates that no entity is to receive less than it received in FY2006. States are required to provide a matching share of 15% in order to receive funds for congregate and home-delivered nutrition programs. NSIP funds are allotted to states and other entities based on each state's share of total meals served by the nutrition services program (both congregate and home-delivered meals) in all states, U.S. territories, and tribes during the prior year.\",\n \"As previously mentioned, entities receive their share of NSIP funds in cash, but may elect to use some or all of their funds to purchase commodities through the USDA. Most entities choose to receive their share of funds in cash, rather than commodities. There is no matching requirement for NSIP funds. In FY2014, of the total $814.7 million appropriated for the Title III nutrition services program, $438.2 million was for congregate nutrition (54%), $216.4 million for home-delivered nutrition (27%), and $160.1 million for nutrition services incentive grants (19%) ( Table 1 ). Funding for nutrition services represents 64% of FY2014 funding for Title III ($1.281 billion); Title III also funds a wide array of social services, family caregiver support activities, and disease prevention and health promotion services for older individuals. When adjusted for inflation, the total amount of funding appropriated for OAA nutrition services has decreased substantially over the past two decades ($814.7 million for FY2014 compared to $1,052.4 million in FY1990). This decline in relative funding has been experienced by the congregate meals and NSIP programs, while funding levels for the home-delivered meals programs have increased over the same time period.\",\n \"In constant 2014 dollars, the total appropriation for congregate meals, home-delivered meals, and NSIP fell from $1,052.4 million in 1990 to $814.7 million in 2014, a decline of $237.7 million, or 23%. The amount appropriated for congregate meals fell from $644.7 million to $438.2 million, a decline of $206.5 million, or 32%. The amount appropriated for NSIP fell from $262.9 million to $160.1 million, a decline of $102.8 million, or 39%. Only the amount appropriated for home-delivered meals increased in real terms from 1990 to 2014, rising from $144.7 million to $216.4 million, an increase of $71.7 million, or 50%. Overall, this reduction in purchasing power has affected the number of meals served, which declined by 21.1 million meals (or 8.6%) from FY1990 to FY2011, the most recent year for which data are available. Over this same time period, the number of individuals age 60 and older has increased substantially from just under 42 million in1990 to about 62 million in 2013, an increase of almost 50%.\",\n \"Another way to look at the decline in purchasing power compared to the potential increase in demand for services is to compare per person spending in constant 2013 dollars, which has declined by about half during this time period. In 1990, total federal funding for nutrition services was about $25 per older individual, as compared to just over $12 per older individual in 2013. It is important to note that OAA funding is not the only source of funding that state agencies use to provide nutrition services to older individuals. States rely on other funding sources, such as funding from other federal programs (e.g., Social Services Block Grant, Medicaid home- and community-based services), state and local governments, private sources, and clients. GAO found that OAA funds comprised an estimated 42% of local AAA's Title III program budgets for FY2009. In FY2011, more than 223 million meals were provided to older adults (see Table 2 ). While overall the number of meals served has declined over the past two decades, proportionately the number of home-delivered meals served has increased. In FY1990, home-delivered meals represented 42% of total meals served, but by FY2011, the share had climbed to\",\n \"62% of total meals.\",\n \"From 1990 to 2011, the number of home-delivered meals served grew by 35%, while the number of congregate meals served actually declined by 40%. A number of reasons account for this, including the trend by states to transfer funds from their congregate services allotments to home-delivered services; greater growth in federal funding for home-delivered services relative to the congregate nutrition program funds; state initiatives to expand home care services for frail older persons; and successful leveraging of non-federal funds for home-delivered services. With respect to state transfer of funds, as previously mentioned, states receive separate allotments for congregate and home-delivered nutrition services, as well as for supportive services. However, they are allowed to transfer allotted funds among these three programs (up to 40% of funds between congregate and home-delivered nutrition services allotments with waivers for higher amounts if approved by the Assistant Secretary for Aging; and up to 30% among supportive services and congregate and home-delivered nutrition services allotments). States may not transfer NSIP allotted funds among these programs. In recent years, state funding transfers have resulted in a decrease of funds available for congregate nutrition services.\",\n \"In FY2012, states transferred $82.3 million out of their congregate nutrition services allotments to either the home-delivered nutrition or supportive services allotments. These funding transfers resulted in a decrease of 18.8% in funds that were originally allotted to states for the congregate program. As a result of funding transfers, available funds for home-delivered meals and supportive services increased by 14.7% and 13.8%, respectively. State initiatives to respond to the demand for home-based services by frail homebound older persons are an important factor in their decisions to transfer funds. According to GAO, state and local officials reportedly moved funds out of congregate meals because of a greater need for home-delivered meals and supportive services. AOA data show that for FY2011, the U.S. average expenditure for congregate meals was $7.31, ranging from $1.56 in Puerto Rico to $18.81 in Alaska. The average expenditure for home-delivered meals in 2011 was $5.61, ranging from $1.66 in Puerto Rico to $12.61 in Alaska. Congregate and home-delivered nutrition services providers are required to offer at least one meal per day, five or more days per week (except in rural areas where less frequency is allowed).\",\n \"Meals provided must comply with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans published by the Secretary of HHS and the Secretary of Agriculture. Providers must serve meals that meet certain dietary requirements based on the number of meals served by the project each day. Providers that serve one meal per day must provide to each participant a minimum of one-third of the daily recommended dietary reference intakes (DRIs) established by the Food and Nutrition Board of the Institute of Medicine (IOM). Providers that serve two meals per day must provide a minimum of two-thirds of the DRIs, and those that serve three meals per day must provide 100% of the DRIs. Providers must provide meals that comply with state or local laws regarding safe and sanitary handling of food, equipment, and supplies that are used to store, prepare and deliver meals, and must carry out meal programs using the advice of dietitians and meal participants. The law requires providers to offer nutrition screening and education to participants, and where appropriate, nutrition assessment and counseling. Providers are encouraged to make arrangements with schools and other facilities serving meals to children in order to promote intergenerational meals programs. P.L.\",\n \"109-365 noted that while diet is the preferred source of nutrition, evidence suggests that the use of a single daily multivitamin-mineral supplement may be an effective way to address poor nutrition among older people. Also, it noted that Title III nutrition service providers should consider whether congregate and home-delivered participants would benefit from a multivitamin-mineral supplement that is in compliance with government quality standards and that provides at least two-thirds of essential vitamins and minerals at 100% of daily value levels as determined by the Commissioner of Food and Drugs. The act, however, did not authorize Title III providers to actually provide a daily vitamin to meals participants. A National Survey of OAA participants shows that in 2012, 53% of congregate nutrition survey respondents were age 75 and older; 46% lived alone; 11% had annual income of $10,000 or less; more than half (51%) reported that the congregate meals program provided one-half or more of their daily food intake. Furthermore, many congregate nutrition recipients reported these meals have fostered greater socialization, with 81% saying that they see friends more often due to meals.\",\n \"This 2012 survey found that 70% of home-delivered respondents were age 75 and older; 58% lived alone; 22% had annual income of $10,000 or less; and 54% said that the home-delivered meals program provided at least one-half of their daily food intake. According to the survey, home-delivered meals recipients are particularly frail and are at risk for institutionalization, in part due to the requirement that participants be homebound. Almost four out of ten recipients (38%) reported needing assistance with one or more activities of daily living (ADLs, such as bathing, dressing, eating, and using the toilet); 11% of these recipients needed assistance with three or more ADLs. In addition, 83% reported needing assistance with one or more instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs, such as shopping, telephoning, housework, and getting around inside the home). The last major national evaluation of the nutrition program was completed in 1996. It showed that, compared to the total elderly population, nutrition program participants were older and more likely to be poor, to live alone, and to be members of minority groups.\",\n \"Almost half of home-delivered meal recipients and more than one-third of congregate meal recipients had income below the federal poverty level, compared to about 15% of the total U.S. population age 60 and over (at the time of the evaluation). Recipients were also more likely to have health and functional limitations that place them at nutritional risk. The report found the program plays an important role in participants' overall nutrition and that meals consumed by participants are their primary source of daily nutrients. The evaluation also found that the program leverages a fairly significant amount of nonfederal dollars: for every federal dollar spent, the program leveraged (at that time) on average $1.70 for congregate meals, and $3.35 for home-delivered meals from a variety of sources, including state, local, and private funds as well as participant contributions toward the cost of meals. The 2006 reauthorization legislation stipulated that the Institute of Medicine (IOM) conduct an evidence-based study of the program.\",\n \"The study is to include (1) an evaluation of the effect of nutrition projects on the health and nutrition status of participants, prevention of hunger and food insecurity, and ability of participants to remain living independently; (2) a cost-benefit analysis of nutrition projects, including their potential to affect Medicaid costs; and (3) recommendations on how nutrition projects may be modified to improve outcomes, and the nutritional quality of meals. To date, AOA has not conducted this study. However, prior to the 2006 reauthorization AOA had begun the process to conduct a new evaluation of the Title III nutrition services program. According to AOA, this evaluation will contain (1) an evaluation of program impacts on participants' nutrition, health and well-being, socialization, and food insecurity; (2) a cost analysis that describes the cost per meal by cost categories and method of meal production; and (3) a process evaluation that examines the implementation of the program at the state and local levels and includes an assessment of the nutritional quality of the program meals.\",\n \"The participant outcomes component will involve a matched comparison group and similar survey methods as those used in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Study (NHANES) to allow for comparison of research results to the previous evaluation, a matched comparison group, and national estimates from NHANES and other national data. As the nation prepares for a growing older population and potential increase in demand for health and social services that can promote the well-being of older persons to assist them in living independently in the community, ensuring access to home- and community-based long-term services and supports will likely be an issue for federal policymakers. The OAA Amendments of 2006 ( P.L. 109-365 ) authorized appropriations for OAA-funded activities, including the Title III nutrition programs, through FY2011. The 113 th Congress may choose to reauthorize the act. In doing so, federal policymakers may consider amending or deleting existing authorities under the act or establishing new authorities, including those related to nutrition services. In addition, Congress will likely consider annual appropriations for these activities. The following sections discuss several issues for congressional consideration, such as measuring unmet need for nutrition services, additional funding flexibility, and increased cost-sharing.\",\n \"These issues were among those discussed by GAO in its February 11, 2011 report, Older Americans Act: More Should Be Done to Measure the Extent of Unmet Need for Services (GAO-11-23711), and in GAO testimony before the Subcommittee on Primary Health and Aging, Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions on June 21, 2011 (GAO-11-782T). According to a national analysis by GAO, meals services provided in 2008 served some, but not most, low-income older adults who are likely in need of such services. State agency officials identified several reasons why an older adult may need but not receive meals services, including (1) greater demand for home-delivered meals than available funds can provide, (2) lack of knowledge or awareness among eligible older adults that meals services exist, and (3) lack of appeal with the meals served or the time of day meals are provided in congregate settings. Overall, GAO found that the lack of federal guidance and data make it difficult for states to estimate the full extent of need and unmet need for OAA Title III services, including nutrition services.\",\n \"The OAA requires that AOA design and implement uniform data collection procedures for states to assess receipt of services, as well as need and unmet need for Title III services. Although AOA does provide uniform procedures for states to measure receipt of services, the agency does not provide standardized definitions or measurement for states to use in measuring need or unmet need for services. As a result, states use a variety of approaches that are often limited in their ability to fully estimate need and unmet need among older adults. These approaches include maintaining waitlists, obtaining information and data from service providers, and surveying current recipients. GAO recommends that HHS partner with governmental agencies that provide services to older Americans and convene researchers and agency officials to develop consistent definitions of need and unmet needs for uniform data collection purposes. Most states and a number of AAAs use the statutory flexibilities under current law to transfer funding among Title III programs. According to GAO, some states recommended consolidating funding for nutrition services programs into one single funding stream. However, other state officials did not see the need to alter the current process for transferring Title III\",\n \"funds.\",\n \"The AOA also identifies consolidating nutrition program funding between home-delivered and congregate nutrition programs as a targeted change for the next OAA reauthorization, so as to allow \\\"states more flexibility to direct services to identified needs, and allow more local input into funding allocations.\\\" Congress may consider whether additional flexibilities are necessary, possibly consolidating Title III funding streams or increasing the proportion of funds available for states and AAAs to transfer, affording those entities that choose to transfer funds greater latitude to do so. Conversely, Congress may be concerned that funding transfers provide states and AAAs the ability to reallocate funding to services at a level different than otherwise appropriated. As a result, Congress may seek to further specify or limit funding flexibility. Congress may also decide that funding flexibilities under current law are sufficient for states and AAAs current needs and choose to maintain the status quo. Clients can, and some do, contribute to the cost of their meals. GAO found that almost all local AAAs permit voluntary contributions for Title III services, including the nutrition services program. For FY2009, voluntary contributions comprised 4% of AAA budgets.\",\n \"Some AAAs indicated to GAO that voluntary contributions make up a significant portion of their nutrition services program budget. Although the OAA authorizes states to implement cost-sharing as a requirement for some Title III services, the act does not permit cost-sharing as a requirement for participation in congregate and home-delivered meals programs. According to GAO, additional cost-sharing arrangements could provide additional funding for Title III programs. GAO also recommends that the HHS Secretary study the implementation of cost-sharing for OAA services with respect to \\\"the real and perceived burdens to implementing cost sharing for OAA services,\\\" which could include recommending legislative changes to the act. The AOA also identifies expanding consumer contributions as a targeted change for the next OAA reauthorization. Under this proposal, states could request a waiver to test either cost-sharing for nutrition and case management services, or to deny service to an individual for failure to make cost-sharing payments. Prior to waiver approval, states would be required to demonstrate no negative results from cost-sharing implementation. Furthermore, low-income individuals would continue to be excluded from these cost-sharing arrangements.\"\n]","isConversational":false}}},{"rowIdx":16999,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"string","value":"train_16999"},"question":{"kind":"string","value":"Write a detailed summary of the following government report."},"answer":{"kind":"string","value":"The National Statuary Hall Collection, located in the United States Capitol, comprises 100 statues provided by individual states to honor persons notable for their historic renown or for distinguished services. The collection was authorized in 1864, at the same time that Congress redesignated the hall where the House of Representatives formerly met as National Statuary Hall. The first statue, depicting Nathanael Greene, was provided in 1870 by Rhode Island. The collection has consisted of 100 statues—two statues per state—since 2005, when New Mexico sent a statue of Po'pay. At various times, aesthetic and structural concerns necessitated the relocation of some statues throughout the Capitol. Today, some of the 100 individual statues in the National Statuary Hall Collection are located in the House and Senate wings of the Capitol, the Rotunda, the Crypt, and the Capitol Visitor Center. Legislation to increase the size of the National Statuary Hall Collection was introduced in several Congresses. These measures would permit states to furnish more than two statues or allow the District of Columbia and the U.S. territories to provide statues to the collection. None of these proposals were enacted. Should Congress choose to expand the number of statues in the National Statuary Hall Collection, the Joint Committee on the Library and the Architect of the Capitol (AOC) may need to address statue location to address aesthetic, structural, and safety concerns in National Statuary Hall, the Capitol Visitor Center, and other areas of the Capitol. This report provides historical information on the National Statuary Hall Collection and National Statuary Hall. It examines the creation, design, placement, and replacement of statues in the National Statuary Hall Collection. The report then discusses recent legislative proposals to increase the size of the National Statuary Hall Collection. Finally, the report discusses potential issues for congressional consideration."},"documents":{"kind":"list like","value":["The United States Capitol is home to extensive art collections. These collections are considered by Congress as \"an integral part of the history of this renowned building.\" Perhaps the most prominent collection is the National Statuary Hall Collection, which contains statues of notable citizens provided by each state. The collection was authorized in 1864, when Congress designated the large, two-story, semicircular former chamber of the House of Representatives—the Old Hall of the House—as National Statuary Hall. The first statue in the collection, depicting Nathanael Greene, was provided by Rhode Island in 1870. As the Union grew, the number of statues in the collection increased; by 1933,the hall held 65 statues, some of which stood three deep. Aesthetic and structural concerns necessitated the relocation of some statues throughout the Capitol. The collection reached 100 statues in 2005 when New Mexico, which became a state in 1912, added the statue of Po'pay. Today, 34 statues are displayed in National Statuary Hall, with the rest in the House and Senate wings of the Capitol, the Rotunda, the Crypt, and the Capitol Visitor Center (CVC). Collection statues—chosen by the states to honor prominent citizens—are furnished to Congress for display in","the Capitol.","In the 106 th Congress (1999-2000), for the first time, states were allowed to replace a statue previously donated to the National Statuary Hall Collection. In past congresses, legislation has been introduced to alter the size of the collection by allowing each state to contribute three statues instead of two or allow the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. territories to provide one statue each. This report discusses the creation of the National Statuary Hall Collection and the redesignation of the Old Hall of the House as the National Statuary Hall. It examines the creation, design, placement, and replacement of statues in the National Statuary Hall Collection. The report then discusses recent legislative proposals to increase the size of the National Statuary Hall Collection. Finally, the report discusses potential issues for congressional consideration. On January 6, 1864, Representative Justin Morrill introduced a resolution, which was agreed to by voice vote, requesting that the House Committee on Public Buildings examine the possibility of using the Old Hall of the House of Representatives to display statues.","Resolved, That the Committee on Public Buildings be requested to examine and report as to the expediency of setting apart the old hall of the House of Representatives as a hall for statuary; and also as to the cost of a new flooring and bronze railing on each side of the passage-way through the hall, preparatory to the reception of such works of arts. On April 19, 1864, Representative John Hovey Rice introduced, on behalf of the House Committee on Public Buildings, which he chaired, a joint resolution to create a statuary hall in the Old Hall of the House and to authorize existing appropriations to repair the old House chamber. The resolution called for the President to \"invite each of the states to provide and furnish statues in marble or bronze, not exceeding two in number each, of men who have been citizens thereof, illustrious in their historical renown or distinguished for their civic or military services, such as each State shall determine are worthy of national remembrance....","\" The joint resolution passed the House by a vote of 87 to 20 and was referred in the Senate to the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds, where it was reported without amendment and with the recommendation that it \"ought not to pass.\" The Senate took no further action on the joint resolution. Subsequently, in June 1864, during House consideration of a civil appropriations bill, Representative Thaddeus Stevens offered an amendment similar to the joint resolution previously passed by the House. The amendment was agreed to in the House, but was removed from the bill when it was considered in the Senate. The proposed language, however, was restored in conference committee, which stated, Sec. 2.","And be it further enacted , That a marble floor, similar to that of the Congressional Library or the Senate vestibule, shall be constructed in the old Hall of the House of Representatives, using such marble as may be now on hand and not otherwise required, and that suitable structures and railings shall be therein erected for the reception and protection of statuary, and the same shall be under the supervision and direction of the Commissioner of Public Buildings; and so much of the moneys now or heretofore appropriated for the capitol extension as may be necessary, not exceeding the sum of fifteen thousand dollars, is hereby set apart and shall be disbursed for the porse [purposes] hereinbefore mentioned.","And the President is hereby authorized to invite each and all the States to provide and furnish statues, in marble or bronze, not exceeding two in number for each state, of deceased persons who have been citizens thereof, and illustrious for their historic renown or from distinguished civic or military services, such as each state shall determine to be worthy of this national commemoration; and when so furnished the same shall be placed in the old hall of the House of Representatives, in the capitol of the United States, which is hereby set apart, or so much thereof as may be necessary, as a national statuary hall, for the purposes herein indicated. Pursuant to the July 1864 civil appropriations bill, each state may donate up to two statues for inclusion in the National Statuary Hall Collection. Statues donated to the collection are to be made of \"... marble or bronze, not exceeding two in number for each State, of deceased persons who have been citizens thereof, and illustrious for their historic renown or for distinguished civic or military service....","\" In 2005, Congress enacted a requirement that an individual depicted on a statue displayed in National Statuary Hall must be deceased for at least 10 years. Exceptions to the restrictions were provided for the two statues allowed per state pursuant to the July 1864 law, including any potential replacement statues, as well as a statue of Rosa Parks from the U.S. Capitol Art Collection that was placed in National Statuary Hall in 2013. Statues donated to the collection must be formally accepted by the Joint Committee on the Library. To assist states, the AOC has published guidelines, which are subject to modification by the Joint Committee, for creating statues for the collection. The guidelines address numerous aspects of statuary design, including subject, material, pedestal, inscriptions, size and weight, patina and coating, and other considerations. Additionally, the Architect of the Capitol (AOC), upon the approval of the Joint Committee on the Library, with the advice of the Commission of Fine Arts as requested, is authorized and directed to locate or relocate collection statues within the Capitol. The AOC, under the guidance of the Joint Committee, established a nine-step process for the acceptance of a new or","replacement statute.","This process is part of the statue design and placement guidelines. Since 2000, states have been allowed to replace statues donated to the collection. Regulations for the replacement of statues were established by the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2001. To replace a statue, a state must request—through the approval of a resolution adopted by the state legislature and signed by the governor—in writing, approval from the Joint Committee; and ensure that the statue to be replaced has been displayed in the collection for at least 10 years. Upon the Joint Committee's approval of the replacement request, the AOC is authorized to enter into an agreement with the state, subject to any conditions imposed by the Joint Committee. Once accepted, the state is responsible for paying all related costs, including the design, construction, transportation, and placement of the new statue, the removal and transportation of the statue being replaced (back to the state or other location determined by the state legislature), and any unveiling ceremony. Since the authorization of replacements within the collection in 2000, Alabama, California, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, and Ohio have sent a replacement statue.","A list of statues replaced in the collection can be found in Appendix B . Legislation to increase the size of the collection might fall into two categories. The first would increase the number of statues that states are permitted to donate, from a maximum of two per state to three per state. The second would permit the District of Columbia and the U.S. territories to contribute one or more statues to the collection. Since the redesignation of the Old Hall of the House as National Statuary Hall in 1864, each state has been allowed to place two statues in the collection. Supporters of providing a third statue per state argue that additional statues could provide an opportunity to increase the diversity of the collection, which currently includes 16 statues of women or minorities. A proposal to add a third statue per state was first introduced in the 103 rd Congress (1993-1994) by Representative Douglas (Pete) Peterson. The bill ( H.R.","3368 ) would have provided a third statue to each state and restricted the ability of states to furnish an additional statue or replace an existing statue for \"100 years after the date on which it furnishes its third statue.... \" H.R. 3368 was referred to the Committee on House Administration but did not receive further action. Most recently, legislation was introduced in the 112 th Congress (2011-2012) by Representative Stephen Cohen ( H.R. 1289 , the Share America's Diverse History in the Capitol Act) to expand the National Statuary Hall Collection from two statues per state to three. H.R. 1289 was referred to the Committee on House Administration on March 31, 2011, and did not receive further action. If Congress were to authorize an additional statue per state, states would have the ability, but not be required, to add statues to the collection. Increasing the collection by up to 50 statues may take some time, as states debate who might be honored, raise funds, and commission artists to create new statues. Should the National Statuary Hall Collection expand to more than 100 statues, space for the additional statues in the Capitol complex could become an","issue.","Currently, collection statues are located in the Rotunda, the Crypt, the House wing of the Capitol in National Statuary Hall, the Hall of Columns, and adjacent to the House chamber, the Senate wing of the Capitol, and the CVC. When the CVC opened in 2008, collection statues were moved to Emancipation Hall and other CVC locations to reduce the number of statues in National Statuary Hall and other Capitol locations. The addition of 50 or more statues might require the AOC to place statues closer together in those locations. If more statues are placed in National Statuary Hall itself, some display and structural concerns that have arisen in the past may be revisited. Measures to authorize the District of Columbia and the territories to provide statues for the National Statuary Hall Collection have been introduced since at least the 93 rd Congress (1973-1974). In both the 93 rd and 94 th (1975-1976) Congresses, Senator Hubert Humphrey introduced legislation to \"provide authority for the District of Columbia to place two statues in Statuary Hall of the Capitol.\" Both bills were referred to the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration and neither received further action.","In the 111 th Congress (2009-2010), for the first time, legislation to allow statues from the District of Columbia and the territories passed the House. These bills were H.R. 5493 , introduced by Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton to provide for statues from the District of Columbia; and H.R. 5711 , introduced by Delegate Faleomavaega to provide statues for the U.S. territories. In July 2010, the Committee on House Administration held a markup on both bills. After an amendment to merge the bills was offered by Representative Dan Lungren, then-ranking Member of the panel, was defeated, the committee reported both bills. Between the reporting of H.R. 5493 and H.R. 5711 by the Committee on House Administration and the consideration of these bills in the House, Representative Robert Brady, then-chair of the panel, helped negotiate a merger of the bills. Subsequently, H.R. 5493 was debated in the House with an amendment that would permit the District of Columbia and the U.S. territories to place statues in the collection. The bill passed the House, as amended, under suspension of the rules. In the Senate, the bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, and no further","action was taken.","In the 112 th Congress (2011-2012), Representative Dan Lungren, then-chair of the Committee on House Administration, reintroduced a bill that is nearly identical in language to H.R. 5493 in the 111 th Congress. His bill, H.R. 3106 , would permit the District of Columbia and the territories to place statues in the National Statuary Hall Collection. Upon introduction, H.R. 3106 was referred to the Committee on House Administration. No further action was taken. While not part of the National Statuary Hall collection, in the 112 th Congress, the placement of a statue of Frederick Douglass, was donated by the District of Columbia government and accepted by Congress for placement in Emancipation Hall of the Capital Visitor Center. The statue was officially unveiled on June 19, 2013. Over the past four decades, Congress has considered several proposals to increase the number of statues in the National Statuary Hall Collection. One group of legislative proposals involves adding additional statues for each state; another would expand the collection by allowing the District of Columbia and the U.S. territories to provide statues to the collection.","If either or both options were adopted, proponents argue that states could donate statues that better represent various aspects of the state's history. Increasing the number of statues in the collection, however, could result in further space issues for statue display in the Capitol. When the CVC opened, the Architect, under the direction of the Joint Committee on the Library, reduced the number of collection statues on display in National Statuary Hall as well as in the House and Senate wings of the Capitol by moving them to Emancipation Hall and other locations within the CVC. Adding additional statues to the collection might necessitate relocating existing statues. Any changes to the collection would likely be weighed against the potential costs to states, or if approved, the District of Columbia and U.S. territories, who might provide new statues. In the case of expanding the number of statues that might be added to the collection, a further concern is whether the larger collection could be displayed in the Capitol in an appropriate manner. Other considerations include structural, traffic management, and life safety constraints of the physical environment. Appendix A.","National Statuary Hall Collection Statues Since 2005, when New Mexico provided its second statue—Po'Pay—the National Statuary Hall Collection has contained 100 statues. Table A -1 provides a list of statues currently in the collection, by state, with the name of the statue and the year it was placed in the collection. Appendix B. Statues Replaced in the National Statuary Hall Collection Since 2000, states have been allowed to replace statues donated to the collection. Regulations for the replacement of statues were established by the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2001. Table B -1 provides a list of states that have replaced statues, the year of the replacement, the original statue, and the replacement statue."],"string":"[\n \"The United States Capitol is home to extensive art collections. These collections are considered by Congress as \\\"an integral part of the history of this renowned building.\\\" Perhaps the most prominent collection is the National Statuary Hall Collection, which contains statues of notable citizens provided by each state. The collection was authorized in 1864, when Congress designated the large, two-story, semicircular former chamber of the House of Representatives—the Old Hall of the House—as National Statuary Hall. The first statue in the collection, depicting Nathanael Greene, was provided by Rhode Island in 1870. As the Union grew, the number of statues in the collection increased; by 1933,the hall held 65 statues, some of which stood three deep. Aesthetic and structural concerns necessitated the relocation of some statues throughout the Capitol. The collection reached 100 statues in 2005 when New Mexico, which became a state in 1912, added the statue of Po'pay. Today, 34 statues are displayed in National Statuary Hall, with the rest in the House and Senate wings of the Capitol, the Rotunda, the Crypt, and the Capitol Visitor Center (CVC). Collection statues—chosen by the states to honor prominent citizens—are furnished to Congress for display in\",\n \"the Capitol.\",\n \"In the 106 th Congress (1999-2000), for the first time, states were allowed to replace a statue previously donated to the National Statuary Hall Collection. In past congresses, legislation has been introduced to alter the size of the collection by allowing each state to contribute three statues instead of two or allow the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. territories to provide one statue each. This report discusses the creation of the National Statuary Hall Collection and the redesignation of the Old Hall of the House as the National Statuary Hall. It examines the creation, design, placement, and replacement of statues in the National Statuary Hall Collection. The report then discusses recent legislative proposals to increase the size of the National Statuary Hall Collection. Finally, the report discusses potential issues for congressional consideration. On January 6, 1864, Representative Justin Morrill introduced a resolution, which was agreed to by voice vote, requesting that the House Committee on Public Buildings examine the possibility of using the Old Hall of the House of Representatives to display statues.\",\n \"Resolved, That the Committee on Public Buildings be requested to examine and report as to the expediency of setting apart the old hall of the House of Representatives as a hall for statuary; and also as to the cost of a new flooring and bronze railing on each side of the passage-way through the hall, preparatory to the reception of such works of arts. On April 19, 1864, Representative John Hovey Rice introduced, on behalf of the House Committee on Public Buildings, which he chaired, a joint resolution to create a statuary hall in the Old Hall of the House and to authorize existing appropriations to repair the old House chamber. The resolution called for the President to \\\"invite each of the states to provide and furnish statues in marble or bronze, not exceeding two in number each, of men who have been citizens thereof, illustrious in their historical renown or distinguished for their civic or military services, such as each State shall determine are worthy of national remembrance....\",\n \"\\\" The joint resolution passed the House by a vote of 87 to 20 and was referred in the Senate to the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds, where it was reported without amendment and with the recommendation that it \\\"ought not to pass.\\\" The Senate took no further action on the joint resolution. Subsequently, in June 1864, during House consideration of a civil appropriations bill, Representative Thaddeus Stevens offered an amendment similar to the joint resolution previously passed by the House. The amendment was agreed to in the House, but was removed from the bill when it was considered in the Senate. The proposed language, however, was restored in conference committee, which stated, Sec. 2.\",\n \"And be it further enacted , That a marble floor, similar to that of the Congressional Library or the Senate vestibule, shall be constructed in the old Hall of the House of Representatives, using such marble as may be now on hand and not otherwise required, and that suitable structures and railings shall be therein erected for the reception and protection of statuary, and the same shall be under the supervision and direction of the Commissioner of Public Buildings; and so much of the moneys now or heretofore appropriated for the capitol extension as may be necessary, not exceeding the sum of fifteen thousand dollars, is hereby set apart and shall be disbursed for the porse [purposes] hereinbefore mentioned.\",\n \"And the President is hereby authorized to invite each and all the States to provide and furnish statues, in marble or bronze, not exceeding two in number for each state, of deceased persons who have been citizens thereof, and illustrious for their historic renown or from distinguished civic or military services, such as each state shall determine to be worthy of this national commemoration; and when so furnished the same shall be placed in the old hall of the House of Representatives, in the capitol of the United States, which is hereby set apart, or so much thereof as may be necessary, as a national statuary hall, for the purposes herein indicated. Pursuant to the July 1864 civil appropriations bill, each state may donate up to two statues for inclusion in the National Statuary Hall Collection. Statues donated to the collection are to be made of \\\"... marble or bronze, not exceeding two in number for each State, of deceased persons who have been citizens thereof, and illustrious for their historic renown or for distinguished civic or military service....\",\n \"\\\" In 2005, Congress enacted a requirement that an individual depicted on a statue displayed in National Statuary Hall must be deceased for at least 10 years. Exceptions to the restrictions were provided for the two statues allowed per state pursuant to the July 1864 law, including any potential replacement statues, as well as a statue of Rosa Parks from the U.S. Capitol Art Collection that was placed in National Statuary Hall in 2013. Statues donated to the collection must be formally accepted by the Joint Committee on the Library. To assist states, the AOC has published guidelines, which are subject to modification by the Joint Committee, for creating statues for the collection. The guidelines address numerous aspects of statuary design, including subject, material, pedestal, inscriptions, size and weight, patina and coating, and other considerations. Additionally, the Architect of the Capitol (AOC), upon the approval of the Joint Committee on the Library, with the advice of the Commission of Fine Arts as requested, is authorized and directed to locate or relocate collection statues within the Capitol. The AOC, under the guidance of the Joint Committee, established a nine-step process for the acceptance of a new or\",\n \"replacement statute.\",\n \"This process is part of the statue design and placement guidelines. Since 2000, states have been allowed to replace statues donated to the collection. Regulations for the replacement of statues were established by the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2001. To replace a statue, a state must request—through the approval of a resolution adopted by the state legislature and signed by the governor—in writing, approval from the Joint Committee; and ensure that the statue to be replaced has been displayed in the collection for at least 10 years. Upon the Joint Committee's approval of the replacement request, the AOC is authorized to enter into an agreement with the state, subject to any conditions imposed by the Joint Committee. Once accepted, the state is responsible for paying all related costs, including the design, construction, transportation, and placement of the new statue, the removal and transportation of the statue being replaced (back to the state or other location determined by the state legislature), and any unveiling ceremony. Since the authorization of replacements within the collection in 2000, Alabama, California, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, and Ohio have sent a replacement statue.\",\n \"A list of statues replaced in the collection can be found in Appendix B . Legislation to increase the size of the collection might fall into two categories. The first would increase the number of statues that states are permitted to donate, from a maximum of two per state to three per state. The second would permit the District of Columbia and the U.S. territories to contribute one or more statues to the collection. Since the redesignation of the Old Hall of the House as National Statuary Hall in 1864, each state has been allowed to place two statues in the collection. Supporters of providing a third statue per state argue that additional statues could provide an opportunity to increase the diversity of the collection, which currently includes 16 statues of women or minorities. A proposal to add a third statue per state was first introduced in the 103 rd Congress (1993-1994) by Representative Douglas (Pete) Peterson. The bill ( H.R.\",\n \"3368 ) would have provided a third statue to each state and restricted the ability of states to furnish an additional statue or replace an existing statue for \\\"100 years after the date on which it furnishes its third statue.... \\\" H.R. 3368 was referred to the Committee on House Administration but did not receive further action. Most recently, legislation was introduced in the 112 th Congress (2011-2012) by Representative Stephen Cohen ( H.R. 1289 , the Share America's Diverse History in the Capitol Act) to expand the National Statuary Hall Collection from two statues per state to three. H.R. 1289 was referred to the Committee on House Administration on March 31, 2011, and did not receive further action. If Congress were to authorize an additional statue per state, states would have the ability, but not be required, to add statues to the collection. Increasing the collection by up to 50 statues may take some time, as states debate who might be honored, raise funds, and commission artists to create new statues. Should the National Statuary Hall Collection expand to more than 100 statues, space for the additional statues in the Capitol complex could become an\",\n \"issue.\",\n \"Currently, collection statues are located in the Rotunda, the Crypt, the House wing of the Capitol in National Statuary Hall, the Hall of Columns, and adjacent to the House chamber, the Senate wing of the Capitol, and the CVC. When the CVC opened in 2008, collection statues were moved to Emancipation Hall and other CVC locations to reduce the number of statues in National Statuary Hall and other Capitol locations. The addition of 50 or more statues might require the AOC to place statues closer together in those locations. If more statues are placed in National Statuary Hall itself, some display and structural concerns that have arisen in the past may be revisited. Measures to authorize the District of Columbia and the territories to provide statues for the National Statuary Hall Collection have been introduced since at least the 93 rd Congress (1973-1974). In both the 93 rd and 94 th (1975-1976) Congresses, Senator Hubert Humphrey introduced legislation to \\\"provide authority for the District of Columbia to place two statues in Statuary Hall of the Capitol.\\\" Both bills were referred to the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration and neither received further action.\",\n \"In the 111 th Congress (2009-2010), for the first time, legislation to allow statues from the District of Columbia and the territories passed the House. These bills were H.R. 5493 , introduced by Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton to provide for statues from the District of Columbia; and H.R. 5711 , introduced by Delegate Faleomavaega to provide statues for the U.S. territories. In July 2010, the Committee on House Administration held a markup on both bills. After an amendment to merge the bills was offered by Representative Dan Lungren, then-ranking Member of the panel, was defeated, the committee reported both bills. Between the reporting of H.R. 5493 and H.R. 5711 by the Committee on House Administration and the consideration of these bills in the House, Representative Robert Brady, then-chair of the panel, helped negotiate a merger of the bills. Subsequently, H.R. 5493 was debated in the House with an amendment that would permit the District of Columbia and the U.S. territories to place statues in the collection. The bill passed the House, as amended, under suspension of the rules. In the Senate, the bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, and no further\",\n \"action was taken.\",\n \"In the 112 th Congress (2011-2012), Representative Dan Lungren, then-chair of the Committee on House Administration, reintroduced a bill that is nearly identical in language to H.R. 5493 in the 111 th Congress. His bill, H.R. 3106 , would permit the District of Columbia and the territories to place statues in the National Statuary Hall Collection. Upon introduction, H.R. 3106 was referred to the Committee on House Administration. No further action was taken. While not part of the National Statuary Hall collection, in the 112 th Congress, the placement of a statue of Frederick Douglass, was donated by the District of Columbia government and accepted by Congress for placement in Emancipation Hall of the Capital Visitor Center. The statue was officially unveiled on June 19, 2013. Over the past four decades, Congress has considered several proposals to increase the number of statues in the National Statuary Hall Collection. One group of legislative proposals involves adding additional statues for each state; another would expand the collection by allowing the District of Columbia and the U.S. territories to provide statues to the collection.\",\n \"If either or both options were adopted, proponents argue that states could donate statues that better represent various aspects of the state's history. Increasing the number of statues in the collection, however, could result in further space issues for statue display in the Capitol. When the CVC opened, the Architect, under the direction of the Joint Committee on the Library, reduced the number of collection statues on display in National Statuary Hall as well as in the House and Senate wings of the Capitol by moving them to Emancipation Hall and other locations within the CVC. Adding additional statues to the collection might necessitate relocating existing statues. Any changes to the collection would likely be weighed against the potential costs to states, or if approved, the District of Columbia and U.S. territories, who might provide new statues. In the case of expanding the number of statues that might be added to the collection, a further concern is whether the larger collection could be displayed in the Capitol in an appropriate manner. Other considerations include structural, traffic management, and life safety constraints of the physical environment. Appendix A.\",\n \"National Statuary Hall Collection Statues Since 2005, when New Mexico provided its second statue—Po'Pay—the National Statuary Hall Collection has contained 100 statues. Table A -1 provides a list of statues currently in the collection, by state, with the name of the statue and the year it was placed in the collection. Appendix B. Statues Replaced in the National Statuary Hall Collection Since 2000, states have been allowed to replace statues donated to the collection. Regulations for the replacement of statues were established by the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2001. Table B -1 provides a list of states that have replaced statues, the year of the replacement, the original statue, and the replacement statue.\"\n]","isConversational":false}}}],"truncated":false,"partial":false},"paginationData":{"pageIndex":169,"numItemsPerPage":100,"numTotalItems":17517,"offset":16900,"length":100}},"jwt":"eyJhbGciOiJFZERTQSIsImtpZCI6Im1sR1pFYktIVHRVSGRhX1RRdEczQ0N1S3k5ME9Qd25DNHY5elRjM3FVYzgifQ.eyJyZWFkIjp0cnVlLCJwZXJtaXNzaW9ucyI6eyJyZXBvLmNvbnRlbnQucmVhZCI6dHJ1ZX0sImlhdCI6MTc4MjAzMDE4OCwianRpIjoiM2IzZGI0NWQtY2RiOS00YmJmLWE2N2ItOTdjMjhiYTc2M2I3Iiwic3ViIjoiL2RhdGFzZXRzL01lbW9yeUFzTW9kYWxpdHkvR292UmVwb3J0IiwiZXhwIjoxNzgyMDMzNzg4LCJpc3MiOiJodHRwczovL2h1Z2dpbmdmYWNlLmNvIn0.-hWnf9WfQ9BASTwn7OShqogxJOOczm3pCINWB6kOkNy-kuU60YWBbDxzAouad40rhtiRfKlPIvieCwDMQTNuCw","displayUrls":true,"splitSizeSummaries":[{"config":"default","split":"train","numRows":17517,"numBytesParquet":457844401},{"config":"default","split":"validation","numRows":973,"numBytesParquet":26212940},{"config":"default","split":"test","numRows":973,"numBytesParquet":24116173}]},"discussionsStats":{"closed":0,"open":0,"total":0},"fullWidth":true,"hasGatedAccess":true,"hasFullAccess":true,"isEmbedded":false,"savedQueries":{"community":[],"user":[]}}">
id string | question string | answer string | documents list |
|---|---|---|---|
train_16900 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | On September 14, 2007, President George W. Bush signed S. 1, the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-81), into law. The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act (HLOGA) amended the Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA) of 1995 (P.L. 104-65, as amended) to provide, among other changes to federal law and... | [
"During the past six decades, Congress on four occasions has approved legislation designed to regulate lobbyist contact with Members of Congress. The initial provisions, which were contained in the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, required that lobbyists register with the House of Representatives and the Sen... |
train_16901 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, P.L. 93-288 , asamended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 5121-5206, and implementing regulations in 44 C.F.R. §§ 206.31-206.48,provide the statutory framework for a Presidential declaration of an emergency or a declaration ofa major disaster. Such declarations open ... | [
"The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, as amended, 42U.S.C. § 5121 et seq. , is designed to provide a means by which the federal government maysupplement state and local resources in major disasters or emergencies where those state and localresources have been or will be overwhelmed.... |
train_16902 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | The Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program was created by Title I of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-322). The mission of the COPS program is to advance community policing in all jurisdictions across the United States. The Violence Against Women and Department of Justice... | [
"The Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program was created by Title I of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (the '94 Crime Act). The mission of the COPS program is to advance community policing in all jurisdictions across the United States. The COPS program awards grants to state, l... |
train_16903 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | While the 9/11 terrorist attacks rallied unprecedented support abroad for the United States initially, they also heightened the awareness among government officials and terrorism experts that a significant number of people, especially within Muslim populations, harbor enough hatred for America so as to become a pool fo... | [
"Public diplomacy is the promotion of America's interests, culture and policies by informing and influencing foreign populations. Immediately after the September 11 th terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the Bush Administration found itself in, not only a military, but also a public diplom... |
train_16904 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | Starting in late 2006, commercial migratory beekeepers along the East Coast of the United States began reporting sharp declines in their honey bee colonies. Because of the severity and unusual circumstances of these colony declines, scientists named this phenomenon colony collapse disorder (CCD). Reports indicate that ... | [
"Starting in 2006, commercial migratory beekeepers along the East Coast of the United States began reporting sharp declines in their honey bee colonies. Because of the severity and unusual circumstances of these colony declines, scientists named this phenomenon colony collapse disorder (CCD). Current reports indica... |
train_16905 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | Federal policymakers are debating a range of potential initiatives to limit U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2). The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (H.R. 2454), for example, would set a target of reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, including CO2 emissions, 17% below 2005 levels by 2020. In the el... | [
"Federal policymakers are debating a range of potential initiatives for reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emissions from U.S. energy sources. Legislative proposals would seek to limit U.S. CO 2 emissions to specific (historical) levels through emissions caps, carbon taxes, or other regulatory mechanisms. ... |
train_16906 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | The diversity visa lottery offers an opportunity for immigration to nationals of countriesthat do not have high levels of immigration. Aliens from eligible countries had until noon on December 30, 2003to submit theirapplications for the FY2005 diversity visa lottery. Aliens who are selected through the lottery, if they... | [
"RS21342 -- Immigration: Diversity Visa Lottery Updated April 26, 2004 The purpose of the diversity visa lottery is, as the name suggests, to encourage legal immigration from countries other than the majorsending countries of current immigration to the United States. The law weighs allocation of immigrant visas hea... |
train_16907 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | U.S. civil nuclear cooperation agreements ("123" agreements), which are bilateral agreements with other governments or multilateral organizations, have several important goals, including promoting the U.S. nuclear industry, which is increasingly dependent on foreign customers and suppliers, and preventing nuclear proli... | [
"The United States has long sought, via its domestic laws as well as foreign policies, to ensure that ostensibly peaceful nuclear commerce does not aid nuclear weapons programs. Mechanisms and instruments such as the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards, the Nu... |
train_16908 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | This report explains the process for filling positions to which the President makes appointments with the advice and consent of the Senate (also referred to as PAS positions). It also identifies, for the 111th Congress, all nominations to full-time positions requiring Senate confirmation in the 15 executive departments... | [
"In troduction This report explains the process for filling positions to which the President makes appointments with the advice and consent of the Senate (PAS positions). It also identifies, for the 111 th Congress, all nominations to executive-level full-time positions in the 15 executive departments. It excludes ... |
train_16909 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | This report summarizes changes enacted in federal child welfare policy during the 109th Congress. Most federal child welfare programs are authorized in Title IV-B and Title IV-E of the Social Security Act, and the bulk of the changes enacted amended programs in those parts of the law. These programs include Child Welfa... | [
"During 2005 and 2006, the 109 th Congress made a number of changes to federal child welfare policy, which have recently been implemented or are set to be implemented in the near future. Most of these changes were made to the child welfare programs authorized under Title IV-E and Title IV-B of the Social Security A... |
train_16910 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | An estimated 37 million foreign-born persons currently reside in the United States, almost a third of whom may be present without legal authorization. The reaction of state and local jurisdictions to unauthorized immigration has varied. In some cases, states and localities have adopted measures intended to deter unlawf... | [
"In recent years, some states and localities have considered, and in a few cases enacted, measures intended to deter the presence of aliens who entered and/or remain in the United States without legal authorization. Typically, these measures have sought to (1) limit the hiring and employment of unauthorized aliens,... |
train_16911 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | Smallpox, which kills approximately 30% of its victims, is estimated to have killedbetween 300 and 500 millionpeople in the twentieth century before the World Health Organization's successful eradication program. Thesmallpox vaccine is effective at preventingsmallpox but has a higher complication rate than any other cu... | [
"RS21288 -- Smallpox: Technical Background on the Disease and Its Potential Role in Terrorism Updated January 10, 2003 Viruses are essentially small pieces of genetic material in a protein coat. They cannot reproduce by themselves. To multiply, a virus must hijack the replicationmachinery in living cells by infecti... |
train_16912 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | There are federal employment and training programs and policies specifically targeted to help veterans seeking employment in the civilian economy. Transition assistance programs are operated by the Department of Defense (DOD), the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and the Department of Labor (DOL) to assist servicem... | [
"Veterans may participate in the general employment and training programs open to everyone seeking jobs, or in certain programs targeted specifically to veterans. In addition, the federal government has a policy of assisting veterans in employment through the use of preferences in federal employment, and requiremen... |
train_16913 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment for veterans (VR&E) is an entitlement program that provides job training and other employment-related services to veterans with service-connected disabilities. In cases where a disabled veteran is not able to work, the VR&E program provides independent living (IL) services to he... | [
"V ocational Rehabilitation and Employment for veterans (VR&E) is an entitlement program that provides job training and related services \"to enable veterans with service-connected disabilities to achieve maximum independence in daily living and, to the maximum extent feasible, to become employable and to obtain an... |
train_16914 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | On October 17, 2006, the EPA published its final revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter (particulates, or PM). The EPA reviewed more than 2,000 scientific studies and found that the evidence continued to support associations between exposure to particulates in ambient air... | [
"The EPA has identified and promulgated National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) under the Clean Air Act (CAA) for six principal pollutants classified by the agency as \"criteria pollutants\": particulate matter (PM), ozone (O 3 , a key measure of smog), nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 , or, inclusively, nitrogen oxid... |
train_16915 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | President Bush and former Thai Prime Minister Thaskin on October 19, 2003, agreed to negotiate a bilateral free trade agreement (FTA). Six negotiating rounds took place, the most recent January 10-13, 2006 in Thailand. U.S. trade officials had hoped to conclude the negotiations by early 2006, but the negotiations were ... | [
"The Bush Administration notified Congress on February 12, 2004, that it intends to begin free trade agreement (FTA) negotiations with Thailand. This notification, which follows an October 19, 2003 announcement by President Bush and former Thai Prime Minister Thaskin of their agreement to launch negotiations, allow... |
train_16916 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | This is a summary of the federal criminal statutes implicated by conducting illegal gambling using the Internet. Gambling is primarily a matter of state law, reinforced by federal law in instances where the presence of an interstate or foreign element might otherwise frustrate the enforcement policies of state law. Sta... | [
"Internet gambling is gambling on, or by means of, the Internet. It encompasses placing a bet online with a bookie, betting shop, or other gambling enterprise. It also includes wagering on a game played online. A few states ban Internet gambling per se. Most states, however, rely upon their generally applicable gam... |
train_16917 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | Each year Congress provides funding for a variety of grant programs through the Department of Justice (DOJ). These programs are used to fund state, local, and tribal governments and nonprofit organizations for a variety of criminal justice-related purposes, such as efforts to combat violence against women, reduce backl... | [
"E ach year Congress provides funding for a variety of grant programs through the Department of Justice (DOJ). These programs provide support to state, local, and tribal governments and nonprofit organizations for a variety of criminal justice-related purposes, such as combatting violence against women, reducing ba... |
train_16918 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | Federal student loans are made available under two major loan programs authorized under the Higher Education Act (HEA) of 1965, as amended: the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) program, authorized by Title IV, Part B, of the HEA; and the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan (DL) program, authorized by Title IV, Part... | [
"During the first several months of 2008, a number of lenders curtailed or ceased their participation in the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) program, citing reasons that include difficulties in raising capital through the securitization of student loan debt and reductions in lender subsidies enacted under the ... |
train_16919 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | The Small Business Administration (SBA) administers several programs to support small businesses, including loan guaranty programs, disaster loan programs, management and technical assistance training programs, and federal contracting programs. Congressional interest in these programs has increased in recent years, pri... | [
"The Small Business Administration (SBA) administers several programs to support small businesses, including loan guaranty programs to enhance small business access to capital; contracting programs to increase small business opportunities in federal contracting; direct loan programs for businesses, homeowners, and ... |
train_16920 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | This report provides information about state and local government debt. State and local governments issue debt instruments in exchange for the use of individuals' and businesses' savings. This debt obligates state and local governments to make interest payments for the use of these savings and to repay, at some time in... | [
"Individuals and businesses lend their accumulated savings to borrowers. In exchange, borrowers give lenders a debt instrument. These debt instruments, typically called bonds, represent a promise by borrowers to pay interest income to lenders on the principal (the amount of money borrowed) until the principal is re... |
train_16921 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | The sunset concept provides for programs and agencies to terminate automatically on a periodic basis unless explicitly renewed by law. Beginning in the 107th Congress, Representative Kevin Brady introduced a series of bills to create a federal sunset commission, modeled on the sunset review process in Texas (including ... | [
"The sunset concept provides for programs and agencies to terminate automatically according to a predetermined schedule unless explicitly renewed by law. Sunset measures usually contain two elements: an action-forcing mechanism, carrying the ultimate threat of elimination, and a framework or guidelines for the syst... |
train_16922 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | The Runaway and Homeless Youth Act (RHYA) was signed into law in 1974 as Title III of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (P.L. 93-415). RHYA authorizes funding for programs to support runaway and homeless youth, as well as related training, research, and other activities. These programs and activities ... | [
"The Runaway and Homeless Youth Act (RHYA) was enacted in 1974 as Title III of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act ( P.L. 93-415 ). RHYA authorizes funding for grant programs that provide direct services to youth—the Basic Center Program (BCP), Transitional Living Program (TLP), and Street Outreach ... |
train_16923 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | Ninety-seven major military bases were recommended for closure and realignment by the 1988, 1991, 1993, and 1995 base realignment and closure (BRAC) commissions. Action on all 451installations (major and minor) from the first four rounds was completed by the end of FY2001, asscheduled. The U.S. General Accounting Offic... | [
"This report discusses key base closure developments, beginning with the 105th Congress andcontinuing into the 107th Congress. The most recent notable development has been the December28, 2001 signing into law ( P.L. 107-107 ) of legislation, initially sponsored by Senator Carl Levin andSenator John McCain, to cond... |
train_16924 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | On March 19, 2003, the United States, aided by Great Britain and Australia,initiated a military invasion of Iraq. Both the U.S. and Great Britain contended that they had sufficient legalauthority touse force against Iraq pursuant to Security Council resolutions adopted in 1990 and 1991. But President Bush alsocontended... | [
"RS21314 -- International Law and the Preemptive Use of Force Against Iraq Updated April 11, 2003 Until recent decades customary international law deemed the right to use force and even to go to war to be an essentialattribute of every state. As one scholar summarized: It always lies within the power of a State to ... |
train_16925 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | Bush Administration officials have said that they wish to see NATO countries contribute forces to bring stability to Iraq, possibly as part of a U.S.-led NATO or U.N. force. Key European alliessuch as France and Germany would first like to see a new U.N. mandate that would includeobjectives, such as a timetable for tur... | [
"The United States now has approximately 130,000 troops in Iraq and another 30,000 supporttroops in Kuwait, a force that some senior U.S. military officials believe stretches the country'scombat capabilities , especially in the event of a major crisis in Korea or elsewhere. The BushAdministration wishes NATO countr... |
train_16926 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | Presidential signing statements are official pronouncements issued by the President contemporaneously to the signing of a bill into law that, in addition to commenting on the law generally, have been used to forward the President's interpretation of the statutory language; to assert constitutional objections to the pro... | [
"Presidential signing statements are official pronouncements issued by the President contemporaneously to the signing of a bill into law that, in addition to commenting on the law generally, have been used to forward the President's interpretation of the statutory language; to assert constitutional objections to th... |
train_16927 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | In a security alliance since 2004 and "strategic partners" since 2006, the United States and Pakistan for decades experienced major shifts in the nature and tone of their relations. In the post-9/11 period, assisting in the creation of a more stable, democratic, and prosperous Pakistan actively combating religious mili... | [
"A stable, democratic, prosperous Pakistan actively combating religious militancy is considered vital to U.S. interests. Pakistan is at the locus of several top-tier policy areas of urgent concern, including regional and global terrorism; efforts to stabilize neighboring Afghanistan; nuclear weapons proliferation; ... |
train_16928 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | The federal government provides grants for family planning services through the Family Planning Program, Title X of the Public Health Service Act (PHSA; 42 U.S.C. §§300 to 300a-6). Title X, enacted in 1970, is the only domestic federal program devoted solely to family planning and related preventive health services. In... | [
"The federal government provides grants for family planning services through the Family Planning Program, Title X of the Public Health Service Act (PHSA; 42 U.S.C. §§300 to 300a-6). Enacted in 1970, Title X is the only domestic federal program devoted solely to family planning and related preventive health services... |
train_16929 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is a broad civil rights act prohibiting discrimination against individuals with disabilities. As stated in the act, its purpose is "to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities." In 2008, Congr... | [
"The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is a broad civil rights act prohibiting discrimination against individuals with disabilities. As stated in the act, its purpose is \"to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities.\" In 2008... |
train_16930 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | Youth mentoring refers to a relationship between youth—particularly those most at risk of experiencing negative outcomes in adolescence and adulthood—and the adults who support and guide them. The origin of the modern youth mentoring concept is credited to the efforts of charity groups that formed during the Progressiv... | [
"The purpose of contemporary, structured mentoring programs is to reduce risks by supplementing (but not supplanting) a youth's relationship with his or her parents. These programs are administered by mostly adult volunteers who are recruited by youth-serving organizations, faith-based organizations, schools, and a... |
train_16931 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | Since the early 1960s, U.S. policy toward Cuba has consisted largely of isolating the communist nation through economic sanctions, which the Bush Administration has tightened significantly. A second policy component has consisted of support measures for the Cuban people, including private humanitarian donations and U.S... | [
"On December 17, 2008, Cuban President Raúl Castro offered to exchange some imprisoned Cuban political dissidents for five Cubans imprisoned for espionage in the United States since 2001. The State Department responded that the jailed dissidents in Cuba should be released immediately without any conditions. On Dece... |
train_16932 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | This report considers the constitutionality of federal tort reform legislation, such as the products liability and medical malpractice reform proposals that have been introduced for the last several Congresses. Tort law at present is almost exclusively state law rather than federal law, although, as noted in the append... | [
"This report considers the constitutionality of federal tort reform legislation, such as the products liability and medical malpractice reform proposals that have been introduced for the last several Congresses. A tort is a civil (as opposed to a criminal) wrong, other than a breach of contract, that causes injury ... |
train_16933 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | In the 110th Congress, the Senate and House have passed different versions of expanded mental health parity legislation (S. 558 and H.R. 1424). These bills have always been strongly supported by advocates for the mentally ill and have had broad, bipartisan support in Congress. Although employers and health insurance gr... | [
"In the 110 th Congress, there is a renewed push to expand existing federal mental health parity law. Legislation introduced in the House ( H.R. 1424 ) by Representatives Kennedy and Ramstad, and in the Senate ( S. 558 ) by Senators Domenici and Kennedy, have passed in the respective chambers. On March 5, 2008, the... |
train_16934 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | The State Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) is a means-tested program that provides health coverage to targeted low-income children and pregnant women in families that have annual income above Medicaid eligibility levels but have no health insurance. CHIP is jointly financed by the federal government and the s... | [
"T he State Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) is a federal-state program that provides health coverage to certain uninsured, low-income children and pregnant women in families that have annual income above Medicaid eligibility levels. CHIP is jointly financed by the federal government and the states and is... |
train_16935 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | The Berne Union, or the International Union of Credit and Investment Insurers, is an international organization comprised of more than 70 public and private sector members that represent both public and private segments of the export credit and investment insurance industry. Members range from highly developed economie... | [
"The Berne Union represents a diverse group of public and private entities that are directly involved in international trade and foreign investment by providing financing and insurance to exporters and investors. The activities of Berne Union members are diversified across products, geographies, governance modes, a... |
train_16936 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is a broad civil rights act prohibiting discrimination against individuals with disabilities. Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits places of public accommodation, including hospitals and doctors' offices, from discriminating against individuals with ... | [
"The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is a broad civil rights act prohibiting discrimination against individuals with disabilities. Under title III of the ADA, discrimination against individuals with disabilities in public accommodations, including hospitals and doctor's offices, is prohibited. The Department ... |
train_16937 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | After the massive reorganization of federal agencies precipitated by the creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), there are now four main federal agencies charged with securing the United States' borders: the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), which patrols the border and conducts immigrations, cus... | [
"In the wake of the tragedy of September 11, 2001, the U.S. Congress decided that enhancing the security of the United States' borders was a vitally important component of preventing future terrorist attacks. Before September 11, 2001, border security fell piecemeal under the mandate of many diverse federal departm... |
train_16938 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is a grants and civil rights statute which provides federal funding to the states to help provide education for children with disabilities. If a state receives funds under IDEA, it must make available a free, appropriate public education (FAPE) for all children wit... | [
"The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is a grants and civil rights statute which provides federal funding to the states to help provide education for children with disabilities. If a state receives funds under IDEA, it must make available a free, appropriate public education (FAPE) for all childre... |
train_16939 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria, headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, is an independent foundation that seeks to attract and rapidly disburse new resources in developing countries aimed at countering the three diseases. The Fund is a financing vehicle, not an implementing agency. The origins o... | [
"In January 2002, the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria (Global Fund) was established as an independent foundation in Switzerland to support country efforts to curb the number of illnesses and deaths caused by HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis (TB), and malaria. Each year, the three diseases kill some 6 mil... |
train_16940 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | Policymakers are giving increased attention to issues associated with financing and investing in the nation's drinking water and wastewater treatment systems, which take in water, treat it, and distribute it to households and other customers, and later collect, treat, and discharge water after use. The renewed attentio... | [
"Drinking water and wastewater treatment systems treat and safeguard the nation's water resources. Drinking water utilities supply safe potable water to customers in both the proper quantity and quality. Wastewater utilities operate facilities that clean the flow of used water from a community. The federal governme... |
train_16941 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | This report discusses the campaign and results of Armenia's May 12, 2007, legislative election and examines implications for Armenian and U.S. interests. Many observers viewed the election as marking some democratization progress. The Republican Party of Armenia increased its number of seats to a near-majority and term... | [
"Since becoming independent in 1991, Armenia has made unsteady progress toward democratization, according to many international observers. These observersâincluding international organizations such as the Council of Europe (COE), the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), and the European Uni... |
train_16942 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | Haiti faces several interrelated challenges, the most immediate being a lingering food crisis that in April 2008 led to deadly protests and the ouster of Haiti's prime minister. Haiti also suffers from a legacy of poverty, unemployment, and under-development that is compounding security problems for its new and fragile... | [
"Haiti has had a long, difficult history highlighted by prolonged poverty, political instability, and underdevelopment resulting in a politically fragile state with the lowest standard of living in the Western Hemisphere. With the assistance of the United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH) and large ... |
train_16943 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), established in 1969, is the world's largest source of population and reproductive health programs and the principal unit within the United Nations for global population issues. In 2009, the organization provided services in 155 developing and transition countries, with funds ... | [
"The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), which began operations in 1969 as the U.N. Fund for Population Activities, is the world's largest source of population and reproductive health programs and the principal unit within the United Nations for global population issues. In 2009, the organization provided servi... |
train_16944 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | The Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill includes funds for the Department of the Interior (DOI), except for the Bureau of Reclamation, and funds for some agencies or programswithin three other departments--Agriculture, Energy, and Health and Human Services. It also fundsnumerous smaller related agencies. ... | [
"On February 20, 2003, the omnibus appropriations resolution for FY2003( H.J.Res. 2 ) was signed into law as P.L. 108-7 . It included funding forInterior and related agencies and 10 other regular appropriations bills not enacted forFY2003. Previously, Interior and related agencies were operating under a series of r... |
train_16945 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | On Mondays and Tuesdays, the House of Representatives meets earlier than the hour established for that day's session for a period called "morning hour debates" (also known as "morning hour speeches"). This period provides a rare opportunity for non-legislative debate in the House; remarks in the House are usually limit... | [
"Morning hour debates have been a part of House floor procedure only since the 103 rd Congress. They began on February 23, 1994, for a 90-day trial period under procedures outlined in a joint leadership unanimous consent agreement (formally, \"a standing order of the House\"). Morning hour debates were created, in ... |
train_16946 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | On November 13, 2001, President Bush issued a Military Order (M.O.) authorizing trial by military commission of certain non-citizens suspected of participating in the war against terrorism. The Supreme Court struck down military commissions established pursuant to the M.O. as inconsistent with the Uniform Code of Milit... | [
"Shortly after combat operations began pursuant to the congressional authorization to use military force in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, President Bush issued a Military Order (M.O.) authorizing trial by military commission of non-citizens suspected of terrorist acts or associations who ... |
train_16947 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | Since the third quarter of 2008, U.S. household debt has steadily fallen. Household debt reduction is known as deleveraging, and such substantial and persistent deleveraging (reflected in Federal Reserve data) has been uncommon over the past several decades. Given that much household debt is used to finance consumption... | [
"Over the past several decades, U.S. household indebtedness has generally risen regardless of macroeconomic or financial conditions. In light of the 2007-2009 recession, however, households are reducing their debt burdens. Household debt balances fell in the third quarter of 2008 and continued to do so until the se... |
train_16948 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | Trafficking in persons, or human trafficking, refers to the subjection of men, women, and children to exploitative conditions that may be tantamount to slavery. Reports suggest that human trafficking is a global phenomenon, victimizing millions of people each year and contributing to a multi-billion dollar criminal ind... | [
"Trafficking in persons, or human trafficking, refers to the subjection of men, women, and children to compelled service for the purposes of exploitation. Examples of human trafficking include trafficking for commercial sexual exploitation, including child sexual exploitation; forced labor, including bonded labor, ... |
train_16949 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | Criminal law is usually territorial. It is a matter of the law of the place where it occurs. Nevertheless, a number of American criminal laws apply extraterritorially outside of the United States. Application is generally a question of legislative intent, express or implied. There are two exceptions. First, the statute... | [
"Crime is ordinarily proscribed, tried, and punished according to the laws of the place where it occurs. American criminal law applies beyond the geographical confines of the United States, however, under certain limited circumstances. State prosecution for overseas misconduct is limited almost exclusively to multi... |
train_16950 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | Since 1973, 84 Members of Congress—69 Representatives and 15 Senators—have died in office. When a sitting Member dies, the House and Senate carry out a number of actions based on chamber rules, statutes, and long-standing practices. Some observances, such as adjourning briefly as a mark of respect to the deceased, appo... | [
"Since 1973, 84 Members of Congress—69 Representatives and 15 Senators—have died in office. When a sitting Member dies, the House and Senate carry out a number of actions based on chamber rules, statutes, and long-standing practices. Some congressional practices related to the death of a sitting Member predate the ... |
train_16951 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | Since the late 1990s, broadband Internet service has been deployed in the United States, primarily by private sector providers. While broadband deployment has been rapid and robust overall, there remain communities that are dissatisfied with their broadband service. Some of these communities have turned to public entit... | [
"Broadband—also referred to as high-speed Internet service—has been deployed in the United States since the late 1990s, primarily by private sector providers. These providers include telephone companies, cable companies, wireless providers, and other entities that provide commercial telecommunications services to r... |
train_16952 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | Both the House and Senate have internal rules encouraging the separation of money and policy decisions. These rules bar legislative provisions from being included in general appropriations measures under most circumstances. Limitations within appropriations measures are provisions that negatively restrict the amount, p... | [
"Both the House and Senate have internal rules encouraging the separation of money and policy decisions. These rules stem from the principle that the process through which the activities of government are chosen should be distinct from the process through which those activities are funded. For activities funded thr... |
train_16953 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | Since the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, the nation has been working to improve thesecurity of hazardous chemicals transportation. Marine shipments of hazardous chemical cargo maybe attractive terrorist targets because of their large volume and inherent toxicity or flammability. Anecdotal evidence and internatio... | [
"The federal government has statutory obligations to regulate interstate commerce and securethe United States against terrorism. Therefore, Congress has a strong interest in federal regulationsand programs related to hazardous chemicals security. Since September 11, 2001, legislators,government agencies, and indust... |
train_16954 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | The location and permitting of electricity transmission lines and facilities have traditionally been the exclusive province of the states, with only limited exceptions. However, the inability to get transmission lines built due to local interests, as well as competition in generation, has resulted in calls for an incre... | [
"The location and permitting of facilities used to transmit electricity to residential and commercial customers have been the province of the states (with limited exceptions) for virtually the entire history of the electricity industry. State and local governments are well positioned to weigh the local factors that... |
train_16955 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | The National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) estimates agricultural production (including area and yield) and stocks for more than 120 crops and 45 livestock items. Traditionally NASS estimates have focused on state and national data, but in recent years county-level ... | [
"The United States is one of the world's largest producers and exporters of major field crops including wheat, rice, coarse grains (corn, barley, sorghum, and oats), oilseeds (soybeans, peanuts, canola, sunflowers, and other minor oilseeds), and cotton. Unexpected changes in the outlook for production of a major U.... |
train_16956 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | Canadian Oil Sands and Climate Change Recent congressional interest in U.S. energy policy has focused in part on ways through which the United States could secure more economical and reliable petroleum resources both domestically and internationally. Many forecasters identify petroleum products refined from Canadian oi... | [
"Recent congressional interest in U.S. energy policy has focused in part on ways through which the United States could secure more economical and reliable petroleum resources both domestically and internationally. Many forecasters identify petroleum products refined from Canadian oil sands as one possible solution.... |
train_16957 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | Since the end of the Cold War, both NATO and the European Union (EU) have evolved along with Europe's changed strategic landscape. While NATO's collective defense guarantee remains at the core of the alliance, members have also sought to redefine its mission as new security challenges have emerged on Europe's periphery... | [
"Both NATO and the European Community (EC), now the European Union (EU), had their origins in post-World War II efforts to bring stability to Europe. NATO's original purpose was to provide collective defense through a mutual security guarantee for the United States and its European allies to counterbalance potentia... |
train_16958 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | This report discusses Lewis v. City of Chicago, a recent case in which the Supreme Court considered questions regarding the timeliness of disparate impact discrimination claims filed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, ... | [
"On May 24, 2010, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Lewis v. City of Chicago , a case involving questions regarding the timeliness of disparate impact discrimination claims filed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, national o... |
train_16959 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | The Capital Investment Grant (CIG) program, often called New Starts, is a discretionary funding program for the construction of new fixed-guideway public transportation systems and the expansion of existing systems. Eligible projects include transit rail, including subway/elevated rail (heavy rail), light rail, and com... | [
"The Capital Investment Grant (CIG) program, often referred to as New Starts, provides federal funds to public transportation agencies on a competitive basis for the construction of new fixed-guideway transit systems and the expansion of existing systems (49 U.S.C. §5309). In federal law, \"fixed guideway\" is defi... |
train_16960 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | Hurricane Sandy was a reminder that the United States is vulnerable to significant weather hazards, and that infrequent but intense flood events can cause significant damage and disruption. In addition to wind damages and electricity disruptions, the storm's surge damaged property and infrastructure in coastal and inle... | [
"In late October 2012, Hurricane Sandy developed into a large weather system affecting both coastal and interior portions of the East Coast, including major population centers like New York City and smaller centers like Atlantic City, NJ. In addition to the wind damage and electricity disruptions to 8 million custo... |
train_16961 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | This report intends to assist Congress in its oversight of executive branch agencies' public communications. Here, "public communications" refers to agency communications that are directed to the public. Many, and perhaps most, federal agencies routinely communicate with the public. Agencies do so for many purposes, in... | [
"In February 2012, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee's Subcommittee on Contracting Oversight began a wide-ranging investigation of executive agencies' public communications activities. The subcommittee is seeking to determine whether any of the agency expenditures were wasteful or prop... |
train_16962 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | Since Russia's aggression in Ukraine and its annexation of the Crimea in March 2014, Moscow's already tense relationship with the United States and Europe has grown more fraught. After the imposition of sanctions on Russia by much of the West, Russian President Vladimir Putin has turned to East Asia, seeking new partne... | [
"Figure 1. Russia and Northeast AsiaSource: CRS graphics. Since the end of the Cold War, Russia has played a mostly quiet role in East Asia, only intermittently focusing its attention on the Pacific while primarily orienting its foreign policy toward Europe and former Soviet states. In the past few years, and parti... |
train_16963 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | The Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, an island nation in the Indian Ocean, is a constitutional democracy with a relatively high level of development. For two and a half decades, political, social, and economic development was seriously constrained by years of ethnic conflict and war between the government an... | [
"Once a port of call on ancient maritime trade routes, Sri Lanka is located in the Indian Ocean off the southeastern tip of India's Deccan Peninsula. The island nation was settled by successive waves of migration from India beginning in the 5 th century BC. Indo-Aryans from northern India established Sinhalese Budd... |
train_16964 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | The primary mission of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS, the Department) is to "prevent terrorist attacks within the United States, reduce the vulnerability of the United States to terrorism, and minimize the damage, and assist in the recovery from terrorist attacks that do occur in the United States." Since it... | [
"A primary mission of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS, Department) is to \"prevent terrorist attacks within the United States, reduce the vulnerability of the United States to terrorism, and minimize the damage, and assist in the recovery from terrorist attacks that do occur in the United States. The curre... |
train_16965 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | In order to protect national security, the government maintains various terrorist watchlists, including the "No Fly" list, which contains the names of individuals to be denied boarding on commercial airline flights. Travelers on the No Fly list are not permitted to board an American airline or any flight on a foreign a... | [
"The safety of air travel, particularly after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, has been an important priority for the U.S. government. The Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 2001 created the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and charged it with ensuring the security of all modes of t... |
train_16966 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | In recent years, questions have been raised over the propriety of certain financial relationships between health care professionals such as physicians, and the pharmaceutical and other medical industries. As part of these relationships, companies may give gifts or make payments to healthcare professionals as part of th... | [
"In recent years, the issue of industry gifts and other payments to health care professionals such as physicians, and the possible conflicts of interest that could arise from these payments, has been controversial. Examples of gifts and payments mentioned in media reports include meals, honoraria for speaking engag... |
train_16967 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | Digital television (DTV) is a new television service representing the most significant development in television technology since the advent of color television. DTV can provide movie theater quality pictures and sound, a wider screen, better color rendition, multiple video programming or a single program of high defin... | [
"Digital television (DTV) is a new television service representing the most significant development in television technology since the advent of color television. DTV can provide movie theater quality pictures and sound, a wider screen, better color rendition, multiple video programming or a single program of high ... |
train_16968 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | The annual Foreign Operations appropriations bill is the primary legislative vehicle through which Congress reviews the U.S. foreign aid budget and influences executive branch foreign policy making generally. It contains the largest share—about two-thirds—of total U.S. international affairs spending. Funding for Foreig... | [
"On December 8, 2004, the President signed into law P.L. 108-447 ( H.R. 4818 ), the FY2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act, within which Foreign Operations is included as Division D. As enacted, the measure provides $19.64 billion for Foreign Operations after adjusting for a required 0.8% across-the-board rescissio... |
train_16969 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | Historically, Medicaid eligibility has generally been limited to certain low-income children, pregnant women, parents of dependent children, the elderly, and individuals with disabilities; however, as of January 1, 2014, states have the option to extend Medicaid coverage to most non-elderly, low-income individuals. The... | [
"Medicaid is a means-tested entitlement program that finances the delivery of primary and acute care services, as well as long-term services and supports. It is a federal-state program, and participation in Medicaid is voluntary for states, though all states and the District of Columbia choose to participate. In or... |
train_16970 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | Federal courts may not order a defendant to pay restitution to the victims of his or her crimes unless authorized by statute to do so. Several statutes supply such authorization. For instance, federal courts are statutorily required to order victim restitution when sentencing a defendant either for an offense against p... | [
"Federal courts may not order a defendant to pay restitution to the victims of his or her crimes unless authorized to do so. Two general statutes authorize restitution. One, 18 U.S.C. 3663, permits it for certain crimes. The second, 18 U.S.C. 3663A, requires it for other crimes. In addition, several individual rest... |
train_16971 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | Under the Higher Education Act (HEA), institutions of higher education (IHEs) must be accredited by an agency or association recognized by the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education (ED) to participate in HEA Title IV federal student aid programs. While this process is voluntary, failure to obtain accreditation ... | [
"Under the Higher Education Act (HEA), institutions of higher education (IHEs) must be accredited by an agency or association recognized by the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education (ED) to participate in HEA Title IV federal student aid programs. While this process is voluntary, failure to obtain accredita... |
train_16972 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | This report covers developments in Liberia, a small, poor West African country. Liberia held elections in October 2005, with a presidential runoff in November, a key step in a peace-building process following its second civil war in a decade. That war began in 1999, escalated in 2000, and ended in 2003. It pitted the f... | [
"Liberia's president, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, is currently visiting the United States. Her several-day trip is aimed at deepening her high-level contacts with the Administration of President Barack Obama, Congress, and other U.S. policy makers. Sirleaf, who also maintained warm ties with former President George W. B... |
train_16973 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | Budgetary flexibility enacted under the Reducing Flight Delays Act of 2013 (P.L. 113-9) has permitted the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to cancel plans to close 149 air traffic control towers operated by contractors, a measure it had proposed to address funding decreases brought about by the budget sequester. O... | [
"The Budget Control Act of 2011 ( P.L. 112-25 ) provided for automatic reductions to most federal discretionary spending if no agreement on deficit reduction was reached by the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction. Such reductions, referred to as sequestration, went into effect on March 1, 2013, the extended... |
train_16974 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | Increasing calls for intelligence support and continuing innovations in intelligence technologies combine to create significant challenges for both the executive and legislative branches. Intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) systems are integral components of both national policymaking and military oper... | [
"Intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) systems are matters of great congressional interest. These systems can provide policymakers with information on the military capabilities of foreign countries, the location of key defense and industrial sites, indications of the presence of weapons of mass destr... |
train_16975 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | The Energy and Water Development appropriations bill provides funding for civil works projects of the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), for the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and the Department of Energy (DOE), and for a number of independent agencies. President Obama's FY2013 budget re... | [
"President Obama's FY2013 budget request for Energy and Water Development was released in February 2012. The request totaled $33.7 billion, compared to the FY2012 appropriation of $32.7 billion (plus $1.7 billion for disaster relief). On April 25, 2012, the House Appropriations Committee reported out H.R. 5325 ( H.... |
train_16976 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | With the Rules Enabling Act, Congress granted to the Supreme Court the authority to write federal rules of procedure, including the rules of criminal procedure. After several years of evaluation by the Judicial Conference, the policy-making arm of the federal judiciary, on April 28, 2016, the Supreme Court transmitted ... | [
"W ith the Rules Enabling Act, Congress granted to the Supreme Court the authority to write federal rules of procedure, including the rules of criminal procedure. After several years of evaluation by the Judicial Conference, the policy-making arm of the federal judiciary, on April 28, 2016, the Supreme Court transm... |
train_16977 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | The environmental, social, and political conditions in Haiti have long prompted congressional interest in U.S. policy on Haitian migrants, particularly those attempting to reach the United States by boat. While some observers assert that such arrivals by Haitians are a breach in border security, others maintain that th... | [
"The devastation caused by the January 12, 2010, earthquake in Haiti focused world attention on the humanitarian crisis and prompted U.S. leaders to reconsider policies on Haitian migration. Most recently, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has stated: \"An epidemic cholera strain has been confirmed in Hait... |
train_16978 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | This report reviews estimates of fiscal impacts to the federal, state, and local governments of the foreign born who reside in the United States. It examines the academic and policy literature on fiscal impacts of two populations: all U.S. foreign born and unauthorized aliens. Computing such fiscal impacts involves num... | [
"This report reviews estimates of fiscal impacts to the federal, state, and local governments of the foreign born who reside in the United States. By fiscal impacts, the report refers to both tax-funded expenditures for public services such as public education and public health programs, and tax revenues received t... |
train_16979 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | This report analyzes annual budget justifications and legislation for foreign operations appropriations and discusses U.S. foreign aid trends, programs, and restrictions in 16 East Asian and South Asian countries. It does not cover aid to Pacific Island nations, North Korea, and Afghanistan. Country tables do not inclu... | [
"The United States acts to advance U.S. foreign policy and national security goals and respond to global development and humanitarian needs through its foreign assistance programs. Following the September 2001 terrorist attacks, foreign aid gained importance as a \"vital cornerstone,\" along with diplomacy and defe... |
train_16980 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was established in early 2003, bringing together existing parts of 22 different federal agencies and departments in a new framework of operations. In its first few years, the department was reorganized multiple times, and more focus was given to ensuring its components were add... | [
"The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was established by the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (HSA) and became operational January 24, 2003, barely 16 months after the terrorist attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. Rather than being as a completely new entity, the department was e... |
train_16981 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | This report discusses Nicaragua's current politics, economic development, and relations with the United States, and it provides context for Nicaragua's controversial reelection of President Daniel Ortega late last year. After its civil war ended, Nicaragua began to establish a democratic government in the early 1990s. ... | [
"Nicaragua began to establish a new democracy in the early 1990s after eight years of civil war in which the United States supported the anti-Sandinista contra movement in the country. Institutions such as a demo cratically elected legislature, a partially independent judiciary (judges are elected by the National A... |
train_16982 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | The world appears to be recovering from the global recession that has caused widespread business contraction, increases in unemployment, and shrinking government revenues. Although the industrialized economies have stopped contracting, for many, unemployment is still rising. The United States likely hit bottom in June ... | [
"February 3 . Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke begins second term. February 2. Greece's prime minister, George Papandreou, makes appeal for unity over its worst financial crisis in decades. The European Commission endorses a fiscal rescue plan. January 27. President Obama pledged to divert $30 billion of mo... |
train_16983 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | U.S. policy toward Taiwan is unique. Since both the Chinese governments on Taiwan and on mainland China held that they alone were China's legitimate ruling government, U.S. diplomatic relations with Taiwan had to be severed in 1979 when the United States recognized the People's Republic of China (PRC) government as Chi... | [
"September 25, 2009 — Exiled Uighur activist Rebiya Kadeer, living in the United States, was denied a visa to visit Taiwan. September 11, 2009—Former President Chen Shui-bian was given a life sentence on corruption charges. August 19, 2009 — Taiwan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced that Taiwan would not seek ... |
train_16984 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | The Middle East, broadly defined as an area stretching from North Africa to Afghanistan, presents an array of challenges to U.S. foreign policy. Although the United States maintains strong relations with several key Arab and non-Arab states such as Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Turkey, other state and non-st... | [
"The Middle East, broadly defined as an area stretching from North Africa to Afghanistan, presents an array of challenges to U.S. foreign policy. Although the United States maintains strong relations with several key Arab and non-Arab states such as Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Turkey, other state and n... |
train_16985 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | Each year, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) provides authorization of appropriations for a range of Department of Defense (DOD) and national security programs and related activities. New or clarified defense policies, organizational reform, and directed reports to Congress are often included. For FY2019, t... | [
"Each year, the House and Senate armed services committees take up national defense authorization bills. The House of Representatives passed the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (NDAA; H.R. 5515 ) on May 24, 2018. The Senate passed its version of the NDAA ( H.R. 5515 ) on June ... |
train_16986 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | All of the Navy's aircraft carriers, but none of its other surface ships, are nuclear-powered. Some Members of Congress, particularly on the House Armed Services Committee, have expressed interest in expanding the use of nuclear power to a wider array of Navy surface ships, starting with the CG(X), a planned new cruise... | [
"All of the Navy's aircraft carriers, but none of its other surface ships, are nuclear-powered. Some Members of Congress, particularly on the House Armed Services Committee, have expressed interest in expanding the use of nuclear power to a wider array of Navy surface ships, starting with the CG(X), a planned new c... |
train_16987 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | In the 113th Congress, there has been renewed congressional interest in gun control legislation. On January 16, 2013, President Obama announced his support for legislation on gun control, including a ban on certain semiautomatic assault firearms and large capacity ammunition feeding devices. Senator Dianne Feinstein in... | [
"At the outset of the 113 th Congress, there has been renewed congressional interest in gun control legislation. Senator Dianne Feinstein introduced S. 150 , the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013, which would prohibit, subject to certain exceptions, the sale, transfer, possession, manufacturing, and importation of specif... |
train_16988 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | Unanimous consent agreements are fundamental to the operation of the Senate. The institution frequently dispenses with its formal rules and instead follows negotiated agreements submitted on the floor for lawmakers' unanimous approval. Once entered into, unanimous consent agreements can only be changed by unanimous con... | [
"Unanimous consent agreements are special orders of the Senate that are agreed to without objection by the chamber's membership. Fundamental to the management of the contemporary Senate, these devices are typically employed to structure floor proceedings and to expedite the chamber's business. Two general types of ... |
train_16989 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | As households and taxpayers, Americans have a large stake in the future of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Homeowners and potential homeowners indirectly depend on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which in recent years backed and guaranteed home loans accounting for nearly half of the outstanding home mortgages in the nation. T... | [
"The 112 th Congress is considering legislative proposals to limit the government's present and future risk from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The two entities are government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs)—congressionally chartered, stockholder-owned companies with special legal privileges and special obligations to fa... |
train_16990 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | The Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that "[t]he Judicial Power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State." Although the am... | [
"In accordance with the doctrine of federalism, the American constitutional system divides privilege and power between the central national government and the individual states. Significant constitutional conflicts often arise, however, where the legitimate exercise of power at one level is incompatible with the le... |
train_16991 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | Long-standing research indicates that children raised in one-parent homes are more likely than children raised in homes with both biological parents to do poorly in school, have emotional and behavioral problems, become teenage parents, and have poverty-level incomes as adults. In an effort to improve the long-term out... | [
"While 69% children in the United States live in homes with two parents, an estimated 27% of children are maintained in one-parent homes. Most children in the latter group are in homes maintained by the mother only. In 2017, 23% of children lived in mother-only households, a statistic that has roughly doubled since... |
train_16992 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | On June 28, 2009, the Honduran military detained President Manuel Zelaya and flew him to exile in Costa Rica, ending 27 years of uninterrupted democratic, constitutional governance. Honduran governmental institutions had become increasingly polarized in the preceding months as a result of Zelaya's intention to hold a n... | [
"Figure 1. Map of HondurasSource: Map Resources. Adapted by CRS Graphics. Prior to the military-imposed exile of President Manuel Zelaya, Honduras, a Central American nation of 7.4 million people, enjoyed 27 years of uninterrupted elected civilian democratic rule. The Liberal (PL) and National (PN) parties have bee... |
train_16993 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | The Chesapeake Bay (the Bay) is the largest estuary in the United States. It is recognized as a "Wetlands of International Importance" by the Ramsar Convention, a 1971 treaty about the increasing loss and degradation of wetland habitat for migratory waterbirds. The Chesapeake Bay estuary resides in a more than 64,000-s... | [
"The Chesapeake Bay (the Bay) is the largest estuary in the United States. Congress has described it as a \"national treasure\" ( P.L. 106-457 ), and it is recognized as a \"Wetlands of International Importance\" by the Ramsar Convention. The Chesapeake Bay estuary resides in a more than 64,000-square-mile watershe... |
train_16994 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | Congress is concerned with the pace of the recovery in the housing and mortgage markets. A series of laws starting with the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 (ESA; P.L. 110-185) were designed to increase the availability and affordability of mortgages in "high-cost" areas. This concern about housing and mortgage markets is... | [
"Until they were placed under government conservatorship in September 2008, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were stockholder-controlled companies that were chartered by Congress to improve the nation's residential mortgage market and are known as government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs). The charters convey special privi... |
train_16995 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | This report examines the two patent law cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in its October 2015 Term. The first patent case, decided on June 13, 2016, Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., concerns the circumstances in which the awarding of enhanced damages in a patent infringement case are warranted a... | [
"This report pr ovides an overview and analysis of the two patent cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court during its October 2015 Term, Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc. (regarding the award of enhanced damages in \"egregious\" patent infringement cases) and Cuozzo Speed Technologies , LLC v. Lee (a... |
train_16996 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) was signed into law by President Obama on February 17, 2009 (P.L. 111-5). The primary purposes of the ARRA focus on promoting economic recovery, assisting those most affected by the recession, improving economic efficiency by "spurring technological advances in ... | [
"On February 13, 2009, both the House and Senate passed the conference version of H.R. 1 , the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). Subsequently, the ARRA was signed into law by President Obama on February 17, 2009 ( P.L. 111-5 ). The primary purposes of the ARRA focus on promoting economic recove... |
train_16997 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | Almost all assessments of the attacks of September 11, 2001, have concluded that U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies had failed to share information that might have provided advance warning of the plot. This realization led Congress to approve provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act (P.L. 107-56) and subsequent le... | [
"The failure of the U.S. Intelligence Community to provide better warning of the September 11, 2001, attacks has been widely attributed to the existence of \"walls\" between intelligence and law enforcement agencies. The walls arguably kept analysts from talking to each other and from sharing pieces of information ... |
train_16998 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | The elderly nutrition services program, authorized under Title III of the Older Americans Act (OAA), provides grants to state agencies on aging to support congregate and home-delivered meals (commonly referred to as "meals on wheels") programs for people aged 60 and older. The program is designed to address problems of... | [
"The elderly nutrition services program, authorized under Title III of the Older Americans Act (OAA), provides grants to state agencies on aging to support congregate and home-delivered meals to people aged 60 and older. The program is the largest component of the act, accounting for $814.7 million, over 44%, of th... |
train_16999 | Write a detailed summary of the following government report. | The National Statuary Hall Collection, located in the United States Capitol, comprises 100 statues provided by individual states to honor persons notable for their historic renown or for distinguished services. The collection was authorized in 1864, at the same time that Congress redesignated the hall where the House o... | [
"The United States Capitol is home to extensive art collections. These collections are considered by Congress as \"an integral part of the history of this renowned building.\" Perhaps the most prominent collection is the National Statuary Hall Collection, which contains statues of notable citizens provided by each ... |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.