The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS): An Overview

Summary: The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) requires U.S. transportation fuel to contain a minimum volume of renewable fuel. The RFS—established by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58; EPAct05) and expanded in 2007 by the Energy Independence and Security Act (P.L. 110-140; EISA)—began with 4 billion gallons of renewable fuel in 2006 and aims to ascend to 36 billion gallons in 2022. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has statutory authority to determine the volume amounts after 2022.

Summary: The total renewable fuel statutory target consists of both conventional biofuel and advanced biofuel. Since 2014, the total renewable fuel statutory target has not been met, with the advanced biofuel portion falling below the statutory target by a large margin since 2015. Going forward, it is unlikely that the United States will meet the total renewable fuel target as outlined in statute.

Summary: EPA administers the RFS and is responsible for several tasks. For instance, within statutory criteria EPA evaluates which renewable fuels are eligible for the RFS program. Also, EPA establishes the amount of renewable fuel that will be required for the coming year based on fuel supply and other conditions although waiver authority in the statute allows the EPA Administrator to reduce the statutory volumes if necessary. Further, the statute requires that the EPA Administrator "reset" the RFS—whereby the fuel volumes required for future years are modified by the Administrator if certain conditions are met. EPA monitors compliance for the RFS using a system of tradable credits referred to as renewable identification numbers (RINs).

Summary: Congress has expressed ongoing interest in the RFS, particularly as the mandate relates to other legislative efforts (e.g., Reid Vapor Pressure requirements for ethanol-gasoline fuel blends containing greater than 10% ethanol, a national octane standard) and about oversight of the RIN market, among other things. Some assert it is time to amend or repeal the RFS, while others contend the best course of action is to maintain the status quo. For instance, some Members contend the RFS hurts consumers by creating an artificial market for ethanol. Others see ethanol as a part of a competitive energy strategy.

Summary: Congress may also express interest in how the EPA Administrator applies the RFS "reset" authority. EPA reports that in early 2019 it will issue a rulemaking that proposes to modify—or "reset"—the cellulosic biofuel, advanced biofuel, and total renewable fuel volume targets for the years 2020-2022.

Established by Congress as an amendment to the Clean Air Act, the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) mandates that U.S. transportation fuels contain a minimum volume of biofuel. The mandated minimum volume increases annually and must be met using both conventional biofuel (e.g., corn starch ethanol) and advanced biofuel (e.g., cellulosic ethanol). For a renewable fuel to be applied toward the mandate, it must be used for certain purposes (i.e., transportation fuel, jet fuel, or heating oil) and meet certain environmental and biomass feedstock criteria.

A variety of factors, such as infrastructure, technology, and limited federal assistance, have led to challenges in meeting the total volume requirement established by Congress. These challenges have included a lack of cellulosic biofuel production and delays by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in approving fuel pathways. Further, it is not clear how changes in gasoline consumption in response to fluctuating crude oil and gasoline prices impact the biofuel or conventional fuel industries. It is also uncertain how the program will fare once EPA implements the "reset" provision of the statute, which allows the agency to modify the volumes required for future years (starting in 2016) if certain conditions are met. In addition, some stakeholders have expressed concern about the transparency of the market wherein credits are traded to demonstrate compliance with the mandate. Lastly, there is concern by some biofuel producers that the Trump Administration's issuance of multiple small refinery exemptions has adversely affected, or will adversely affect, biofuel demand. Small refiners may petition the EPA Administrator for an exemption from the RFS mandate if they can prove disproportionate economic hardship.

There are, however, two fuel categories that have consistently met their statutory targets: conventional biofuel and biomass-based diesel. Also, since 2014, two advanced biofuel pathways—renewable compressed natural gas and renewable liquefied natural gas—have constituted the majority of the cellulosic biofuel volume target established by EPA.

Challenges in implementing the RFS have led to scrutiny of the program in Congress and to litigation about EPA's regulations. Largely due to concerns about the implementation and feasibility of the RFS, some Members of Congress have expressed their perspectives on EPA's proposed and final rules as well as EPA's implementation of the program. They also have questioned whether to amend or repeal the RFS or whether to maintain the status quo. This report provides a basic description of the RFS, including some of the widely discussed policy issues related to it.

The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) was established by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 ( P.L. 109-58 ; EPAct05) and expanded in 2007 by the Energy Independence and Security Act ( P.L. 110-140 ; EISA). The RFS mandate requires that transportation fuels sold or introduced into commerce in the United States contain an increasing volume of a predetermined suite of renewable fuels. The statute required 4.0 billion gallons of renewable fuel in 2006, ascending to 36.0 billion gallons required in 2022, with EPA determining the volume amounts after 2022 in future rulemakings. The statute centers on four renewable fuel categories—conventional biofuel, advanced biofuel, cellulosic biofuel, and biomass-based diesel—each with its own target volume.

The total renewable fuel requirement under the RFS is met with the combination of fuels from two renewable fuel categories: conventional biofuel and advanced biofuel. The requirement for advanced biofuel, in general, can be met with the combination of three types of advanced biofuel: cellulosic biofuel, biomass-based diesel, and other advanced biofuels. To date, the total annual volumes required have been met mostly with conventional biofuel (e.g., corn starch ethanol). Beginning in 2015, the mandate capped the conventional biofuel volume amounts while increasing the requirement for advanced biofuels. For instance, the statutory RFS total advanced biofuel requirement increases over time from approximately 7% of the RFS in 2010 to 58% of the RFS in 2022.

A key part of the statutory definition of each fuel category is whether the fuel achieves certain greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions relative to gasoline and diesel fuel. Each fuel is assigned a lifecycle GHG emission threshold (in proportion to baseline lifecycle GHG emissions for gasoline and diesel). For example, a fuel must achieve at least a 50% GHG reduction to be considered an advanced biofuel , at least a 60% reduction to be considered a cellulosic biofuel , and at least a 50% reduction to be considered biomass-based diesel . Similarly, biofuel from new facilities—those built after enactment of the 2007 law—must achieve at least a 20% GHG reduction to qualify as a conventional renewable fuel.

EPA regulates compliance with the RFS using a tradable credit system. Obligated parties (generally, refiners) submit credits—called renewable identification numbers (RINs)—to EPA that equal the number of gallons in their annual obligation. This annual obligation, referred to as the renewable volume obligation (RVO), is the obligated party's total gasoline and diesel sales multiplied by the annual renewable fuel percentage standards announced by EPA. RINs are valid for use in the year they are generated and the following year. Obligated parties may carry a deficit from one year to the next, but in the year following the deficit, the obligated party must meet compliance for that year's renewable fuel volume requirement and purchase or generate enough credits to satisfy the deficit from the previous year. RINs may be used by the party that generates them or they may be traded with other parties. The EPA Moderated Transaction System (EMTS) is used to register RIN transactions.

Different biofuels are not treated equally within the RFS. The categories are nested within each other, such that some fuels qualify for multiple categories (e.g., cellulosic ethanol), while others (mainly corn starch ethanol) may only be used to meet the overall RFS but not the advanced category or its nested subcategories. For example, a gallon of cellulosic biofuel may be used to meet the cellulosic biofuel mandate, the advanced biofuel mandate, and the total renewable fuel mandate, possibly making it a more highly valued fuel.

In addition, some biofuels generate more RINs per volume than others because of the difference in the fuel's energy content. This difference is accounted for by a metric referred to as the equivalence value (EV) of the biofuel. The EV of a renewable fuel represents the number of gallons that can be claimed for compliance purposes for every physical gallon of renewable fuel used, and it is generally the ratio of the energy content of a gallon of the fuel to a gallon of ethanol. For example, because biodiesel has an EV of 1.5 when being used as an advanced biofuel, 1,000 physical gallons of biodiesel would equal 1,500 RIN gallons of advanced biofuels.

EPA released the final rule for the RFS for 2019 on November 30, 2018. The rule calls for 19.92 billion gallons of total renewable fuel for 2019—a 1% increase from the 19.29 billion gallons required in 2018 (see Table 1 ). The conventional biofuel volume requirement remains at 15.00 billion gallons. The volume requirements set by EPA for 2019 for total renewable fuel, advanced biofuel, and cellulosic biofuel are all less than the volumes called for in statute but greater than the previous year's volumes—an annual occurrence that started in 2014. EPA used the cellulosic waiver authority to reduce the statutory volumes. EPA reduced the statutory targets for both advanced biofuel and total renewable by the same amount as the reduction for the cellulosic biofuel (i.e., 8.08 billion gallons). EPA reports that the advanced biofuel statutory target of 13.0 billion gallons "cannot be reached in 2019 … primarily due to the expected continued shortfall in cellulosic biofuel." EPA estimates there are 2.59 billion carryover RINs available. In its response to comments regarding the rule, EPA mentions a forthcoming reset rulemaking.

EPA set the biomass-based diesel 2020 volume requirement at 2.43 billion gallons. Biomass-based diesel is the predominant biofuel used to satisfy the advanced biofuel portion of the mandate. Previously, it has been used to backfill the overall advanced biofuel requirement if another advanced biofuel fell short (e.g., cellulosic biofuel). EPA reports "the advanced biofuel volume requirement is driving the production and use of biodiesel and renewable diesel volumes over and above volumes required through the separate BBD [biomass-based diesel] standard" and that the 2020 volume requirement "provides sufficient incentive to producers of 'other' advanced biofuels." EPA acknowledges that it took into consideration the unavailability of the biodiesel tax credit for 2019, the tariffs on imports of biodiesel from Argentina and Indonesia, the tariffs on soybeans exported to China, and more in its assessment of the biodiesel requirement for 2020.

Implementation of the RFS has been complex, and compliance with some of its parts has been challenging, according to some stakeholders. This section briefly explains some of the general concerns and challenges with implementing the RFS.

EPA administers the RFS. This responsibility includes evaluating renewable fuel pathways eligible for the RFS. In addition, EPA is required to evaluate the ability of the biofuel industry to produce enough fuel to meet the annual volume standard, release an annual volume standard based on its research findings, and ensure that annual compliance by obligated parties is met. All of the above must be completed annually, taking into consideration comments from other government agencies, the public, and, recently, court decisions. These responsibilities could be viewed as an addition to EPA's regulatory workload and have required EPA to develop new capabilities to carry them out.

For several years following the 2010 issuance of the amended RFS final rule, EPA has had difficulty projecting certain volume requirements (e.g., cellulosic biofuels) which have led EPA to use its waiver authority to set annual volume requirements for cellulosic biofuel, total advanced biofuel, and total renewable fuel different from what was stated in the statute. Legal challenges have been brought against the EPA regarding some of these annual fuel volume projections. For instance, the American Petroleum Institute objected to EPA's 2012 cellulosic biofuel production projection, among other things, and challenged it in court. The federal court vacated the 2012 cellulosic biofuel standard and provided principles for EPA to apply to future annual projections. Likewise, Americans for Clean Energy and other petitioners challenged various aspects of the final rule that set the volume requirements and projections for 2014-2016 and 2017 for biomass-based diesel, including EPA's interpretation of "inadequate domestic supply" in exercising its general waiver authority to reduce the total volume requirements. The D.C. Circuit Court vacated EPA's 2016 total renewable fuel volume requirement and remanded the 2015 final rule to EPA for reconsideration consistent with the court's decision.

In some instances the timing of EPA's RFS regulatory actions, such as the annual announcement of the renewable fuel volume requirements, has not met statutory deadlines. The most recent final rules, including the 2019 final rule, adhere to the statutory schedule. However, some of the earlier final rules did not meet the statutory deadline. A lack of timely rulemaking combined with inaccurate volume projections could affect private investment, according to some advanced biofuel producers. Regardless, they lead to uncertainty in compliance for obligated parties. The amount of time it takes the agency to approve new fuel pathways and register new facilities has been raised in public comments to proposed RFS rules. Slow approval could stifle investment and production of new fuels. Further, prolonged processing time for some program enhancement rules—such as the Proposed Renewables Enhancement and Growth Support Rule (REGS rule)—may impede the growth of the program.

Lastly, the final rule for 2014 through 2016 triggered the "reset" provision of the RFS for the advanced biofuel and cellulosic biofuel categories. The 2019 final rule triggered the "reset" provision for total renewable fuel. Thus, three of the four renewable fuel categories identified in statute are subject to being "reset" by the EPA Administrator. The reset provision gives the EPA Administrator authority to adjust the applicable volumes of the RFS for future years starting in 2016 if certain conditions are met. How EPA implements this provision will affect renewable fuel production and compliance with the overall program. EPA reports that it will issue a rulemaking in early 2019 that proposes to reset the cellulosic biofuel, advanced biofuel, and total renewable fuel volume targets for the years 2020-2022.

As noted above, there are a number of nested categories within the RFS; a fuel may qualify as a biofuel for one or more portions of the mandate. Difficulty by some advanced biofuel producers in understanding which advanced biofuels qualify for the RFS can lead to challenges in determining how compliance is being met.

Not all fuels from a renewable source are eligible under the RFS. The RFS operates as a biofuel standard, with priority assigned to liquid transportation fuels from biomass feedstocks. Other renewable sources (e.g., wind) do not qualify. Before a fuel can generate RFS RINs, however, that fuel pathway must be approved by EPA; according to advanced biofuel producers that process can take a considerable amount of time for some fuels.

Lastly, some may view the RFS as a biofuel production mandate. The statutory language does not mandate the production of biofuels; rather, it mandates the use of biofuel. However, it could be argued that it is difficult to use a fuel that is not being produced and that the RFS therefore indirectly creates a demand for certain biofuels and thus stimulates their production.

By statute, cellulosic biofuel is targeted to comprise approximately 44% of the total renewable fuel mandate in 2022. However, the annual cellulosic biofuel production volume established by Congress is not being met. Actual cellulosic biofuel production volumes (e.g., cellulosic ethanol) are below the expectations set when the law was passed. For instance, in 2019, the statute requires 8.5 billion gallons of cellulosic biofuel. EPA set the 2019 target volume at 418 million gallons for 2019. This shortfall is due to several factors, including lack of private investment, technology setbacks, and uneven support from the federal government. These factors, coupled with the fact that annual volumes in the statute were established when market conditions for raising investment capital for new biofuel technologies were more favorable, may suggest unrealistic targets for some advanced biofuels for the near future. These production limitations have raised questions about whether the statutory cellulosic biofuel volumes are attainable.

The "blend wall"—the upper limit to the total amount of ethanol that can be blended into U.S. gasoline and still maintain automobile performance and comply with the Clean Air Act—has been viewed by many to be in direct conflict with the biofuel volumes mandated in the RFS. Thus far, the largest volume being met under the RFS is for the nonadvanced (conventional) biofuel segment of the mandate, met mainly with corn starch ethanol blended into gasoline. Due to a variety of factors, ethanol content in gasoline is generally limited to 10% (E10). With a relatively fixed supply of gasoline, the amount of ethanol that can be supplied this way is also limited. If the ethanol content of gasoline for the majority of vehicles remains at 10%, and given current fuel consumption rates, the conventional biofuel portion of the RFS is requiring slightly more ethanol than can technically be blended into gasoline.

While the blend wall remains a concern, it may not be as significant an impediment to immediate fuel consumption as previously considered by some. Indeed, EPA reports "the E10 blendwall is not the barrier that some stakeholders believe it to be." Had the RFS mandates—for both conventional biofuel and advanced biofuel—come to fruition in the form of mostly ethanol, or had fuel consumption decreased further, the blend wall potentially could have led to more discussion about the volume mandates. However, primarily due to the lack of cellulosic biofuel production, more time has been granted to address the blend wall and the scheduled levels of biofuels in the RFS.

Some possible approaches could alleviate blend wall concerns in the near term. One option suggested by some is to blend higher levels of ethanol into conventional gasoline. In 2010 EPA granted a Clean Air Act waiver that allows gasoline to contain up to 15% ethanol for use in model year 2001 and newer light-duty motor vehicles. However, limited demand, infrastructure and automobile warranty concerns, and the lack of a waiver to sell E15 during the summer months, have precluded widespread offering and purchase of E15, gasoline blended with 10.5% to 15% ethanol. Widespread use of E15 could potentially postpone the blend wall for a few years.

Another option to address the blend wall would be an aggressive push for the use of ethanol in flexible-fuel vehicles capable of using E85, a gasoline-ethanol blend containing 51% to 83% ethanol. However, there are infrastructure constraints with the use of E85. For example, the number of E85 fueling stations is limited. To help address these infrastructure issues, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced $100 million in matching grants in 2015 under its Biofuel Infrastructure Partnership. The grants may be used for blender pumps, dedicated E15 or E85 pumps, and new storage tanks and related equipment associated with new facilities or additional capacity.

The RFS is not a stand-alone policy. It interacts with many factors that are not easily controlled. For example, cellulosic biofuel production, at a minimum, requires conversion technology, which itself requires technical expertise and time to ramp up to commercial scale. The large quantity of biomass feedstocks needed to produce such biofuels requires factors such as appropriate weather conditions and an expectation of stable markets for feedstock commodities. Further, some types of biofuel production thus far have been sensitive to the availability of tax incentives in order to be economically feasible (e.g., biodiesel). Unexpected occurrences (e.g., drought, failed technology, tax incentive expiration) could potentially impact an entire industry, especially for some advanced biofuels in nascent industries compared to conventional transportation fuels.

The RFS was established in 2005 at a time when Congress foresaw the need to diversify the country's energy portfolio, strengthen the economy of rural communities that could contribute to biofuel production, bolster U.S. standing in an emerging segment of the energy technology market, and protect the environment, among other objectives. The RFS was then subsequently expanded in 2007. Over the past decade some components of the RFS have progressed steadily toward meeting statutory requirements and other components have not.

The RFS is a program with ambitious objectives. Policy questions surrounding future consideration of the RFS might include

What should be the purposes of the RFS? Is the RFS properly designed to achieve those purposes? What happens when, and if, the RFS achieves its purposes?

At the outse t, some would argue that the first question may seem straightforward; the RFS exists to introduce more biofuels into the transportation fuel market to achieve a number of transportation fuel supply and environmental objectives. However, the statute does not list any specific purposes or objectives. Some stakeholders argue that the RFS exists primarily to find another market for biomass feedstocks or to promote the economy of rural America (e.g., the construction of biofuel facilities that create jobs). To the extent the RFS was designed to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil, and to the extent that hydraulic fracturing and the growth of unconventional oil and gas production have contributed to achieving that objective, some stakeholders have questioned whether the RFS is still needed for energy security purposes. Likewise, the environmental impact of the RFS could be challenged, as the advanced biofuel component of the RFS—set to yield greater greenhouse gas emission reduction benefits—has missed the statutory targets by a large margin.

In examining whether the RFS is well designed to realize its general purpose, some have inquired about the challenges in achieving the ambitious RFS targets, given concerns about the slow development of some advanced biofuel supplies. Additionally, past delays in announcing final annual standards by EPA have led to uncertainty for biofuel producers, feedstock growers, and refiners. Whether the RFS should be eliminated, amended to address the current challenges in the program, or maintained in its current form is an ongoing question for Congress. A related question is whether the current provisions for EPA to waive various portions of the RFS mandates and to reset the RFS are sufficient to address the current supply challenges or whether the use of these waivers runs counter to the goals of the program. Some Members of Congress have proposed alternatives to the RFS, such as transitioning to an octane standard.

Other Members of Congress have expressed interest in modifying or eliminating the conventional biofuel (e.g., corn starch ethanol) portion of the mandate. Some contend that the conventional biofuel segment of the biofuels industry is well established, so it should not require a use mandate. In addition, it has been argued that a demand for conventional biofuels exists regardless of congressional involvement. Others counter that the RFS is needed to help lower GHG emissions and to assure that the biofuels industry continues to have access to a fuel distribution infrastructure that is largely controlled by petroleum interests.


The Purple Heart: Background and Issues for Congress

Summary: The Purple Heart is one of the oldest and most recognized American military medals, awarded to servicemembers who were killed or wounded by enemy action. The conflicts 2001 to the present have greatly increased the number of Purple Hearts awarded to servicemembers.

Summary: Events over the past few years have spurred debate on the eligibility criteria for the Purple Heart. Shootings on U.S. soil and medical conditions such as traumatic brain injury (TBI) and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) have prompted changes to the eligibility requirements for the Purple Heart. Some critics believe that these changes may lessen the value of the medal and the sacrifices of past recipients on the battlefield. In the past, efforts to modify the Purple Heart's eligibility requirements were contentious, and veterans groups were vocal concerning eligibility changes.

Summary: While medal requirements are often left to the military and executive branch to decide, Congress is involved in Purple Heart eligibility, utilizing its constitutional power "To Make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces" (U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, clause 14). The Carl Levin and Howard P. "Buck" McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (P.L. 113-291) included language that expands eligibility for the Purple Heart.

Summary: Previous debates have raised several questions about the Purple Heart. In some respects, how an event is defined can determine eligibility: Is a servicemember the victim of a crime or a terrorist attack? Conversely, arguing that killed or wounded servicemembers "should" be eligible for the Purple Heart can redefine an event: Is the servicemember an advisor to a foreign military or a combatant? Are PTSD and other mental health conditions adequate injuries to warrant the Purple Heart? These are questions that Congress might consider if it chooses to act on this issue.

Requirements for military awards and decorations can change over time. New events and changes in military, political, or social conditions can generate debate over who is eligible for various military awards. These changes tend to be controversial, especially with veterans groups. Congress has considered several pieces of legislation that would change who would be eligible to receive the Purple Heart, and under what conditions.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have greatly increased the number of servicemembers receiving the Purple Heart award as well as the potential conditions under which they receive the award. Increasingly acknowledged conditions, such as traumatic brain injuries (TBI) and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), as well as accidents and other events while deployed, bring up new questions as to when a servicemember deserves a Purple Heart. The July 17, 2015, shooting of servicemembers at a Marine recruiting office and a naval reserve center in Chattanooga, TN, again prompted questions about applying the Purple Heart to terrorist attacks versus criminal acts.

Veterans groups often voice their views when Congress or the President proposes making changes to expand eligibility for the Purple Heart. These groups argue, for example, that a servicemember who acquires PTSD may not always deserve the same recognition as a servicemember killed or wounded in direct combat, while others contend that these medical conditions can debilitate servicemembers just as much as physical injuries and can have lasting effects on servicemembers' lives. Determining which actions and events make a servicemember qualified for receiving a Purple Heart, and whether expanding eligibility does a disservice to those who have already earned the award, are contentious elements of this debate.

Although Congress has traditionally left many military award requirements to the executive branch, the Constitution does allow Congress to act in this area, and events have prompted changes regarding eligibility for the Purple Heart. On December 19, 2014, Congress passed The Carl Levin and Howard P. "Buck" McKeon National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2015. Section 571 of the NDAA for FY2015 expanded eligibility by redefining what should be considered an attack by a "foreign terrorist organization" for purposes of determining eligibility for the Purple Heart. As a result, servicemembers wounded and killed in the 2009 shootings in Little Rock, AR, and at Fort Hood, TX, were awarded Purple Hearts in 2015.

Congressional offices often receive questions about Purple Heart eligibility from constituents, especially when eligibility rules change. The number of these questions is likely to increase as servicemembers return from conflicts around the world and if eligibility requirements are again changed. This report will examine the history of the Purple Heart and changes in eligibility over time as well as current issues facing Congress.

In 1782, George Washington created the Badge of Military Merit to reward "any singularly meritorious action" displayed by a soldier, noncommissioned officer, or officer in the Continental Army. This award was intended to encourage gallantry and fidelity among soldiers, and would later become known as the Purple Heart.

The Badge of Military Merit was designed as a purple heart of cloth edged with a narrow lace. Records are incomplete and researchers debate how many soldiers received this award. According to Military Order of the Purple Heart, three soldiers from Connecticut were the first to receive the Badge of Military Merit during the American Revolutionary War. All three were noncommissioned officers and the only recipients who received the award from General Washington. The soldiers were Sergeant William Brown, 5 th Connecticut Regiment of the Connecticut Line on May 3, 1783; Sergeant Elijah Churchill, 2 nd Continental Light Dragoons on May 3, 1783; and Sergeant Daniel Bissell, 2 nd Connecticut Regiment of the Connecticut Line, on June 10, 1783. However, the Badge of Military Merit fell into disuse shortly after its conception.

The Badge of Military Merit was not seriously considered again until General Douglas MacArthur (then Army Chief of Staff) revived the award on February 22, 1932, the 200 th anniversary of George Washington's birth.

This award, renamed the "Purple Heart," was redesigned to its modern appearance: a purple heart-shaped medal with bronze border and George Washington's coat of arms between two green spray leaves. See Figure 1 . General MacArthur also redefined the eligibility requirements to those who received Meritorious Service Citation certificates from World War I or those authorized to wear wound chevrons by Army Regulation (AR) 600-8-22, Military Awards . It was at this point that the Purple Heart became focused on soldiers killed and wounded in combat, rather than "any singularly meritorious act."

In 1942, President Franklin Roosevelt extended the Purple Heart award, which to this point was exclusively an Army award, to Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard members serving in World War II. In 1952, President Truman retroactively awarded Purple Hearts to personnel in the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard that qualified after April 5, 1917, thus including World War I veterans of all services.

From 1962 until 1998, eligibility for the Purple Hearts was changed on several occasions. President Kennedy authorized Purple Hearts to all servicemembers, and civilians serving with the Armed Forces, who were engaged in armed conflict against an opposing military or hostile foreign force. This expansion was written to permit U.S. servicemembers, and the civilians that accompanied them, who were killed or wounded in Vietnam to receive the Purple Heart, as many of those servicemembers were officially considered advisors to the Republic of Vietnam, rather than combatants.

Purple Heart eligibility was expanded again by President Reagan to include military personnel and government civilians killed or wounded in international terrorist attacks after March 28, 1973, or those serving in peacekeeping operations outside of the United States. This expansion was in response to increased terrorist attacks against U.S. servicemembers abroad, namely the Marine Corps Barracks bombing in Beirut, Lebanon, in 1983.

The NDAA for Fiscal Year 1996 expanded eligibility to prisoners of war injured or wounded in captivity prior to 1962, a group of servicemembers previously not covered for Purple Heart eligibility by President Kennedy's executive order. In 1997, President Clinton signed the NDAA for Fiscal Year 1998, which limited future awards of the Purple Heart to military personnel. It has since remained a military-only award.

The Department of Defense does not maintain a record of the number of Purple Heart recipients. However, some military historians estimated more than 1 million Purple Hearts have been awarded mostly to soldiers since 1932. Likewise, the National Purple Heart Hall of Honor estimates 1.8 million Purple Hearts have been awarded since the medal was established by the Army in 1932. During the 115 th Congress (2017-2018), H.R. 7097 was introduced as the "Find our Hearts Act." It would have amended Title 10, United States Code, to require the establishment of a searchable database containing the names and citations of members of the Armed Forces who have been awarded the Purple Heart. H.R. 7097 was referred to the House Armed Services Committee but saw no further action. See Table 1 for current Purple Heart legislation.

Currently, the Purple Heart is authorized for any member of the U.S. Armed Forces who has been wounded or died from wounds sustained under one of the following conditions:

(1) In accordance with E.O. 11016, subject to the provisions of Sections 1129, 1129a, and 1131 of Title 10, U.S.C., and P.L. 104-106 , the Secretary of a Military Department, will, in the name of the President of the United States, award the PH, with suitable ribbons and appurtenances, to any Service member under the jurisdiction of that Department who, after April 5, 1917, has been wounded, killed, or who has died or may hereafter die of wounds received under any of the following circumstances:

(a) In action against an opposing armed force of a foreign country in which U.S. Armed Forces are or have been engaged.

(b) In any action with an opposing armed force of a foreign country in which the Military Services are or have been engaged.

(c) While serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party.

(d) As a result of an act of any such enemy or opposing armed forces.

(e) As the result of an act of any hostile foreign force.

(f) After March 28, 1973, as a result of an international terrorist attack against the United States or a foreign nation friendly to the United States, recognized as such an attack for purposes of award of the PH by the Secretary of the Military Department concerned, or jointly by the Secretaries of the Military Departments concerned if members from more than one Military Department are wounded in the attack. The Secretary of the Military Department concerned shall notify the Under Secretary for Personnel and Readiness USD(P&R) prior to awarding the PH for an international terrorist attack that occurs in the United States or its territories.

(g) After March 28, 1973, as a result of military operations while serving outside the territory of the United States as part of a peacekeeping force.

(h) On or after December 7, 1941, pursuant to Section 1129 of Title 10, U.S.C., a service member who is killed or wounded in action as the result of action by friendly weapon fire while directly engaged in combat, other than as a result of an act of an enemy of the United States, unless (in the case of a wound) the wound is the result of willful misconduct of the member.

(i) Before April 25, 1962, pursuant to Section 521 of P.L. 104-106 which held as a prisoner of war (POW), or while being taken captive in the same manner as a former POW who is wounded on or after that date while held as a POW. A person will be considered to be a former POW if the person is eligible for the POW Medal under Section 1128 of Title 10, U.S.C.

(j) On or after December 7, 1941, to a Service member who is killed or dies while in captivity as a prisoner of war (POW) under circumstances establishing eligibility for the POW medal pursuant to section 1128 of Title 10, U.S.C., and Volume 2 of DoD Manual 1348.33, Manual of Military Decorations and Awards , unless compelling evidence is presented that shows that the member's death was not the result of enemy action.

(k) After September 11, 2001, pursuant to section 1129a of Title 10, U.S.C., to a Service member on active duty who is killed or wounded in an attack by a foreign terrorist organizations in circumstances where the death or wound is the result of an attack targeted on the member due to such member's status as a member of the armed forces.

An attack by an individual or entity shall be considered to be a foreign terrorist attack if the individual or entity was in communication with the foreign terrorist organization before the attack and the attack was inspired or motivated by the foreign terrorist organization.

An award is not authorized if the death or wound was the result of the willful misconduct of the Service member.

To assist in making a PH determination pursuant to section 1129a of Title 10, U.S.C., the Military Department Secretary concerned may request an intelligence assessment from the Defense Intelligence Agencies' Defense Combating Terrorism Center (DCTC). The DCTC assessment of potential foreign terrorist attacks by an individual or entity will assess whether the individual or entity was in communication with the foreign terrorist organization before the attack, and if the attack was inspired or motivated by the foreign terrorist organization. The assessment shall include supporting citations and rationale.

(2) A wound for which the award is made must have been of such severity that it required treatment, not just examination, by a military medical officer.

(a) Treatment must be noted in the Servicemember's medical record.

(b) Award may be made of wounds treated by a medical professional other than a medical officer provided a medical officer issues a statement in the Service member's medical record that the extent of the wounds were such that the wounds would have required treatment from a medical officer if one had one been available to treat the wounds.

(3) After May 17, 1998, pursuant to Section 1131 of Title 10, U.S.C., the PH may only be awarded to a person who is a Service member at the time the person is killed or wounded under circumstances otherwise qualifying that person for award of the PH. Before this date, the Secretary of the Military Department concerned was authorized to award the PH to U.S. civilian nationals who were serving under competent authority in any capacity with the armed forces of that department.

For deceased servicemembers, the Purple Heart may be given to the representatives of the deceased as the individual Service Secretary considers appropriate.

Servicemembers can be awarded multiple Purple Hearts for separate incidents. The servicemember receives the Purple Heart medal for the first award. Subsequent awards are indicated with oak leaf clusters or 5/16 inch service stars, depending on the rules of the recipient's service. Purple Hearts may not be awarded to foreign military personnel.

Although the decision to award medals and other military decorations traditionally rests with the executive branch, Congress has been expanding its role in this area in recent decades, exercising its constitutional power "To Make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval forces." Previously, Congress took the lead and adjusted Purple Heart eligibility in both the NDAA for FY1996 and the NDAA for FY1998. See Appendix A . In response to some mass shootings in recent years, Congress passed a provision in the NDAA for FY2015 that expanded the Purple Heart's eligibility requirements.

Domestic Terrorism and the FY2015 NDAA (P.L. 113-291)

Little Rock, Arkansas, and Fort Hood, Texas, 2009

On June 1, 2009, a man who was allegedly angry over the killing of Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan opened fire on two U.S. Army soldiers near a recruiting station in Little Rock, AR, killing one and wounding the other. On November 5, 2009, an Army major opened fire at Ft. Hood, TX, killing 13 and wounding 29, many of them servicemembers. Both men were charged with murder and other crimes.

Federal and local law enforcement authorities initially considered these acts to be crimes, and the Defense Department reports the Fort Hood shooting as "workplace violence," not acts perpetrated by an enemy or hostile force, which made them ineligible for the Purple Heart. However, some believed these acts should be viewed as acts of war or domestic terrorism because they involved Muslim perpetrators angered over U.S. actions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Section 571 of the NDAA for FY2015 ( P.L. 113-291 ) expanded the eligibility for the Purple Heart by redefining what should be considered an attack by a "foreign terrorist organization" for purposes of determining eligibility for the Purple Heart. The law states that an event should be considered an attack by a foreign terrorist organization if the perpetrator of the attack "was in communication with the foreign terrorist organization before the attack" and "the attack was inspired or motivated by the foreign terrorist organization."

Still, some are opposed to awarding the Purple Heart for terrorist acts that were initially deemed "workplace violence" by the Department of Defense (DOD) or a criminal act, and not earned on a battlefield. This act arguably sets a precedent for the future and could make Purple Heart eligibility more subjective, allowing public sentiment to determine what events are worthy of a Purple Heart.

On April 10, 2015, then-Army Secretary John McHugh and Army Lieutenant General Sean MacFarland, 3 rd Corps and Fort Hood commanding general, presented Purple Hearts to the families of the 10 servicemembers killed and to the 26 servicemembers wounded during the attack. Defense of Freedom Medals were also awarded to DOD civilians killed and wounded during the attack. In a memorandum, Secretary McHugh directed the Army to "expedite certain other benefits for which soldiers receiving the Purple Heart are traditionally eligible."

In addition to the victims of the Fort Hood shooting, the two victims of the June 2009, shooting at a recruiting station in Little Rock, Arkansas, received Purple Hearts on July 1, 2015. Army Private William Andrew "Andy" Long was killed and Army Private Quinton Ezeagwula was wounded in that attack by Abdulhakim Muhammad, who was convicted and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Encouraged by the expanded eligibility provision in the NDAA for FY2015, legislation was introduced during the 114 th Congress to award Purple Hearts to other military victims of domestic terrorism. Section 583 of the House-passed version of H.R. 1735 , the NDAA for FY2016, would have awarded the Purple Heart to servicemembers who were victims of the April 19, 1995, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma bombing. Supporters for awarding the Purple Heart to the victims of the Oklahoma City bombing refer to the FY2015 NDAA as precedent. However, critics contend that the bombing was an act of domestic terrorism and does not meet the current eligibility requirements of the assailant being inspired by or motivated by an international terrorist organization. The final version of the FY2016 NDAA ( P.L. 114-92 ) did not include this provision.

On July 16, 2015, Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez shot at a Marine Corps recruiting center and Naval Reserve Center in Chattanooga, TN. This incident again raised congressional interest regarding the eligibility for the Purple Heart for servicemembers killed and wounded during an attack inspired by or motivated by international terrorist organizations. Four marines were killed and one was injured during the rampage, and the lone sailor later died from his injuries. The FBI investigation later concluded that Abdulazeez was "motivated by foreign terrorist organization propaganda," but that it was difficult to determine which terrorist group may have inspired him.

On December 16, 2015, then-Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus announced that the Purple Heart would be awarded to five servicemembers killed and one wounded in the July 2015 shootings at two naval centers in Chattanooga, Tennessee. Secretary Mabus stated that "following an extensive investigation, the FBI and NCIS have determined that this attack was inspired by a foreign terrorist group, the final criteria required for the awarding of the Purple Heart to this Sailor and these Marines."

On January 14, 2016, then-Navy Vice Admiral Robin Braun presented the Purple Heart to the family of Logistics Specialist 2 nd Class Randall Smith at the Navy Operational Support Center Chattanooga. Brigadier General Terry V. Williams presented the Purple Heart on January 26, 2016, to Sergeant DeMonte R. Cheeley, who survived the attack, at a ceremony in Chattanooga.

On April 20, 2016, Lieutenant General Rex McMillian, then-head of Marine Corps Forces Reserve, presented Purple Hearts to the families of Gunnery Sergeant Thomas Sullivan, Staff Sergeant David Wyatt, Sergeant Carson Holmquist, and Lance Corporal Squire "Skip" Wells in a ceremony at the Hunter Museum of American Art in Chattanooga.

Attack on Paris-Bound Train, August 21, 2015

U.S. Airman 1 st Class Spencer Stone was onboard a train from Amsterdam to Paris with two friends, Anthony Sadler and Alek Skarlatos, when they subdued a heavily armed gunman who attempted to fire an AK-47 at the passengers. Stone was stabbed in the face and neck by the gunman as the trio restrained him before he could discharge his weapon. The vacationing Americans were hailed as heroes and awarded the French Legion of Honor on August 24, 2015. On September 14, 2015, Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James announced that Stone would receive the Purple Heart along with the Airman's Medal, the Air Force's highest noncombat award. At the Pentagon on September 17, 2015, then-Defense Secretary Ash Carter presented Stone the Purple Heart and Airman's Medal. During the ceremony, Carter presented the Soldier's Medal to Oregon National Guard Specialist Alek Skarlatos, and civilian Anthony Sadler received the Secretary of Defense Medal for Valor.

On June 12, 2016, a security guard, Omar Mateen, killed 49 people and wounded 53 others in an attack inside Pulse, a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida. Army Reserve Captain Antonio Davon Brown was one of the 49 people killed and may be eligible for the Purple Heart depending on the outcome of the FBI investigation. According to the FBI, Mateen had pledged allegiance to the Islamic State group after his attack in a call to 911. At this time, it is unclear if the Army will make a decision regarding Captain Brown's eligibility for the Purple Heart.

Private Corrado Piccoli Purple Heart Preservation Act

On September 28, 2016, H.R. 6234 was introduced to amend Title 18, U.S.C., to provide for penalties for the sale of any Purple Heart awarded to a member of the Armed Forces. This legislation would have made selling the medal punishable by fines and up to six months in prison. H.R. 6234 would have placed the Purple Heart into a new protected category, keeping it away from not just con artists but also memorabilia collectors. The measure was named for Private Corrado Piccoli, a World War II infantryman killed in action in 1944, whose Purple Heart was found for sale at an antique store in 2009. This bill was referred to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations but saw no further action in the 114 th Congress. This legislation was reintroduced in the 115 th Congress on January 13, 2017, as H.R. 544 , the Private Corrado Piccoli Purple Heart Preservation Act of 2017, and a related bill, S. 765 , was passed by the Senate on August 3, 2017. Both bills were referred to committee in the House but saw no further action.

On January 15, 2019, S. 122 , Private Corrado Piccoli Purple Heart Preservation Act, was introduced in the 116 th Congress. The bill was read twice and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The House version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY2019, H.R. 5515 , included a provision (Section 629) that would extend certain morale, welfare, and recreation (MWR) privileges to certain veterans, including Purple Hearts recipients, and their caregivers. This bill became P.L. 115-232 on August 13, 2018. Section 621 of the enacted bill adopted House Section 629, which extends eligibility of certain MWR and commissary privileges to certain veterans, including Purple Heart recipients, and their caregivers starting in 2020. For additional information see section, "Defense Commissary System," in CRS Report R45343, FY2019 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues .

For bill summaries of Purple Heart legislation in the 116 th Congress as introduced, see Table 1 .

Traumatic Brain Injuries, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, and the Purple Heart

The large number of veterans with invisible wounds returning from Iraq and Afghanistan has the Department of Defense (DOD) reevaluating Purple Heart eligibility for traumatic brain injuries (TBI) and mental conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). DOD considers some TBIs eligible for the Purple Heart, as many of those injuries can be diagnosed using brain scans and other objective medical tests. However, there is continued debate on the inclusion of mental conditions, such as PTSD, as part of the appropriate criteria for the Purple Heart. Congress, as well as various executive agencies and departments, is funding and conducting studies regarding PTSD. The National Alliance on Mental Illness, a national grassroots advocacy group representing families and people affected by mental illness, is advocating that the Purple Heart be awarded for psychological wounds including PTSD to eliminate stigma and encourage servicemembers to seek care.

At this time, DOD does not consider servicemembers with PTSD eligible for the Purple Heart. Army Regulation 600-8-22 allows "concussion injuries caused as a result of enemy generated explosions" but specifically disqualifies post-traumatic stress disorders. Army guidance emphasizes "the degree to which the enemy caused the injury" when determining eligibility and places PTSD in a column of noneligible injuries. The Marine Corps defines PTSD as a "severe combat stress injury" and says that combat stress injuries are "not directly caused by the enemy's intentional use of an outside force or agent," and thus do not qualify.

Servicemembers are divided on this issue. Some servicemembers believe that mental injuries such as PTSD should be eligible for the Purple Heart, while others believe that it would dishonor those who have received Purple Hearts for physical injuries. Proponents argue that some veterans are less likely to seek help for their mental-health injuries because of the stigma associated with PTSD, and that stigma could be lessened by recognizing their injuries as real. Opponents, including some veterans from the Military Order of the Purple Heart and Veterans of Foreign Wars, are resistant to accepting PTSD as grounds for eligibility. A representative of The Military Order of the Purple Heart stated, "We believe strongly in and support the criteria that the wound or death should be sustained in combat at the hands of the enemies of the United States." In addition, the national spokesman for the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Joseph E. Davis, said, "Medals aren't awarded for illness or disease, but for 'achievement and valor.'"

Appendix A. Timeline of Purple Heart Eligibility

August 7, 1782: George Washington creates the Badge of Military Merit. Awarded to several Continental soldiers but it quickly falls from use.

February 22, 1932: Army Chief of Staff General Douglas MacArthur revives the Badge of Military Merit as an Army award, renamed "the Purple Heart," and retroactively awarded to wounded WWI veterans.

December 3, 1942: Executive Order 9277—President Franklin Roosevelt expands Purple Heart eligibility to include U.S. Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard. Retroactively awards Purple Hearts to December 6, 1941.

November 12, 1952: Executive Order 10409—President Truman retroactively awards Purple Hearts to U.S. Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard veterans after April 5, 1917.

April 25, 1962: Executive Order 11016—President Kennedy extends eligibility to civilians serving with military forces.

February 23, 1984: Executive Order 12464—President Reagan awards Purple Hearts to those killed and wounded in terrorist attacks after March 28, 1973, or on peacekeeping missions outside the United States.

February 10, 1996: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Section 521, P.L. 104-106 ) includes "prisoners of war wounded before April 25, 1962, while held as a prisoner of war (or while being taken captive) in the same manner as a former prisoner of war who is wounded on or after that date while held as a prisoner of war (or while being taken captive)."

November 18, 1997: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Section 571, P.L. 105-85 ) limits future Purple Heart awards to members of the Armed Forces.

October 17, 2006: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Section 556, P.L. 109-364 ) includes prisoners of war captured after December 7, 1941.

April 30, 2008: Purple Heart Family Equity Act of 2007 ( P.L. 110-207 ) revises the congressional charter of the Military Order of the Purple Heart to authorize associate membership for the spouse and siblings of a recipient of the Purple Heart medal.

December 19, 2014: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Section 571, P.L. 113-291 ) expands eligibility for the Purple Heart by redefining what should be considered an attack by a foreign terrorist organization, and awards Purple Heart medals to servicemembers wounded or killed during the 2009 shootings at Ft. Hood, Texas, and Little Rock, Arkansas.

Appendix B. Staffer Instructions for Medal Requests

Members of Congress are able to directly request that a Service Secretary consider awarding military decorations to individuals or groups. Upon receiving a request from a Member's office, the Service Secretary concerned will review the proposal for the award or presentation of a decoration (or the upgrading of a decoration).

Based on that review, the Secretary shall determine the merits of approving the award or presentation of the decoration and other necessary determinations. The Secretary shall submit a notice to the requesting Member, the Senate Armed Services Committee, and the House Armed Services Committee with one of the following results:

(1) The award or presentation of the decoration does not warrant approval on the merits. A statement explaining the Secretary's reason will be included.

(2) The award or presentation of the decoration warrants approval and a waiver by law of time restrictions prescribed by law is recommended.

(3) The award or presentation of the decoration warrants approval on the merits and has been approved as an exception to policy.

(4) The award or presentation of the decoration warrants approval on the merits, but a waiver of the time restrictions prescribed in law is not recommended. A statement explaining the Secretary's reason will be included.

Source: Compiled from the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 ( P.L. 104-106 , §526), February 10, 1996.


Internships in Congressional Offices: Frequently Asked Questions

Summary: Many interns serve Congress, assisting individual Members, committees, and other offices or support services. Interns serve the House or Senate in a temporary capacity, primarily for an educational benefit, although some interns may receive pay for their service. Like many aspects of congressional operations, individual House or Senate offices can make many of their own rules and guidelines for interns, if they choose to operate an internship program. Additional institutional rules, however, may also apply. In the House, policies set by the Committee on Ethics or the Committee on House Administration may also affect congressional offices and interns, and in the Senate, additional relevant policies may be set by the Senate Select Committee on Ethics or the Committee on Rules and Administration.

Summary: This report addresses frequently asked questions (FAQs) about congressional interns and internships. It is intended to provide information to congressional offices about the role of interns and to provide a summary of some of the policies and guidance provided by the House and the Senate related to internships. It addresses the House and Senate rules that apply to congressional internships, factors that may affect an office's selection process and an individual's eligibility to serve in an internship, and some of the congressional resources and training opportunities available for interns. For additional information about internship opportunities, refer to CRS Report 98-654, Internships, Fellowships, and Other Work Experience Opportunities in the Federal Government .

1. What is an intern? How is an intern different from a volunteer, fellow, or a page?

A number of opportunities exist for individuals who are not regular congressional employees to provide assistance to congressional offices. The titles used to describe these positions are sometimes used interchangeably, but there can also be some key differences.

An intern is an individual who provides assistance, paid or unpaid, to a congressional office on a temporary basis. The internship experience is typically considered to provide an educational benefit for that individual. An intern's role does not substitute for or replace the duties of regular employees. If an intern is paid, then some of the rules applicable to congressional employees may apply.

This report focuses on congressional interns, as described above, although their role can sometimes seem similar to individuals in the following positions:

A volunteer also provides assistance to a congressional office, and the experience is generally considered to be of educational value for the volunteer. In many cases, a volunteer's role in a congressional office can be similar to that of an unpaid intern. A volunteer cannot receive financial compensation for his or her service. The volunteer's assignments are not to replace the regular duties of paid employees. A fellow is an individual who also performs services in a congressional office on a temporary basis, but typically through participation in an established, graduate-level or mid-career education program. Fellows often receive compensation from a sponsoring employer, professional association, or other organization while working in Congress during the course of the fellowships. Congressional offices may try to recruit fellows and work with existing programs, but a fellowship is usually not a position a congressional office creates on its own. A page is a high-school junior, at least 16 years old, who participates in a more structured program for a semester or summer. Pages continue to serve in the Senate, but the House program was discontinued in 2010. Although they are appointed by individual Senators, the pages provide assistance as a group in the Senate chamber, and receive housing, education, and a stipend from the Senate.

2. What congressional rules specifically apply to interns?

Few statutes or standing rules of the House or Senate make specific references to congressional interns. In many cases, the distinction between a paid internship and an unpaid internship affects which formal rules apply to interns. Guidance and policies for House interns can be found in the House Ethics Manual , in the Members' Congressional Handboo k , Congressional C ommittee Handbook , from the House Committee on Ethics, and from the Committee on House Administration. For Senate interns, guidance and policies are mainly found in the Senate Ethics Manual , from the Senate Select Committee on Ethics, and from the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration. Congressional offices can choose to set additional rules for their interns to follow.

House or Senate rules that apply to paid congressional employees generally extend to paid interns as well. These might include, but are not limited to, the Code of Official Conduct for the appropriate chamber, gift restrictions, ban on solicitations, and prohibition on payment for a speech, appearance, or publication. Financial disclosure rules may also apply in the Senate if the intern is receiving compensation from a source other than the U.S. government. Paid interns are exempt from some provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) that otherwise apply to congressional staff, like minimum wage and overtime pay requirements, as well as employee benefits, like insurance and retirement.

Fewer House or Senate rules may apply to unpaid interns than to paid interns. To enhance accountability for unpaid interns, the House or Senate ethics committees or individual congressional offices can set standards for unpaid interns to abide by that mirror some of the same rules that paid interns or congressional employees follow. A congressional office can enforce the rules it sets as internal office policies for unpaid interns, whereas the House and Senate institutionally may have fewer enforcement mechanisms affecting unpaid interns.

The House Committee on Ethics, for example, advises that offices obtain an agreement in writing from unpaid interns at the outset of an internship. This agreement would acknowledge that the intern agrees "to serve without compensation and to not make any future claim for payment, and acknowledge that the voluntary service does not constitute House employment." The committee also suggests that unpaid interns refrain from actions that present themselves as congressional officers or employees.

The Senate Select Committee on Ethics requires that unpaid interns file a disclaimer with the Financial Clerk of the Senate acknowledging that their service is voluntary, or gratuitous, in nature. The committee also notes that the conflict-of-interest provisions in the Standing Rules of the Senate "apply to any intern, fellow, or volunteer providing Senate services," even if the individual is only working for a single day. Interns performing full-time services in the Senate for over 90 days during a calendar year are also required to abide by the Senate Code of Conduct.

Use of Official Email, Social Media, and Technology Resources

It may be useful for House and Senate interns to familiarize themselves with the broader technology-use policies that apply to congressional offices. Computers, email accounts, internet access, and other technology resources provided to interns by the congressional office primarily should be used for official congressional business with any personal use limited and incidental. Because information sent and received from a congressional computer or network may be traced back to a particular office, an office may choose to implement additional standards for interns' incidental computer and internet usage. Offices may also develop guidelines for what is or is not permissible for interns to post on social media or public websites about their work.

Paid interns are required to follow the House or Senate gift rules that apply to regular employees, and the House and Senate ethics committees advise that unpaid interns should also abide by the gift rules. Generally, these rules prohibit (1) receiving gifts from lobbyists or foreign agents, (2) receiving any individual gift valued at over $50, and (3) receiving $100 or more in gifts (each valued at $10 or more) from a single source. In most cases, it is typically permissible for a Member, staffer, or office to give an intern a small gift in recognition of his or her service. Federal law, however, prohibits supervisors from accepting gifts from interns.

3. What other information might an office provide to interns?

Offices often provide additional information or guidance to interns about congressional operations or resources. Offices, for example, might provide an overview of the House or Senate rules that apply to interns, or clarify their own office policies regarding attendance, technology use, phone etiquette, and other expectations. Information about emergency procedures and contact information for the appropriate police or medical services is commonly provided. Some offices may provide interns with a basic overview of the legislative process or how to perform legislative research. Locations of buildings or offices within the Capitol Complex and information on dining facilities and other on-site services may be useful for interns on Capitol Hill, and similar information about the area surrounding a state or district office could be provided to interns in those offices.

4. What is the selection process for interns?

House and Senate offices are able to set many of their own requirements for intern selection, just as they are with general personnel decisions. Some offices, for example, may require that interns are currently enrolled students, have reached a certain level of education, or that interns live in a Member's district or state. Many congressional offices post internship opportunities and application procedures on their websites. House offices can use the House Vacancy Announcement and Placement Service to post an internship announcement and may also request resumes from its resume bank. Similarly, the Senate Placement Office can publish opportunities for internships, collect applications, or provide resumes from its resume bank if a Senate office chooses to use the service.

In many instances, Members of Congress have broad discretion to determine who works in their offices, but different laws, rules, and considerations may apply to a noncitizen's potential service, based on the individual's status, particularly if the individual receives pay. House offices may wish to contact the Office of the General Counsel, Committee on Ethics, or the Committee on House Administration before employing a noncitizen as an intern. In the Senate, offices may wish to contact the Senate Disbursing Office, Office of Legal Counsel, Select Committee on Ethics, or the Committee on Rules and Administration for guidance on employing noncitizen interns.

The House and Senate ethics manuals provide some general guidance for congressional offices on working with foreign-national interns. Conflict-of-interest considerations may affect the responsibilities an office chooses to assign to a foreign-national intern. Interns who are foreign-nationals should not be assigned duties that might influence U.S. policy in a way that benefits the intern's home country. As with interns who are U.S. citizens or nationals, a foreign-national intern who receives outside funding for an internship should not be assigned work responsibilities that might affect the intern's employer or other sponsoring organization.

6. Can interns participate in campaign activities?

Member offices are to be careful not to mix official congressional resources with campaign resources. Interns working in a congressional office may also work for a political campaign, but the two responsibilities are to be carefully delineated and kept separate so that congressional time, property, facilities, equipment, or other resources are not used for electoral campaigns. The prohibitions against using congressional resources for political purposes extend broadly and include any campaign activities within House or Senate offices, rooms, and buildings, even if such activities are conducted online using a staffer's personal account or device.

7. Can interns be related to Members or regular employees?

If an intern is paid, then the standard prohibitions regarding nepotism or employment of relatives established in law and House or Senate rules apply. Because each congressional office is its own hiring authority, an intern may be related to another Member or staff in a different office without violating these rules. The House Ethics Committee also notes that a Member in the House can accept volunteer services from immediate family.

8. Is there a minimum or maximum age for interns?

Often, interns in congressional offices are college-age individuals or recent college graduates between 18 and 24 years old. Historically, individuals under 18 generally serve Congress as pages. There is no minimum age for congressional interns. If working with interns who are under 18, an office may want to consider the potential concerns related to working with minors and carefully evaluate the job-related skills and maturity of the prospective intern.

There is also no maximum age for interns. Older individuals returning to higher education, considering a career change, or seeking a congressional internship for other reasons could also receive an educational benefit from such service and may have useful experience to share with a congressional office. In 1978, the Senate initiated a Senior Citizen Internship Program for individuals over 60 years old; the program operated for a number of years, but is currently inactive.

Internship lengths often reflect time periods designated by the academic calendar, occurring, for example, over the course of the fall or spring semester, or during the summer. On their websites, some congressional offices advertise three-week internships, whereas others expect interns to serve for multiple months. Internship lengths within the same office can vary too, depending on the intern's availability and the office's resource constraints.

There are no minimum lengths for House or Senate internships in statute, but certain considerations may affect the parameters offices choose for how long an internship should last. Congressional documents generally state that internships serve primarily as an educational experience. To meet this expectation, a congressional office may determine a minimum length for internships based on the amount of time it believes necessary to provide a sufficient learning opportunity.

More detailed guidance is available for the maximum length of internships. Paid interns in the House can serve no longer than 120 days during a 12-month period. For unpaid interns, House guidance for Member offices suggests that "limitations should be imposed on ... the duration of services any one volunteer may provide," to ensure "that such voluntary assistance does not supplant the normal and regular duties of paid employees." The Senate Handbook notes that an internship should be for a total period not exceeding 12 months, and the Office of Workplace Rights (formerly Office of Compliance) has previously suggested the same maximum length for internships.

10. Can interns receive congressional pay?

Interns may receive pay from the congressional office they work in, if the office decides to provide it. FY2019 appropriations for the House and Senate provide some designated funding for internships in Members' personal offices in each chamber. Members may also use their own office resources, such as from the Members' Representational Allowance (MRA) in the House and the Senators' Official Personnel and Office Expense Account (SOPOEA) in the Senate, to provide compensation for interns. Committees or other congressional offices may provide compensation for interns through their appropriate accounts designated for staff salaries. In the House, the Committee on House Administration has set a gross annual rate of pay for interns for Member and committee offices to follow.

Paid interns working in Washington, DC, may also be eligible for transit subsidies. Paid congressional interns are exempt from many of the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) that otherwise apply to congressional staff following the passage of the Congressional Accountability Act (CAA) in 1995, including minimum wage requirements and overtime compensation.

Previously, the Lyndon Baines Johnson Congressional Intern Program operated in the House from 1973 to 1994 and made two-month paid internships available for each Member office. Funds for this program have not been appropriated since the 103 rd Congress (1993-1994).

11. Can an intern be paid by another organization?

Many educational institutions or other organizations sponsor congressional internships, and interns may receive stipends from these groups for their internships. Some of these internship opportunities are listed in CRS Report 98-654, Internships, Fellowships, and Other Work Experience Opportunities in the Federal Government . Some of these organizations operate internship programs in conjunction with congressional caucuses or other congressional entities to place paid interns in congressional offices. This is permissible, as long as there is no conflict of interest presented during the course of the internship. Additionally, the House and Senate ethics committees note that Members or staff cannot raise funds for programs that place interns or fellows in their own offices. When an intern is sponsored by an outside entity, ethics guidance says the intern should not be given responsibilities that could result in a direct or indirect benefit to the sponsor. If an intern is paid by an outside organization, congressional offices might take steps to ensure that the intern's duties do not supplant the regular duties of official staff, as this could be considered a violation of rules that prohibit House Members from using outside resources to conduct their official duties.

12. Can an intern receive school credit?

The House and Senate expect that a congressional internship provides an educational experience but, institutionally, make no requirements that an intern receive school credit or be a currently enrolled student. Some congressional offices may choose to select interns on the basis of whether they will receive, or will not receive, academic credit for the experience. Each educational institution sets its own requirements for granting academic credit, and while some schools or academic departments encourage internships and grant academic credit for them, others do not allow students to receive academic credit for internships. School requirements may prevent a student from receiving academic credit for an internship experience that the intern may have personally found to be highly educational. A short internship, for example, may not meet a school's requirement for the number of hours served to receive credit.

13. How many interns can an office have?

There is no minimum required number of interns for each congressional office; offices are not obligated to hire any interns unless they choose to. If interns are unpaid, there is no cap on the maximum number of interns for either the House or Senate. Offices, however, may want to ensure there is enough office space for interns to work in, and that there is enough work available to provide interns with a sufficient educational experience. If interns are paid, there may be a maximum number of interns an office can employ, based on applicable staff ceiling rules for the office. Under 2 U.S.C. Section 5321, interns in House Member offices paid by the Members' MRA count against the applicable staff ceiling for House personal offices. Interns in House Member offices paid under the intern allowance provided by the FY2019 legislative branch appropriations act ( P.L. 115-244 , Â§120) do not count against the staff ceiling for House personal offices.

The number of interns in offices can fluctuate from year to year and within seasons during the year. During the summer, for example, offices commonly have more interns than during other parts of the year. For Member offices, the location of an internship in Washington, DC, or in a state or district office may also affect the number of interested and available interns.

14. Are there differences between district/state and DC internships?

The substance of the work performed in an internship may vary greatly between district/state offices and Washington, DC, offices if the roles assumed by those different Member offices vary. For example, an intern's tasks may involve more constituent service activities in a district or state office than they would in a Washington, DC, office where the emphasis may be more on legislative activities. The same House and Senate rules and policies generally apply to district or state office interns and to Washington, DC, office interns. Due to the high concentration of congressional interns on Capitol Hill, some training opportunities and congressional programs may be available to Washington, DC, interns, but not to interns serving in district or state offices further away.

House interns who are paid from the internship program funded in the FY2019 House appropriations bill ( P.L. 115-244 , Â§120) must be based in a Member's Washington, DC, office. For security purposes, interns in Washington, DC, offices can obtain a congressional ID badge, available from the Office of the Sergeant at Arms for the appropriate chamber. District or state office interns are also eligible to receive ID badges at the request of the employing Member office. ID badges are to be returned to the Office of the Sergeant at Arms upon completion of an internship.

15. Are there mandatory trainings for interns?

If interns are paid by Congress, then they are to take many of the mandatory trainings discussed below that new House or Senate employees are required to take. If interns are unpaid, however, fewer House or Senate trainings are mandatory for them. Because interns may be working with Congress or in a professional environment for the first time, congressional offices may want to have their interns attend additional trainings to better ensure they are prepared for their work and can represent the office appropriately.

All interns in the House of Representatives are required to complete a training session on workplace rights and responsibilities. Also in the House, any individual who has access to the House network needs to complete an information security training online. A paid intern who is employed for 60 days or more is to take a House ethics training, which is mandatory for new House employees. Unpaid interns or paid interns with a shorter internship are not required to take this ethics training. Other programs or courses offered by the House may be available to interns and helpful for their work duties.

The Senate Office of Education and Training provides a number of courses specifically designed for interns. A few, including harassment prevention and an overview of the Senate Code of Conduct, are listed as required courses, whereas others, like information security training, are listed as recommended or optional. Many of these courses are online and can be accessed via the Senate intranet in a state or Capitol Hill office. Other courses offered by the Senate Office of Education and Training or the Senate Library may be open to interns if space permits.

Interns who are expected by their offices to use Congressional Research Service (CRS) resources or place requests must attend the "Orientation Program for Interns and Volunteers" offered by CRS. Interns who might need to use the Library of Congress resources more broadly can sign up for a research orientation covering the Library's collections, resources, and policies. If interns are responsible for hosting tours of the U.S. Capitol, they may be advised to sign up for a tour-leader training course offered by the Architect of the Capitol.

16. What congressional programs are available for interns?

Each summer, the Committee on House Administration and the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration cosponsor the Congressional Summer Intern Lecture Series, providing congressional interns with insights about politics and policymaking from Members of Congress, other government officials, and journalists. The lectures are scheduled from June through August, and the days and times vary based on speaker availability.

Some programs and courses offered by CRS are open to congressional interns, provided that they have completed the CRS intern orientation. Current offerings are posted at http://www.crs.gov/events , and can help enrich the educational component of an intern's experience. Some video versions of past CRS events are also available at http://www.crs.gov/events/recordedevents , which may be helpful for district or state office interns.