Turkey: Background and U.S. Relations In Brief

Summary: The United States and Turkey have been NATO allies since 1952 and share some vital interests, but harmonizing their priorities can be difficult. These priorities sometimes diverge irrespective of who leads the two countries, based on contrasting geography, threat perceptions, and regional roles.

Summary: Turkey's core security and economic relationships and institutional links remain with Western nations, as reflected by some key U.S. military assets based in Turkey and Turkey's strong trade ties with the European Union. However, various factors complicate U.S.-Turkey relations. For example, Turkey relies to some degree on nations such as Russia and Iran for domestic energy needs and coordination on regional security, and therefore balances diplomatically between various actors. Additionally, Turkey's president and longtime leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan appears to be concerned that the United States and some other Western countries harbor sympathies for some of the groups that have been marginalized domestically under Erdogan. Also, Turkey has played a larger role in the Middle East since the 2000s, but has faced a number of setbacks and has problematic relations with Israel and most Sunni Arab countries other than Qatar.

Summary: Bilateral relations between the Trump Administration and the Erdogan government have been difficult, but have improved somewhat since October 2018, when a Turkish court allowed Pastor Andrew Brunson to return to the United States after a two-year imprisonment. The following are current points of tension in the U.S.-Turkey relationship.

Summary: F-35 aircraft acquisition endangered by possible S-400 acquisition from Russia. Turkey's planned purchase of an S-400 air defense system from Russia could trigger U.S. sanctions under existing law and decrease Turkey's chances of acquiring U.S.-origin F-35 aircraft. The possible S-400 transaction has sparked broader concern over Turkey's relationship with Russia and implications for NATO. U.S. officials seek to prevent the deal by offering Patriot air defense systems as an alternative to the S-400.

Summary: Syria and the Kurds. Turkey's political stances and military operations in Syria have fed U.S.-Turkey tensions, particularly regarding Kurdish-led militias supported by the United States against the Islamic State over Turkey's strong objections. President Trump's announcement in December 2018 that U.S. troops would withdraw from Syria came after a call with President Erdogan in which Erdogan accepted responsibility for countering the Islamic State in Syria. Efforts to coordinate U.S. and Turkish actions related to a U.S. withdrawal have triggered debate about the possible consequences of Turkish intervention in northeast Syria, especially for those Kurdish-led militias, which have links with the PKK (Kurdistan Workers' Party). The PKK is a U.S.-designated terrorist organization that originated in Turkey and wages an on-and-off insurgency against the Turkish government while using safe havens in both Syria and Iraq.

Summary: Congressional initiatives. Within the tense bilateral context, the 115th Congress required the Trump Administration—in the FY2019 John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA, P.L. 115-232)—to report on the status of U.S.-Turkey relations, with particular emphasis on the possible S-400 deal and its implications. The Department of Defense (DOD) submitted a mostly classified report to Congress in November 2018. Appropriations legislation proposed for FY2019 in the 116th Congress (H.R. 648) would require an update to the DOD report.

Summary: Turkey's domestic trajectory and financial distress. President Erdogan rules in an increasingly authoritarian manner, with his power further consolidated in June 2018 presidential and parliamentary elections. A number of developments (a globally stronger dollar, rule of law concerns and political uncertainty, significant corporate debt) led to a precipitous drop in the value of Turkey's currency during 2018. A major September 2018 interest rate hike by Turkey's central bank helped reverse some of the currency's downward slide, but concerns remain about Turkey's financial position and the possible consequences that higher interest rates might have for economic growth. Local elections are scheduled for March 2018 against the backdrop of these economic concerns.

Summary: The next steps in relations between the United States and Turkey will take place with Turkey facing a number of political and economic challenges. Given Erdogan's consolidation of power, observers now question how he will govern a polarized electorate and deal with the foreign actors who can affect Turkey's financial solvency, regional security, and political influence. U.S. officials and lawmakers can refer to Turkey's complex history, geography, domestic dynamics, and international relationships in evaluating how to encourage Turkey to align its policies with U.S. interests.

This report provides background information and analysis on the following topics:

Various aspects of U.S.-Turkey relations, including (1) Turkey's strategic orientation; (2) U.S./NATO cooperation and how a Turkish purchase of an S-400 air defense system from Russia could endanger its acquisition of U.S.-origin F-35 aircraft; (3) the situation in northern Syria, including with Kurdish-led militias; (4) criminal cases of note since the failed 2016 coup attempt in Turkey; and (5) congressional proposals. Domestic Turkish developments, including politics under President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's largely authoritarian and polarizing rule (with local elections scheduled for March 2019), and significant economic concerns.

For additional information, see CRS Report R41368, Turkey: Background and U.S. Relations , by Jim Zanotti and Clayton Thomas.

Turkey's Strategic Orientation in Question

Numerous points of bilateral tension have raised questions within the United States and Turkey about the two countries' alliance. Turkish actions and statements on a number of foreign policy issues have contributed to problems with the United States and its other NATO allies, fueling concern about Turkey's commitment to NATO and Western orientation. For its part, Turkey may bristle because it feels like it is treated as a junior partner, and may seek greater foreign policy diversification through stronger relationships with more countries. In the months since the apparent October 2018 killing of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi in Saudi Arabia's Istanbul consulate, some observers speculate that President Erdogan has sought to use information from the event to gain leverage in Turkey's dealings with the United States, and to boost Turkey's regional and global profile.

A number of considerations drive the complicated dynamics behind Turkey's international relationships. Turkey's history as both a regional power and an object of great power aggression translates into wide popularity for nationalistic political actions and discourse. This nationalistic sentiment might make some Turks wary of Turkey's partial reliance on other key countries (for example, the United States for security, European Union countries for trade and investment, and Russia and Iran for energy). Moreover, Turkey's cooperative relationships with countries whose respective interests may conflict involves a balancing act. Turkey's vulnerability to threats from Syria and Iraq increases the pressure on it to manage this balance. Involvement in Syria and Iraq by the United States, Russia, and Iran further complicates Turkey's situation. Additionally, grievances that President Erdogan and his supporters espouse against seemingly marginalized domestic foes (the military and secular elite who previously dominated Turkey, the Fethullah Gulen movement, Kurdish nationalists, and liberal activists) extend to the United States and Europe due to apparent suspicions of Western sympathies for these foes.

Turkey's Middle Eastern profile expanded in the 2000s as Erdogan (while serving as prime minister) sought to build economic and political linkages—often emphasizing shared Muslim identity—with Turkey's neighbors. However, efforts to increase Turkey's influence and offer it as a "model" for other regional states appear to have been set back by a number of developments since 2011: (1) conflict and instability that engulfed the region and Turkey's own southern border, (2) Turkey's failed effort to help Muslim Brotherhood-aligned groups gain lasting power in Syria and North Africa, and (3) domestic polarization accompanied by government repression. Although Turkey shares some interests with traditional Sunni Arab powers Saudi Arabia and Egypt in countering Iran, these countries' leaders regard Turkey suspiciously because of the Turkish government's Islamist sympathies and close relationship with Qatar. Turkey maintains relations with Israel, but these have become distant and—at times—contentious during Erdogan's rule.

Turkey's location near several global hotspots makes the continuing availability of its territory for the stationing and transport of arms, cargo, and personnel valuable for the United States and NATO. From Turkey's perspective, NATO's traditional value has been to mitigate its concerns about encroachment by neighbors. Turkey initially turned to the West largely as a reaction to aggressive post-World War II posturing by the Soviet Union. In addition to Incirlik air base near the southern Turkish city of Adana, other key U.S./NATO sites include an early warning missile defense radar in eastern Turkey and a NATO ground forces command in Izmir. Turkey also controls access to and from the Black Sea through its straits pursuant to the Montreux Convention of 1936.

Current tensions have fueled discussion from the U.S. perspective about the advisability of continued U.S./NATO use of Turkish bases. Reports in 2018 suggested that some Trump Administration officials were contemplating significant reductions in the U.S. presence in Turkey. There are historical precedents for such changes. On a number of occasions, the United States has withdrawn military assets from Turkey or Turkey has restricted U.S. use of its territory or airspace. These include the following:

196 2— Cuban Missile Crisis . The United States withdrew its nuclear-tipped Jupiter missiles from Turkey as part of the secret deal to end this crisis with the Soviet Union. 1975— Cyprus. Turkey closed most U.S. defense and intelligence installations in Turkey during the U.S. arms embargo that Congress imposed in response to Turkey's military intervention in Cyprus. 2003— Iraq. A Turkish parliamentary vote did not allow the United States to open a second front from Turkey in the Iraq war.

Some of the plotters of an unsuccessful coup attempt in Turkey in July 2016 apparently used Incirlik air base, causing temporary disruptions of some U.S. military operations. This may have eroded some trust between the two countries, while also raising U.S. questions about Turkey's stability and the safety and utility of Turkish territory for U.S. and NATO assets. As a result of these questions and U.S.-Turkey tensions, some observers have advocated exploring alternative basing arrangements in the region.

The cost to the United States of finding a replacement for Incirlik and other sites in Turkey would likely depend on a number of variables including the functionality and location of alternatives, where future U.S. military engagements may happen, and the political and economic difficulty involved in moving or expanding U.S. military operations elsewhere. While an August 2018 report cited a Department of Defense (DOD) spokesperson as saying that the United States is not leaving Incirlik, some reports suggest that expanded or potentially expanded U.S. military presences in Greece and Jordan might be connected with concerns about Turkey.

Calculating the costs and benefits to the United States of a U.S./NATO presence in Turkey, and of potential changes in U.S./NATO posture, revolves to a significant extent around three questions:

To what extent does strengthening Turkey relative to other regional actors serve U.S. interests? To what extent does the United States rely on the use of Turkish territory or airspace to secure and protect U.S. interests? To what extent does Turkey rely on U.S./NATO support, both politically and functionally, for its security and regional influence?

F-35 Aircraft Acquisition Endangered by Possible S-400 Acquisition from Russia

Turkey's plans to take delivery of an S-400 air defense system from Russia sometime in 2019 could hamper its acquisition of U.S.-origin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft. Turkey is a member of the international consortium that has developed the F-35, and plans to purchase 100 of the aircraft. Training on the F-35 for Turkish pilots is now underway on U.S. soil, and the first aircraft is reportedly scheduled to leave the United States for Turkey sometime in 2020.

Turkey justified its preliminary decision to acquire S-400s instead of U.S. or European alternatives by claiming that it turned to Russia because NATO allies rebuffed its attempts to purchase an air defense system from them. Turkey has also cited various practical reasons, including cost, technology sharing, and territorial defense coverage. However, one analysis from December 2017 asserted that the S-400 deal would not involve technology transfer, would not defend Turkey from ballistic missiles (because the system would not have access to NATO early-warning systems), and could weaken rather than strengthen Turkey's geopolitical position by increasing Turkish dependence on Russia.

For some observers, the S-400 issue raises the possibility that Russia could take advantage of U.S.-Turkey friction to undermine the NATO alliance. Previously, in 2013, Turkey reached a preliminary agreement to purchase a Chinese air and missile defense system, but later (in 2015) withdrew from the deal, perhaps partly due to concerns voiced within NATO, as well as China's reported reluctance to share technology.

While U.S. officials express desires to avoid disruptions to the F-35's manufacture and rollout, they also express concern that Turkey's potential operation of the S-400 alongside the F-35 could compromise sensitive technology. According to one analysis, "the Pentagon fears that Turkey's operation of the S-400 would allow the Russian military to study how the F-35 stealth fighters [show up on] Russian-built air defense radars, and potentially facilitate the infiltration of [the F-35] computer system. This could compromise the F-35's effectiveness around the world." According to one Turkish press report, Turkey has taken a step intended to assuage U.S. concerns by insisting on an arrangement that allows Turkish technicians to operate the S-400 without Russian involvement, and Turkey may also allow U.S. officials to examine the S-400.

Congress has enacted legislation that has subjected the F-35 transfer to greater scrutiny. Under Section 1282 of the FY2019 John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act ( P.L. 115-232 ), DOD submitted a report to Congress in November 2018 on a number of issues affecting U.S.-Turkey defense cooperation, including the S-400 and F-35.

Much of the report was classified, but an unclassified summary said that the U.S. government has told Turkey that purchasing the S-400 would have "unavoidable negative consequences for U.S.-Turkey bilateral relations, as well as Turkey's role in NATO," including

potential sanctions against Turkey under Section 231 of the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA, P.L. 115-44 ); risk to Turkish participation in the F-35 program (both aircraft acquisition and industrial workshare); risk to other potential U.S. arms transfers to Turkey, and to broader bilateral defense industrial cooperation; reduction in NATO interoperability; and introduction of "new vulnerabilities from Turkey's increased dependence on Russia for sophisticated military equipment."

U.S. Offer of Patriot System as Alternative to S-400

In July 2018, a State Department official confirmed ongoing U.S. efforts to persuade Turkey to purchase a Patriot air defense system instead of an S-400. However, in October 2018, Turkish Defense Minister Hulusi Akar said that talks with U.S. and European air defense system suppliers had "not yielded desired results," and announced plans for Turkey to begin deploying the S-400 in October 2019. Previously, Turkish officials had indicated some concern about whether Congress would approve a Patriot sale, perhaps because of some congressional opposition for other arms sales to Turkey.

The unclassified summary of the November 2018 DOD report to Congress indicated that U.S. officials were continuing to offer a Patriot system to Turkey:

The Administration has developed an alternative package to provide Turkey with a strong, capable, NATO-interoperable air and missile defense system that meets all of Turkey's defense requirements. Parts of the package require Congressional Notification. Congressional support for Foreign Military Sales and Direct Commercial Sales to Turkey is essential to provide a real alternative that would encourage Turkey to walk away from a damaging S-400 acquisition.

In December 2018, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) notified Congress that "the State Department has made a determination approving a possible Foreign Military Sale [FMS] of eighty (80) Patriot MIM-104E Guidance Enhanced Missiles (GEM-T) missiles, sixty (60) PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement (MSE) missiles and related equipment for an estimated cost of $3.5 billion."

Reportedly, discussions between U.S. and Turkish officials over a Patriot sale are ongoing. Turkish officials have stated their intention to proceed with the S-400 purchase regardless of how negotiations over the Patriot sale proceed. In 2009, DSCA notified Congress of a possible FMS to Turkey of Patriot missiles and associated equipment, but the countries did not enter into a transaction for that equipment. Since 2007, Turkey has solicited a number of outside bids to sell it an air defense system, but has not finalized a transaction to date.

Turkey's involvement in Syria's conflict since 2011 has been complicated and costly. During that time, Turkey's priorities in Syria appear to have evolved. While Turkey still officially calls for Syrian President Bashar al Asad to leave power, it has engaged in a mix of coordination and competition with Russia and Iran (Asad's supporters) on some matters since intervening militarily in Syria starting in August 2016. Turkey may be seeking to protect its borders, project influence, promote commerce, and counter other actors' regional ambitions.

Turkey's chief objective has been to thwart the Syrian Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG) from establishing an autonomous area along Syria's northern border with Turkey. The YPG has links with the PKK (Kurdistan Workers' Party), a U.S.-designated terrorist organization that for decades has waged an on-and-off insurgency against the Turkish government while using safe havens in both Syria and Iraq. Turkey appears to view the YPG and its political counterpart, the Democratic Union Party (PYD), as the top threat to its security, given the boost the YPG/PYD's military and political success could provide to the PKK's insurgency within Turkey. The YPG plays a leading role in the umbrella group known as the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), which also includes Arabs and other non-Kurdish elements.

Since 2014, the SDF has been the main U.S. ground force partner against the Islamic State (IS, also known as ISIS/ISIL). Even though Turkey is also a part of the anti-IS coalition, U.S. operations in support of the SDF—largely based from Turkish territory—has fueled U.S.-Turkey tension because of Turkey's view of the YPG as a threat. As part of SDF operations to expel the Islamic State from the Syrian city of Raqqah in 2017, the U.S. government pursued a policy of arming the YPG directly while preventing the use of such arms against Turkey, and Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis announced an end to the direct arming of the YPG near the end of the year. Following the Raqqah operation, U.S. officials contrasted their long-standing alliance with Turkey with their current but temporary cooperation with the YPG.

After Turkey moved against IS-held territory in northern Syria as a way to prevent the YPG from consolidating its rule across much of the border area between the two countries (Operation Euphrates Shield, August 2016-March 2017), Turkey launched an offensive directly against the YPG in the Afrin province in January 2018. In Afrin and the other areas Turkey has occupied since 2016 with the help of allied Syrian opposition militias (see Figure 2 below) , Turkey has organized local councils and invested in infrastructure . Q uestions persist about how deeply Turkey will influence future governance in these areas .

Implications of Announced U.S. Withdrawal

President Trump's announcement in December 2018 that the United States would withdraw approximately 2,000 U.S. troops stationed in Syria has major implications for Turkey and the YPG. The announcement came shortly after a call between Presidents Trump and Erdogan, during which Trump reportedly accepted Erdogan's offer to take responsibility for countering the Islamic State in Syria. U.S. officials have been cited as saying that U.S. troops will redeploy from Syria by summer 2019.

How a U.S. withdrawal would happen remains unclear, as does how Turkey and the many other actors in Syria would respond. Turkey has refused to agree to a demand from National Security Advisor John Bolton to guarantee the YPG's safety, with Erdogan insisting that Turkey should have a free hand with the YPG and other groups it considers to be terrorists. In January, amid reports that the U.S. military had begun preparing for withdrawal, President Trump tweeted that he would "devastate Turkey economically" if it hit the Kurds, and at the same time proposed the creation of a 20-mile-deep "safe zone" on the Syria side of the border. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo later said that the U.S. "twin aims" are to make sure that those who helped take down the IS caliphate have security, and to prevent terrorists from attacking Turkey out of Syria. Some sources suggest that U.S. officials favor having a Western coalition patrol any kind of buffer zone inside the Syrian border, with some U.S. support, while Turkey wants its forces and Syrian rebel partners to take that role.

Uncertainty surrounding the announced U.S. withdrawal from northeast Syria also applies to how Turkish forces might operate there. One analyst calculates that additional Turkish military intervention might focus on areas, such as Tal Abyad (aka Tell Abiad), that are less historically Kurdish than others, in an effort to reduce the YPG's control over territorially contiguous regions. Some observers express doubts that Turkish-supported militias would be able to counter the Islamic State as effectively as the YPG-led SDF, and one journalist has stated concerns about what could happen to the IS foreign fighters held by the SDF if Turkey clashes with the YPG. Turkish officials have requested U.S. air and logistical support for their potential operations, despite the two countries' different stances on the YPG. In a New York Times column in January, President Erdogan envisioned that if Turkish-backed forces gain control of predominantly Kurdish areas in Syria currently under YPG rule, these regions would be run by popularly elected local councils advised by Turkish officials. Various analyses surmise that a U.S. troop withdrawal would lead the YPG toward an accommodation with Russia and the Syrian government. A reference by Russian President Vladimir Putin to the 1998 Adana Protocol between Turkey and Syria suggests that Russia may seek to limit direct Turkish involvement in Syria under the premise that Syria's government would take greater responsibility for constraining YPG actions.

How U.S.-Turkey coordination plays out in northeastern Syria could influence Turkey's presence in western Syria, particularly in key contested areas like the town of Manbij and Idlib province. Russia and the Syrian government have sent forces near Manbij, possibly as a check on Turkish personnel there who are intent on eradicating YPG influence from the town. In Idlib, Turkey-backed forces stationed at points around the province appear to have failed to prevent territorial gains by Al Qaeda-linked Hayat Tahrir al Sham (HTS) jihadists who also oppose the Syrian government. The HTS gains in Idlib may lead to a Russian-backed Syrian military operation there with the potential for new refugee flows to Turkey.

Various Criminal Cases After 2016 Coup Attempt

A number of cases involving criminal allegations or detentions have generated controversy between the United States and Turkey since the July 2016 coup attempt in Turkey. Shortly after the attempt, Turkey's government called for the extradition of Fethullah Gulen (the U.S.-based former cleric whom Turkey's government has accused of involvement in the plot), and the matter remains pending before U.S. officials. Since the coup attempt, sharp criticism of U.S. actions related to Gulen's case has significantly increased in Turkish media. Additionally, Turkey's government has dismissed around 130,000 Turks from government posts, detained more than 60,000, and taken over or closed various businesses, schools, and media outlets. The government's measures appear to have targeted many who are not connected with Gulen.

As part of Turkish authorities' postcoup crackdown, they detained Pastor Andrew Brunson (who was released, after a two-year imprisonment, in October 2018) and a number of other U.S. citizens (most of them dual U.S.-Turkish citizens), along with Turkish employees of the U.S. government. Reports suggest that Congress and the State Department are trying to obtain the release of those currently detained, though the Administration lifted sanctions on senior Turkish officials following Pastor Brunson's release.

Separately, two prominent Turkish citizens with government ties were arrested by U.S. authorities in 2016 and 2017 for conspiring to evade sanctions on Iran. One, Reza Zarrab, received immunity for cooperating with prosecutors, while the other, Mehmet Hakan Atilla, was convicted and sentenced in May 2018 to 32 months in prison. The case was repeatedly denounced by Turkish leaders, who reportedly expressed concern about the potential implications for Turkey's economy if the case led U.S. officials to impose penalties on Turkish banks. This has not yet happened.

Bilateral tensions contributed to various legislative proposals by Members of Congress during the 115 th Congress. The most significant congressional action against Turkey to date has been an arms embargo that Congress enacted in response to Turkish military intervention in Cyprus. That embargo lasted from 1975 to 1978.

In the 116 th Congress, the House-passed Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 ( H.R. 648 ) contains foreign aid provisions that also have been introduced in the Senate Appropriations Committee. Section 7046(d) of H.R. 648 includes the following proposals regarding Turkey:

Requiring DOD to update its FY2019 NDAA report to Congress on Turkey's possible S-400 acquisition. The update, including a detailed description of plans to impose sanctions under CAATSA, is required by November 1, 2019. Until the report is submitted, funding cannot be used to transfer F-35 aircraft to Turkey. Restricting transfer of arms to Turkish P residential Protection Directorate (TPPD) . This restriction, which is subject to a few exceptions, would apply unless the State Department reports to Congress that members of the TPPD who were involved in a violent incident against protestors during a May 2017 Washington, DC, trip by President Erdogan have been "brought to justice."

H.R. 648 is less stringent than an earlier FY2019 appropriations bill ( S. 3108 ) from the 115 th Congress that would have prohibited transferring F-35s to Turkey if it purchased the S-400, and would have denied entry to senior Turkish officials involved in detaining U.S. citizens.

Political Developments Under Erdogan's Rule

President Erdogan has ruled Turkey since becoming prime minister in 2003. After Erdogan became president in August 2014 via Turkey's first-ever popular presidential election, he claimed a mandate for increasing his power and pursuing a "presidential system" of governance. Analyses of Erdogan sometimes characterize him as one or more of the following: a pragmatic populist, a protector of the vulnerable, a budding authoritarian, an indispensable figure, and an Islamic ideologue.

Erdogan's consolidation of power has continued amid domestic and international concerns about growing authoritarianism in Turkey. He outlasted the July 2016 coup attempt, and then scored victories in the April 2017 constitutional referendum and the June 2018 presidential and parliamentary elections—emerging with the expanded powers he had sought. Some allegations of voter fraud and manipulation surfaced in both elections. U.S. and European Union officials have expressed a number of concerns about rule of law and civil liberties in Turkey, including the government's influence on media and Turkey's reported status as the country with the most journalists in prison.

While there may be some similarities between Turkey under Erdogan and countries like Russia, Iran, or China, some factors distinguish Turkey from them. For example, unlike Russia or Iran, Turkey's economy cannot rely on significant rents from natural resources if foreign sources of revenue or investment dry up. Unlike Russia and China, Turkey does not have nuclear weapons under its command and control. Additionally, unlike all three others, Turkey's economic, political, and national security institutions and traditions have been closely connected with those of the West for decades.

Erdogan is a polarizing figure, with about half the country supporting his rule, and half the country against it. To obtain a parliamentary majority in the June 2018 elections, Erdogan's Islamist-leaning Justice and Development Party ( Adalet ve Kalkinma Partisi , or AKP) relied on a coalition with the Nationalist Action Party ( Milliyet Halk Partisi , or MHP). The MHP is the country's traditional Turkish nationalist party, and is known for opposing political accommodation with the Kurds. Local elections scheduled for March 2019 could be a significant barometer of domestic support for Erdogan under the difficult economic circumstances described below.

The Turkish economy appears to be slowing down, with negative consequences both for consumer demand and for companies seeking or repaying loans in global markets. Economic growth was down from over 7% in 2017 to around 3% in 2018, with forecasts for 2019 at or below 1%. By the end of 2018, inflation had essentially doubled year-on-year to more than 20%. During 2018, the Turkish lira depreciated close to 30% against the dollar in an environment featuring a globally stronger dollar, rule of law concerns and political uncertainty, and significant corporate debt. In August 2018, amid U.S.-Turkey tensions on the Pastor Brunson matter, President Trump announced a doubling of tariffs on Turkish steel and aluminum imports. This prompted retaliatory action from Turkey. The lira plunged in value, but recovered somewhat in the final months of 2018 after Turkey's central bank raised its key interest rate by 6.25% in September. In November 2018, the United States granted Turkey (along with seven other countries) a six-month exception from U.S. sanctions on Iranian oil.

Some observers speculate that Turkey may need to turn to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for a financial assistance package. This would be a sensitive challenge for President Erdogan because his political success story is closely connected with helping Turkey become independent from its most recent IMF intervention in the early 2000s. Before the central bank's rate hike in September 2018, some commentators voiced concerns about the bank's independence as Erdogan publicly opposed increasing rates. In January 2019, Turkey's parliament voted to grant Erdogan broader emergency powers in case of a financial crisis.

The government appears to be trying to stimulate growth via familiar measures to boost consumer demand. A former Turkish economic official has claimed that by offloading the "debt crisis of the real sector" onto the banking sector, the government has exacerbated the crisis. In his opinion, a "harsh belt-tightening policy" with or without the IMF is thus inevitable after the March 2018 local elections.


Public Safety Officers’ Benefits (PSOB) and Public Safety Officers’ Educational Assistance (PSOEA) Programs

Summary: The Public Safety Officers' Benefits (PSOB) program provides cash benefits to federal, state, and local law enforcement officers; firefighters; employees of emergency management agencies; and members of emergency medical services agencies who are killed or permanently and totally disabled as the result of personal injuries sustained in the line of duty. The Public Safety Officers' Educational Assistance (PSOEA) program, a component of the PSOB program, provides higher-education assistance to the children and spouses of public safety officers killed or permanently disabled in the line of duty.

Summary: The PSOB and PSOEA programs are administered by the Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA). However, claimants dissatisfied with denials of benefits may pursue administrative appeals within DOJ and may seek judicial review before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Summary: Each year, Congress appropriates funding for PSOB death benefits, which is considered mandatory spending, and for PSOB disability benefits and PSOEA benefits, which is subject to annual appropriations.

Summary: For FY2019, the one-time lump-sum PSOB death and disability benefit is $359,316 and the PSOEA monthly benefit for a student attending an educational institution full-time is $1,224.

Summary: In FY2017, the DOJ approved 399 claims for PSOB death benefits, 82 claims for PSOB disability benefits, and 601 claims for PSOEA benefits.

T he Public Safety Officers' Benefits (PSOB) program provides cash benefits to federal, state, and local law enforcement officers; firefighters; employees of emergency management agencies; and members of emergency medical services agencies who are killed or permanently and totally disabled as the result of personal injuries sustained in the line of duty. The Public Safety Officers' Educational Assistance (PSOEA) program, a component of the PSOB program, provides higher-education assistance to the children and spouses of public safety officers killed or permanently disabled in the line of duty. Both programs are administered by the PSOB Office of the Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA).

Congress appropriates funds for these programs in the annual Departments of Commerce and Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. For FY2019, the one-time lump-sum PSOB benefit is $359,316 and the monthly full-time attendance PSOEA assistance is $1,224. The PSOB and PSOEA benefit amounts are indexed to reflect changes in the cost of living.

Table 1 shows PSOB and PSOEA claims and approvals as reported by DOJ.

Public Safety Officers' Benefits Program

To be eligible for PSOB benefits for death or disability, a person must have served in one of the following categories of public safety officers:

law enforcement officer, firefighter, or chaplain in a public agency; FEMA employee or a state, local, or tribal emergency management agency employee; or emergency medical services member.

There is no minimum amount of time a person must have served to be eligible for benefits.

Law Enforcement Officer, Firefighter, or Chaplain

To be eligible for PSOB benefits as a law enforcement officer, firefighter, or chaplain, a person must have served in a "public agency" in an official capacity, with or without compensation. For the purposes of PSOB eligibility, a public agency is defined as

the federal government and any department, agency, or instrumentality of the federal government; and any state government, the District of Columbia government, and any U.S. territory or possession; and any local government, department, agency, or instrumentality of a state, the District of Columbia, or any U.S. territory or possession.

For the purposes of PSOB eligibility, a law enforcement officer is defined as "an individual involved in crime and juvenile delinquency control or reduction, or enforcement of the criminal laws (including juvenile delinquency), including, but not limited to, police, corrections, probation, parole, and judicial officers."

For the purposes of PSOB eligibility, the definition of firefighter includes both professional firefighters and persons serving as an "officially recognized or designated member of a legally organized volunteer fire department."

A chaplain is eligible for PSOB benefits (1) if he or she is either an "officially recognized or designated member of a legally organized volunteer fire department or legally organized police department" or public employee of a police or fire department and (2) only if he or she was performing the duties of a chaplain in an official capacity while responding to a police, fire, or rescue emergency.

Employees of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and state, local, or tribal emergency management agencies may be eligible for PSOB benefits under certain conditions provided in statute. A FEMA employee or an employee of a state, local, or tribal emergency management agency working with FEMA is eligible for PSOB benefits if he or she is performing official duties that are related to a major disaster or an emergency declared under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act) and that are considered hazardous by the FEMA Administrator or the head of the state, local, or tribal agency.

A member, including a volunteer member, of a rescue squad or "ambulance crew" who is authorized or licensed by law and the applicable agency and is engaging in rescue services or providing emergency medical services may be eligible for PSOB benefits. The rescue squad or ambulance service may provide ground or air ambulance services and may be either a public agency or a nonprofit entity authorized to provide rescue or emergency medical services. By PSOB regulation, eligible emergency medical services workers include rescue workers, ambulance drivers, paramedics, health care responders, emergency medical technicians, or others who are trained in rescue activity or emergency medical services and have the legal authority and responsibility to provide such services.

The PSOB program pays benefits if a public safety officer becomes permanently and totally disabled or dies "as the direct and proximate result of a personal injury sustained in the line of duty."

To qualify for coverage under the PSOB program, a public safety officer's disability or death must have been the result of a personal injury. The PSOB regulation defines an injury for the purposes of benefit eligibility as

a traumatic physical wound (or a traumatized physical condition of the body) directly and proximately caused by external force (such as bullets, explosives, sharp instruments, blunt objects, or physical blows), chemicals, electricity, climatic conditions, infectious disease, radiation, virii, or bacteria ...

The regulation also provides that the definition of an injury does not include an occupational disease or a condition of the body caused by stress or strain, including psychological conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder. However, the PSOB statute specifically provides for deaths caused by certain cardiovascular conditions.

Presumption of Injury Status for Heart Attack, Stroke, or Vascular Rupture

The death of a public safety officer due to a heart attack, stroke, or vascular rupture shall be presumed to be a death from a personal injury for the purposes of PSOB eligibility if the officer engaged in nonroutine stressful or strenuous physical activity as part of an emergency response or training exercise; and if the condition began during the physical activity, while the officer remained on duty after the physical activity, or within 24 hours of the physical activity.

The PSOB program covers a public safety officer's death or disability if it occurred as the result of an injury incurred in the line of duty. The PSOB regulations provide that an injury occurs in the line of duty if it (1) is the result of the public safety officer's authorized activities while on duty, (2) occurs while responding to an emergency or request for assistance, or (3) occurs while commuting to or from duty in an authorized department or personal vehicle. In addition, if there is convincing evidence that the injury was the result of the individual's status as a public safety officer, that injury is covered by the PSOB program.

The lump-sum PSOB death and disability benefit for FY2019 is $359,316. The benefit amount is adjusted annually to reflect changes in the cost of living using the annual percentage change in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for the one-year period ending in the previous June. If a public safety officer receives a disability benefit and later dies from the same injury, the officer's survivors may not receive a PSOB death benefit.

The payable benefit amount is based on the date of the public safety officer's death or the date of the injury that caused the disability, rather than on the date of application for benefits or disability determination. Thus, if a benefit increase occurs while an application is pending, the benefit is payable at the previous, lower, benefit level.

Death and disability benefits are not subject to the federal income tax. In general, PSOB death and disability benefits are paid in addition to any other workers' compensation, life insurance, or other benefits paid for the death of a public safety officer. However, the PSOB death benefit is offset by the following benefits:

benefits under the Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA) payable to state and local law enforcement officers injured or killed while enforcing federal law; benefits under the D.C. Retirement and Disability Act of 1916 for certain police officers and firefighters in the District of Columbia; and payments from the September 11 th Victim Compensation Fund (VCF).

PSOB death benefits are payable to the eligible spouse and children of a public safety officer. A spouse is the person to whom the officer is legally married, even if physically separated, under the marriage laws of the jurisdiction where the marriage took place. Pursuant to regulations issued after the Supreme Court struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act in United States v. Windsor , the legally married spouse of a public safety office may be of the same sex as the officer.

A child is defined as any "natural, illegitimate, adopted, or posthumous child or stepchild" of the public safety officer who, at the time of the public safety officer's fatal or catastrophic injury, is

18 years of age or under; between 18 and 23 years of age and a full-time student in high school or undergraduate higher education; or over 18 years of age and incapable of self-support because of physical or mental disability.

PSOB death benefits are paid to eligible survivors in the following order:

1. if the officer is survived by only a spouse, 100% of the death benefits are payable to the spouse; 2. if the officer is survived by a spouse and children, 50% of the death benefits are payable to the spouse and the remaining 50% is distributed equally among the officer's children; 3. if the officer is survived by only children, the death benefits are equally distributed among the officer's children; 4. if the officer has no surviving spouse or children, the death benefits are paid to the individual or individuals designated by the officer in the most recently executed designation of beneficiary on file at the time of the officer's death; or if the officer does not have a designation of beneficiary on file, the benefits are paid to the individual or individuals designated by the officer in the most recently executed life insurance policy on file at the time of the officer's death; 5. if the officer has no surviving spouse or eligible children, and the officer does not have a life insurance policy, the death benefits are equally distributed between the officer's surviving parents; or 6. if the officer has no surviving spouse, eligible children, or parents, and the officer did not have a designation of beneficiary or a life insurance policy on file at the time of his or her death, the death benefits are payable to surviving adult, nondependent, children of the officer.

PSOB disability benefits are paid only in cases of permanent and total disability. There are no benefits payable for partial or short-term disabilities. A disability is considered permanent for the purposes of PSOB eligibility if, given the current state of medicine in the United States, there is a degree of medical certainty that the condition will remain constant or deteriorate over the person's lifetime or that the public safety officer has reached maximum medical improvement. A public safety officer is considered to be totally disabled for the purposes of PSOB eligibility if given the current state of medicine in the United States, there is a degree of medical certainty that the officer is unable to perform any gainful work. PSOB regulation defines gainful work as "full- or part-time activity that is compensated or commonly compensated."

Applications for PSOB death and disability benefits are filed with the PSOB office, which determines benefit eligibility and commences benefit payment. Unless extended for good cause, application deadlines must be met. Complete benefit applications must be filed no later than

for death benefits: three years after the death; one year after the determination of the officer's employing agency to award or deny death benefits payable by that agency; or one year after certification by the officer's employing agency that the agency is not authorized to pay any death benefits; and for disability benefits: three years after the date of the injury; one year after the determination of the officer's employing agency to award or deny workers' compensation or disability benefits payable by that agency; or one year after certification by the officer's employing agency that the agency is not authorized to pay any workers' compensation or disability benefits.

A lump-sum interim payment of up to $3,000 may be made if a PSOB death benefit will "probably be paid." The interim payment amount reduces the final PSOB payment amount. If the ultimate decision is to deny death benefits, the interim payment must be returned to the federal government, unless this repayment is waived because it would create a hardship for the beneficiary.

Section 611 of the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (USA PATRIOT Act; P.L. 107-56 ) provides for expedited payment of PSOB death and disability benefits if the officer's injury occurred "in connection with prevention, investigation, rescue, or recovery efforts related to a terrorist attack." In such cases, PSOB benefits must be paid within 30 days of certification from the officer's employing agency that the officer's death or disability was related to terrorism.

Public Safety Officers' Educational Assistance Program

The Public Safety Officers' Education Assistance (PSOEA) program provides financial assistance with costs associated with higher education to the spouse or children of a public safety officer who is eligible for PSOB death or disability benefits.

The spouse or child of a public safety officer who is eligible for PSOB death or disability benefits may be eligible for PSOEA benefits. To be eligible for PSOEA benefits, a spouse must have been married to an eligible public safety officer at the time of the officer's death or injury. A child is eligible for PSOEA benefits until the age of 27. This age limit can be extended by the Attorney General in extraordinary circumstances, or, pursuant to Section 3 of the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Improvement Act of 2017 ( P.L. 115-36 ), if there is a delay of more than one year in approving PSOB or PSOEA benefits.

In addition, to be eligible for PSOEA benefits, the spouse or child must be enrolled at an eligible educational institution. For the purposes of PSOEA eligibility, an eligible education institution is one that meets the definition of an "institution of higher education" as provided by Section 102 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 and that is eligible for federal student aid.

PSOEA benefits are payable to the claimant and may be used only to defray costs associated with higher education attendance, including tuition, room, board, book and supplies, and education-related fees. The monthly PSOEA benefit amount is equal to the monthly benefit amount payable under the GI Bill Survivors' and Dependents' Educational Assistance (DEA) program, which is administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for spouses and dependents of veterans with disabilities or who died as a result of service-connected conditions. The PSOEA benefit amounts are adjusted annually to reflect changes in the cost of living in accordance with changes to the GI Bill DEA benefit amounts. For FY2019, the PSOEA monthly benefit for a student attending an educational institution full-time is $1,224. The PSOEA benefit rates are prorated for less than full-time attendance.

The maximum duration of PSOEA benefits for any person is 45 months of full-time education or a proportionate duration of part-time education. A person is ineligible for PSOEA if he or she is in default on a federal student loan or is ineligible for federal benefits due to a drug trafficking or drug possession conviction. In addition, the Attorney General may discontinue PSOEA benefits for a student that fails to make satisfactory progress in his or her course of study as defined by Section 484(c) of the Higher Education Act of 1965.

A claimant who is dissatisfied with a PSOB disability benefit denial may request a reconsideration. There is no reconsideration offered for denials of PSOB death or PSOEA benefits. A claimant who is dissatisfied with a PSOB or PSOEA benefit denial may request a de novo hearing before a hearing officer assigned by the director of the DOJ PSOB Office. The determination of a hearing officer may be appealed to the PSOB Office director. The director's determination is considered the final agency determination and is not subject to any further agency administrative review or appeal. However, provided all administrative appeals remedies have been exhausted, the PSOB Office director's determination may be appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

The PSOB statute authorizes the BJA to prescribe the maximum fee that an attorney or other representative may charge a claimant for services rendered in connection with a claim, with attorney fees generally limited to between 3% and 6% of the total benefit paid, depending on the level in the administrative appeals process the claim is approved. Program regulation prohibits stipulated-fee and contingency-fee arrangements for PSOB representation.

Congress provides funding for PSOB and PSOE benefits and associated administrative expenses in the annual Departments of Commerce and Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. Funding for PSOB death benefits and associated administrative expenses is considered mandatory spending and Congress appropriates "such sums as may be necessary" for the payment of these benefits. Funding for PSOB disability and PSOEA benefits is considered discretionary and is subject to specific congressional appropriations. Annual appropriations language grants the Attorney General the authority to transfer from any available appropriations to the DOJ the funds necessary to respond to emergent circumstances that require additional funding for PSOB disability benefits and PSOEA benefits.


Tracking Federal Awards: USAspending.gov and Other Data Sources

Summary: USAspending.gov, available at http://www.USAspending.gov, is a government source for data on federal awards by state, congressional district (CD), county, and zip code. The awards data in USAspending.gov are provided by federal agencies and represent contracts, grants, loans, and other forms of financial assistance. USAspending.gov also provides tools for examining the broader picture of federal spending obligations by categories, such as budget function, agency, and object class.

Summary: Using USAspending.gov to locate and compile accurate data on federal awards can be challenging due, in part, to continuing data quality issues that have been identified by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). Users of USAspending.gov need to be aware that while search results may be useful for informing consideration of certain questions, these results may be incomplete or contain inaccuracies.

Summary: USAspending.gov was created under P.L. 109-282, the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (FFATA), and is being enhanced under requirements in P.L. 113-101, the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 (DATA Act).

Summary: Other federal awards data sources reviewed in this report include the following:

Summary: Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS); Census Federal Audit Clearinghouse; U.S. Budget: Aid to State and Local Governments; Census Federal Aid to States (FAS) and Consolidated Federal Funds Report (CFFR); and Additional federal grant awards databases, including sources tracking medical, scientific, and technical research.

USAspending.gov, available to the public at http://www.usaspending.gov , is a government source for data on federal grants, contracts, loans, and other financial assistance. The website enables searching of federal awards from FY2008 to the present by state, congressional district (CD), county, and zip code. Grant awards include money the federal government commits for projects in states, local jurisdictions, regions, territories, and tribal reservations, as well as payments for eligible needs to help individuals and families. Contract awards refer to bids and agreements the federal government makes for specific goods and services.

USAspending.gov also provides tools for examining the broader picture of federal spending obligations by categories, such as budget function, agency, and object class. Budget function refers to the major purpose that the spending serves, such as Social Security, Medicare, and national defense. Object class refers to the type of item or service purchased by the federal government, such as grants, contracts, and personnel compensation and benefits.

For Congress, the ability to more accurately track these federal awards is necessary to better inform oversight of federal spending. In recent years, Congress has passed laws to create and improve systems used by government departments and agencies to report and input data on federal awards for contracts, grants, and other financial assistance:

P.L. 109-282 , the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (FFATA), called for the creation of a database that became USAspending.gov. The publicly available database replaced data collection and annual reports issued for more than 30 years in the Census Bureau's Federal Aid to States (FAS) report and Consolidated Federal Funds Report (CFFR). P.L. 111-5 , the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), required federal agencies awarding stimulus funding and state and local recipients of such funding to report spending back to the ARRA Recovery Board; this reporting also became a part of USAspending.gov. P.L. 113-101 , the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 (DATA Act), transferred responsibility for USAspending.gov from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to the Department of the Treasury and required that expenditures data be added to the federal agency obligations data already included in the USAspending.gov database. The DATA Act also required Treasury and OMB to develop government-wide data standardization to facilitate consolidating, automating, and simplifying reports on grant awards and contracts and to improve USAspending.gov underreporting and inconsistencies.

However, finding accurate and complete data on federal funds received by states and congressional districts continues to be challenging due to ongoing data quality problems identified by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in June 2014. A GAO report released in November 2017 assessed the quality of data reported by agencies in May 2017 under new DATA Act standards. GAO identified issues and challenges with the completeness and accuracy of the data submitted, use of data elements, and disclosure of data limitations on what was, at the time, a beta version of the new USAspending.gov website. The beta version has since become the official site as of March 2018 and the previous version is no longer available. According to a note on the site, data quality and display improvements will be continually made on a rolling basis. Users of USAspending.gov should be aware that although search results may be useful for informing consideration of certain questions, these results may also be incomplete or contain inaccuracies.

FFATA required OMB to create a public database of all federal funds awarded to the final recipient level. The DATA Act followed eight years later and required the Department of the Treasury and OMB to develop government-wide data standardization to consolidate, automate, and simplify reports on grant awards and contracts to improve underreporting and inconsistencies as identified by GAO. These requirements in the DATA Act were intended to expand on the transparency efforts originally mandated by FFATA, specifically by

disclosing direct agency expenditures and linking federal contract, loan, and grant spending information to federal agency programs; establishing government-wide data standards for financial data and providing consistent, reliable, and searchable data that are displayed accurately; simplifying reporting, streamlining reporting requirements, and reducing compliance costs, while improving transparency; and improving the quality of data submitted to USAspending.gov by holding agencies accountable.

In addition, no later than four years after enactment (by spring 2018), Treasury and OMB must ensure that all information published on USAspending.gov conforms to government-wide data standards. OMB is also required to issue guidance so that all agencies can follow government-wide data standards when reporting on grantee and contractor awards.

The data in USAspending.gov are submitted by federal agencies and represent awards, including grants, contracts, loans, and other financial assistance (e.g., Medicare benefits, food stamps, unemployment benefits). USAspending.gov does not include data on actual spending by recipients. Federal agencies are required to submit reports on awards transactions within 30 days after transactions are implemented. There may be a longer lag-time with data from the Department of Defense, generally 90 days.

USAspending.gov enables congressional staff and the public to search back to FY2008 for prime and subaward data by state, congressional district, and other jurisdictions. The site includes the following features:

Advanced Award Search of prime and subaward data back to FY2008 allows filtering by award type, awarding agency, recipient, country, state, zip, county, CD, and other criteria. To identify where money is being spent, search on Place of Performance versus Recipient Location . Search results include awards that are active during the selected fiscal year, regardless of when the award initially started. Details on an individual award, including transaction history and subawards, may be viewed by clicking on the Award ID . The results list displayed can be downloaded at either the award or transaction level, along with additional details about each award, into a spreadsheet. The advanced search is currently being developed and improved on a rolling basis, so new features may have become available since the publication of this report. Spending Explorer enables "big picture" browsing of federal spending obligations and offers interactive data visualization by budget function, agency, and object class. With this tool, users can see the budget function breakdown by categories, such as Social Security, Medicare, and national defense; obligated amounts by agency; and obligations by object class categories, such as grants, contracts, and personnel compensation and benefits. Profile s Tab includes the following subtabs: Agencies features data on each agency's total budgetary resources, a dollar amount that has been obligated (or committed to be spent) against those budgetary resources, the breakdown of these obligations by object class, and the federal accounts through which the obligations are administered. Federal Accounts features a list of nearly 2,000 federal accounts through which users can track spending obligations. Data in this section are presented visually through graphs and other infographics. States provides tables, interactive maps, and graphs showing a breakdown of a total awarded amount to each state back to FY2008. Breakdowns include totals by award type, county, and CD. Profiles also include top five rankings in various categories, such as awarding agencies and recipients. Recipients contains profiles of entities that have received federal awards in the form of contracts, grants, loans, or other financial assistance back to FY2008. Profiles include data on award trends over time and top five rankings in various categories. Download Center allows bulk exporting of large, pregenerated award data sets by agency, award type, and fiscal year through the Award Data Archive . The custom download pages— Custom Award Data and Custom Account Data (which covers all spending data, including nonaward spending)—also allow downloading of large data sets but provide additional filtering options.

In addition to the data quality problems in USAspending.gov mentioned earlier, the following issues should be taken into consideration.

As recipients of federal grant funding, state and local governments may provide services directly to beneficiaries. Alternatively, a state may act as a pass-through, redisbursing federal grant funding to localities using a formula or a competitive process through subgrants or subcontracts. Both federal grant and procurement awards thus may have a where awarded vs. where spent component that is not fully identified in grant or procurement records.

For example, most federal grant funding is awarded to states, which then subaward or subcontract to eligible recipients elsewhere in the state (see Figure 1 ) . So, a project's place of performance (where the award is spent) may therefore differ from the initial recipient location (where the funding is awarded).

In addition, a funding award may pass through multiple different jurisdictions (in different CDs) before reaching the final place of performance. For example

Federal grants may go first to the state (the state capital, in one CD), then be distributed to a city or county government (in one or more additional CDs), which then may pass the funds to an organization that spends the money in other CDs. A CD in which a state capital is located may appear to receive more federal funds than other CDs in the state, but searching USAspending.gov data by place of performance rather than recipient location would identify data by the project location. Procurement awards may be given to a corporation headquartered in one state (and one CD), but the company may spend the money manufacturing the purchased product at one or more of its manufacturing facilities in one or more additional states (and CDs).

The USAspending.gov advanced award search enables filtering by state and congressional district. When searching for CD data, note the following:

For CD data, search USAspending.gov by place of performance rather than recipient location to identify awards by project location (see " Recipient Location Versus Place of Performance ," above). Use caution when comparing CD data over time. During decennial redistricting, CD borders and numbers may change, but past data are not revised to account for redistricting. For example, comparing data from the 115 th or 114 th Congress with earlier data must take into account new district borders created by the 2010 decennial redistricting. Other geographic search options, such as by zip code or county, could be used to track funds within a CD, although borders may not exactly align. CDs that include state capitals will appear to receive more federal funds because states are prime recipients of federal block and formula grants. State Administering Agencies (SAAs) then pass through or subaward federal funding for projects throughout the state.

The General Services Administration (GSA) maintains the Federal Procurement Data System–Next Generation (FPDS–NG) at https://www.fpds.gov/fpdsng_cms/index.php/en/ , which contains statistical information on federal contracts. The FPDS–NG

serves as the source of USAspending.gov contracts data; makes available Federal Procurement Reports from FY2000 forward on its website; includes data on contracts of more than $25,000 and summary data of procurements less than $25,000; and provides selected search capabilities by state (including aggregate county statistics), contractor name, and product or service category.

For more refined searching, such as by CD, the FPDS Help Desk can guide congressional staff and the public through filtering for data needed (called ad hoc reports ).

States, local governments, and nonprofits (including universities) spending $750,000 or more in federal grants during a fiscal year are required to submit an audit detailing expenditures. Data from the audits are posted on the Census Bureau's Federal Audit Clearinghouse site, at https://harvester.census.gov/facweb/Default.aspx . No printed documents are produced.

Because the audit data are for the fiscal year of the filing agency or organization (which may differ from the federal fiscal year), they are not comparable with data from any other federal source. Searches may be conducted by organization or institution, Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) program number, and geographic location (by city or state but not by congressional district). See search options at https://harvester.census.gov/facweb/ .

The Analytical Perspectives volume of the President's budget covers various topics, including "Aid to State and Local Governments" (Chapter 17 in the FY2020 report). Federal grants-in-aid to state and local governments, U.S. territories, and American Indian tribal governments are intended to support government operations or the provision of services to the public. Grants are most often awarded as direct cash assistance, but federal grants-in-aid also can include payments for grants-in-kind—nonmonetary aid such as commodities purchased for the National School Lunch Program. Federal revenues shared with state and local governments also are considered grants-in-aid.

The FY2020 budget proposes $751 billion in outlays for aid to state and local governments, an increase of less than one percent from FY2019. Individual program tables with state-by-state obligation data for grants-in-aid programs to state and local governments may be found on the OMB website. Tables 17-3 through 17-39 show state-by-state obligations for 35 federal grants-in-aid programs.

Federal grants generally fall into one of two broad categories—categorical grants or block grants, depending on the requirements of the grant program. In addition, grants may be characterized by how the funding is awarded, such as by formula, by project, or by matching state and local funds. As recipients of federal grant funding, state and local governments may provide services directly to beneficiaries or states may act as a pass-through, disbursing grant funding to localities using a formula or a competitive process. As discussed above, this pass-through, or subawarding, at the state level makes tracking federally originated funds to the final recipient a challenge.

Federal Aid to States and the Consolidated Federal Funds Report

These Census Bureau reports, published from FY1983 to FY2010 and available at https://www.census.gov/govs/pubs/title.html , were the federal government's primary documents summarizing the geographic distribution of federal monies to states and counties, whether grants, contracts, or appropriations. The FY2010 Federal Aid to States (FAS) and Consolidated Federal Funds Report (CFFR) were the last reports issued due to the termination of the Census Bureau's Federal Financial Statistics program. Federal obligations data continue to be posted on USAspending.gov, now the official source collecting federal awards data.

FAS covered federal government expenditures to state and local governments and presented figures to the state level by program area and agency. CFFR included payments to state and local governments as well as to nongovernmental recipients. Dollar amounts reported represented either actual expenditures or obligations (see CFFR introduction and source notes for each table or graph). CFFR provided data to the state and county level for grants, salaries and wages, procurement contracts, direct payments for individuals, other direct payments, direct loans, guaranteed or insured loans, and insurance. Although CFFR indicated congressional districts (one or more) for each county, it did not give separate data by CD.

Selected Agency Grant Awards Databases and Information

USAspending.gov collects brief data on all federal grants and contracts awarded. However, some agencies, in particular those awarding research grants, also continue to post information on their own websites.

Current Research Information System https://cris.nifa.usda.gov/ Ongoing agricultural, food science, human nutrition, and forestry research, education and extension activities, with a focus on the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) grant programs. Projects are conducted or sponsored by USDA research agencies, state agricultural experiment stations, land-grant universities, other cooperating state institutions, and participants in NIFA-administered grant programs, including Small Business Innovation Research and the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative.

Institute of Education Sciences, Funded Research Grants and Contracts http://ies.ed.gov/funding/grantsearch/index.asp

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)

Tracking Accountability in Government Grants System (TAGGS) http://taggs.hhs.gov/AdvancedSearch.cfm Database of awards from HHS and its subsidiaries. National Institutes of Health (NIH) Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools RePORTER http://projectreporter.nih.gov/reporter.cfm Includes projects funded by the NIH, Administration for Children and Families, Agency for Health Care Research and Quality, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Food and Drug Administration, and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. National Library of Medicine (NLM) https://hsrproject.nlm.nih.gov/ Database of ongoing health services research and public health projects, whether government, corporate, or private.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Public Assistance Grant Awards Activity 2013-2016: https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/30731 2017-2019: https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/128200 Daily activity of Public Assistance Grant Awards, including FEMA region, state, disaster declaration number, event description, mission assigned agency, assistance requested, obligated federal dollars, and date of obligation.

Office of Justice Programs (OJP), OJP Grant Award Data http://ojp.gov/funding/Explore/OJPAwardData.htm

Employment and Training Administration (ETA), Grants Awarded http://www.doleta.gov/grants/grants_awarded.cfm

Grant Awards Database https://yosemite.epa.gov/oarm/igms_egf.nsf/HomePage?ReadForm Contains a summary record for all nonconstruction EPA grants awarded in the last 10 years plus grants that were awarded before that time that are still open. EPA Active Contracts Listing https://www.epa.gov/contracts/epa-active-contracts-listing Lists of all currently active EPA Contracts. The listing is available by Contract Number and by Vendor Name.

Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS)

IMLS Awarded Grants http://www.imls.gov/recipients/grantsearch.aspx

Grant Search https://apps.nea.gov/grantsearch/ NEA grants awarded since 1998.

National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH)

NSF Awards http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/ Includes data from 1989 to the present. Research.gov is a partnership of federal research-oriented grant-making agencies led by the NSF http://www.research.gov/research-portal/appmanager/base/desktop?_nfpb=true&_eventName=viewQuickSearchFormEvent_so_rsr&wtlink=RSR_Search_homepage .

Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR)

SBIR and STTR Awards https://www.sbir.gov/sbirsearch/award/all The SBIR/STTR program's mission is to stimulate technology innovation by strengthening the role of innovative small business in federal research and development. Currently, 11 federal agencies participate in the program: the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce (National Institute of Standards and Technology and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, and Transportation, and the Environmental Protection Agency, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and National Science Foundation.

Research in Progress http://rip.trb.org/ View projects by subject, individuals, or organizations.

Data Foundation and Deloitte, "DATA Act 2022: Changing Technology, Changing Culture," report, May 2017, at http://www.datafoundation.org/data-act-2022/ .

U.S. Senate, Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, "Federal Agency Compliance with the DATA Act," report, July 2018, at https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/subcommittees/investigations/media/new-psi-report-details-failure-of-federal-agencies-to-submit-accurate-data-on-how-they-spend-taxpayer-dollars .

Urban Institute, "Follow the Money: How to Track Federal Funding to Local Governments," research report, February 26, 2018, at https://www.urban.org/research/publication/follow-money-how-track-federal-funding-local-governments .