Expiring Unemployment Insurance Provisions - R41508

Katelin P. Isaacs

Analyst in Income Security

Several key provisions related to extended federal unemployment benefits are temporary and, therefore, scheduled to expire:

• Authorization for the temporary Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC08) program is scheduled to expire the week ending on or before January 1, 2014 (i.e., December 28, 2013; or December 29, 2013, in New York state). 


• The temporary 100% federal financing of the Extended Benefit (EB) program ends December 31, 2013. 


• The temporary option for states to use three-year lookbacks as part of their EB triggers expires the week ending on or before December 31, 2013. 

Once these federal unemployment provisions expire, only regular, state-financed unemployment benefits from the Unemployment Compensation (UC) program will generally be available. In most states, UC provides up to 26 weeks of benefits.

This report describes the consequences of these expirations for the financing and availability of unemployment benefits in states.

This report also summarizes current legislative proposals to extend these expiring provisions:

• Among other provisions, H.R. 2821, the American Jobs Act of 2013, would extend these temporary unemployment insurance provisions for two additional years (i.e., through December 2015). 


• H.R. 3546 and S. 1747, the House and Senate versions of the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2013, would extend the expiring unemployment insurance provisions for an additional year (i.e., through December 2014). 


• S. 1797, also titled the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2013, would extend the expiring unemployment insurance provisions through December 2014, while also permitting any state that terminated a EUC08 agreement in 2013 to reenter into an agreement to pay EUC08 benefits.

Date of Report: December 13, 2013

Number of Pages: 9
Order Number: R41508

Price: $19.95

To Order:


CLICK: R41508.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery.

Expiring Unemployment Insurance Provisions - R41508

EPA Regulations: Too Much, Too Little, or On Track? - R41561

James E. McCarthy

Specialist in Environmental Policy

Claudia Copeland,

Specialist in Resources and Environmental Policy

Since Barack Obama was sworn in as President in 2009, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed and promulgated numerous regulations implementing the pollution control statutes enacted by Congress. Critics have reacted strongly. Many, both within Congress and outside of it, have accused the agency of reaching beyond the authority given it by Congress and ignoring or underestimating the costs and economic impacts of proposed and promulgated rules. The House has conducted vigorous oversight of the agency in the 112th and 113th Congresses, and has approved several bills that would overturn specific regulations or limit the agency’s authority. Particular attention has been paid to the Clean Air Act; congressional scrutiny has focused as well on other environmental statutes and regulations implemented by EPA.

Environmental groups and other supporters of the agency disagree that EPA has overreached. Many of them believe that the agency is, in fact, moving in the right direction, including taking action on significant issues that had been long delayed or ignored in the past. In several cases, environmental advocates would like the regulatory actions to be stronger.

EPA states that critics’ focus on the cost of controls obscures the benefits of new regulations, which, it estimates, far exceed the costs. It maintains that pollution control is an important source of economic activity, exports, and American jobs, as well. Further, the agency and its supporters say that EPA is carrying out the mandates detailed by Congress in the federal environmental statutes.

This report provides background information on EPA regulatory activity during the Obama Administration to help address these issues. It examines major or controversial regulatory actions taken by or under development at EPA since January 2009, providing details on the regulatory action itself, presenting an estimated timeline for completion of the rule (including identification of related court or statutory deadlines), and, in general, providing EPA’s estimates of costs and benefits, where available. The report includes tables that show which rules remain under development, and an appendix that describes major or controversial rules that are now final.

The report also discusses factors that affect the timeframe in which regulations take effect, including statutory and judicial deadlines, public comment periods, judicial review, and permitting procedures, the net results of which are that existing facilities are likely to have several years before being required to comply with most of the regulatory actions under discussion. Unable to account for such factors, which will vary from case to case, timelines that show dates for proposal and promulgation of EPA regulations effectively underestimate the complexities of the regulatory process and overstate the near-term impact of many of the regulatory actions.

Date of Report: December 12, 2013

Number of Pages: 42
Order Number: R41561

Price: $29.95

To Order:


CLICK: R41561.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery.

EPA Regulations: Too Much, Too Little, or On Track? - R41561

China-U.S. Trade Issues - RL33536

Wayne M. Morrison

Specialist in Asian Trade and Finance

U.S.-China economic ties have expanded substantially over the past three decades. Total U.S.- China trade rose from $5 billion in 1981 to $536 billion in 2012, and is projected to reach $558 billion in 2013. China is currently the United States’ second-largest trading partner, its thirdlargest export market, and its biggest source of imports. China is estimated to be a $300 billion market for U.S. firms (based on U.S. exports to China and sales by U.S.-invested firms in China). Many U.S. firms view participation in China’s market as critical to staying globally competitive. General Motors (GM), for example, which has invested heavily in China, sold more cars in China than in the United States from 2010 to 2012. In addition, U.S. imports of low-cost goods from China greatly benefit U.S. consumers, and U.S. firms that use China as the final point of assembly for their products, or use Chinese-made inputs for production in the United States, are able to lower costs. China is the largest foreign holder of U.S. Treasury securities ($1.3 trillion as of October 2013). China’s purchases of U.S. government debt help keep U.S. interest rates low.

Despite growing commercial ties, the bilateral economic relationship has become increasingly complex and often fraught with tension. From the U.S. perspective, many trade tensions stem from China’s incomplete transition to a free market economy. While China has significantly liberalized its economic and trade regimes over the past three decades, it continues to maintain (or has recently imposed) a number of state-directed policies that appear to distort trade and investment flows. Major areas of concern expressed by U.S. policy makers and stakeholders include China’s relatively poor record of intellectual property rights (IPR) enforcement and alleged widespread cyber espionage against U.S. firms by Chinese government entities; its mixed record on implementing its World Trade Organization (WTO) obligations; its extensive use of industrial policies (such as financial support of state-owned firms, trade and investment barriers, and pressure on foreign-invested firms in China to transfer technology in exchange for market access) in order to promote the development of industries favored by the government and protect them from foreign competition; and its policies to maintain an undervalued currency. Many U.S. policy makers argue that such policies harm U.S. economic interests and have contributed to U.S. job losses. For example, one study estimated that Chinese IPR infringement cost the U.S. economy up to $240 billion annually. There are a number of views in the United States over how to more effectively address commercial disputes with China:

 

• Take a more aggressive stand against China, such as increasing the number of dispute settlement cases brought against China in the WTO, or threatening to impose trade sanctions against China unless it addresses policies (such as IPR theft) that hurt U.S. economic interests. 


• Intensify negotiations through existing high-level bilateral dialogues, such as the U.S.-China Strategic & Economic Dialogue (S&ED), which was established to discuss long-term challenges in the relationship. In addition, seek to complete ongoing U.S. negotiations with China to reach a high-standard bilateral investment treaty (BIT), as well as to finalize negotiations in the WTO toward achieving China’s accession to the Government Procurement Agreement (GPA). 


• Invite China to join the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations and/or seek to negotiate a bilateral a free trade agreement (FTA) with China. 

Continue to encourage China to implement comprehensive economic reforms, such as diminishing the role of the state in the economy and implementing policies to boost domestic consumption.

Date of Report: December 16, 2013

Number of Pages: 55
Order Number: RL33536

Price: $29.95

To Order:


CLICK: RL33536.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery.

China-U.S. Trade Issues - RL33536

Foreign Direct Investment in the United States: An Economic Analysis - RS21857

James K. Jackson

Specialist in International Trade and Finance

Foreign direct investment in the United States dropped sharply in 2012 after it rebounded slowly in 2010 and 2011 after falling from the $310 billion recorded in 2008. According to preliminary data, foreign direct investment in the United States in 2013 could fall by 10% below the amount recorded in 2012. (Note: The United States defines foreign direct investment as the ownership or control, directly or indirectly, by one foreign person [individual, branch, partnership, association, government, etc.] of 10% or more of the voting securities of an incorporated U.S. business enterprise or an equivalent interest in an unincorporated U.S. business enterprise [15 CFR §806.15 (a)(1)]). In 2012, according to U.S. Department of Commerce data, foreigners invested $166 billion in U.S. businesses and real estate, down 28% from the $230 billion invested in 2011. Foreign direct investments are highly sought after by many state and local governments that are struggling to create additional jobs in their localities. While some in Congress encourage such investment to offset the perceived negative economic effects of U.S. firms investing abroad, others are concerned about foreign acquisitions of U.S. firms that are considered essential to U.S. national and economic security.

On October 31, 2013, the Obama administration launched a new initiative, known as Select USA, to attract more foreign direct investment to the United States. According to the Administration, the aim of the program is to make attracting foreign investment as important a component of U.S. foreign policy as promoting exports. As a result, the President reportedly instructed Commerce and State Department officials to make attracting foreign investment one of their “core priorities.” In addition, the program has designated global teams led by U.S. ambassadors in 32 key countries to encourage foreign investment into the United States, and has established a “coordinated process” to connect prospective investors with senior U.S. officials. The initiative (selectusa.commerce.gov) offers a number of tools for foreign investors looking to invest in the United States, including a list of various state and federal programs that may be available to foreign investors.

Date of Report: December 11, 2013

Number of Pages: 12
Order Number: RS21857

Price: $29.95

To Order:


CLICK: RS21857.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery.

Foreign Direct Investment in the United States: An Economic Analysis - RS21857

China's Economic Rise: History, Trends, Challenges, and Implications for the United States - RL33534

Wayne M. Morrison

Specialist in Asian Trade and Finance

Prior to the initiation of economic reforms and trade liberalization 34 years ago, China maintained policies that kept the economy very poor, stagnant, centrally controlled, vastly inefficient, and relatively isolated from the global economy. Since opening up to foreign trade and investment and implementing free market reforms in 1979, China has been among the world’s fastest-growing economies, with real annual gross domestic product (GDP) growth averaging nearly 10% through 2012. In recent years, China has emerged as a major global economic and trade power. It is currently the world’s second-largest economy, largest merchandise exporter, second-largest merchandise importer, second-largest destination of foreign direct investment (FDI), largest manufacturer, and largest holder of foreign exchange reserves.

The global economic crisis that began in 2008 greatly affected China’s economy. China’s exports, imports, and FDI inflows declined, GDP growth slowed, and millions of Chinese workers reportedly lost their jobs. The Chinese government responded by implementing a $586 billion economic stimulus package, loosening monetary policies to increase bank lending, and providing various incentives to boost domestic consumption. Such policies enabled China to effectively weather the effects of the sharp global fall in demand for Chinese products, while several of the world’s leading economies experienced negative or stagnant economic growth. From 2008 to 2012, China’s real GDP growth averaged 9.1%. However, the economy has shown signs of slowing. Real GDP grew by 7.7% in 2012 and is projected to rise by 7.6% in 2013.

Some economists forecast that China will overtake the United States as the world’s largest economy within a few years. However, the ability of China to maintain a rapidly growing economy in the long run will depend largely on the ability of the Chinese government to implement comprehensive economic reforms that more quickly hasten China’s transition to a free market economy; rebalance the Chinese economy by making consumer demand, rather than exporting and fixed investment, the main engine of economic growth; boost productivity and innovation; address growing income disparities; and enhance environmental protection. The Chinese government has acknowledged that its current economic growth model needs to be altered and has announced several initiatives to address various economic challenges. In November 2013, the Communist Party of China held the Third Plenum of its 18th Party Congress, which issued a communique outlining a number of broad policy statements on reforms that would be implemented by 2020. Many of the proposed reforms are measures that seek to boost competition and economic efficiency. For example, the communique stated that the market would now play a “decisive” role in allocating resources in the economy.

China’s economic rise has significant implications for the United States and hence is of major interest to Congress. On the one hand, China is a large (and potentially huge) export market for the United States. Many U.S. firms use China as the final point of assembly in their global supply chain networks. China’s large holdings of U.S. Treasury securities help the federal government finance its budget deficits. However, some analysts contend that China maintains a number of distortive economic policies (such as protectionist industrial policies and an undervalued currency) that undermine U.S. economic interests. They warn that efforts by the Chinese government to promote indigenous innovation, often through the use of subsidies and other distortive measures, could negatively affect many leading U.S. industries. This report surveys the rise of China’s economy, describes major economic challenges facing China, and discusses the implications of China’s economic rise for the United States.

Date of Report: December 17, 2013

Number of Pages: 44
Order Number: RL33534

Price: $29.95

To Order:


CLICK: RL33534.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery.

China's Economic Rise: History, Trends, Challenges, and Implications for the United States - RL33534

Samantar v. Yousef: The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and Foreign Officials - R41379

Jennifer K. Elsea

Legislative Attorney

On June 1, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court decided unanimously in Samantar v. Yousef that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), which governs the immunity of foreign states in U.S. courts, does not apply in suits against foreign officials. The ruling clarifies that officials of foreign governments, whether present or former, are not entitled to invoke the FSIA as a shield, unless the foreign state is the real party in interest in the case. Samantar’s particular facts involve the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) and the Torture Victims Protection Act (TVPA), but the ruling applies to all causes of action against foreign officials. The ruling leaves open the possibility that foreign officials have recourse to other sources of immunity or other defenses to jurisdiction or the merits of a lawsuit. Officials may assert immunity under the common law, for example, perhaps aided by State Department suggestions of immunity. The Court also left open the possibility that Congress could enact new provisions to address the immunity of foreign officials.

Prior to the Samantar decision, most federal judicial circuits interpreted the FSIA to cover foreign officials as “agencies or instrumentalities” of the foreign state based on their interpretation that Congress had intended to fully codify the common law of foreign sovereign immunity. To the extent the FSIA exceptions codify sovereign immunity of states under the common law, as in the case of lawsuits based on commercial activity under the restrictive theory, the recognition of a separate theory of immunity for foreign officials may not yield results significantly different from those cases in which courts applied the FSIA. The same common law considerations some courts previously applied to determine whether a foreign official is an “agency or instrumentality” under the FSIA would likely lead to similar results where the common law is applied directly. However, where Congress enacts exceptions to the FSIA that depart from the common law, outcomes may vary from cases decided under the pre-Samantar approach.

This report provides an overview of the FSIA, followed by a consideration of the remaining options for foreign officials who seek immunity from lawsuits, as well as some of the questions that may emerge from each option. The report also discusses legislation addressing the immunity of foreign officials (the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, H.R. 3143 and S. 1535).

Date of Report: December 16, 2013

Number of Pages: 23
Order Number: R41379

Price: $29.95

To Order:


CLICK: R41379.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery.

Samantar v. Yousef: The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and Foreign Officials - R41379

Medal of Honor: History and Issues - 95-519

David F. Burrelli

Specialist in Military Manpower Policy

Barbara Salazar Torreon

Information Research Specialist

The Medal of Honor is the nation’s highest military award for bravery. It is awarded by the President in the name of Congress. For this reason, it is often referred to as the Congressional Medal of Honor. Since it was first presented in 1863, the medal has been awarded 3,480 times to 3,461 recipients. Nineteen individuals have been double recipients of the award.

Recipients of the Medal of Honor are afforded a number of benefits as a result of this award.

Since the award’s inception, the laws and regulations that apply to it have changed. In certain cases, the award has been rescinded. Six rescinded awards have been reinstated.

On a number of occasions, legislation has been offered to waive certain restrictions and to encourage the President to award the Medal of Honor to particular individuals. Generally speaking, this type of legislation is rarely enacted. In a very limited number of cases, the medal has been awarded outside the legal restrictions concerning time limits. These cases are often based on technical errors, lost documents or eyewitness accounts, or other factors that justify reconsideration. These cases, however, represent the exception and not the rule.

For information on recent recipients, see CRS Report RL30011, Medal of Honor Recipients: 1979-2013, by Anne Leland.

Date of Report: December 19, 2013

Number of Pages: 25
Order Number: 95-519

Price: $29.95

To Order:


CLICK: 95-519.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery.

Medal of Honor: History and Issues - 95-519