Chemical Facility Security: Issues and Options for the 113th Congress

Dana A. Shea
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has statutory authority to regulate chemical facilities for security purposes. The 113th Congress extended this authority through October 4, 2013. Congressional policymakers have debated the scope and details of reauthorization and continue to consider establishing an authority with longer duration. Some Members of Congress support an extension, either short- or long-term, of the existing authority. Other Members call for revision and more extensive codification of chemical facility security regulatory provisions. Questions regarding the current law’s effectiveness in reducing chemical facility risk and the sufficiency of federal chemical facility security efforts exacerbate the tension between continuing current policies and changing the statutory authority.

Congressional policymakers have questioned DHS’s effectiveness in implementing the authorized regulations, called chemical facility anti-terrorism standards (CFATS). The DHS finalized CFATS regulations in 2007. Since then, 85 chemical facilities have completed the CFATS process, which starts with information submission by chemical facilities and finishes with inspection and approval of facility security measures by DHS. Several factors, including the amount of detailed information provided to DHS, effectiveness of DHS program management, and the availability of CFATS inspectors, likely complicate the inspection process and lead to delays in inspection. Policymakers have questioned whether the compliance rate with CFATS is sufficient to mitigate this homeland security risk.

Key policy issues debated in previous Congresses contribute to the current reauthorization debate. These issues include the adequacy of DHS resources and efforts; the appropriateness and scope of federal preemption of state chemical facility security activities; the availability of information for public comment, potential litigation, and congressional oversight; the range of chemical facilities identified by DHS; and the ability of inherently safer technologies to achieve security goals.

The 113th Congress might take various approaches to this issue. Congress might allow the statutory authority to expire but continue providing appropriations to administer the regulations. Congress might permanently or temporarily extend the statutory authority to observe the impact of the current regulations and, if necessary, address any perceived weaknesses at a later date. Congress might codify the existing regulations in statute and reduce the discretion available to the Secretary of Homeland Security to change the current regulatory framework. Alternatively, Congress might substantively change the current regulation’s implementation, scope, or impact by amending the existing statute or creating a new one. Finally, Congress might choose to terminate the program by allowing its authority to lapse and removing funding for the program. This would leave regulation of chemical facility security to state and local governments.


Date of Report: May 17, 2013
Number of Pages: 38
Order Number: R42918
Price: $29.95

To Order:

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

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

Broadband Loan and Grant Programs in the USDA’s Rural Utilities Service

Lennard G. Kruger 
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy

Given the large potential impact broadband access may have on the economic development of rural America, concern has been raised over a “digital divide” between rural and urban or suburban areas with respect to broadband deployment. While there are many examples of rural communities with state of the art telecommunications facilities, recent surveys and studies have indicated that, in general, rural areas tend to lag behind urban and suburban areas in broadband deployment.

Citing the lagging deployment of broadband in many rural areas, Congress and the Administration acted in 2001 and 2002 to initiate pilot broadband loan and grant programs within the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Subsequently, Section 6103 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-171) amended the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 to authorize a loan and loan guarantee program to provide funds for the costs of the construction, improvement, and acquisition of facilities and equipment for broadband service in eligible rural communities. The RUS/USDA houses two assistance programs exclusively dedicated to financing broadband deployment: the Rural Broadband Access Loan and Loan Guarantee Program and the Community Connect Grant Program.

For the broadband loan program, the Administration’s FY2013 budget proposal requested $8.915 million to subsidize a loan level of $94.139 million. The Administration requested $13.379 million for broadband grants in FY2013. The Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 (P.L. 113-6) funds the broadband loan program at $4 million (supporting a loan level of approximately $42 million) and the Community Connect grant program is funded at $10.372 million. The Administration’s FY2014 budget proposal requested $8.268 million to subsidize a broadband loan level of $63.356 million, and $10.372 million for the Community Connect grant program.

The 110th Congress considered reauthorization and modification of the loan and loan guarantee program as part of the 2008 farm bill. The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 became law on June 18, 2008 (P.L. 110-246). Title VI (Rural Development) contains authorizing language for the broadband loan program.

The 112th Congress considered reauthorization of the broadband loan program in the 2012 farm bill. While the 2012 farm bill was not enacted by the 112th Congress, Title VII of the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 extended farm bill programs by one year (through September 30, 2013). In the 113th Congress, 2013 farm bill legislation introduced in the House and Senate (H.R. 1947/S. 954) includes the broadband program reauthorization provisions previously contained in the 2012 farm bill.


Date of Report: May 16, 2013
Number of Pages: 31
Order Number: RL33816
Price: $29.95

To Order:

RL33816.pdf   to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

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

Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2014

John F. Sargent Jr., Coordinator
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy

Congress has received President Obama’s budget request for FY2014, which includes $142.773 billion for research and development (R&D), a $1.861 billion (1.3%) increase from the FY2012 actual funding level of $140.912 billion. The request represents the President’s R&D priorities; Congress may opt to agree with part or all of the request, or may express different priorities through the appropriations process. In particular, Congress will play a central role in determining the extent to which the federal R&D investment can grow in the context of increased pressure on discretionary spending and how available funding will be prioritized and allocated. Low or negative growth in the overall R&D investment may require movement of resources across disciplines, programs, or agencies to address priorities.

Funding for R&D is highly concentrated in a few departments. Under President Obama’s FY2014 budget request, seven federal agencies would receive 95.3% of total federal R&D funding, with the Department of Defense (47.8%) and the Department of Health and Human Services (22.4%, primarily for the National Institutes of Health) accounting for more than 70% of all federal R&D funding.

Among the largest changes proposed in the President’s request, the R&D budget of the Department of Defense would fall by $4.625 billion (6.3%), while R&D funding for the Department of Commerce’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) would increase by $1.428 billion. The NIST growth is fueled by increases in funding for its core research laboratories and by the establishment of the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation with $1 billion in mandatory funding. The NNMI seeks to promote the development of manufacturing technologies with broad applications.

President Obama has requested increases in the R&D budgets of NIST, the National Science Foundation, and the Department of Energy’s Office of Science that were targeted for doubling over 7 years, from their FY2006 levels, by the America COMPETES Act, and over 10 years by the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010. The FY2014 request breaks with President Obama’s earlier budgets which explicitly stated the goal of doubling funding for these accounts over their FY2006 aggregate level. Instead the Office of Science and Technology Policy asserts that the FY2014 request “maintains the President’s commitment to increase funding for research at these three science agencies.” The Presidents FY2014 request sets a pace that would result in doubling of the FY2006 level over a period of more than 17 years, much longer than authorized by either act.

The President’s FY2014 request continues support for three multi-agency R&D initiatives in FY2014, proposing $1.704 billion for the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), a reduction of $159 million (8.6%) over FY2012, due primarily to reductions in NNI funding at DOD and NSF; $3.968 billion for the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) program, an increase of $159 million (4.2%) over FY2012; and $2.652 billion for the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), an increase of $151 million (6.0%) over FY2012.

In recent years, Congress has used a variety of mechanisms to complete the annual appropriations process after the start of the fiscal year. This may affect agencies’ execution of their R&D budgets, including delaying or canceling some planned R&D and equipment acquisition.


Date of Report: May 31, 2013
Number of Pages: 55
Order Number: R43086
Price: $29.95

To Order:

R43086.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

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

The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA): Issues for the 113th Congress

Linda K. Moore
Specialist in Telecommunications Policy

The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), a bureau of the Department of Commerce, is the executive branch’s principal advisory office on domestic and international telecommunications and information policies. Its mandate is to provide greater access for all Americans to telecommunications services, support U.S. efforts to open foreign markets, advise on international telecommunications negotiations, and fund research for new technologies and their applications. NTIA also manages the distribution of funds for several key grant programs. Its role in managing radio frequency spectrum allocated for federal use includes addressing policies for sharing, and monitoring and resolving questions regarding usage, including causes of interference. It is responsible for identifying federal spectrum that can be transferred to commercial use through the auction of spectrum licenses, conducted by the Federal Communications Commission. Many of the NTIA’s responsibilities are shared with other agencies.

With the passage of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-96), in February 2012, Congress has given the NTIA new responsibilities in spectrum management and the support of public safety initiatives. The 113th Congress may wish to review the NTIA’s performance in meeting its obligations under the act. Policy makers may also wish to consider if some of the NTIA’s shared obligations might be effectively and efficiently transferred to its partners, allowing the NTIA to focus on communications policies that are considered by many to be key to future economic growth and development.


Date of Report: May 22, 2013
Number of Pages: 14
Order Number: R42886
Price: $29.95

To Order:

R42886.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

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

Congressional Primer on Responding to Major Disasters and Emergencies

Francis X. McCarthy
Analyst in Emergency Management Policy

Jared T. Brown
Analyst in Emergency Management and Homeland Security Policy

The principles of disaster management assume a leadership role by the local, tribal, and state governments with the federal government providing coordinated supplemental resources and assistance, if requested and approved. The immediate response to a disaster is guided by the National Response Framework (NRF), which details roles and responsibilities at various levels of government, along with cooperation from the private and nonprofit sectors, for differing incidents and support functions. A declaration of a major disaster or emergency under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, P.L. 93-288, must, in almost all cases, be requested by the governor of a state or the chief executive of an affected Indian tribal government, who at that point has declared that the situation is beyond the capacity of the state or tribe to respond. The governor/chief also determines which parts of the state/tribal territory they will request assistance for and suggests the types of assistance programs that may be needed. The President considers the request, in consultation with officials of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and makes the initial decisions on the areas to be included as well as the programs that are implemented.

The majority of federal aid is made available from FEMA under the authority of the Stafford Act. In addition to that assistance, other disaster aid is made available through programs of the Small Business Administration (which provides disaster loans to both businesses and homeowners), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) within the Department of Transportation (DOT), and, in some instances, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) (in the form of Community Development Block Grant funds being made available for unmet disaster needs).

While the disaster response and recovery process is fundamentally a relationship between the federal government and the requesting state or tribal government, there are roles for congressional offices to play in providing information to the federal response and recovery teams in their respective states and districts. Congressional offices also serve as a valuable source of accurate and timely information to their constituents.


Date of Report: May 24, 2013
Number of Pages: 14
Order Number: R41981
Price: $29.95

To Order:

R41981.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

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