Advanced search    Help

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).

• Supply Chain Risk Management Practices for Federal Information Systems and Organizations (Second Draft)

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  This Second Draft special publication was published for public review from June 3, 2014 through July 18, 2014. From the Abstract: "Federal agencies are concerned about the risks associated with information and communications technology (ICT) products and services that may contain potentially malicious functionality, are counterfeit, or are vulnerable due to poor manufacturing and development practices within the ICT supply chain. These risks are associated with the federal agencies decreased visibility into, understanding of, and control over how the technology that they acquire is developed, integrated and deployed, as well as the processes, procedures, and practices used to assure the integrity, security, resilience, and quality of the products and services. This publication provides guidance to federal agencies on identifying, assessing, and mitigating ICT supply chain risks at all levels of their organizations. This publication integrates ICT supply chain risk management (SCRM) into federal agency risk management activities by applying a multitiered, SCRM-specific approach, including guidance on supply chain risk assessment and mitigation activities."

  National Institute of Standards and Technology (U.S.)

  Boyens, Jon; Paulsen, Celia; Moorthy, Rama . . .

  2014-06
• Legislative Options for Financing Water Infrastructure [May 16, 2014]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "This report addresses several options being considered by Congress to address the financing needs of local communities for wastewater and drinking water infrastructure projects and to decrease or close the gap between available funds and projected needs. Some of the options exist and are well established, but they are under discussion for expansion or modification. Other innovative policy options for water infrastructure have recently been proposed, especially to supplement or complement existing financing tools. Some are intended to provide robust, long-term revenue to support existing financing programs and mechanisms. Some are intended to encourage private participation in financing of drinking water and wastewater projects."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Mallett, William; Maguire, Steven; Copeland, Claudia

  2014-05-16
• Highway and Public Transportation Infrastructure Provision Using Public-Private Partnerships (P3s) [March 5, 2014]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "Growing demands on the transportation system and constraints on public resources have led to calls for more private sector involvement in the provision of highway and transit infrastructure through what are known as 'public-private partnerships' or 'P3s.' A P3, broadly defined, is any arrangement whereby the private sector assumes more responsibility than is traditional for infrastructure planning, financing, design, construction, operation, and maintenance. Some P3s involve the leasing by the public sector to the private sector of existing infrastructure, while others provide for a private role in designing, financing, building, and operating new infrastructure. […] This report discusses two broad policy options for Congress as it considers reauthorizing federal surface transportation programs. The first would be to actively encourage P3s with program incentives as has been done in the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21; P.L. 112-141), but with relatively tight regulatory controls. This might include a requirement for an evaluation of the costs and benefits of the P3 against traditional public delivery methods, new requirements regarding public information and public involvement, and a prohibition against noncompete clauses in P3 agreements (which could prevent public authorities from providing new, competitive infrastructure near a privately controlled facility). The second broad option would be to aggressively encourage the use of P3s through program incentives and deregulation. This might include fewer restrictions on the tolling of Interstate Highways and the enhancement of existing financing programs that encourage P3s, such as the TIFIA (Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act) program and private activity bonds, or new initiatives, such as the creation of a national infrastructure bank."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Mallett, William

  2014-03-05
• Legislative Options for Financing Water Infrastructure [April 14, 2014]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "This report addresses several options being considered by Congress to address the financing needs of local communities for wastewater and drinking water infrastructure projects and to decrease or close the gap between available funds and projected needs. Some of the options exist and are well established, but they are under discussion for expansion or modification. Other innovative policy options for water infrastructure have recently been proposed, especially to supplement or complement existing financing tools. Some are intended to provide robust, long-term revenue to support existing financing programs and mechanisms. Some are intended to encourage private participation in financing of drinking water and wastewater projects. Six options that are reflected in recent legislative proposals, including their budgetary implications, are discussed. [1] Increase funding for the State Revolving Fund (SRF) programs in the Clean Water Act (H.R. 1877 in the 113th Congress) and the Safe Drinking Water Act (H.R. 5320 in the 111th Congress), [2] Create a federal water infrastructure trust fund (H.R. 3582 and H.R. 1877 in the 113th Congress), [3] Create a 'Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act' Program, or WIFIA (S. 601 and S. 335 in the 113th Congress), [4] Create a national infrastructure bank (H.R. 2084, H.R. 2553, H.R. 2881, S. 1716, S. 1957, H.R. 505, and H.R. 3939 in the 113th Congress), [5] Lift restrictions on private activity bonds for water infrastructure projects (included in the Administration's FY2015 budget request and H.R. 3939 and H.R. 4237 in the 113th Congress), and [6] Reinstate authority for the issuance of Build America Bonds (included in the Administration's FY2015 budget request and H.R. 535, H.R. 789, H.R. 3939, and S. 2203 in the 113th Congress)."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Copeland, Claudia; Maguire, Steven; Mallett, William

  2014-04-14
• Development of High Speed Rail in the United States: Issues and Recent Events [June 28, 2012]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "The provision of $8 billion for intercity passenger rail projects in the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA; P.L. 111-5) reinvigorated efforts to expand intercity passenger rail transportation in the United States. The Obama Administration subsequently announced that it would ask Congress to provide $1 billion annually for high speed rail (HSR) projects. This initiative was reflected in the President's budgets for FY2010 through FY2013. Congress approved $2.5 billion for high speed and intercity passenger rail in FY2010 (P.L. 111-117), but zero in FY2011 (P.L. 112-10) and FY2012 (P.L. 112-55). In addition, the FY2011 appropriations act rescinded $400 million from prior year unobligated balances of program funding. There are two main approaches to building high speed rail (HSR): (1) improving existing tracks and signaling to allow trains to reach speeds of up to 110 miles per hour (mph), generally on track shared with freight trains; and (2) building new tracks dedicated exclusively to high speed passenger rail service, to allow trains to travel at speeds of 200 mph or more. The potential costs, and benefits, are relatively lower with the first approach and higher with the second approach."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Peterman, David Randall; Frittelli, John; Mallett, William

  2012-06-28
• Surface Transportation Funding and Finance [September 2, 2011]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "Federal surface transportation programs are currently funded primarily through federal fuel taxes on gasoline, diesel, and other fuels that are deposited in the highway trust fund. Although there has been some modification to the tax system, the basic fuel taxes have not been increased at the federal level since 1993. Prior to the recession that began in 2007, annual increases in driving, with a concomitant increase in fuel use, were sufficient to keep revenues rising steadily on an annual basis. This is no longer the case. Further, future changes in the nation's vehicle fleet as a result of federal fuel economy standards, including increased use of electric hybrid and fully electric vehicles, are expected to suppress future fuel use even if annual increases in vehicle mileage resume. Congress has yet to address the surface transportation program's revenue issues, except by increasing transport spending from the U.S. Treasury general fund. Many Members of Congress have expressed an aversion to raising fuel taxes, and alternative methods of financing surface transportation have not received serious legislative consideration. […] With efforts to reauthorize the existing, but already expired, surface transportation program at a standstill, the programs authorized by the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU or SAFETEA) (P.L. 109-59) continue to operate as a result of extension legislation and cash infusions to the trust fund from the U.S. Treasury general fund. This report focuses on possible revenue sources for surface transportation infrastructure. It begins with a brief discussion of the problems associated with the trust fund financing system and then explores possible immediate and longer-term solutions to the financing problem."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Kirk, Robert S.; Mallett, William

  2011-09-02
• Highway Bridges: Conditions and the Federal/State Role [Updated January 31, 2008]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "The sudden failure and collapse of the I-35W Interstate System bridge in Minneapolis has raised policy concerns in Congress regarding the condition of the nation's transportation infrastructure in general, and in particular the federal role in funding, building, maintaining, and ensuring the safety of roads and especially bridges in the United States. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) expects to determine probable cause of the collapse by the end of 2008. An interim NTSB finding implicated a flaw in the original bridge design as a contributing factor. Of the 600,000 public road bridges listed in the National Bridge Inventory, roughly 12%, or 72,000, were classified as structurally deficient as of 2007. This is, however, roughly half the number classified as deficient in 1990. Given the I-35W collapse, however, even this lower number of deficient bridges leaves Americans potentially exposed to what some might consider an unacceptable level of risk. […]. At current annual spending levels, roughly $10.5 billion (2004 dollars at all levels of government), the bridge investment backlog (in dollar terms) would be reduced by roughly half by 2024. Reducing the backlog to near zero during the same period would require an estimated annual spending rate of roughly $12.4 billion (in 2004 dollars). The Emergency Relief Program (ER), administered by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), provides funding for bridges damaged in natural disasters or by catastrophic failures. The program provides funds for emergency repairs immediately after the failure to restore essential traffic, as well as for longer-term permanent repairs."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Kirk, Robert S.; Mallett, William

  2008-01-31
• National Infrastructure Bank: Overview and Current Legislation [December 14, 2011]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "Conceptually, an infrastructure bank is a government-established entity that provides credit assistance to sponsors of infrastructure projects. An infrastructure bank can take many different forms, such as an independent federal agency, a federal corporation, a government-sponsored enterprise, a state government entity, or a private-sector, nonprofit corporation, but is distinguished from a commercial bank or private-sector infrastructure fund by being government established. Unlike government departments that mainly fund infrastructure through grants, an infrastructure bank would be expected mainly to provide credit assistance, typically loans, loan guarantees, and lines of credit. As with a traditional commercial bank, infrastructure bank borrowers would be expected to repay their loans with interest, and may have to pay other fees associated with the bank's credit instruments. But unlike a commercial bank, an infrastructure bank takes no deposits and conducts no other 'over-the-counter' transactions. Examples of existing infrastructure banks are the European Investment Bank (EIB) and, in the United States, state infrastructure banks, and possibly the Export-Import Bank."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Mallett, William; Maguire, Steven; Kosar, Kevin R.

  2011-12-14
• Role of Public Works Infrastructure in Economic Recovery [September 21, 2011]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "During the recent recession, policymakers took a number of monetary and fiscal policy actions to stimulate the economy. Notably, Congress enacted the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) that provided increases in federal spending and reduction in taxes in order to increase demand for goods and services. However, as the economy is only slowly emerging from the recession, interest in using federal government spending to boost U.S. economic recovery has again intensified. There is widespread desire to accelerate job creation and economic recovery, although consensus on how to do so is not apparent. Policymakers at all levels of government are debating a range of options to address these problems. This report is an overview of policy issues associated with one approach that also was included in ARRA: using accelerated investments in the nation's public infrastructure as a mechanism to benefit economic recovery."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Copeland, Claudia; Levine, Linda (Linda H.); Mallett, William

  2011-09-21
• Legislative Options for Financing Water Infrastructure [April 3, 2012]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "This report addresses several options being considered by Congress to address the financing needs of local communities for wastewater and drinking water infrastructure projects and to decrease or close the gap between available funds and projected needs. Some of the options exist and are well established, but they are under discussion for expansion or modification. Other innovative policy options have recently been proposed in connection with water infrastructure, especially to supplement or complement existing financing tools. Some are intended to provide robust, long-term revenue to support existing financing programs and mechanisms. Some are intended to encourage private participation in furnishing drinking water and wastewater services. […] Consensus exists among many stakeholders--state and local governments, equipment manufacturers and construction companies, and environmental advocates--on the need for more investment in water infrastructure. There is no consensus supporting a preferred option or policy, and many advocate a combination that will expand the financing 'toolbox' for projects. Some of the options discussed in this report may be helpful, but there is no single method that will address needs fully or close the financing gap completely. For example, some may be helpful to projects in large urban or multi-jurisdictional areas, while others may be more beneficial in smaller communities. It is unlikely that any of the recently proposed options could be up and running quickly, meaning that, at least for the near term, communities will continue to rely on the existing SRF [State Revolving Fund] programs, tax-exempt governmental bonds, and tax-exempt private activity bonds to finance their water infrastructure needs."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Copeland, Claudia; Mallett, William; Maguire, Steven

  2012-04-03
• Supply Chain Risk Management Practices for Federal Information Systems and Organizations

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "The information and communications technology (ICT) supply chain is a complex, globally distributed system of interconnected networks that are logically long, with geographically diverse routes and multiple tiers of outsourcing. This system of networks includes organizations, people, processes, products, and services and the infrastructure supporting the system development life cycle, including research and development (R&D), design, manufacturing, acquisition, delivery, integration, operations, and disposal/retirement) of an organization's ICT products (i.e., hardware and software) and services. Today's ICT supply chains have increased complexity, diversity, and scale, while federal government information systems have been rapidly expanding in terms of capability and number, with an increased reliance on outsourcing and commercially available products. These trends have caused federal departments and agencies to have a lack of visibility and understanding throughout the supply chain of how the technology being acquired is developed, integrated and deployed, as well as the processes, procedures, and practices used to assure the integrity, security, resilience, and quality of the products and services. This lack of visibility and understanding, in turn, has decreased the control federal departments and agencies have with regard to the decisions impacting the inherited risks traversing the supply chain and the ability to effectively manage those risks."

  National Institute of Standards and Technology (U.S.)

  Boyens, Jon; Paulsen, Celia; Moorthy, Rama . . .

  2013-08
• Role of Public Works Infrastructure in Economic Stimulus [January 6, 2009]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "Interest in using federal government spending to stimulate U.S. economic recovery has intensified recently in response to indicators showing significant deterioration of the economy. Policymakers at all levels of government are debating a range of options to address these problems. Some favor using traditional monetary and fiscal policies. Others, however, favor making accelerated investments in the nation's public infrastructure in order to create jobs while also meeting infrastructure needs. This report is an overview of policy issues associated with the approach of using infrastructure as a mechanism for economic stimulus. When most people think about infrastructure, they probably have in mind systems that are publicly provided and are important to the productive capacity of the nation's economy. Today, policymakers define the term more broadly to include both publicly and privately owned systems and facilities and categories that vary considerably in the degree of historic federal investment in building or rebuilding physical structures. A relatively new dimension in today's context is the notion of coupling public works with investments in environmentally friendly systems that incorporate renewable technologies or energy efficiency--called 'green infrastructure.' Academics, economists, and policymakers debate two issues concerning the contribution of infrastructure investment to the economy. One is the effects of infrastructure investment on productivity and growth, including job creation. The second related issue is the role of infrastructure spending, which is typically a long-term activity, as a short-term mechanism to stimulate a faltering economy. Research conducted over time has resulted in a general consensus that there can be positive returns on productivity of investing in infrastructure."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Copeland, Claudia; Levine, Linda (Linda H.); Mallett, William . . .

  2009-01-06
• Development of High Speed Rail in the United States: Issues and Recent Events [December 20, 2013]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "The provision of $8 billion for intercity passenger rail projects in the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA; P.L. 111-5) reinvigorated the development of high speed intercity passenger rail (HSR) transportation in the United States. While Congress has been interested in HSR since the 1960s, the ARRA funding represented an enormous appropriation in historical terms. The $8 billion was included in ARRA largely at the behest of President Obama, and a subsequent announcement in April 2009 made it clear that the development of HSR is a priority of his Administration. Another $2.5 billion was provided for high speed rail and intercity passenger rail projects in the Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development, and Related Agencies (THUD) Appropriations Act, 2010 (P.L. 111-117). Since then, no additional funding has been appropriated for this program. The FY2011 THUD appropriations act (P.L. 112-10) rescinded $400 million from prior year unobligated balances for high speed and intercity passenger rail projects. Other than the rescinded amounts, virtually all of the federal HSR funding made available over the past few years has been obligated and various projects are proceeding. In most places, these projects entail upgrading existing lines owned and operated by freight railroads to allow somewhat faster passenger train speeds than are currently possible. On the Chicago-St. Louis line, for example, funding is being used to increase the maximum speed from 79 miles per hour (mph) to 110 mph. Only the HSR project in California is using federal funds for tracks dedicated to passenger trains, on which speeds could reach 220 mph. Plans for HSR in some states, including Florida, Wisconsin, and Ohio, were shelved by political leaders opposed to the substantial spending such projects entail, particularly for capital and operating costs. Some projects were stopped after federal funds were awarded; these funds were subsequently redirected to HSR projects in other states. Debate on the merits of HSR may continue where projects are ongoing because these projects are often only small steps along the way to providing much faster service in an entire corridor. A key aspect of the debate concerns prospects for the continued development of HSR if no more federal funds are forthcoming."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Peterman, David Randall; Frittelli, John; Mallett, William

  2013-12-20
• Funding and Financing Highways and Public Transportation [September 23, 2013]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "This report begins with a discussion of the problems associated with the trust fund financing system (which supports both federal highway and public transportation programs) and then explores possible options for financing surface transportation infrastructure. Among the key points: [1] Raising motor fuel taxes could provide the highway trust fund with sufficient revenue to fully fund the program in the near term, but it may not be a viable long-term solution due to expected future declines in fuel consumption. [2] Replacing current motor fuel taxes with a fuel sales tax or a fee based on vehicle miles traveled (VMT) raise a variety of financial and administrative concerns. [3] The political difficulty of adequately financing the highway trust fund could lead Congress to consider the desirability of changes to maintain the trust fund system or eliminating it altogether. Such changes might involve a reallocation of responsibilities and obligations among federal, state, and local governments. [4] Interest in improving transportation infrastructure with private and non-grant funding sources, such as tolls, public-private partnerships (PPPs), and federal loan programs is increasing, but many projects may not be well suited to alternative financing."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Mallett, William; Kirk, Robert S.

  2013-09-23
• Legislative Options for Financing Water Infrastructure [November 27, 2013]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "This report addresses several options being considered by Congress to address the financing needs of local communities for wastewater and drinking water infrastructure projects and to decrease or close the gap between available funds and projected needs. Some of the options exist and are well established, but they are under discussion for expansion or modification. Other innovative policy options for water infrastructure have recently been proposed, especially to supplement or complement existing financing tools. Some are intended to provide robust, longterm revenue to support existing financing programs and mechanisms. Some are intended to encourage private participation in furnishing drinking water and wastewater services. Six options that are reflected in recent legislative proposals, including budgetary implications, are discussed. [1] Increase funding for the State Revolving Fund (SRF) programs in the Clean Water Act (H.R. 1877 in the 113th Congress) and the Safe Drinking Water Act (H.R. 5320 in the 111th Congress), [2] Create a federal water infrastructure trust fund (H.R. 1877 in the 113th Congress and H.R. 6249 in the 112th Congress), [3] Create a 'Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act' Program, or WIFIA (S. 601 and S. 335 in the 113th Congress), [4] Create a National Infrastructure Bank (H.R. 2084 and H.R. 505 in the 113th Congress), [5] Lift private activity bond restrictions on water infrastructure projects (included in the Administration's FY2014 budget request and S. 939 and H.R. 1802 in the 112th Congress), and [6] Reinstate authority for the issuance of Build America Bonds (included in the Administration's FY2014 budget request and H.R. 535 and H.R. 789 in the 113th Congress). A number of these issues and options were examined in hearings by House and Senate committees in the 112th Congress. Legislation to create a WIFIA program (S. 601) has been passed by the Senate and is being considered by a House-Senate conference committee."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Copeland, Claudia; Maguire, Steven; Mallett, William

  2013-11-27
• Surface Transportation Program Reauthorization Issues for Congress [March 10, 2014]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "The authorization for federal spending on highway and public transportation programs, as well as surface transportation safety and research and some rail programs, expires September 30, 2014. The existing authorization, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21; P.L. 112-141) was a two-year bill, funding FY2013 and FY2014. Nearly all the funding for highways and most of the funding for public transportation is drawn from the highway trust fund (HTF). However, the motor fuel taxes that are the main source of HTF revenue no longer raise enough money to support the programs Congress has authorized. Congressional Budget Office projections indicate that the shortfall between revenues and outlays will average roughly $16 billion annually from FY2015 through FY2020. MAP-21 made up the most of the difference between motor fuel tax revenue and spending authorization by transferring money from the Treasury general fund to the HTF. As Congress considers surface transportation reauthorization, the funding shortfall is the major issue framing the debate. The alternatives will involve choices among raising motor fuels taxes, cutting spending, finding other revenue sources for the HTF, approving further transfers from the general fund, and seeking to increase private investment in surface transportation infrastructure. MAP-21 made major changes in the program structure for both highways and public transportation. Some of the changes were designed to increase program efficiency by requiring performance measurement and streamlining project development. As these changes are recent, their effectiveness may be difficult to evaluate."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Kirk, Robert S.; Mallett, William; Peterman, David Randall . . .

  2014-03-10
• Highway Bridge Conditions: Issues for Congress [December 19, 2013]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "The sudden catastrophic failure of the I-5 Interstate System bridge in Washington State on May 23, 2013, has raised policy concerns in Congress regarding the condition of the nation's transportation infrastructure in general, and in particular the federal role in funding, building, maintaining, and ensuring the safety of roads and especially bridges in the United States. Of the 607,000 public road bridges, about 67,000 (11%) were classified as structurally deficient in 2012, and another 85,000 (14%) were classified as functionally obsolete. This is less than half the number classified as structurally deficient in 1990 and 16% less than were classified as functionally obsolete. Structurally deficient and functionally obsolete bridges are not necessarily unsafe. Nonetheless, public concern about bridge safety in the wake of the I-5 bridge collapse raises the policy question of how quickly these bridges should be replaced or improved. At current annual spending levels, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) estimates that the bridge investment backlog (in dollar terms) would be reduced by 11% by 2028. Reducing the backlog to near zero during the same period is estimated to require an annual spending rate roughly 60% higher than recent levels. The most recent highway bill, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21; P.L. 112-141), eliminated the former Highway Bridge Program, which distributed federal money specifically for bridge improvements. States may use funds received under two major FHWA programs, the National Highway Performance Program and the Surface Transportation Program, for bridge repairs or construction, but the decision about how much of its funding to devote to bridges rather than roadway needs is up to each state. FHWA enforces certain planning requirements and performance standards established in MAP-21, but it does not make the determination as to which bridges should benefit from federal funding."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Kirk, Robert S.; Mallett, William

  2013-12-19
• Notional Supply Chain Risk Management Practices for Federal Information Systems

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "The information and communications technology (ICT) supply chain is a globally distributed, interconnected set of organizations, people, processes, products, and services. It extends across the full system development life cycle including research and development (R&D), design, development, acquisition of custom or commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) products, delivery, integration, operations, and disposal/retirement. Federal agency information systems are increasingly at risk of both intentional and unintentional supply chain compromise due to the growing sophistication of ICT and the growing speed and scale of a complex, distributed global supply chain. Federal departments and agencies currently have neither a consistent nor comprehensive way of understanding the often opaque processes and practices used to create and deliver the hardware and software products and services that it procures. This lack of understanding, visibility, traceability, and control increases the challenges associated with managing the risk of exploitation through a variety of means including counterfeit materials, malicious software, or untrustworthy products. Overall, it makes it increasingly difficult for federal departments and agencies to understand their exposure and manage the associated supply chain risks. […] This document seeks to equip federal departments and agencies with a notional set of repeatable and commercially reasonable supply chain assurance methods and practices that offer a means to obtain a greater level of understanding, visibility, traceability, and control throughout the ICT supply chain than agencies have today. This understanding and visibility will improve the ability of federal departments and agencies to strategically manage the associated Information and Communication Technology (ICT) supply chain risks over the entire life cycle of ICT systems, products, and services."

  National Institute of Standards and Technology (U.S.)

  Bartol, Nadya; Boyens, Jon; Paulsen, Celia

  2012-10
• Surface Transportation Funding and Programs Under MAP-21: Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (P.L. 112-141) [September 27, 2012]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "On July 6, 2012, President Barack Obama signed the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21; P.L. 112-141). The act authorized spending on federal highway and public transportation programs, surface transportation safety and research, and some rail programs and activities through September 30, 2014. MAP-21 authorized roughly $105 billion for FY2013 and FY2014 combined. It also extended FY2012 surface transportation authorizations to the end of the fiscal year, raising the total authorization to approximately $118 billion. Most of the funding for surface transportation bills has been drawn from the highway trust fund (HTF) since its creation in 1956, but the HTF, which receives revenue mainly from federal motor fuel taxes, has, due to a sluggish economy and improvements in fuel efficiency, received revenue substantially below projections. For the past several years, HTF revenue has been insufficient to finance the government's surface transportation programs, leading Congress to delay reauthorization for 33 months following expiration of the last multi-year reauthorization. Although Congress was unable to agree on a long-term solution to the HTF revenue issue, MAP- 21 did provide for the transfer of sufficient general fund revenues to the HTF to fund a two-year bill. MAP-21 made major changes in the programmatic structure for both highways and public transportation and included initiatives intended to increase program efficiency through performance-based planning and the streamlining of project development."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Frittelli, John; Kirk, Robert S.; Luther, Linda G. . . .

  2012-09-27
• Funding and Financing Highways and Public Transportation [December 26, 2012]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "Federal surface transportation programs are currently funded primarily through taxes on motor fuels that are deposited in the highway trust fund. Although there has been some modification to the tax system, the tax rates, which are fixed in terms of cents per gallon, have not been increased at the federal level since 1993. Prior to the recession that began in 2007, annual increases in driving, with a concomitant increase in fuel use, were sufficient to keep revenues rising steadily. This is no longer the case. Future increases in fuel economy standards are expected to suppress motor fuel consumption in the years ahead even if annual increases in vehicle mileage resume."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Kirk, Robert S.; Mallett, William

  2012-12-26
• Legislative Options for Financing Water Infrastructure [June 3, 2013]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "This report addresses several options being considered by Congress to address the financing needs of local communities for wastewater and drinking water infrastructure projects and to decrease or close the gap between available funds and projected needs. Some of the options exist and are well established, but they are under discussion for expansion or modification. Other innovative policy options for water infrastructure have recently been proposed, especially to supplement or complement existing financing tools. Some are intended to provide robust, longterm revenue to support existing financing programs and mechanisms. Some are intended to encourage private participation in furnishing drinking water and wastewater services. Six options that are reflected in recent legislative proposals, including budgetary implications, are discussed. 1) Increase funding for the State Revolving Fund (SRF) programs in the Clean Water Act (H.R. 1877 in the 113th Congress) and the Safe Drinking Water Act (H.R. 5320 in the 111th Congress), 2) Create a federal water infrastructure trust fund (H.R. 1877 in the 113th Congress and H.R. 6249 in the 112th Congress), 3) Create a 'Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act' Program, or WIFIA (S. 601 and S. 335 in the 113th Congress), 4) Create a National Infrastructure Bank (H.R. 2084 and H.R. 505 in the 113th Congress), 5) Lift private activity bond restrictions on water infrastructure projects (included in the Administration's FY2014 budget request and S. 939 and H.R. 1802 in the 112th Congress), and 6) Reinstate authority for the issuance of Build America Bonds (included in the Administration's FY2014 budget request and H.R. 535 and H.R. 789 in the 113th Congress). A number of these issues and options were examined in hearings by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment and by the Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife in the 112th Congress."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Mallett, William; Maguire, Steven; Copeland, Claudia

  2013-06-03
• Legislative Options for Financing Water Infrastructure [August 9, 2012]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "This report addresses several options being considered by Congress to address the financing needs of local communities for wastewater and drinking water infrastructure projects and to decrease or close the gap between available funds and projected needs. Some of the options exist and are well established, but they are under discussion for expansion or modification. Other innovative policy options have recently been proposed in connection with water infrastructure, especially to supplement or complement existing financing tools. Some are intended to provide robust, long-term revenue to support existing financing programs and mechanisms. Some are intended to encourage private participation in furnishing drinking water and wastewater services. […] Consensus exists among many stakeholders--state and local governments, equipment manufacturers and construction companies, and environmental advocates--on the need for more investment in water infrastructure. There is no consensus supporting a preferred option or policy, and many advocate a combination that will expand the financing 'toolbox' for projects. Some of the options discussed in this report may be helpful, but there is no single method that will address needs fully or close the financing gap completely. For example, some may be helpful to projects in large urban or multi-jurisdictional areas, while others may be more beneficial in smaller communities. It is unlikely that any of the recently proposed options could be up and running quickly, meaning that, at least for the near term, communities will continue to rely on the existing SRF [State Revolving Fund] programs, tax-exempt governmental bonds, and tax-exempt private activity bonds to finance their water infrastructure needs."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Copeland, Claudia; Mallett, William; Maguire, Steven

  2012-08-09
• Earthquake Risk and U.S. Highway Infrastructure: Frequently Asked Questions [June 5, 2013]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "The 9.0 magnitude earthquake that struck off the coast of Sendai, Japan, on March 11, 2011, renewed concerns about the seismic risk to America's infrastructure, including its highways. Concerns about the U.S. highway system's seismic risk stem from interest in protecting public safety, facilitating response and recovery efforts, and minimizing economic loss and social disruption. Seismic resilience of the U.S. highway system has improved in recent decades as investments have been made to build new, more resilient infrastructure and to retrofit existing structures. However, not all existing highway infrastructure has been retrofitted, and no infrastructure can be constructed in a cost-effective manner to be immune from the most intense earthquakes, so some seismic risk to the U.S. highway system remains. Although earthquake hazards in the United States generally are well documented, little national or federal data exist about the seismic risk to U.S. highway infrastructure. Instead, seismic highway risks typically are assessed and addressed by state and local entities which are generally responsible for building and maintaining that infrastructure. The federal government supports these nonfederal efforts by providing data on the seismic hazard for different locations, assisting in the development of construction standards and guidelines, and undertaking research, training, and the development of tools to assist in risk reduction. In limited circumstances, the federal government invests directly in improving resiliency of specific highway structures. This report addresses frequently asked questions about the risk from earthquakes to highway systems, including bridges, tunnels, pavements, and other highway components. Particular attention is given to highway bridges, which often are the most vulnerable highway structures. The report also discusses federal and nonfederal actions to reduce seismic risk to the U.S. highway system. Japan is generally regarded as the country with the most earthquake-resilient infrastructure. Research into the performance of Japan's highway structures and systems during and after the massive Sendai earthquake and resulting tsunami is ongoing. Japanese and U.S. earthquake science and engineering researchers have well-established collaborations aimed at gathering empirical data and drawing lessons from significant events. It is too soon to know how the events in Japan will affect understanding of the seismic risk of U.S. highway infrastructure, and whether changes in U.S. seismic highway design standards and guidance will result."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Folger, Peter (Peter Franklin); Carter, Nicole T.; Mallett, William

  2013-06-05
• Federal Public Transportation Program: An Overview [September 6, 2012]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "Federal assistance to public transportation is provided primarily through the public transportation program administered by the Department of Transportation's Federal Transit Administration (FTA). The federal public transportation program is authorized through FY2014 as part of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21; P.L. [Public Law] 112-141). Signed into law in July 2012, MAP-21 made significant modifications to the public transportation program, effective October 1, 2012. This report provides an introduction to the program as modified by MAP-21. Major federal involvement in public transportation dates to the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964 (P.L. 88-365). Prior to the mid-1960s there was very little public funding of public transportation. With much lower ridership than existed at the end of World War II and mounting debts, however, many private transit companies were reorganized as public entities. Federal funding was initially used to recapitalize transit systems. Today, the focus of the federal program is still on the capital side, but the program has evolved to support operational expenses in some circumstances, as well as safety oversight, planning, and research."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Mallett, William

  2012-09-06
• Legislative Options for Financing Water Infrastructure [March 17, 2014]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "This report addresses several options being considered by Congress to address the financing needs of local communities for wastewater and drinking water infrastructure projects and to decrease or close the gap between available funds and projected needs. […] Some are intended to provide robust, long-term revenue to support existing financing programs and mechanisms. Some are intended to encourage private participation in financing of drinking water and wastewater projects. Six options that are reflected in recent legislative proposals, including their budgetary implications, are discussed. [1] Increase funding for the State Revolving Fund (SRF) programs in the Clean Water Act (H.R. 1877 in the 113th Congress) and the Safe Drinking Water Act (H.R. 5320 in the 111th Congress), [2] Create a federal water infrastructure trust fund (H.R. 3582 and H.R. 1877 in the 113th Congress), [3] Create a 'Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act' Program, or WIFIA (S. 601 and S. 335 in the 113th Congress), [4] Create a national infrastructure bank (H.R. 2084, H.R. 2553, S. 1716, H.R. 505, and H.R. 3939 in the 113th Congress), [5] Lift private activity bond restrictions on water infrastructure projects (included in the Administration's FY2015 budget request and H.R. 3939 and H.R. 4237 in the 113th Congress), and [6] Reinstate authority for the issuance of Build America Bonds (included in the Administration's FY2015 budget request and H.R. 535, H.R. 789, and H.R. 3939 in the 113th Congress)."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Copeland, Claudia; Maguire, Steven; Mallett, William

  2014-03-17
• Surface Transportation Program Reauthorization Issues for Congress [May 7, 2014]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "The authorization for federal spending on highway and public transportation programs, as well as surface transportation safety and research and some rail programs, expires September 30, 2014. The existing authorization, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21; P.L. 112-141) was a two-year bill, funding FY2013 and FY2014. Nearly all the funding for highways and most of the funding for public transportation is drawn from the highway trust fund (HTF). However, the motor fuel taxes that are the main source of HTF revenue no longer raise enough money to support the programs Congress has authorized. Congressional Budget Office projections indicate that the shortfall between revenues and outlays will average roughly $15 billion annually from FY2015 through FY2020. MAP-21 made up the most of the difference between motor fuel tax revenue and spending authorization by transferring money from the Treasury general fund to the HTF. As Congress considers surface transportation reauthorization, the funding shortfall is the major issue framing the debate. The alternatives will involve choices among raising motor fuels taxes, cutting spending, finding other revenue sources for the HTF, approving further transfers from the general fund, and seeking to increase private investment in surface transportation infrastructure. MAP-21 made major changes in the program structure for both highways and public transportation. Some of the changes were designed to increase program efficiency by requiring performance measurement and streamlining project development. As these changes are recent, their effectiveness may be difficult to evaluate."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Luther, Linda G.; Canis, Bill; Frittelli, John . . .

  2014-05-07
• Effects of Buy America on Transportation Infrastructure and U.S. Manufacturing: Policy Options [November 10, 2015]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  From the Summary: "With the aim of protecting American manufacturing and manufacturing jobs, Congress over the years has passed several domestic content laws. Buy America refers to several similar statutes and regulations that apply to federal funds used to support projects involving highways, public transportation, aviation, and intercity passenger rail, including Amtrak. Unless a nationwide or project-specific waiver is granted, Buy America requires the use of U.S.-made iron and steel and the domestic production and assembly of other manufactured goods. One of the main manufacturing industries this applies to is the production of rolling stock (rail cars and buses) used in federally funded public transportation and Amtrak's intercity passenger rail service. This report examines the effects of Buy America on these two industries, iron and steel manufacturing and rolling stock manufacturing, in the context of industry trends."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Platzer, Michaela D.; Mallett, William

  2015-11-10
• Earthquake Risk and U.S. Highway Infrastructure: Frequently Asked Questions [May 19, 2016]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "Earthquakes and related events, such as soil liquefaction, landslides, tsunamis, flooding, and fires, pose risks to highway infrastructure. Concerns about the U.S. highway system's seismic vulnerability stem from interest in protecting public safety, facilitating response and recovery efforts, and minimizing economic loss and social disruption. This report addresses a number of frequently asked questions about earthquake risk and highway system components, especially bridges."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Mallett, William; Carter, Nicole T.; Folger, Peter (Peter Franklin)

  2016-05-19
• ITL Bulletin: Increasing Visibility and Control of Your ICT Supply Chains (June 2015)

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "Federal agencies rely on complex information and communications technology (ICT) that is developed and supported by a multifaceted and globally distributed network of suppliers, integrators, and service providers. Modern ICT supply chains are subject to a variety of risks. These risks may affect the confidentiality, integrity, or availability of government systems and include insertion of counterfeits, unauthorized production, tampering, theft, and insertion of malicious software and hardware, as well as poor manufacturing and development practices in the ICT supply chain. Without effective security processes and practices throughout the life cycle of a system, intentional and unintentional vulnerabilities can be placed into systems. The systems may then be exploited by attackers who insert malicious content, capture data, or take other advantages, resulting in untrustworthy products or services, unanticipated failure rates, or compromise of federal missions and information. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has released a new publication, Special Publication (SP) 800-161, 'Supply Chain Management Practices for Federal Information Systems and Organizations', which provides guidance to federal agencies for identifying, assessing, and mitigating ICT supply chain risks. It builds on existing guidance and is focused on increasing agencies' visibility and control over the practices and procedures used to protect a system throughout its life cycle."

  National Institute of Standards and Technology (U.S.); Information Technology Laboratory (National Institute of Standards and Technology). Computer Security Division

  Boyens, Jon; Paulsen, Celia; Feldman, Larry . . .

  2015-06
• How a National Infrastructure Bank Might Work [September 15, 2016]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "The Republican and Democratic presidential candidates both propose increasing federal infrastructure investment. Hillary Clinton recommends increasing federal infrastructure spending by $275 billion over five years. Donald Trump proposes to at least double that amount, but without details about how this would be spent. As part of her proposal, Hillary Clinton includes the creation of a national infrastructure bank with an initial appropriation of $25 billion. Although the proposal offers few specifics, legislation introduced in the 114th Congress helps explain how an infrastructure bank might work. Proponents of a national infrastructure bank typically see it as a way to provide low-cost, long-term loans, loan guarantees, and lines of credit on flexible terms to support infrastructure projects. [...] Advantages of an infrastructure bank might include the leveraging of state, local, and private-sector investment and data-driven project selection. Potential drawbacks of a national infrastructure bank might include the limited number of suitable projects for support, politically driven project selection, and the duplication of existing programs such as the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) program and the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. A bank may also not be the lowest-cost means of increasing infrastructure spending. The Congressional Budget Office notes that a special entity issuing its own debt would not be able to offer the low interest and issuance costs of the U.S. Treasury. Some see a larger federal role in infrastructure as a drawback as well, and suggest that Congress might enhance the operation of state infrastructure banks as an alternative."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Mallett, William

  2016-09-15