Advanced search Help
Searching for terms: EXACT: "Liu, Edward C." in: author
Clear all search criteria
Only 2/3! You are seeing results from the Public Collection, not the complete Full Collection. Sign in to search everything (see eligibility).
-
Department of Health and Human Services Halts Cost-Sharing Reduction (CSR) Payments [October 26, 2017]
"Over the past three years, the House of Representatives and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) have been adverse parties in a suit challenging HHS's payment of cost-sharing reduction (CSR) subsidies under Section 1402(c)(3) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). CSR payments are made to compensate those insurers that are required by the ACA to reduce out-of-pocket costs (such as co-pays and deductibles) for lower-income enrollees. After the House obtained a judgment against HHS from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in 2016, an appeal has been pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (D.C. Circuit). However, the case, currently captioned House of Representatives v. Hargan, took a sharp turn on October 13, 2017, when HHS informed the D.C. Circuit that the agency would immediately comply with the House's demand and cease cost-sharing reduction (CSR) payments to insurers."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Liu, Edward C.; Staman, Jennifer A.
2017-10-26
-
Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB): Frequently Asked Questions [August 02, 2017]
"This report responds to frequently asked questions about the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), including the board's background, current status, controversial issues including legal challenges, and recent legislative efforts to repeal the IPAB. For additional information, see Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report R41511, The Independent Payment Advisory Board, by Jim Hahn and Christopher M. Davis."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Hahn, Jim; Davis, Christopher M., 1966-; Liu, Edward C.
2017-08-02
-
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's (ACA's) Transitional Reinsurance Program [August 23, 2017]
"Section 1341 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA; P.L. 111-148, as amended) establishes a transitional reinsurance program that is designed to provide payment to nongrandfathered, non-group market health plans (also known as individual market health plans) that enrolled high-risk enrollees for 2014 through 2016. Under the program, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) collected reinsurance contributions from health insurers and from third-party administrators on behalf of group health plans. The Secretary then used those contributions to make reinsurance payments to health insurers who enrolled highcost enrollees (statutes required the HHS Secretary to determine how high-risk enrollees are identified, and the Secretary in turn defined high-risk enrollees as high-cost enrollees) in their non-group market plans both inside and outside of the exchanges (also known as marketplaces, where individuals can shop for and purchase private health insurance coverage)."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Uberoi, Namrata K.; Liu, Edward C.
2017-08-23
-
Judicial Review of Rescissions and Deferrals Under the Impoundment Control Act [May 14, 2018]
From the Document: "On May 8, 2018, the Trump Administration proposed rescissions totaling approximately $15.4 billion of unobligated funds appropriated in prior fiscal years. The proposed rescissions target funds appropriated for a variety of federal activities, including, but not limited to, animal and plant health programs, rural rental assistance, U.S. Forest Service land acquisition, loans to automobile manufacturers to produce advanced technology vehicles, and funding to states under the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). In many cases, the proposed rescissions relate to programs whose authority has lapsed or programs that are not expected to require the amounts proposed to be rescinded under current spending projections. As a result, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) estimates that the proposed rescission of $15.4 billion in appropriated funds would translate to a $3 billion reduction in outlays from the Treasury. A proposed rescission is one of two types of presidential actions authorized under the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (ICA), which was enacted to regularize the process by which the Executive impounded, or withheld, funds that had been appropriated by Congress. Although impoundments of federal funds have been made by the executive branch as far back as the Jefferson Administration to avoid waste or inefficient spending, it was the increased use of impoundments during the 1970s in furtherance of broader policy or economic goals that precipitated the enactment of the ICA."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Liu, Edward C.
2018-05-14
-
Amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Expiring on December 15, 2019 [Updated April 11, 2016]
From the Summary: "In summer 2013, media began reporting on several foreign intelligence activities conducted by the National Security Agency (NSA), including the bulk collection of telephone metadata under Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act. After a one-day lapse in the expiring authorities, Congress enacted the USA FREEDOM Act, which placed new limitations on the scope of the government's foreign intelligence activities, while simultaneously extending the expired provisions through December 15, 2019. Although these provisions are set to sunset at the end of 2019, grandfather clauses permit them to remain effective with respect to investigations that began, or potential offenses that took place, before the sunset date."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Liu, Edward C.
2016-04-11
-
Federal Court Temporarily Blocks a Portion of the Administration's Border Wall Funding [Updated July 5, 2019]
From the Update: "On June 28, 2019, the federal district court in California issued an injunction permanently prohibiting the Trump Administration from using funds reprogrammed under Section 8005 of the 2019 Department of Defense Appropriations Act to pay for border barrier projects. While the district court's preliminary injunction issued on May 24, 2019 applied only to a subset of the Administration's proposed border barrier projects, the June 28 permanent injunction applies to all of the proposed projects that were to be constructed with funds transferred under Section 8005. The Trump Administration appealed the district court's permanent injunction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and asked that Court to stay the permanent injunction pending appeal. On July 3, the Ninth Circuit denied the Administration's request for a stay."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Liu, Edward C.; Hayes, Benjamin
2019-07-05
-
Fifth Circuit Holds the Individual Mandate Unconstitutional: Implications for Congress [December 23, 2019]
From the Document: "On December 18, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (Fifth Circuit) issued its decision in 'Texas v. United States' on the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's (ACA's) requirement for individuals to maintain health insurance (the so-called 'individual mandate') and the continued validity of the remainder of the Act. The Fifth Circuit affirmed a district court ruling that Congress lacked the constitutional authority to enact the individual mandate, as amended by the subsequent 2017 tax revision, but declined to resolve a broader issue: what happens now to the ACA's remaining provisions? The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's decision on this severability question and sent the case back to the district court to 'explain with precision how particular portions of the ACA as it exists post-2017 rise or fall on the constitutionality of the individual mandate.' This Sidebar provides background on 'Texas'; discusses the Fifth Circuit's decision; highlights potential effects of the decision and possible next steps for the case; and identifies legislative options for Congress."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Staman, Jennifer A.; Shen, Wen S.; Liu, Edward C.
2019-12-23
-
COVID-19: Current Travel Restrictions and Quarantine Measures [March 5, 2020]
From the Document: "The United States, along with many countries, is responding to an outbreak of a respiratory disease, now referred to as COVID-19 [coronavirus disease 2019], which is caused by a novel coronavirus first detected in mainland China's Hubei Province in late 2019. Cases of COVID-19 have now been detected in several countries, including the United States. To date, the federal government has taken two key actions to deter persons with suspected COVID-19 infection from entering the country or spreading the virus to persons within the United States. First, the federal government has restricted many non-U.S. nationals (aliens) who recently travelled to mainland China or Iran from entering the United States. Second, the federal government has imposed a quarantine requirement on all persons entering the United States, regardless of citizenship status, who have recently been to mainland China. This Legal Sidebar examines the legal authorities underlying these actions, as well as possible legal challenges to their use."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Liu, Edward C.
2020-03-05
-
COVID-19: Current Travel Restrictions and Quarantine Measures [Updated March 17, 2020]
From the Document: "The United States, along with many countries, is responding to an outbreak of a respiratory disease, now referred to as COVID-19, which is caused by a novel coronavirus first detected in mainland China's Hubei Province in late 2019. Cases of COVID-19 have now been detected in several countries, including the United States. To date, the federal government has taken two key actions to deter persons with suspected COVID-19 infection from entering the country or spreading the virus to persons within the United States. First, the federal government has restricted the entry of many non-U.S. nationals (aliens) who recently have been physically present in mainland China, Iran, or much of Europe. Second, the federal government has imposed a quarantine requirement on all persons entering the United States, regardless of citizenship status, who have recently been to those areas. This Legal Sidebar examines the legal authorities underlying these actions, as well as possible legal challenges to their use."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Liu, Edward C.
2020-03-17
-
Fifth Circuit Holds the Individual Mandate Unconstitutional: Implications for Congress [Updated March 3, 2020]
From the Document: "On December 18, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (Fifth Circuit) issued its decision in 'Texas v. United States' on the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's (ACA's) requirement for individuals to maintain health insurance (the so-called 'individual mandate') and the continued validity of the remainder of the Act. The Fifth Circuit affirmed a district court ruling that Congress lacked the constitutional authority to enact the individual mandate, as amended by the subsequent 2017 tax revision, but declined to resolve a broader issue: what happens now to the ACA's remaining provisions? The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's decision on this severability question and sent the case back to the district court to 'explain with precision how particular portions of the ACA as it exists post-2017 rise or fall on the constitutionality of the individual mandate.' This Sidebar provides background on 'Texas'; discusses the Fifth Circuit's decision; highlights potential effects of the decision and possible next steps for the case; and identifies legislative options for Congress."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Staman, Jennifer A.; Liu, Edward C.; Shen, Wen S.
2020-03-03
-
Tax Issues and the Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill: Legal Analysis of Payments and Tax Relief Policy Options [July 15, 2010]
From the Summary: "The explosion of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig and subsequent oil spill into the Gulf of Mexico has led to substantial damages, particularly in the form of lost wages and income. BP has begun to make interim payments to compensate for lost income resulting from the oil spill. Given the magnitude of the economic disruption resulting from the spill, however, policymakers may consider exploring alternative mechanisms for providing relief to the affected region. One option is to provide relief through the tax code by adopting measures similar to those employed following past major disasters. BP is currently making interim payments to claimants 'who are not receiving their ordinary income or profit' during the cleanup phase. The IRS [Internal Revenue Service] has released guidance regarding the tax treatment of these payments in an effort to help taxpayers understand the tax implications of receiving claims payments from BP. This report provides a legal analysis of the tax status of payments received from BP by Gulf Coast victims under current law, and discusses potential legal distinctions between payments received for lost income versus those that may be received to compensate for property loss and physical injuries. Further, this report comments on the tax implications in the event a federal disaster declaration is issued with respect to this incident."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Lunder, Erika; Liu, Edward C.; Sherlock, Molly F.
2010-07-15
-
Supreme Court Stays Injunction That Had Blocked a Portion of the Administration's Border Wall Funding [Updated July 29, 2019]
From the Document: "On July 26, 2019, the Supreme Court in a divided decision stayed a June 28 injunction issued by a federal district court in California that had permanently prohibited the Trump Administration from using Sections 8005 and 9002 of the 2019 Department of Defense Appropriations Act to transfer any of the $2.5 billion it had proposed to use for border-barrier projects. The Trump Administration had appealed the district court's permanent injunction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and asked that court to stay the injunction pending appeal, but the Ninth Circuit denied the Trump Administration's request earlier this month. In its order issuing a stay, the Supreme Court stated that '[a]mong the reasons' for its order was that the Trump Administration had 'made a sufficient showing . . . that the plaintiffs have no cause of action to obtain review of' the Administration's transfer of funds pursuant to the 2019 Department of Defense Appropriations Act (discussed below). The Court did not rule on the lawfulness of the Trump Administration's actions. The stay is in effect during the pendency of the Trump Administration's appeal until the resolution of any petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court. As a result, the Trump Administration may now use funds transferred under Sections 8005 and 9002 to pay for border barrier construction."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Liu, Edward C.; Hayes, Benjamin
2019-07-29
-
Congress Considers Reform to Queries of FISA Information as Reauthorization Deadline Approaches [January 8, 2018]
"Title VII of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) is currently scheduled to sunset on January 19, 2018. Of the expiring provisions, Section 702, which authorizes 'programmatic' surveillance of non-U.S. persons while they are outside of the United States, has received the greatest amount of attention, possibly because Section 702 provides the Attorney General (AG) and Director of National Intelligence (DNI) more leeway to authorize surveillance than other FISA provisions. Generally, before the AG and DNI may authorize electronic surveillance under Title VII, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) must issue an order finding, inter alia, that probable cause exists to believe that the target of the proposed surveillance is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power. Pursuant to Section 702, however, the AG, in consultation with the DNI, develop targeting and minimization procedures to identify targets and acquire communications, which they submit to the FISC for approval. The AG and DNI also certify to the FISC that surveillance of a target will comply with Section 702, including the proposed targeting and minimization procedures."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Liu, Edward C.
2018-01-08
-
HPSCI Memorandum Sparks Debate Over FISA Application Requirements [February 14, 2018]
"The recent disclosure by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) of a declassified memorandum written by HPSCI majority staff has sparked a renewed conversation about the government's longstanding authority to conduct electronic surveillance on U.S. citizens pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA), as amended. [...] A central factual question that appears to be disputed by the competing memoranda is the degree to which information potentially undermining the FISA application's reliability was omitted from the application. Although CRS is not in a position to answer that factual question, this Sidebar endeavors to explain the legal requirements regarding the government's obligation to include countervailing information in FISA applications."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Liu, Edward C.
2018-02-14
-
Congressional Access to the President's Federal Tax Returns [Updated April 4, 2019]
From the Document: "The Chair of the House Ways and Means Committee is reportedly preparing to send a request to the Treasury Department's Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to obtain President Trump's federal tax returns. This request appears prompted by the President's departure from the past practice of sitting presidents and presidential candidates voluntarily disclosing their recent tax returns. This Sidebar analyzes the ability of a congressional committee to obtain the President's tax returns under provisions of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC); whether the President or the Treasury Secretary might have a legal basis for denying a committee request for the returns; and, if a committee successfully acquires the returns, whether those returns legally could be disclosed to the public."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Carpenter, David Hatcher; Garvey, Todd; Liu, Edward C.
2019-04-04
-
Congressional Access to the President's Federal Tax Returns [Updated May 7, 2019]
From the Document: "The Chair of the House Ways and Means Committee is reportedly preparing to send a request to the Treasury Department's Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to obtain President Trump's federal tax returns. This request appears prompted by the President's departure from the past practice of sitting presidents and presidential candidates voluntarily disclosing their recent tax returns. This Sidebar analyzes the ability of a congressional committee to obtain the President's tax returns under provisions of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC); whether the President or the Treasury Secretary might have a legal basis for denying a committee request for the returns; and, if a committee successfully acquires the returns, whether those returns legally could be disclosed to the public."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Carpenter, David Hatcher; Garvey, Todd; Liu, Edward C.
2019-05-07
-
Protecting Classified Information and the Rights of Criminal Defendants: The Classified Information Procedures Act [Updated August 31, 2016]
From the Summary: "A criminal prosecution involving classified information may cause tension between the government's interest in protecting classified information and the criminal defendant's right to a constitutionally valid trial. In some cases, a defendant may threaten to disclose classified information in an effort to gain leverage. Concerns about this practice, referred to as 'graymail,' led the 96th Congress to enact the Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA) to provide uniform procedures for prosecutions involving classified information. Examples of recent cases implicating CIPA have arisen in the context of prosecutions against alleged terrorists, as well as prosecutions involving the unauthorized disclosure of classified information by former intelligence officials."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Liu, Edward C.
2016-08-31
-
Federal Court Temporarily Blocks a Portion of the Administration's Border Wall Funding [June 17, 2019]
From the Document: "In recent months, the Trump Administration has taken steps to secure additional funds to pay for the construction of barriers along the U.S.-Mexico border, and various entities have brought suits challenging the lawfulness of those actions. On May 24, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued a preliminary injunction in one lawsuit, 'Sierra Club v. Trump,' barring the Administration from using funds reprogrammed under Section 8005 of the 2019 Department of Defense Appropriations Act to pay for specified barrier construction projects in New Mexico and Arizona while the lawsuit is pending. But the court declined to issue a preliminary injunction with respect to any construction project not involved in that lawsuit (even if Section 8005 is used to fund the project) or to opine on the lawfulness of the Trump Administration's other proposed funding sources. This Sidebar discusses the district court's determination that Section 8005 does not authorize the transfer of funds for border wall construction. Next, it addresses how the court dealt with the Administration's use of other funding sources. Finally, the Sidebar identifies potential considerations for Congress."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Liu, Edward C.; Hayes, Benjamin
2019-06-17
-
'California v. Texas': The Fate of the Affordable Care Act [October 27, 2020]
From the Document: "On November 10, 2020, the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral argument in 'California v. Texas' (consolidated with the related case 'Texas v. California'), a constitutional challenge to the Affordable Care Act's (ACA's) individual mandate. The suit also seeks to invalidate the ACA's many other provisions, which cover a range of issues such as the regulation of private health insurance, changes to public health care programs like Medicaid and Medicare, funding for preventive health care programs, drug regulation, and nutritional content display at restaurants. This Sidebar provides background on the ACA's individual mandate, including relevant prior litigation, followed by a discussion of the 'California v. Texas' case, including the parties' arguments in the case. It concludes with some select considerations for Congress."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Liu, Edward C.
2020-10-27
-
Whose Line is it Anyway: Could Congress Give the President a Line-Item Veto? [March 27, 2018]
"In announcing his intention to sign H.R. 1625, the 'Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018,' President Trump, noting his concerns over the fiscal size of the bill, called on Congress to provide him with a 'line-item veto for all government spending bills.' Two days later, the Secretary of the Treasury, Steven Mnuchin, similarly maintained that Congress 'should give the president a line-item veto.' These remarks resulted in immediate rebukes by several commentators, who, citing the Supreme Court's 1998 ruling in Clinton v. City of New York, argued that the Court already resolved the legality of the line-item veto by striking down such a provision in a 1996 law. At the same time, the Trump Administration's calls for a line-item veto echo those of other Presidents who sought such authority even after City of New York, under the premise that the invalidated law could be revised to address the Court's objections. Because Congress has not enacted any such proposals, the question remains whether the High Court's 1998 ruling wholly forecloses Congress's ability to authorize the President's veto of individual provisions of spending legislation. This Sidebar provides an overview of the Court's decision in City of New York and examines what (if any) possibility exists for a constitutional, line-item veto authority for the President."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Nolan, Andrew; Garvey, Todd; Liu, Edward C.
2018-03-27
-
The Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB): Frequently Asked Questions [March 17, 2017]
"This report responds to frequently asked questions about the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), including the board's background, current status, controversial issues including legal challenges, and recent legislative efforts to repeal the IPAB. For additional information, see CRS Report R41511, The Independent Payment Advisory Board, by Jim Hahn and Christopher M. Davis."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Hahn, Jim; Davis, Christopher M., 1966-; Liu, Edward C.
2017-03-17
-
Pandemic Flu and Medical Biodefense Countermeasure Liability Limitation [February 12, 2010]
"Division C of P.L. 109-148 (2005), 42 U.S.C. §§ 247d-6d, 247d-6e, also known as the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act), limits liability with respect to pandemic flu and other public health countermeasures. Specifically, upon a declaration by the Secretary of Health and Human Services of a public health emergency or the credible risk of such emergency, Division C would, with respect to a 'covered countermeasure,' eliminate liability, with one exception, for the United States, and for manufacturers, distributors, program planners, persons who prescribe, administer or dispense the countermeasure, and employees of any of the above. The exception to immunity from liability is that a defendant who engaged in willful misconduct would be subject to liability under a new federal cause of action, though not under state tort law, if death or serious injury results. Division C's limitation on liability is a more extensive restriction on victims' ability to recover than exists in most federal tort reform statutes. However, victims could, in lieu of suing, accept payment under a new 'Covered Countermeasure Process Fund,' if Congress appropriates money for this fund."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Liu, Edward C.
2010-02-12
-
Retroactive Immunity Provided by the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 [July 25, 2008]
"On July 10, 2008, P.L. 110-261, entitled the FISA [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Amendments Act] of 2008, was signed into law. Although many of the changes enacted by the FISA Amendments Act were controversial, one particularly contentious issue was whether to grant retroactive immunity to telecommunications providers that may have facilitated warrantless surveillance by the federal government under a Terrorist Surveillance Program between 2001 and 2007. Proponents of retroactive immunity argued that it was necessary to assure private cooperation with critical intelligence investigations. On the other hand, opponents of retroactive immunity argued that its inclusion undermined the statutory penalties that were designed to deter unlawful intrusions into individual liberties. This report discusses the various retroactive immunity mechanisms that were proposed to be included in the FISA Amendments Act, one of which was ultimately adopted, and their likely effect on lawsuits facing telecommunications providers. Retroactive immunity is more than simply protection from liability; it can also act as protection from the cost of litigation. Without retroactive immunity, many legal issues would need to be addressed, possibly at great expense, in order to resolve these lawsuits. The plaintiffs would need to show that the actions of the defendants were not lawful. The Bush Administration's theory of inherent wiretapping ability might need to be litigated. Additionally, the applicability of the state secrets privilege to these cases might be the subject of litigation. As enacted, the FISA Amendments Act lays out a procedure for the Attorney General to bring about the dis missal of lawsuits alleging unlawful participation in the Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP). In order for a suit to be dismissed by a court, the Attorney General must certify that the defendant provided assistance in connection with the TSP and was given written assurances that the program was authorized by the President and determined to be lawful. The Attorney General could also certify that the alleged assistance was not in fact provided by the defendant. All parties are permitted to submit documents and arguments relevant to dismissal which the court may consider. Dismissal is only proper if the court finds, based upon its review, that the Attorney General's certification is supported by 'substantial evidence.'"
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Liu, Edward C.
2008-07-25
-
Cybersecurity: Selected Legal Issues [April 17, 2013]
"For many, the Internet has become inextricably intertwined with daily life. Many rely on it to perform their jobs, pay their bills, send messages to loved ones, track their medical care, and voice political opinions, among a host of other activities. Likewise, government and business use the Internet to maintain defense systems, protect power plants and water supplies, and keep other types of critical infrastructure running. Consequently, the federal government's role in protecting U.S. citizens and critical infrastructure from cyber attacks has been the subject of recent congressional interest. This report discusses selected legal issues that frequently arise in the context of legislation to address vulnerabilities of private critical infrastructure to cyber threats, efforts to protect government networks from cyber threats, and proposals to facilitate and encourage sharing of cyber threat information amongst private sector and government entities. This report also provides an overview of the ways in which federal laws of these types may preempt or affect the applicability of state law."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Liu, Edward C.; Stevens, Gina Marie; Ruane, Kathleen Ann . . .
2013-04-17
-
NSA Surveillance Leaks: Background and Issues for Congress [July 2, 2013]
"Recent media stories about National Security Agency (NSA) surveillance address unauthorized disclosures of two different intelligence collection programs. These programs arise from provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). However, they rely on separate authorities, collect different types of information, and raise different policy questions. As such, where possible, the information contained in this report distinguishes between the two. For both programs, there is a tension between the speed and convenience with which the government can access data of possible intelligence value and the mechanisms intended to safeguard civil liberties. The first program collects and stores in bulk domestic phone records that some argue could be gathered to equal effect through more focused records requests. The second program targets the electronic communications of non-U.S. citizens but may incidentally collect information about Americans. The following sections address (1) what information is being collected; (2) the legal basis for the collection; (3) existing oversight mechanisms; and (4) arguments for and against the two programs. The last section of this report discusses legislation that has been proposed in response to information disclosed about NSA surveillance. Because documents leaked to the news media may be classified, CRS [Congressional Research Service] is precluded from providing a detailed analysis of the content of those documents. The information in this report is based largely on public comments from intelligence officials and Members of Congress."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Erwin, Marshall Curtis; Liu, Edward C.
2013-07-02
-
Analysis of the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of 2013 [March 11, 2013]
From the Introduction: "Given its size, strength, location and the enormity of its impact, Hurricane Sandy was a storm of historic proportions and importance. The damage inflicted by this huge storm rivaled the damages of the Gulf Coast storms during the summer of 2005, particularly due to the population density and overall development of the areas that received the brunt of the storm's impact. As with other major natural disaster events, Members of Congress responded to Hurricane Sandy by holding a series of hearings, visiting the affected region, and introducing and acting on legislation. […] This report examines the potential effect of the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of 2013 on disaster assistance procedures and programs. Part of the legislative intent of the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of 2013 is to streamline administrative procedures and improve the effectiveness of several disaster assistance programs authorized by the Stafford Act, namely the Public Assistance Program, the Individual Assistance Program, and the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. The law reforms the Stafford Act in part by reauthorizing several 'pilot' programs established previously in Title VI of P.L. 109-295, the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 (PKEMRA). P.L. 113-2 also authorizes tribes to request a declaration of an emergency or major disaster, as was previously only allowed for states. It also directs FEMA to establish procedures for arbitrating disputes relating to disaster assistance, and directs FEMA to create a national strategy for mitigating the cost of future disasters. In the context of overall supplemental funding for disaster relief being debated by the Congress, the disaster assistance programs modified by the law are funded by the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF). More detailed explanations of the modifications enacted by the law are provided below."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Brown, Jared T.; McCarthy, Francis X.; Liu, Edward C.
2013-03-11
-
Employment-Based Health Coverage and Health Reform: Selected Legal Considerations [June 12, 2009]
"It has been estimated that nearly 170 million individuals, or approximately 64% of the nonelderly population, have employer-based health coverage in the United States. While under federal law, employers are not required to provide coverage to employees, many do so voluntarily. Employment-based insurance has several strengths, including risk pools that are not formed on the basis of health status, ease of acquisition by workers, and tax subsidies that exceed those for individual market insurance. In addition, employers may have greater negotiating power with an insurance company than does an individual consumer. On the other hand, plans chosen by employers may not meet individual workers' needs, and changing jobs may require obtaining both new insurance and new doctors. Nevertheless, given that employers are a large source of financing for health coverage in the United States, whether employment-based insurance should be strengthened, weakened, or kept the same is likely to be evaluated by Congress. If Congress chooses to amend the employer-based system as part of a federal health reform effort, it is possible that two primary federal laws governing employer-based coverage, Employee Retirement Income Security Act and the Internal Revenue Code, may be the vehicle for making changes. This report provides an analysis of selected legal considerations in amending these two federal laws."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Staman, Jennifer A.; Liu, Edward C.
2009-06-12
-
Ebola: Selected Legal Issues [December 16, 2014]
"Several West African countries are currently grappling with an unprecedented outbreak of Ebola virus disease (EVD). Here in the United States, where Ebola is not endemic, a handful of EVD cases have been diagnosed, and domestic transmission of the virus has occurred in only two cases to date. This report provides a brief overview of selected legal issues regarding measures to prevent transmission of Ebola virus and the civil rights of individuals affected by the disease. Quarantine and isolation are restrictions on a person's movement, imposed to prevent the spread of contagious disease. The federal government has jurisdiction over interstate and border quarantine, carried out by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). However, primary quarantine authority typically resides with state health departments and health officials. Every state has the authority to pass and enforce quarantine laws as an exercise of its police powers, but these laws may vary widely by state. State and federal quarantine or isolation orders may be subject to suits alleging inadequate due process or violations of equal protection, but modern legal challenges to quarantine and isolation orders are not extensive. […] The use of these measures to contain the spread of Ebola may raise a classic civil rights issue: to what extent can an individual's liberty be curtailed to advance the common good? In addition to the constitutional issues noted above, discrimination against individuals with an infectious disease may be covered by Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), or the Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA). While quarantine and isolation effectively minimize Ebola exposure, they may also raise various employment concerns, particularly for those workers who fear losing their jobs or wages if they are forced to comply with a quarantine or isolation order. Infected workers may also be protected under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) if it can be established that they have a serious health condition, and employers whose employees could face workplace exposure to Ebola virus may be obligated to comply with applicable Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Cole, Jared P.; Perry, Rodney M.; Dolan, Alissa M. . . .
2014-12-16
-
NSA Surveillance Leaks: Background and Issues for Congress [September 4, 2013]
"Recent attention concerning National Security Agency (NSA) surveillance pertains to unauthorized disclosures of two different intelligence collection programs. Since these programs were publicly disclosed over the course of two days in June, there has been confusion about what information is being collected and under which authorities the NSA is acting. This report clarifies the differences between the two programs and identifies potential issues that may help Members of Congress assess legislative proposals pertaining to NSA surveillance authorities. The first program collects in bulk the phone records--including the number that was dialed from, the number that was dialed to, and the date and duration of the call--of customers of Verizon and possibly other U.S. telephone service providers. It does not collect the content of the calls or the identity of callers. The data are collected pursuant to Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT ACT, which amended the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978. Section 215 allows the FBI, in this case on behalf of the NSA, to apply to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) for an order compelling a person to produce 'any tangible thing,' such as records held by a telecommunications provider, if the tangible things sought are 'relevant to an authorized investigation.' Some commentators have expressed skepticism regarding how such a broad amount of data could be said to be 'relevant to an authorized investigation,' as required by the statute."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Liu, Edward C.; Rollins, John
2013-09-04
-
Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the Appropriations Process: FAQs Regarding Potential Legislative Changes and Effects of a Government Shutdown [October 2, 2013]
"Congress has yet to complete legislative action on any of the 12 regular appropriations bills to fund the routine operations of federal agencies for FY2014, which began on October 1, 2013. Moreover, lawmakers have been unable to agree on a continuing appropriations bill, or continuing resolution (CR), to provide funding for part or all of the new fiscal year. As a result, the federal government has begun a shutdown of programs that lack budget authority to continue operations in FY2014, except in certain circumstances. Congress is deeply divided over implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), the health reform law enacted in March 2010. Some lawmakers opposed to the ACA have advocated the use of the appropriations process to eliminate funding for the law or to delay its implementation. On September 20, 2013, the House approved an FY2014 CR (H.J.Res. [House of Representatives Joint Resolution] 59) to provide temporary funding for the federal government until December 15, 2013. H.J.Res. 59, as passed by the House, incorporated language that would prohibit the use of any federal funds to carry out the ACA. The Senate amendment to H.J.Res. 59 did not incorporate the House ACA defunding language. The House then proposed changes to the Senate amendment to delay the ACA's implementation, but the Senate rejected those changes. With the two chambers unable to reach agreement on H.J.Res. 59 by October 1, 2013, the government commenced a partial shutdown of its operations."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Redhead, C. Stephen; Tollestrup, Jessica; Liu, Edward C. . . .
2013-10-02
