The Palestinians and Amendments to the Anti-Terrorism Act: U.S. Aid and Personal Jurisdiction

Summary: Two recent amendments to the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA, 18 U.S.C. Â§Â§ 2331 et seq. ) have significant implications for U.S. aid to the Palestinians and U.S. courts' ability to exercise jurisdiction over Palestinian entities. They are the Anti-Terrorism Clarification Act of 2018 (ATCA, P.L. 115-253 ) and the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act of 2019 (PSJVTA, Â§ 903 of the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, P.L. 116-94 ).

Summary: Congress passed ATCA after a U.S. federal lawsuit (known in various incarnations as Waldman v. PLO and Sokolow v. PLO ) against the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) that an appeals court dismissed in 2016. The trial court had found that the PA and PLO were responsible under ATA (at 18 U.S.C. Â§ 2333) for various terrorist attacks by providing material support to the perpetrators. However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that the attacks, "as heinous as they were, were not sufficiently connected to the United States to provide specific personal jurisdiction" in U.S. federal courts.

Summary: Amendments to ATA . ATCA provided that a defendant consents to personal jurisdiction in U.S. federal court for lawsuits related to international terrorism if the defendant accepts U.S. foreign aid from any of the three accounts from which U.S. bilateral aid to the Palestinians has traditionally flowed. In December 2018, the PA informed the United States that it would not accept aid that subjected it to federal court jurisdiction. Consequently, all bilateral aid ended on January 31, 2019.

Summary: PSJVTA eliminated a defendant's acceptance of U.S. foreign aid as a trigger of consent to personal jurisdictionâthus partly reversing ATCAâand instead provides that PA/PLO payments related to a terrorist act that kills or injures a U.S. national act as a trigger of consent to personal jurisdiction. The PA/PLO may face strong Palestinian domestic opposition to discontinuing such payments. PSJVTA also directs the State Department to establish a mechanism for resolving and settling plaintiff claims against the PA/PLO. President Trump stated in a signing statement that this provision could interfere with the exercise of his "constitutional authorities to articulate the position of the United States in international negotiations or fora."

Summary: Implications of stopping U.S. aid and prospects for resumption . It is unclear to what extent the stop to U.S. security assistance for the PA has affected Israel-PA security cooperation and could affect it in the future. The U.S. Security Coordinator for Israel and the Palestinian Authority (USSC) said in December 2019 that the suspension of aid had not significantly affected Israel-PA security cooperation, but that the disruption of initiatives aimed at facilitating cooperation and helping reform the PA security sector had some impact on PA acquiescence to USSC requests aimed at reform and greater professionalization.

Summary: Even though PSJVTA removed acceptance of U.S. bilateral aid as a trigger for personal jurisdiction, the actual resumption of U.S. aid may depend on political decisions by Congress and the Administration, as well as cooperation from the PA. For FY2020, Congress has appropriated $75 million in PA security assistance for the West Bank and $75 million in economic assistance for the "humanitarian and development needs of the Palestinian people in the West Bank and Gaza." However, the Trump Administration had previously suggested that restarting U.S. aid for Palestinians could depend on a resumption of PA/PLO diplomatic contacts with the Administration, which may be unlikely in the current U.S.-Israel-Palestinian political climate. Additionally, it is possible that the PA might not accept aid if doing so could be perceived domestically as giving in to U.S. political demands on the peace plan, or as tacitly agreeing to the new triggers of potential PA/PLO liability in PSJVTA.

Summary: Implications for p ersonal jurisdiction . The extent to which Congress can provide by statuteâsuch as through ATAâthat a foreign entity (in this case, the PA/PLO) is deemed to consent to personal jurisdiction appears to be untested in court. The deemed consent provision in ATA may encounter legal challenges on the basis that it could constitute an unconstitutional condition. A condition attached to government benefits is unconstitutional if it forces the recipient to relinquish a constitutional right that is not reasonably related to the purpose of the benefit. If this concept applies to personal jurisdiction, a reviewing court may need to determine whether submission to jurisdiction has a rational relationship with PA/PLO payments or other PA/PLO activities, such as maintenance of facilities in the United States.

This report provides background information and analysis on two amendments to the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA, 18 U.S.C. Â§Â§ 2331 et seq. ): the Anti-Terrorism Clarification Act of 2018 (ATCA, P.L. 115-253 ), which became law in October 2018; and the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act of 2019 (PSJVTA, Â§ 903 of P.L. 116-94 ), which became law in December 2019. The report focuses on the impact of this legislation on the following key issues:

Whether federal courts have personal jurisdiction over the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) for terrorism-related offenses.

The ATA generally prohibits acts of international terrorism, including the material support of terrorist acts or organizations. It also provides a civil cause of action through which Americans injured by such acts can sue responsible persons or entities for treble damages. Prior to ATCA, the ATA did not dictate personal jurisdiction.

Congress passed ATCA in the wake of a U.S. federal lawsuit (known in various incarnations as Waldman v. PLO and Sokolow v. PLO ) that an appeals court dismissed in 2016. The plaintiffs were eleven American families who had members killed or wounded in various attacks against Israeli targets during the second Palestinian intifada (or uprising, which took place between 2000 and 2005). The trial court found that the PA and PLO were liable for the attacks because they provid ed material support to the perpetrators. 6 The jury awarded damages of $218.5 million, an amount trebled automatically under the ATA , bringing the total award to $655.5 million. On appeal, however, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (Second Circuit) dismissed the suit for lack of personal jurisdiction. Discussed in more detail below, personal jurisdiction is the principle that defendants in U.S. courts must have "minimum contacts" to the forum for the court to adjudicate the dispute. In Waldman/ Sokolow , the Second Circuit conclude d that the terrorist attacks, "as heinous as they were, were not sufficiently connected to the United States" to create personal jurisdiction in U.S. federal courts.

ATCA amended ATA (at 18 U.S.C. Â§ 2334) by, among other things, stating that a defendant consented to personal jurisdiction in U.S. federal court for lawsuits related to international terrorism if the defendant accepted U.S. foreign aid from any of the following three accounts after the law had been in effect for 120 days :

Economic Support Fund (ESF); International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE); or Nonproliferation, Anti-terrorism, Demining, and Related Programs (NADR).

Although ATCA's terms do not specifically cite the PA/PLO, ATCA's reference to the three accounts from which U.S. bilateral aid to the Palestinians has traditionally flowed (see " U.S. Aid to Palestinians " below) suggests that ATCA was responding to the appellate ruling in the Waldman/Sokolow cases on personal jurisdiction.

In December 2018, then-PA Prime Minister Rami Hamdallah wrote to Secretary of State Michael Pompeo that the PA would not accept aid that subjected it to U.S. federal court jurisdiction. Consequently, U.S. bilateral aid to the Palestinians ended on January 31, 2019.

In December 2019, Congress passed PSJVTA as Â§Â 903 of the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, P.L. 116-94 . PSJVTA changes the legal framework by replacing certain provisions in ATCA that triggered consent to personal jurisdiction for terrorism-related offenses. These changes include eliminating ATCA's provision triggering consent when a defendant accepts U.S. foreign aid. In place of that provision, PSJVTA provides that the following three actions trigger consent to personal jurisdiction:

Making payments to individuals imprisoned for terrorist acts against Americans or to families of individuals who died while committing terrorist acts against Americans; Maintaining or establishing any PA/PLO office, headquarters, premises, or other facilities or establishments in the United States; or Conducting any activity (other than some specified exceptions) on behalf of the PA or PLO while physically present in the United States.

Unlike ATCA, which did not mention specific Palestinian entities by name, PSJVTA expressly applies its new jurisdictional triggers exclusively to the PA and PLO.

The prospect of ending PA/PLO payments that could activate the first trigger may encounter strong opposition among Palestinians. Similar payments to Palestinians in connection with alleged terrorist acts continued even after they led to a legal suspension of significant ESF funding for the PA under the Taylor Force Act (Title X of P.L. 115-141 ) when it became effective in March 2018. By partly reversing ATCA with respect to the acceptance of aid, PSJVTA could facilitate the resumption of various types of aid, but would still provide for conditions that are reasonably likely to trigger PA/PLO consent to personal jurisdiction, subject to the question of constitutionality.

PSJVTA also directs the State Department to create a claims process for U.S. nationals harmed by terrorist attacks that they attribute to the PA or PLO. Under PSJVTA, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Attorney General, has 30 days from the date of enactment (December 20, 2019) to "develop and initiate a comprehensive process for the Department of State to facilitate the resolution and settlement of covered claims." Covered claims are defined to mean pending and successfully completed civil actions against the PA or PLO under the ATA, as well as those lawsuits previously dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Secretary of State has 120 days after enactment to begin meetings with claimants to discuss the state of lawsuits and settlement efforts. The Secretary of State has 180 days after enactment to begin negotiations with the PA and PLO to settle covered claims. There is no provision withdrawing pending cases from court, however, and jurisdictional provisions applicable before PSJVTA continue to apply to such cases if consent to jurisdiction existed under them. The settlement mechanism will apparently operate in tandem with court proceedings.

President Trump stated in a signing statement that the claims process provision in PSJVTA could interfere with the exercise of his "constitutional authorities to articulate the position of the United States in international negotiations or fora." He further stated that his Administration would "treat each of these provisions consistent with the President's constitutional authorities with respect to foreign relations, including the President's role as the sole representative of the Nation in foreign affairs." To date, CRS does not have information about whether the executive branch has taken steps to create a claims process under PSJVTA.

The end of U.S. security assistance and existing economic assistance projects for Palestinians in January 2019, in light of ATCA, has had implications for U.S. policy. The enactment of PSJVTA in December 2019 to partly reverse ATCA and otherwise amend ATA also has policy and legal implications related to U.S. aid and personal jurisdiction over Palestinian entities (see timeline at Figure 1 ).

While the Administration made drastic reductions to aid for the Palestinians during 2018 , the ongoing use of prior-year funding meant that the changes had not affected aid for the PA security forces or existing economic aid projects at the time ATCA took effect. Some sources suggested that the Administration and Congress belatedly realized ATCA's possible impact, and subsequently began considering how to reduce or reverse some of its consequences.

The end of bilateral aid has halted U.S.-funded programs that began in 1975 with a focus on economic and humanitarian needs, and expanded starting in 1994 (in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process) to assist the newly formed PA with security and Palestinian self-governance. The following are changes in status to key aid streams.

Economic assistance. Although the Trump Administration decided in September 2018 to reprogram all of the FY2017 ESF aid from the West Bank and Gaza to other recipients, some aid projects continued in the West Bank and Gaza using prior-year funding. These projects shut down in January 2019. ESF appropriations for the West Bank and Gaza from FY1975 to FY2016 have totaled some $5.26 billion. Security assistance. After the Administration reprogrammed or discontinued various funding streams for the Palestinians during 2018, the main U.S. aid category remaining was the INCLE account. This security assistance account supported nonlethal train-and-equip programs for PA West Bank security forces (PASF). INCLE assistance, along with $1 million per year in NADR assistance, also ended in January 2019 due to ATCA. INCLE appropriations for the PASF from FY2008 to FY2019 have totaled some $919.6 million. The office of the U.S. Security Coordinator for Israel and the Palestinian Authority (USSC, see textbox below) continues to conduct a "security cooperation-only mission" that does not involve funding support, but still facilitates Israel-PA security coordination.

After ATCA's enactment, the Administration reportedly favored amending ATCA to allow security assistance to continue because of the priority U.S. officials place on Israel-PA security cooperation, which many in Israel also highly value. In an October 29, 2019, hearing before the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East, North Africa, and International Terrorism, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs David Schenker said that the Administration was willing to "engage with Congress on every level" to consider ways to revisit or "fix" ATCA to allow the resumption of certain types of aid to Palestinians.

Israeli officials have strongly supported U.S. security assistance as a way to improve PA security capabilities and encourage the PA to coordinate more closely with Israeli security forces. Before U.S. bilateral aid to the Palestinians had ceased, other sources suggested that Israeli officials had reached out to the Administration and Members of Congress in hopes that some arrangement would be able to ensure that U.S. security assistance could continue while also maintaining recourse in U.S. courts against the PA/PLO for past alleged acts of terror .

It is unclear to what extent the stop to U.S. security assistance for the PA has affected Israel-PA security cooperation and could affect it in the future. One analyst wrote in January 2019 that even without U.S. aid, the PA would have a strong interest in coordinating security with its Israeli counterparts. Media reports have routinely suggested that Israel and the PA share a core objective in countering Hamas in the West Bank. However, the same analyst wrote that over the long term, "termination of [U.S.-funded programs] in areas like training, logistics, human resources, and equipment provision will undoubtedly have a negative impact on the PASF's overall capabilities and professionalism." Another analyst said that without U.S. security aid, the PA will have fewer incentives to continue security cooperation with Israel. A spokesman for PA President Mahmoud Abbas responded to the halt in aid by saying it would "have a negative impact on all, create a negative atmosphere and increase instability."

Even though PSJVTA removed acceptance of U.S. bilateral aid as a trigger of PA/PLO consent to personal jurisdiction, the actual resumption of U.S. aid may depend on political decisions by Congress and the Administration, as well as cooperation from the PA. The conference report for the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 ( P.L. 116-94 ), enacted in December 2019, provided the following earmarks:

$75 million in INCLE for security assistance in the West Bank for the PA; $75 million in ESF for the "humanitarian and development needs of the Palestinian people in the West Bank and Gaza."

The conference report said that these funds "shall be made available if the Anti-Terrorism Clarification Act of 2018 is amended to allow for their obligation." The inclusion of PSJVTA in P.L. 116-94 may satisfy that condition.

It is unclear whether the executive branch will implement the aid provisions. The Trump Administration had previously suggested that restarting U.S. aid for Palestinians could depend on a resumption of PA/PLO diplomatic contacts with the Administration. Such a resumption of diplomacy may be unlikely in the current U.S.-Israel-Palestinian political climate, particularly following the January 2020 release of a U.S. peace plan that the PA/PLO strongly opposes. Additionally, under its terms, the Taylor Force Act would preclude any ESF deemed to directly benefit the PA. The Administration's omission of any bilateral assistanceâsecurity or economicâfor the West Bank and Gaza in its FY2021 budget request, along with its proposal in the request for a $200 million Diplomatic Progress Fund ($25 million in security assistance and $175 million in economic) to support future diplomatic efforts, may potentially convey some intent by the Administration to condition aid to Palestinians on PA/PLO political engagement with the U.S. peace plan.

Additionally, it is unclear whether the PA would cooperate with a U.S. effort to provide aid to Palestinians given U.S.-Palestinian political tensions and the way that PSJVTA amended ATA. Even if accepting aid would no longer potentially trigger PA/PLO liability in U.S. courts, it is possible thatâgiven PA concerns about national dignityâthe PA might not accept aid if doing so could be perceived domestically as giving in to U.S. political demands on the peace plan, or as tacitly agreeing to the new triggers of potential PA/PLO liability in PSJVTA (see " Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act of 2019 " above).

If the executive branch and the PA agree on the resumption of aid, it is unclear how the economic portion of aid would specifically address humanitarian and development needs in the West Bank and Gaza. In the October 29, 2019, committee hearing mentioned above, U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) Assistant Administrator for Middle East Affairs Michael Harvey was asked what type of aid should be given priority. Harvey said that, without prejudging, if the political decision were made to resume ESF assistance, water and wastewater projects have historically been key objectives, and thus could be places to start.

One of the aims of the amendments to ATA described above is to enhance personal jurisdiction over defendants accused of carrying out terrorist attacks that injure U.S. nationals. To try any civil case, U.S. courts must have both subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction over the defendant. ATA provides for subject matter jurisdiction by providing a cause of action for U.S. nationals injured by applicable acts of terrorism. However, for a court to exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendment must be satisfied. Due process requires that the defendant have sufficient "minimum contacts" in the forum adjudicating the lawsuit such that the maintenance of the suit there does not offend "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice."

Foreign entities, including foreign political but non-sovereign entities such as the PA and PLO, are entitled to due process and can challenge a court's jurisdiction based on a lack of personal jurisdiction. Under the doctrine of general personal jurisdiction, a foreign entity can be sued for virtually any matter without regard to the nature of its contacts with the forum state. The Supreme Court has held that, for courts to exercise general personal jurisdiction, a defendant entity must have enough operations in that state to be essentially "at home" there. When general jurisdiction is not available, maintenance of a lawsuit against a foreign defendant requires specific personal jurisdiction. Specific jurisdiction exists where there is a significant relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the subject matter of the litigation. Based on this test, ATA lawsuits against the PA and PLO have failed for want of specific personal jurisdiction.

Personal jurisdiction can be waived and litigants can consent to personal jurisdiction that might otherwise be lacking. But the extent to which Congress can provide by statute that a foreign entity is deemed to consent to personal jurisdiction by making payments or through the maintenance of facilities in the United States appears to be untested. Plaintiffs' efforts to obtain personal jurisdiction over the PA and PLO based on the criteria provided in ATCA, including acceptance of foreign aid and the maintenance of facilities in the United States, failed because plaintiffs could not prove that any of the criteria had been met, obviating the need for the courts to address ATCA's constitutionality.

The new deemed consent provisions in PSJVTA may encounter challenges in court on the basis that they could constitute an unconstitutional condition on permission to operate in the United States. A condition attached to government benefits is unconstitutional if it forces the recipient to relinquish a constitutional right that is not reasonably related to the purpose of the benefit. If this concept applies to personal jurisdiction, a reviewing court may need to determine whether submission to such jurisdiction is either voluntary or has a rational relationship with PA/PLO payments or other PA/PLO activities, including maintenance of facilities in the United States. On the other hand, because ATA is a federal foreign affairs-related statute, Congress may have greater leeway to establish jurisdiction based on deemed consent.

Responses to the following questions could have important implications for U.S. policy and law.

Given that acceptance of aid no longer triggers consent to personal jurisdiction, will the PA cooperate with the implementation of U.S. security and economic aid that Congress appropriated in December 2019 for FY2020 for the West Bank and Gaza? Will the Trump Administration provide the appropriated FY2020 security and economic aid to Palestinians? If so, when? What are the effects of the cutoffâsince January 2019âof U.S. aid to the West Bank and Gaza? Depending on the timing and other circumstances surrounding a possible resumption of aid, what effects could an aid resumption have? Will the PA/PLO stop payments to prisoners accused of terrorist acts against Americans (or payments to the prisoners' families) in order to avoid being deemed to consent to personal jurisdiction under PSJVTA? If PSJVTA's provisions on PA/PLO consent to personal jurisdiction are challenged in court, will they be upheld as constitutional? Will the Trump Administration comply with the requirement in PSJVTA for the State Department to establish a process for resolving and settling claims against the PA/PLO under ATA? If so, what would the process look like and what outcomes would it produce?


Child Support Enforcement-Led Employment Services for Noncustodial Parents: In Brief

Summary: The Child Support Enforcement (CSE) program is a federal-state partnership that seeks to ensure child support is a regular source of income for families. The program transfers financial support from a noncustodial parent (NCP) to a child's primary caretaker (usually a custodial parent). Nearly two-thirds of participating custodial families report having incomes below 200% of the federal poverty threshold. The CSE program collects about two-thirds of the current support that is due each year, with the remainder that is unpaid becoming arrears (i.e., past-due support).

Summary: Many NCPs who do not pay their obligations in full struggle with finding consistent and sufficient employment. Employment programs within the context of CSE are designed to increase NCP employment and child support collections. Many states have CSE-led employment programs and a number of practitioners report that, in their experience, these services are a more effective tool for NCPs with limited ability to pay than other enforcement strategies. CSE employment programs only serve a small proportion of NCPs making zero or partial payments; many observers primarily attribute this to a lack of sustainable funding. In response, some policymakers have proposed dedicating federal funding for CSE-led employment services.

Summary: CSE employment programs use varied eligibility criteria, but they typically focus on low-income NCPs. Programs also vary in their reliance on mandatory or voluntary recruitment policies, or both. Mandatory recruitment involves courts ordering parents who are behind in their payments to participate or risk incarceration. Voluntary recruitment relies on NCP interest and referrals from CSE staff, courts, and partner organizations.

Summary: CSE employment programs usually provide a wide range of services, including intensive case management, employment, child support, parenting/fatherhood, and other support services. Service provision is often contracted to partner agencies or community organizations. In terms of employment services, programs traditionally provide services such as job readiness, job search, and job development. Participants are less likely to participate in transitional jobs (short-term subsidized employment) or more intensive vocational education and training services.

Summary: Under current law, federal funds that can be used by CSE programs to support employment services are fairly limited. Although the federal government normally reimburses each state at 66% of all allowable expenditures on CSE activitiesâfinancing that totaled more than $3.5 billion in FY2018âemployment services are currently not a reimbursable activity. Similarly, the second largest CSE funding stream, incentive payments (expected to exceed $510 million for FY2018), cannot be automatically used to support employment services. States can pursue Section 1115 waiver demonstrations as a means to receive federal matching payments or request authorization to spend incentive funds on employment services, but both approaches come with restrictions. States can also tap non-CSE federal funding to support employment services for NCPs, such as the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant, but this use must compete with other potential uses for the funding.

Summary: Several rigorous evaluations have been conducted on two employment service models with NCPs: traditional employment services and transitional jobs. Evidence on the effectiveness of traditional employment services for NCPs is mixed, with the most recent federally funded, large-scale random assignment study on this model finding little or no impacts. Earlier evaluations reported more promising effects. Transitional jobs programs are more expensive and challenging to implement, but a recent federally funded, large-scale random assignment evaluation on this model reported stronger impacts than traditional employment services. The effects were substantial while participants were in subsidized jobs, modest for a period after the transitional jobs ended, but then usually continued to fade over time.

This report discusses issues related to providing employment services targeted at noncustodial parents (NCPs) within the context of the Child Support Enforcement (CSE) program. The CSE program is a federal-state partnership that currently operates in all 50 states; the District of Columbia (DC); the territories of Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands; and 60 tribal nations. The program seeks to promote parental responsibility and ensure children receive support from both parents, notably through financial income transferred from an NCP to a child's primary caretaker (usually a custodial parent). In FY2018, the CSE program provided services on behalf of 14.7 million children, about 20% of children in the United States. One analysis estimated that nearly two-thirds of families receiving CSE services in 2015 had income below 200% of the poverty threshold. The CSE program collected 66% of the current support that was due in FY2018, continuing the program's record of slow but steady improvement in recent years. However, $11.5 billion in current support that was due went uncollected, becoming arrears (i.e., past due support).

A number of observers have concluded that some NCPs have a currently limited ability to pay that restricts how much support is collected, and that those NCPs would benefit from employment services being offered in the context of the CSE program. NCP employment and earnings, particularly through stable, formal employment, are positively linked to child support payment compliance. This association is likely because NCPs with higher earnings have a better ability to pay, but also because formal employment facilitates the use of income withholding, a particularly effective CSE tool. Also, many low-income NCPs face one or more significant barriers to having consistent employment and sufficient income to pay child support, including low wages and benefits, irregular and unsteady jobs, limited education or marketable skills, health conditions (e.g., substance use), lack of transportation or housing, discrimination, and history with the criminal justice system. Proponents of CSE employment programs argue that they respond to the concern that NCPs need help securing employment, but might be less likely than other populations to access employment services through the workforce development system or public benefit programs. In addition, they posit that the CSE program is a unique platform for providing employment services in that it already reaches NCPs in practice, has a strong interest in improving NCPs' earnings and child support payments, and can leverage CSE policies so that they act as employment incentives and not barriers for NCPs.

Although CSE employment programs are fairly widespread, they are not found everywhere and appear to serve a relatively small proportion of NCPs who struggle to secure adequate employment and regularly pay their obligations in full. To explain why CSE employment programs operate on a limited scale, CSE officials and observers have primarily cited a lack of sufficient and sustainable funding. (The federal government normally reimburses each state for 66% of all allowable expenditures on CSE activities, but employment services are currently not an allowable activity and funding through other mechanisms within the program is limited. ) Many of those same observers have proposed that legislation be enacted to address this issue.

This report first reviews how CSE-led employment programs may be designed with regard to NCP eligibility and recruitment, as well as services provided. This is followed by an explanation of the current federal funding options for these programs. The next section reviews the available evidence on the effectiveness of employment programs that have been led by or conducted in cooperation with CSE. The report concludes by highlighting recent proposals to dedicate federal funding for CSE employment programs.

CSE employment programs must establish criteria to determine eligibility for services. Unemployed, or underemployed, low-income NCPs who are struggling to meet their obligations are the population that most frequently qualifies for services. Programs may also serve additional types of NCPs, like those who are in the process of paternity or order establishment, to facilitate recruitment or expand their reach. Alternatively, CSE employment programs may narrowly target services to conserve resources and prioritize certain cases (e.g., those owing current support versus those owing arrears only). Eligibility criteria can also help limit duplication with other public programs or risks of supplanting their funding.

Another important decision CSE employment programs make is whether to rely on mandatory or voluntary recruitment policies, or both. Courts can issue mandatory orders for NCPs to participate in a work program. When NCPs fail to pay child support, states may issue contempt citations or file criminal nonsupport charges that bring parents before a court. (The required administrative and court processes can be expensive for the CSE program and state. ) At this point, the court may give NCPs the choice to seek work as an alternative to incarceration, or order them to do so. Depending on the jurisdiction and court, NCPs may be left to their own discretion for how to secure employment, or they may be firmly connected to or ordered into an employment program that can provide relevant services and assistance. As a result, among the population presented with the choice of participating in a mandatory work program versus incarceration, enrollment and engagement rates are usually fairly high.

Alternatively, or additionally, CSE employment programs can focus on voluntary recruitment. This approach allows programs to serve more NCPs than just those who have been brought into court. Program referrals can be made by staff from CSE agencies, courts, community organizations, and probation or parole offices. Even when programs are voluntary, court referrals and the consequences of nonpayment (e.g., license suspensions, interest charged on debt, the risk of eventually being incarcerated) give NCPs strong incentives to participate. Still, several voluntary programs report that recruitment and retention is challenging in that many NCPs referred to or made aware of the programs decline to participate voluntarily or stay engaged. In response, programs have developed several strategies for boosting recruitment and retention, including expansive program eligibility rules, incentives (e.g., removal of CSE-initiated driver's license suspensions, forgiveness of state-owed arrears), intensive case management, co-locating services, and aggressive and multifaceted outreach.

CSE employment programs typically provide a wide range of services, which can require the involvement of many partner organizations. Intensive case management is generally considered critical for engaging NCPs, assessing their needs holistically, coordinating service receipt, and monitoring participant progress. CSE agencies may handle this general case management or make arrangements (e.g., contract) with other organizations to do so. Case managers and other program staff may refer NCPs to external resources for issues such as housing, mental health, substance use, legal aid, and financial education, although services may be limited in many communities. CSE employment programs may also provide NCPs with access to parenting and fatherhood services, including classes and referrals to resources for addressing parenting time (child access and visitation), co-parent mediation, and other legal concerns related to parenthood.

Providing employment services is often contracted or delegated to partnering government workforce agencies or community organizations with relevant expertise. These entities typically provide NCPs with traditional services such as employment-focused case management, job search assistance, employment assessments, job readiness, basic or remedial education, short-term job skills training, job development and placement, and job retention. These services may be provided in both individual and group settings. Employment programs may also provide work supports including transportation assistance, small incentives to promote program engagement, and specialized services for those with criminal records such as records expungement or voluntary drug testing. Less commonly, NCPs may participate in subsidized employment, on-the-job training, vocational training and education, and other, more intensive employment services.

Under current law, federal funds that can be used by CSE programs to fund employment services are fairly limited. The funding streams that are available may be uncertain from year-to-year, of short duration, or limited in amount relative to the potential demand for these services.

The largest source of federal funding for state CSE administration is the previously mentioned 66% reimbursement rate for state and local expenditures on allowable CSE activities, with no ceiling on the total amount of federal reimbursement. Federal matching payments on net totaled more than $3.5 billion in FY2018, and accounted for approximately 90% of federal CSE funding for states in recent years. However, spending on work activities has not been allowed as a federally reimbursable cost. Alternatively, states can apply for a waiver under Section 1115 of the Social Security Act to receive federal matching payments for the purposes of a demonstration project designed to promote program objectives. With respect to waiver projects, states have to invest new funds (not redirect funding), they are time limited (typically two to five years) and must be evaluated, and total federal reimbursement must not exceed $2 million.

The second largest CSE funding stream is incentive payments, which are designed to reward states for strong program performance and were estimated to exceed $510 million in FY2018. Incentive payments must be reinvested back into the program on activities that are eligible for reimbursement. However, states can request authorization to use incentive payments for activities that are not eligible for federal reimbursement but may contribute to improving the effectiveness or efficiency of child support, such as employment programs. Incentive spending must supplement and not supplant other state CSE funding, states can determine how much of their incentive payment to allocate toward an approved activity, and the program does not have to be formally evaluated.

There are also non-CSE federal funding streams that can support NCP employment activities, although they may not be directly under the control of the program or available on a consistent basis. For example, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) funding can support employment programs for NCPs. States can include NCPs as members of TANF-eligible family units and provide assistance and other services funded by TANF or separate state maintenance-of-effort (MOE) programs, even when no other family member is receiving assistance. States can also use TANF or state MOE funding to provide non-assistance services and benefits, such as employment services, to needy individuals such as NCPs when doing so is consistent with TANF goals. The TANF block grant provides states with considerable flexibility in the use of its funds, so NCP employment programs have to compete with many other potential expenditure options.

Similarly, funding for the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act's adult and dislocated worker programs and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program's Employment & Training programs can be used to provide employment services to NCPs who meet these programs' respective eligibility criteria. In addition, the Wagner-Peyser Act Employment Service (ES) makes labor exchange services (e.g., counseling, job search and placement assistance) universally available to all individuals. States and localities have also used a variety of other public and private funding to support CSE employment pilots, including competitive grants from the Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS') Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) and Office of Family Assistance (OFA).

Research Evidence on Program Effectiveness

The effectiveness of CSE-led or CSE-supported employment programs has been analyzed by a few rigorous evaluations. While many agencies and partner organizations providing employment services note that NCPs who participate in employment programs show improvement when measured on the basis of comparing pre- and post-participation outcomes such as earnings and child support payments, this kind of analysis cannot address what would have occurred if NCPs had not participated in those particular services. For example, NCPs might have secured employment without assistance, received employment services through another program, or benefited from changes in the economy over time. Rigorous research designs such as random assignment use valid comparison groups to isolate impacts , which are the changes in outcomes causally attributable to a program or policy. This report focuses on statistically significant employment, earnings, and child support payment findings from random assignment experiments and other research designs that can plausibly identify program impacts. In social policy, new or alternative interventions are often compared to a services-as-usual condition developed through many years of trial and error, sometimes including previous rounds of rigorous evaluation. Research in disciplines as varied as social policy, education, medicine, and business has found that the most common pattern of results when interventions undergo rigorous evaluation is "weak" or "no effects." A similar pattern of results has been observed for employment and training programs serving low-income populations other than NCPs. Studies that do not find large positive impacts may still identify potentially promising changes for intervention implementation, design, or strategy.

Employment programs for NCPs have not shown consistent impacts on employment, earnings, and child support compliance when subjected to rigorous evaluation. Cross-site variation from two rigorous evaluations suggests that robust involvement from CSE in employment programs might be beneficial for generating impacts, relative to less CSE involvement. However, there is no rigorous evidence on the relative effectiveness of spending on employment programs versus alternative CSE program activities. The combination of these points also means there is no rigorous evidence that spending on employment services is less effective than alternative collection strategies, and many CSE practitioners believe from experience that these programs are a more effective tool for NCPs with a limited ability to pay.

Rigorous evidence with NCPs is available for two employment program models: traditional employment services and transitional jobs. Alternative employment services that are more common with other low-income populations (e.g., substantive occupational skills training) have typically not been rigorously evaluated with NCPs and therefore are not discussed in this report. Earnings supplements such as the Earned Income Tax Credit, which provide monetary payments to individuals who work in an effort to increase employment and promote other policy objectives, are not regularly included as a service by CSE employment programs and are also not covered here.

Evidence on the effectiveness of providing traditional employment services to NCPs is mixed. Commonly provided employment services include job search assistance, job readiness training, employment-related assessments, job development services, job retention services, rapid re-employment, employment planning, and work supports. The National Child Support Noncustodial Parent Employment Demonstration (CSPED) was a large-scale random assignment study that enrolled more than 10,000 NCPs across sites in eight states between October 2013 and September 2016. Participants were randomly assigned to either a group eligible for CSPED services, or a group receiving CSE agencies' regular services. CSPED increased the receipt of a combination of case management, employment, parenting, and enhanced child support services, although the level of additional service receipt has been characterized as a "fairly light-touch" for such a hard-to-employ population. More intensive services such as subsidized employment or on-the-job training were rarely accessed. Overall, CSPED did not consistently increase employment, earnings, or child support compliance relative to CSE agencies' usual services. While context, population served, program features, and service receipt varied somewhat in the participating states, there were few differences in impacts by state.

Several earlier, single-state evaluations of CSE-employment programs providing similar employment or more comprehensive services reported more promising impacts, although these studies used research designs that make their results subject to greater uncertainty. An older, multi-state random assignment demonstration also found that an employment program (predominantly providing traditional employment services, peer support groups, and enhanced child support services) did not increase NCPs' employment or earnings, although it did increase the likelihood of formal child support payments, and there was some evidence suggesting impacts for earnings and employment among harder-to-employ subgroups.

The evaluated demonstrations varied somewhat in their target populations, although all served highly disadvantaged populations. They also varied in whether they evaluated programs using mandatory, voluntary, or mixed-recruitment strategies, and the research designs and pattern of results do not provide clear evidence as to whether any approach is more likely to produce stronger impacts. The programs provided typical or even fairly robust levels of service, relative to the field of CSE-led employment programs. Rigorous evaluations of programs providing analogous services to fatherhood and prisoner reentry populations with large proportions of NCPs have also infrequently reported impacts on employment, earnings, or child support outcomes.

Another strategy that has been tested with NCPs, and shown more promising medium and longer-term effects, is transitional jobs, which are short-term subsidized public, nonprofit, or private employment opportunities designed to increase participants' income while helping them to "learn to work by working." The end goal is to increase NCPs' ability to secure and retain unsubsidized employment. A large-scale random assignment study found that a recent collection of programs generated substantial increases in employment, earnings, and the likelihood of child support payment while NCPs were in subsidized employment. These short-term employment impacts demonstrate that such programs can successfully target individuals who want to work but would otherwise struggle to secure consistent employment. The subsidized employment provides these individuals with meaningful work and income. For the period immediately after the transitional jobs ended, participants had modestly higher earnings and employment. However, for most programs the earnings and employment impacts faded away over time, although the increased likelihood of child support payment more often persisted. These findings are similar to those from transitional jobs programs serving other low-income populations (e.g., formerly incarcerated individuals, TANF recipients). Transitional jobs programs are more expensive and challenging to implement than traditional employment services, as programs need to secure work opportunities for participants and pay a portion of their wages for a period of time.

Two notable, recent executive branch proposals have recommended increasing federal funding for CSE employment programs, though neither has been adopted. The Obama Administration proposed allowing federal reimbursement of state CSE program expenditures to fund certain job services offered to eligible NCPs (Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, November 17, 2014). The Trump Administration, in its FY2021 budget submission, proposed allowing federal reimbursement of state CSE program expenditures for mandatory work activities, capped at 2% of the total federal reimbursement of that state's CSE expenditures.

Legislation related to employment services for NCPs has also been introduced in the 116 th Congress. The Julia Carson Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act of 2019 ( H.R. 3507 ) proposes allowing federal reimbursement of state CSE program expenditures to fund certain job services (a more expansive set of services than in the Obama Administration proposal) offered to eligible NCPs. Other legislation would try to encourage states to focus more TANF funding on employment services, which might benefit some NCPs (typically, a parent of a child receiving TANF assistance). The Jobs and Opportunity with Benefits and Services for Success Act ( H.R. 1753 / S. 802 ) would require that state TANF plans detail how low-income NCPs will be able to access employment services through TANF. The Accelerating Individuals into the Workforce Act ( H.R. 4571 ) would redirect funding from the TANF contingency fund to support subsidized employment opportunities for eligible individuals, including NCPs of minor children receiving TANF assistance. Policymakers have also proposed funding new programs, separate from CSE and TANF, for providing employment services. The ELEVATE Act of 2019 ( H.R. 556 / S. 136 ) would provide funding for public and private subsidized employment programs that could serve NCPs and other populations. The Pandemic TANF Assistance Act ( S. 3672 ) also would provide funding that could be used for, among other purposes, certain subsidized employment opportunities for low-income populations (which could include NCPs).


Space Weather: An Overview of Policy and Select U.S. Government Roles and Responsibilities

Summary: Space weather refers to conditions on the sun, in the solar wind, and within the extreme reaches of Earth's upper atmosphere. In certain circumstances, space weather may pose hazards to space-borne and ground-based critical infrastructure systems and assets that are vulnerable to geomagnetically induced current, electromagnetic interference, or radiation exposure. Hazardous space weather events are rare, but may affect broad areas of the globe. Effects may include physical damage to satellites or orbital degradation, accelerated corrosion of gas pipelines, disruption of radio communications, damage to undersea cable systems or interference with data transmission, permanent damage to large power transformers essential to electric grid operations, and radiation hazards to astronauts in orbit.

Summary: In 2010, Congress directed the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) to improve national preparedness for space weather events and to coordinate related federal space weather efforts ( P.L. 111-267 ). OSTP established the Space Weather Operations, Research, and Mitigation (SWORM) Working Group, which released several strategic and implementation plans, including the 2019 National Space Weather Strategy and Action Plan. The White House provided further guidance through two executive orders (E.O. 13744 and E.O. 13865) regarding space weather and electromagnetic pulses (EMPs), respectively.

Summary: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Weather Service are the primary civilian agencies responsible for space weather forecasting. The National Laboratories (administered by the Department of Energy), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the National Science Foundation support forecasting activities with scientific research. Likewise, the U.S. Geological Survey provides data on the earth's variable magnetic field to inform understanding of the solar-terrestrial interface. The Department of Homeland Security disseminates warnings, forecasts, and long-term risk assessments to government and industry stakeholders as appropriate. The Department of Energy is responsible for coordinating recovery in case of damage or disruption to the electric grid. The Department of State is responsible for engagement with international partners to mitigate hazards of space weather. The Department of Defense supports military operations with its own space weather forecasting capabilities, sharing expertise and data with other federal agencies as appropriate.

Summary: The Congressional Budget Office estimated that federal agencies participating in the SWORM Working Group "allocated a combined total of nearly $350 million to activities related to space weather" in FY2019. NASA allocated the majority ($264 million) of the $350 million total.

Summary: Congress enacted S. 1790 in December 2019 as the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 (2020 NDAA). The 2020 NDAA amended Sections 320 and 707 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 ( P.L. 107-296 ) to enact a series of homeland security-related provisions that parallel the E.O. 13865 framework for critical infrastructure resilience and emergency response. The 2020 NDAA also repealed Section 1691 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 ( P.L. 115-91 ), which authorized a "Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse Attacks and Similar Events." Other provisions in the 2020 NDAA require the National Guard to clarify relevant "roles and missions, structure, capabilities, and training," and report to Congress no later than September 30, 2020, on its readiness to respond to electromagnetic pulse events affecting multiple states. Separately, some Members of Congress have introduced the Space Weather Research and Forecasting Act ( S. 881 ), which would define certain federal agency roles and responsibilities, among other provisions.

Space weather refers to the dynamic conditions in Earth's outer space environment. This includes conditions on the Sun, in the solar wind, and in Earth's upper atmosphere. Space weather phenomena include

solar flares or periodic intense bursts of radiation from the sun caused by the sudden release of magnetic energy, coronal mass ejections composed of clouds of solar plasma and electromagnetic radiation, ejected into space from the sun, high-speed solar wind streams emitted from low density regions of the sun, and solar energetic particles or highly-charged particles formed at the front of solar flares and coronal mass ejections.

Hazardous space weather events are rare, but may cause geomagnetic disturbances (GMDs) that affect broad areas of the globe. Such events may pose hazards to space-borne and ground-based CI systems and assets that are vulnerable to geomagnetically induced current, electromagnetic interference, or radiation exposure (see Figure 1 ).

Several notable events illustrate space weather hazards, and how their potential impact has broadened over time with technological advances. The 1859 "Carrington event," named for the British solar astronomer who first observed it, caused auroras as far south as Central America and disrupted telegraph communications. In 1972, a GMD knocked out long-distance telephone service in Illinois. In 1989, another GMD caused a nine-hour blackout in Quebec, and melted some power transformers in New Jersey. In 2005, X-rays from a solar storm disrupted GPS signals for a short time.

This report provides an overview of federal government policy developed under the existing legislative framework, and describes the specific roles and responsibilities of select federal departments and agencies responsible for the study and mitigation of space weather hazards.

Over the past several decades, the federal government's interest in space weather and its effects has grown. Congress has required individual federal agencies to conduct certain space weather-related activities related to agency missions. However, federal interagency work began in earnest with the establishment of the interagency National Space Weather Program (NSWP) in 1995 by the Department of Commerce's Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorology. The program was directed by the NSWP Council that included representatives from interested federal agencies. The NWSP Council coordinated federal space weather strategy development between 1995 and 2015 in partnership with federal agencies, industry, and the academic community.

In 2010, Congress directed the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) to improve national preparedness for space weather events and to coordinate federal space weather activities of the NSWP Council. This marked the beginning of a period during which the White House assumed leadership of federal space weather policy. OSTP's National Science and Technology Council established the Space Weather Operations, Research and Mitigation (SWORM) Working Group in 2014 to lead federal strategy and policy development. The NSWP Council was deactivated the following year, when SWORM published a national space weather preparedness strategy, titled the "National Space Weather Strategy" (the 2015 Plan).

In 2016, President Obama signed Executive Order (E.O.) 13744, "Coordinating Efforts to Prepare the Nation for Space Weather Events" directing federal space weather preparedness activities to be carried out "in conjunction" with those activities already identified in the 2015 Plan. The SWORM Working Group released an updated national space weather strategy in 2019, titled "The National Space Weather Strategy and Action Plan" (the 2019 Plan). The same year, President Trump signed E.O. 13865, "Coordinating National Resilience to Electromagnetic Pulses," directing the federal government to "foster sustainable, efficient, and cost-effective approaches" to improve national resilience to the effects of electromagnetic pulses.

Taken together, the 2019 Plan and E.O. 13865 prioritize investment in CI resilience initiatives over scientific research and forecasting, and represent a shift in policy from that of the previous Administration set forth in the 2015 Plan and E.O 13744. The 2019 Plan focuses on three objectives related to protection of assets, space weather forecasting, and planning for space weather events, and identifies the agencies and departments with responsibilities under each objective ( Figure 2 ). E.O. 13865 directs relevant federal agencies to identify regulatory and cost-recovery mechanisms that the government may use to compel private-sector investments in resilience. This approach differs from most other federal infrastructure resilience initiatives, which generally rely upon voluntary industry adoption of resilience measures.

E.O. 13865 applies both to space weather and manmade electromagnetic hazards (such as a nuclear attack) and refers to both types of hazard as electromagnetic pulse (EMP). This may create ambiguity in cases where a given provision could apply either to manmade or natural electromagnetic hazards. For example, E.O. 13865 directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to "incorporate events that include EMPs as a factor in preparedness scenarios and exercises," without specifying whether a space weather event or nuclear attack scenario should be exercised, or which should be prioritized. The fact that E.O. 13865 does not formally supersede E.O. 13744 (which refers solely to space weather) may create further ambiguity in cases where policies of the previous and current Administrations are not in direct alignment, or else reflect differing priorities. Federal agencies typically regardâand refer toâmanmade EMP and naturally-occurring GMDs as related, but distinct phenomena.

Select Department and Agency Roles and Responsibilities

This section provides an overview of federal roles and responsibilities for space weather-related research and emergency preparedness. Federal agency roles and responsibilities fall into four major categories: early warning and forecasting; research and development (R&D); basic scientific research; risk assessment and mitigation, including modeling and information sharing; and response and recovery. Some agencies have roles and responsibilities in more than one category. This section only includes entities that relevant executive orders or strategies have designated as the federal lead for a specific objective or requirement. This does not include agencies whose role is confined to participation in working groups, harmonizing internal policies with national strategy or directives, contributing refinements to analytical products or models produced by other agencies, or ensuring their own continuity-of-operations in case of a space weather event.

Each sub-section includes a summary of the department or agency mission and the relevant authorities under which it operates. If applicable, the agency-specific provisions of the two executive orders currently in forceâE.O. 13744 and E.O. 13865âare listed in a table, followed by information about implementing programs and activities. Provisions applicable only to manmade EMP threats, such as high-altitude nuclear detonations, are excluded.

The 2019 Plan is referenced in cases where the executive orders do not provide specific or complete guidance to given federal entities. Departments and agencies are ordered alphabetically for ease of reference.

In 1988, Congress authorized the Secretary of Commerce to "prepare and issue predictions of electromagnetic wave propagation conditions and warnings of disturbances in such conditions." The Secretary of Commerce delegated those responsibilities to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The Secretary of Commerce also directed NOAA to fulfill the department's space weather responsibilities in 2016 under E.O. 13744 and in 2019 under E.O. 13865 ( Table 1 ).

Both executive orders direct the Secretary to improve services and partner with relevant stakeholders. The 2016 order refers to the hazard of concern as space weather, while the 2019 order refers to it as natural EMPs.

NOAA's space weather work falls primarily under two line offices: National Weather Service (NWS) and National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service (NESDIS). NWS operates and maintains observing systems to support forecasting of space weather including the National Solar Observatory Global Oscillation Network Group, a series of ground-based observatories. NWS also operates the Space Weather Prediction Center, which provides real-time monitoring and forecasting of solar events and disturbances and develops models to improve understanding and predict future events. NESDIS maintains NOAA's space weather data through the National Centers for Environmental Information. It also develops and manages several satellite programs which collect solar and space weather-related observations, including the Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites (GOES) and the Space Weather Follow-on program.

E.O. 13744 directed DOD to provide space weather forecasts and related products to support military operations of the United States and its partners ( Table 2 ).

The FY2018 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA; P.L. 115-91 ) codified the language in E.O. 13744. According to the FY2018 NDAA

It is the sense of Congress that the [Secretary of Defense] should ensure the timely provision of operational space weather observations, analyses, forecasts, and other products to support the mission of the DOD including the provision of alerts and warnings for space weather phenomena that may affect weapons systems, military operations, or the defense of the United States.

E.O. 13865 reiterates the E.O. 13744 requirement verbatim, except that it substitutes the phrase "naturally occurring EMPs" for "space weather phenomena." E.O. 13865 also directs DOD to take further steps related to EMP characterization, warning systems, effects, and protection of DOD systems and infrastructure and the United States from EMPs.

The U.S. Air Force is the lead for all DOD and Intelligence Community (IC) space weather information. Air Force weather personnel provide space environmental information, products, and services required to support DOD operations as required. Air Force space weather operations and capabilities support all elements of the DOD and its decisionmakers. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the Department of Defense, primarily the Air Force, allocated $24 million to space weather activities in FY2019.

The 557 th Weather Wing, located at Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska, conducts most of DOD's space weather-related activities. It uses ground-based and space-based observing systems, including the Solar Electro-optical Observing Network (SEON), a network of ground-based observing sites providing 24-hour coverage of solar phenomena; ground-based ionosondes and other sensors providing data in the ionosphere; and space-based observations from the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program.

The Army has two full-time meteorologists to coordinate space weather support within the Army and with other DOD and federal agencies.

The Naval Research Laboratory's (NRL's) Remote Sensing and Space Science Divisions and the Naval Center for Space Technology also contribute to the DOD's space weather activities. For example, the Wide-field Imager for Solar Probe Plus (WISPR), launched in August 2018, was designed and developed for NASA by NRL's Space Design Division. WISPR determines the fine-scale electron density and velocity structure of the solar corona and the source of shocks that produce solar energetic particles.

DOE is responsible for monitoring and assessing the potential disruptions to energy infrastructure from space weather, and for coordinating electricity restoration under authorities granted to it by the White House and Congress.

E.O. 13744 directs DOE to protect and restore the electric power grid in the event of a presidentially declared grid emergency associated with a geomagnetic disturbance. E.O. 13865 assigns additional roles and responsibilities to DOE specific to R&D and coordination with the private sector to better understand electromagnetic threats and hazards, and their possible effects on the electric power grid ( Table 3 ).

Relevant programs and activities for energy infrastructure protection and threat mitigation are led by the DOE's Office of Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency Response (CESER) (under the Office of Electricity), and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), and DOE's national laboratories.

Office of Cyber Security, Energy Security, and Emergency Response (CESER)

In February 2018, DOE announced the creation of CESER, a new office created from the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE). CESER has two main divisions: Infrastructure Security and Energy Response (ISER), and Cybersecurity for Energy Delivery Systems. ISER's mission is "to secure U.S. energy infrastructure against all hazards, reduce the impact of disruptive events, and respond to and facilitate recovery from energy disruptions, in collaboration with the private sector and state and local governments."

The DOE has produced a number of reports on GMDs and EMPs. In compliance with the National Space Weather Action plan, ISER produced a 2019 report on geomagnetic disturbances and the impact on the electricity grid. This report was designed to provide a better understanding of GMD events in order to protect the U.S. electricity grid.

Prior to the reorganization, DOE's OE collaborated with the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), a nonprofit organization that conducts research and develops projects focused on electricity. In 2016, the OE and EPRI together developed the Joint Electromagnetic Pulse Resilience Strategy , and subsequently the DOE Electromagnetic Pulse Resilience Action Plan in January 2017. E.O. 13865 refers to EMPs in two categories: human-made high-altitude (HEMP) and natural EMPsâoften referred to as GMDs by government agencies. These DOE-EPRI documents focus specifically on human-made nuclear threats and categorize GMDs separately from EMPs. However, the 2017 plan notes that "many of the actions proposed herein ... are also relevant to geomagnetic disturbances (GMD), which are similar in system interaction and effects to the E3 portion of the nuclear EMP waveform."

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)

FERC is an independent government agency officially organized as part of DOE. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct05; P.L. 109-58 ) authorized FERC to oversee the reliability of the bulk-power system. FERC's jurisdiction is limited to the wholesale power market and the transmission of electricity in interstate commerce.

EPAct05 authorized the creation of an electric reliability organization (ERO) to establish and enforce reliability standards subject to FERC oversight. The ERO authors the standards for critical infrastructure protection. These standards, which FERC can approve or remand back, are mandatory and enforceable (with fines potentially over $1 million/day for noncompliance). In November 2018, FERC issued a final rule on reliability and transmission system performance standards for GMDs directing NERC to develop "corrective action plans" to mitigate GMD vulnerabilities, and to authorize time extensions to implement "corrective action plans" on a case-by-case basis. Additionally, the final rule accepts the ERO's submitted research plan on GMDs.

North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC)

In 2006 FERC certified NERC as the ERO for the United States. NERC works closely with the public and private electric utilities to develop and enforce FERC-approved standards. Part of NERC's role includes reducing risks and vulnerabilities to the bulk-power system. In April 2019, NERC created a task force in response to E.O. 13865 to examine potential vulnerabilities associated with EMPs and to develop possible areas for improvement, focusing on nuclear EMP threats.

DOE oversees 17 national laboratories that advance science and technology research and development to support DOE's mission. The Los Alamos National Laboratory is currently working on a study of EMP and GMD physical characteristics and effects on critical infrastructure, to be carried out in four phases.

Under Presidential Policy Directive 21 (PPD-21), DHS is the lead U.S. agency for critical infrastructure protection and disaster preparedness. E.O. 13744 and E.O. 13865 assign several roles and responsibilities to DHS specific to space weather and EMPs ( Table 4 ).

Both executive orders assign responsibility to DHS for early warning, response, and recovery functions related to space weather preparedness. However, E.O. 13865 also requires DHS to incorporate EMP scenarios into preparedness exercises, to conduct extensive R&D initiatives to better model EMP hazards and develop mitigation technologies, and to enhance critical infrastructure resilience against EMP hazards in coordination with other relevant federal agencies.

Relevant programs and activities are managed by the Department's Science and Technology Directorate, as well as two DHS operational components: the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. DHS utilizes an all-hazards risk management approach. Therefore, programs are generally not hazard-specific, but rather may be used to support space weather resilience activities as needed.

Science and Technology Directorate (S&T)

S&T conducts R&D projects in partnership with federal agencies and the national laboratories, providing tools and analyses to help utilities better predict localized effects of space weather and enhance grid resilience. For example, the Geomagnetic Field Calculator Tool, developed for this purpose by S&T in partnership with NASA, is in the online testing phase.

Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA)

CISA administers public-private partnership programs that provide training, technical assistance, and on-site risk assessments to relevant private-sector and federal partners. CISA, the Department of Energy, and interagency partners are producing technical guidance for electric utilities and other industry stakeholders on mitigation of electromagnetic hazards, which may include space weather. CISA provides long-term risk guidance and recommendations on EMP and other hazards to industry stakeholders through the National Risk Management Center. CISA provides real-time space weather advisories to private sector owner-operators of vulnerable infrastructure on an as-needed basis.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)51

FEMA develops operations plans and annexes that coordinate use of national resources to address consequences of space weather events. Recent operational documents include the Federal Operating Concept for Impending Space Weather Events (Space Weather Concept of Operations (CONOP)) and the Power Outage Incident Annex and Nuclear/Radiological Incident Annex to the Response and Recovery Federal Interagency Operational Plans. FEMA also periodically incorporates space weather scenarios into all-hazard education, training, and exercise programs. In 2017, FEMA conducted operational and tabletop exercises with federal and state partners. In 2018, FEMA conducted a space weather exercise for senior federal officials.

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is DOI's lead scientific agency and "provides research and integrated assessments of natural resources; supports the stewardship of public lands and waters; and delivers natural hazard science to protect public safety, health, and American economic prosperity." The Secretary of the Interior has delegated responsibilities from E.O. 13744 and E.O. 13865 to USGS ( Table 5 ).

E.O. 13865 requires USGS to enhance understanding of the variations of the Earth's magnetic field associated with all EMPs, manmade and space weather-related, whereas E.O. 13744 specifies only those resulting from solar-terrestrial interactions.

USGS conducts space weather-related activities through the Geomagnetism program under the Natural Hazards Mission Area. The Geomagnetism program collects data about the Earth's dynamic magnetic field at 11 observatories. USGS provides these data and resulting products to federal agencies, oil drilling services companies, geophysical surveying companies, the electric-power industry, and several international agencies, among others. For example, NOAA's Space Weather Prediction Center and the Air Force use USGS observatory data in geomagnetic warnings and forecasts. Congress appropriated $1.9 million to the Geomagnetism program in FY2019.

DOS is the lead foreign affairs agency in the executive branch. Among DOS's responsibilities is negotiating and promoting international norms and practices with respect to outer space. DOS maintains that these efforts contribute to its broader objective of promoting American prosperity through advancing bilateral relationships and leveraging international institutions.

E.O. 13744 requires the Secretary of State to lead implementation of U.S. diplomatic and public diplomacy efforts to enhance the international community's capacity to respond to space weather events. Similarly, E.O. 13865 directs the Secretary of State to lead U.S. engagement with allies and partners to enhance resilience to the effects of EMPs, which may include space weather (see Table 6 ). DOS's Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs has traditionally been responsible for advancing U.S. diplomatic engagement on these matters.

Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs (OES)

Congress established the Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs in Section 9 of the Department of State Appropriations Authorization Act of 1973 ( P.L. 93-126 ). OES is responsible for building international partnerships in multilateral fora to strengthen both U.S. and international resilience to extreme events, including those pertaining to space weather. For example, OES's Office of Space and Advanced Technology leads U.S. delegations to the United Nations (U.N.) Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS). In 2017, OES participated in a workshop co-hosted by the United Nations and NASA on the International Space Weather Initiative (ISWI). The ISWI was first launched in 2009 to advance space weather science through deploying instruments to collect relevant space weather data, analyzing and interpreting the data obtained from those instruments, and communicating the results of that analysis to the public. The United States and 43 other U.N. member states that participated in this workshop found that strengthening the international framework for space weather services could be accomplished through several means. These included further improving ground and space-based space weather observation infrastructure, sharing best practices for space weather risk assessment and mitigation, increasing coordination on space weather forecasting services, and developing space weather mitigation plans for integration into broader contingency planning for disaster management. These action items are consistent with DOS's responsibilities to contribute to the realization of the 2019 Plan's three key objectives. Efforts by COPUOS to make progress in these and other focus areas are ongoing.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)65

Under 51 U.S.C. Â§20301, NASA is responsible for scientific research on the "Sun-Earth connection through the development and operation of research satellites and other means." While E.O. 13865 does not address NASA, E.O. 13744 further directs NASA to

(i) implement and support a national research program to understand the Sun and its interactions with Earth and the solar system to advance space weather modeling and prediction capabilities applicable to space weather forecasting;

(ii) develop and operate space-weather-related research missions, instrument capabilities, and models; and

(iii) support the transition of space weather models and technology from research to operations and from operations to research.

The Heliophysics Division of NASA's Science Mission Directorate supports fundamental research on the sun, some of which is important for space weather prediction, but most of which is less directly applicable. Congress appropriated $720 million to the Heliophysics Division in FY2019. CBO estimates that NASA allocated $264 million to space weather activities in FY2019. The Heliophysics Division funds intramural and extramural research and operates a fleet of research spacecraft in Earth orbit and beyond to study the sun, the solar wind, and their interaction with Earth and the rest of the Solar System (see Figure 3 ). When a space weather event or disturbance is observed, NASA also provides research data and modeling results to NOAA for operational use by the Space Weather Prediction Center.

In addition to its research activities, NASA has unique operational concerns regarding space weather. First, while multiple agencies and the private sector operate satellites in Earth orbit, above the protection provided by Earth's atmosphere, NASA also has spacecraft in orbits far beyond Earth for planetary exploration and other missions. Earth's magnetic field provides significant protection against space weather for Earth-orbiting satellites, but spacecraft outside Earth's magnetosphere do not benefit from this protection and so have additional requirements for radiation shielding and other countermeasures. Second, NASA is the only U.S. agency with human astronauts in space, so it has unique human safety concerns. Human safety concerns are particularly significant for planned future missions to the Moon and other destinations that are beyond Earth's protective magnetosphere.

Congress established the NSF to "promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense; and for other purposes." E.O. 13744 further directs NSF to "support fundamental research linked to societal needs for space weather information through investments and partnerships, as appropriate." NSF supports space weather research in two directorates: (1) the Geosciences Directorate, including through the Atmospheric and Geospace Sciences division (AGS) and the Office of Polar Programs (OPP), and (2) the Mathematical and Physical Sciences (MPS) Directorate, through the Astronomical Sciences division (AST). E.O. 13865 does not address NSF.

NSF reports that FY2018 space weather funding totaled approximately $105 million, including about $45 million for AST. CBO estimates that NSF allocated $22 million to space weather activities in FY2019. NSF primarily provides grants to research institutions to conduct scientific studies, including universities and private entities that focus on fundamental research questions related to space weather and its impacts. The AGS division supports both basic sciences research and observational and cyber-infrastructure facilitiesâincluding the National Center for Atmospheric Research's High Altitude Observatoryâto improve understanding of the dynamics of the sun, Earth's atmosphere, and near-space environment, and how the sun interacts with Earth's atmosphere. OPP support includes the Antarctic and Astrophysics Geospace program and the IceCube Neutrino Observatory (jointly funded with the MPS Division of Physics). In the ATS divisionâthe federal steward for ground-based astronomy in the United Statesâobservations focus mainly on the sun, and activities include management of the National Solar Observatory (NSO) Integrated Synoptic Program and the Daniel K. Inouye Solar Telescope (DKIST). According to NSF, DKIST will play an important role in enhancing the fundamental understanding of space weather and its drivers. In addition, NSF supports the development of numerical models of the space weather chain, including the sun, solar wind, and geospace.

E.O. 13744 further directs NSF, in collaboration with other federal agencies, to identify mechanisms for advancing space weather observations, models, and predictions, and for sustaining and transitioning appropriate capabilities from research to operations and operations to research. As noted in the agency's March 2018 announcement regarding space weather operations to research proposals, NSF's primary role in space weather readiness efforts is support for basic research that advances fundamental understanding of space weather and related processes, including "the generation of solar storms, their propagation through the interplanetary medium, and their impact on the near-Earth space environment."

Federal Agency Spending on Space Weather Activities

A comprehensive account of total federal agency spending on space weather-related activities is not available. In a cost estimate for the Space Weather Research and Forecasting Act ( S. 881 in the 116 th Congress), CBO estimated that the federal agencies in the National Space Weather Program and the Space Weather Operations, Research, and Mitigation Working Group "allocated a combined total of nearly $350 million to activities related to space weather" in FY2019. CBO estimated that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) allocated the majority ($264 million) of the $350 million total. Total federal agency allocations towards space weather activities may differ from year to year. For example, CBO estimated federal agencies that were a part of the National Space Weather Program "spent a total of $160 million" in FY2016 on activities related to space weather.

The 116 th Congress continues to consider and pass legislation related to space weather research, forecasting, preparedness, response, and recovery.

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 (P.L. 116-92)

Congress enacted S. 1790 in December 2019 as the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 (2020 NDAA). The 2020 NDAA amended Sections 320 and 707 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 ( P.L. 107-296 ) to enact a series of homeland security-related provisions that parallel the E.O. 13865 framework for critical infrastructure resilience and emergency response. See Table 7 for a summary of the new requirements.

The 2020 NDAA also repealed Section 1691 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 ( P.L. 115-91 ) , which authorized a "Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse Attacks and Similar Events." The Congressional EMP Commission was to conduct an EMP threat assessment and make policy recommendations to Congress. Senior commission members have publicly claimed a prominent role in developing E.O. 13865, which "seeks to implement core recommendations of the Congressional EMP Commission on an accelerated basis." House-passed versions of the 2020 NDAA cited the publication of E.O. 13865 when repealing Section 1691.

The Space Weather Research and Forecasting Act (S. 881) and Promoting Research and Observations of Space Weather to Improve the Forecasting of Tomorrow (PROSWIFT) Act (H.R. 5260)

These similar but not identical bills, introduced by Senator Gary Peters and Representative Ed Perlmutter respectively, set forth provisions designed to improve the ability of the United States to forecast space weather events and mitigate the effects of space weather. The bills provide statutory authority for an interagency working group (such as SWORM, which was established administratively by the NSTC in 2014). Other major provisions of the bills concern federal agency roles and responsibilities, the establishment of an advisory group, R&D, data sharing, and certain congressional reporting requirements. S. 881 also includes provisions related to the protection of critical infrastructure. The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation ordered S. 881 to be reported without amendment in April 2019. S. 881 was reported out of the committee and placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar in December 2019. H.R. 5260 was referred to several House committees for consideration in November 2019. Previous versions of these bills were introduced in the 114 th and 115 th Congresses.