Past Government Shutdowns: Key Resources

Summary: When federal government agencies and programs lack budget authority after the expiration of either full-year or interim appropriations, they experience a "funding gap." Under the Antideficiency Act (31 U.S.C. §§1341 et seq.), they must cease operations, except in certain circumstances when continued activities are authorized by law. When there is a funding gap that affects many federal entities, the situation is often referred to as a government shutdown. In the past, there have occasionally been funding gaps that led to government shutdowns, one of which lasted 21 days, from December 16, 1995, to January 6, 1996. A shutdown occurred at the beginning of FY2014 (October 1, 2013) and lasted for a total of 16 days. Subsequently, two comparatively brief shutdowns occurred during FY2018, in January and February 2018, respectively. The longest shutdown occurred in FY2019—beginning at the end of the day on December 21, 2018, and lasting 35 days.

Summary: The relevant laws that govern shutdowns have remained relatively constant in recent decades. However, agencies and officials may exercise some discretion in how they interpret the laws, and circumstances that confront agencies and officials may differ over time. Consequently, it is difficult to predict what might happen in the event of a future shutdown. Still, information about past events may offer some insight into possible outcomes and help inform future deliberations.

Summary: This report provides an annotated list of historical documents and other resources related to several past government shutdowns. Sources for these documents and resources include the Congressional Research Service (CRS), Government Accountability Office (GAO), House and Senate Committees, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Personnel Management (OPM), and Executive Office of the President. When possible, the report includes links to full-text documents.

Summary: For more information about federal government shutdowns and funding gaps, see CRS Report RL34680, Shutdown of the Federal Government: Causes, Processes, and Effects, coordinated by Clinton T. Brass. For more information about funding gaps, see CRS Report RS20348, Federal Funding Gaps: A Brief Overview, by James V. Saturno.

Summary: This report will be updated as additional resources are identified.

This report provides historical documents and other resources related to past government shutdowns, along with brief annotations that describe the contents of the documents. The report includes links to full-text documents when available. There is limited information and guidance related to shutdowns, and it is difficult to predict what might happen in the event of one, but information about past events may help inform future deliberations.

The following annotated resources are meant to guide readers to relevant materials from governmental and selected nongovernmental sources.

The following select CRS products include information related to past government shutdowns.

CRS Report RL34680, Shutdown of the Federal Government: Causes, Processes, and Effects , coordinated by Clinton T. Brass.

This report discusses the causes, processes, and effects of federal government shutdowns, including potential issues for Congress.

CRS Report RS20348, Federal Funding Gaps: A Brief Overview , by James V. Saturno

This report provides a discussion of funding gaps in recent decades and a more detailed chronology of legislative actions and funding gaps that led to the two shutdowns of FY1996 and the single shutdown of FY2014.

CRS Report R43292, The FY2014 Government Shutdown: Economic Effects , by Marc Labonte

This report discusses the effects of the FY2014 government shutdown on the economy and financial markets. It also reviews third-party estimates of the effects of the shutdown on the economy.

CRS Report R43250, CRS Resources on the FY2014 Funding Gap, Shutdown, and Status of Appropriations , by Justin Murray

This brief report includes short annotations and links to CRS products related to the October 2013 government shutdown.

CRS Legal Sidebar LSB10243, How a Government Shutdown Affects Government Contracts, by David H. Carpenter

This Legal Sidebar briefly covers potential effects of a shutdown on new and existing contracts.

CRS In Focus, IF11079, National Park Service: Issues Related to a Government Shutdown, by Laura B. Comay and Carol Hardy Vincent This In Focus covers the National Parks Service and topics such as the accessibility and funding for limited operations during a government shutdown. CRS Insight, CRS Insight IN11011, Economic Effects of the FY2019 Government Shutdown, by Marc Labonte This Insight briefly covers the FY2019 shutdown and its effects on economic activity and employment. CRS Insight, CRS Insight IN11020, Federal Grants to State and Local Governments: Issues Raised by the Partial Government Shutdown, by Natalie Keegan This Insight briefly covers the FY2019 shutdown and its effect on the timing and payment of grant awards.

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has published reports related to past and potential shutdowns. The following documents investigate possible issues and provide historical context surrounding government shutdowns.

U.S. Government Accountability Office, Government Shutdown: Three Departments Reporting Varying Degrees of Impacts on Operations, Grants, and Contracts , GAO-15-86, November 14, 2014, available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-86 .

GAO reviewed how the 2013 shutdown affected some operations and services at three departments: the Departments of Energy, Health and Human Services (HHS), and Transportation (DOT). GAO selected these three departments for review based on the value of grants and contracts, the percentage of employees expected to be furloughed, and the potential for longer-term effects.

GAO recommended that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) instruct agencies to document lessons learned in planning for and implementing a shutdown, as well as for resuming activities following a shutdown should a funding gap longer than five days occur in the future. OMB staff did not state whether they agreed or disagreed with the recommendation.

U.S. General Accounting Office, Cost of the Recent Partial Shutdown of Government Offices , PAD-82-24, December 10, 1981, available at http://www.gao.gov/products/PAD-82-24 .

According to GAO, this report was completed "in response to congressional requests," for which "GAO contacted 13 cabinet departments and 12 selected agencies and offices to obtain information about the costs of a 1981 partial shutdown of government offices." It includes cost estimates, background information about the costs, and GAO recommendations to Congress concerning agency operations in the event of a government shutdown.

U.S. General Accounting Office, Funding Gaps Jeopardize Federal Government Operations , PAD-81-31, March 3, 1981, available at http://www.gao.gov/products/PAD-81-31 .

According to GAO, as of March 1981, "interruptions in federal agency funding at the beginning of the fiscal year (FY) and operations on continuing resolutions have become the norm rather than the exception." For years, many federal agencies continued to operate during a funding gap, while "minimizing all nonessential operations and obligations, believing that Congress did not intend that agencies close down" while waiting for the enactment of annual appropriations acts or continuing resolutions. During the FY1981 appropriations process, the President requested opinions on the Antideficiency Act from the then-U.S. Attorney General, Benjamin Civiletti. In two memoranda issued in 1980 and 1981, the Attorney General stated that the act required agencies to terminate all operations when their current appropriations expired. According to GAO, agencies were uncertain how to respond to the Attorney General's opinion and what activities they would be able to continue if appropriations expired. This GAO report outlines some of the problems surrounding late appropriations and funding gaps. It also includes Attorney General Civiletti's opinions within Appendices IV and VIII.

U.S. General Accounting Office, Government Shutdown: Funding Lapse Furlough Information , GGD-96-52R, December 1, 1995, available at http://www.gao.gov/products/GGD-96-52R .

GAO was asked to provide available information on the numbers of federal employees who might have been subject to furlough in the event of a second shutdown in 1995. GAO provided numbers that were based on plans provided by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to GAO in October 1995. The numbers included within this document do not represent actual furloughs. The numbers represent planned furloughs in advance of the two shutdowns, which occurred later in November and December–January.

U.S. General Accounting Office, Government Shutdown: Permanent Funding Lapse Legislation Needed , GGD-91-76, June 6, 1991, available at http://www.gao.gov/products/GGD-91-76 .

In 1990, GAO issued a questionnaire to government agencies in an attempt to measure the effects of a partial shutdown which occurred on Columbus Day weekend. This report also includes estimates on the effects of a hypothetical three-day shutdown during a nonholiday workweek.

House and Senate Committee Prints and Hearings

The following committee print includes historical information on a past government shutdown.

U.S. Congress, House Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, Cost of Shutting Down Federal Government on November, 23, 1981 , committee print, 97 th Congress, 2 nd session, March 25, 1982 (Washington: GPO, 1982), available at http://hdl.handle.net/2027/pur1.32754077662413 .

This committee print assessed the cost of the November 23, 1981, shutdown of federal offices resulting from a presidential veto of a continuing resolution for FY1982. The committee print includes individual federal departments' and agencies' shutdown impact assessments that were collected by GAO (pp. 73-212). It also includes cost estimates, an OMB memorandum, and a presidential veto statement.

The following are congressional hearings that include historical information on past shutdowns. Some of these hearings include items for the record such as OMB memoranda.

U.S. Congress, House and Senate Committees on the Budget, Effects of Potential Government Shutdown , hearing, 104 th Congress, 1 st session, September 19, 1995 (Washington: GPO, 1995), available at http://www.archive.org/stream/effectsofpotenti00unit .

This hearing took place before the November 1995 shutdown, and it examined potential scenarios if a shutdown were to occur. The hearing includes testimony from Walter Dellinger, Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, and Alice M. Rivlin, Director, OMB. The hearing includes additional materials such as articles, letters from the Federal Reserve System, and a memo from Walter Dellinger to Alice Rivlin.

U.S. Congress, House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, Subcommittee on Civil Service, Government Shutdown I: What's Essential ?, hearings, 104 th Congress, 1 st session, December 6, and 14, 1995 (Washington: GPO 1997), available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-104hhrg23275/pdf/CHRG-104hhrg23275.pdf .

These hearings were held in December 1995 and generally covered the November 1995 shutdown. Because the hearings were not published until 1997, some additional information related to the December 1995-January 1996 government shutdown is included.

U.S. Congress, House Committee on Resources, State Service Donations in Budgetary Shutdowns , hearing, 104 th Congress, 1 st session, December 5, 1995 (Washington: GPO 1996), available at http://www.archive.org/stream/stateservicedona00unit .

The hearing was held to consider legislation that would have directed the Department of the Interior to accept donations of assistance from state governments' employee services for operating national parks and wildlife refuges during federal government shutdowns.

U.S. Congress, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, As Difficult As Possible: The National Park Service's Implementation of the Government Shutdown , hearing, 113 th Congress, 1 st session, October 16, 2013. Available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-113hhrg88621/pdf/CHRG-113hhrg88621.pdf .

The hearing was held during the October 2013 shutdown and looked at the National Park Service's implementation of the government shutdown.

U.S. Congress, House Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Effect of Government Shutdown on VA Benefits and Services to Veteran s , hearing, 113 th Congress, 1 st session, October 9, 2013. Available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-113hhrg85863/pdf/CHRG-113hhrg85863.pdf .

The hearing was held during the October 2013 shutdown and focused on the impact of the shutdown on benefits payments and services for veterans.

U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Impacts of the Government Shutdown on Our Economic Security , hearing, 113 th Congress, 1 st session, October 11, 2013. Available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-113shrg93946/pdf/CHRG-113shrg93946.pdf .

The hearing was held during the October 2013 shutdown and focused on the possible and emerging economic and other impacts related to the shutdown.

U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship. Small Businesses Speak: Surviving the Government Shutdown? , hearing, 113 th Congress, 1 st session, October 15, 2013. Available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-113shrg87989/pdf/CHRG-113shrg87989.pdf .

The hearing was held during the October 2013 shutdown and it examined the impacts the shutdown was having on small businesses.

U.S. Congress, House Committee on Armed Services, Subcommittee on Readiness. The Interpretation of H.R. 3210 : 'Pay Our Military Act', hearing, 113 th Congress, 1 st session, October 10, 2013. Available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-113hhrg85325/pdf/CHRG-113hhrg85325.pdf .

The hearing was held during the October 2013 shutdown, and it examined interpretations of H.R. 3210 , the Pay Our Military Act, which ultimately was enacted as P.L. 113-39 .

U.S. Congress, Senate Joint Economic Committee. The Way Forward: Long-Term Fiscal Responsibility and Economic Growth , hearing, 113 th Congress, 1 st session, October 11, 2013. Available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-113shrg85408/pdf/CHRG-113shrg85408.pdf .

The hearing was held during the October 2013 shutdown. The hearing examined policy options for ending the shutdown and addressing the debt ceiling, and it also reviewed potential solutions to promote fiscal sustainability and economic growth.

OMB documents and guidance regarding potential or actual funding gaps and shutdowns may provide insights into current and future practices. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has provided links to copies of previous OMB bulletins and memoranda for reference. This website, entitled Pay & Leave Furlough Guidance: Shutdown Furlough , is available at http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/furlough-guidance/#url=Shutdown-Furlough .

Some of the OMB documents include the following.

OMB Bulletin No. 80-14, Shutdown of Agency Operations Upon Failure by the Congress to Enact Appropriations , August 28, 1980 (citing the 1980 Civiletti opinion and requiring agencies to develop shutdown plans); OMB Memorandum, Agency Operations in the Absence of Appropriations , November 17, 1981 (referencing OMB Bulletin No. 80-14; stating the 1981 Civiletti opinion remains in effect; and providing examples of "excepted activities" that may be continued under a funding gap); OMB Bulletin No. 80-14, Supplement No. 1, Agency Operations in the Absence of Appropriations , August 20, 1982 ("updating" OMB Bulletin No. 80-14 and newly requiring agencies to submit contingency plans for review by OMB); OMB Memorandum M-91-02, Agency Operations in the Absence of Appropriations , October 5, 1990 (referencing OMB Bulletin No. 80-14; stating that OMB Bulletin No. 80-14 was "amended" by the OMB Memorandum of November 17, 1981; stating the 1981 Civiletti opinion remains in effect; and directing agencies how to respond to an anticipated funding gap that would begin during the weekend); OMB Memorandum M-95-18, Agency Plans for Operations During Funding Hiatus , August 22, 1995 (referencing OMB Bulletin No. 80-14, as amended; citing the 1981 Civiletti opinion; transmitting to agencies a 1995 Office of Legal Counsel opinion as an "update" to the 1981 Civiletti opinion; and directing agencies to send updated contingency plans to OMB); and OMB Memorandum M-13-22, Planning for Agency Operations during a Potential Lapse in Appropriations , September 17, 2013 (citing Section 124 of Circular A-11 and providing guidance and coordinating efforts to facilitate contingency planning in accordance with the Antideficiency Act). OMB Memorandum M-18-05, Planning for Agency Operations during a Potential Lapse in Appropriations , January 19, 2018 (citing Section 124 of Circular A-11 and providing guidance and coordinating efforts to facilitate contingency planning in accordance with the Antideficiency Act).

OMB also provides agencies with annual instructions in Circular No. A-11 on how to prepare for and operate during a funding gap.

U.S. Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Circular No. A-11: Preparation, Submission, and Execution of the Budget , June 2018, Section 124, available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/s124.pdf .

The circular establishes two "policies" regarding the absence of appropriations: (1) a prohibition on incurring obligations unless the obligations are otherwise authorized by law and (2) permission to incur obligations "as necessary for orderly termination of an agency's functions," but prohibition of any disbursement (i.e., payment).

The circular also directs agency heads to develop and maintain shutdown plans, which are to be submitted to OMB at a minimum every two years starting August 1, 2015, and also when revised to reflect certain changes in circumstances. Agency heads are to use the Civiletti opinions, a 1995 Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel opinion, and the circular to "decide what agency activities are excepted or otherwise legally authorized to continue during a lapse in appropriations."

OMB has a website with links to agency shutdown contingency plans arranged by agency. This website, entitled "Agency Contingency Plans," is available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/information-for-agencies/Agency-Contingency-Plans .

The hearing entitled Government Shutdown I: What's Essential ?, includes some estimates related to the December 1995–January 1996 shutdowns. The hearing includes an OMB letter with information about the effects of the shutdowns and counts of employees who were excepted and not excepted from furlough, pp. 266-270 and 272-274. This hearing is available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-104hhrg23275/pdf/CHRG-104hhrg23275.pdf .

OMB released a report on November 7, 2013, with some estimates on the cost of the October 2013 shutdown. The report includes information on federal employee furloughs, economic effects of the shutdown, and some impact estimates related to select programs. This report is available at http://web.archive.org/web/20140701035515/http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/reports/impacts-and-costs-of-october-2013-federal-government-shutdown-report.pdf .

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a report on January 28, 2019, with some estimates of effects of the December-January partial government shutdown. The report includes estimates related to the shutdown's effect on discretionary spending, economic activity and GDP. The report is available at https://www.cbo.gov/publication/54937 .

OPM has some information publicly available on the internet related to government shutdowns and furloughs.

U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Pay & Leave Furlough Guidance , available at https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/furlough-guidance/#url=Shutdown-Furlough .

This website includes links to guidance related to administrative and shutdown furloughs. The shutdown portion of this website includes the following additional references to historical guidance including

U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Memorandum to Agencies on Retroactive Pay and Other Matters , October 17, 2013; U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Information on Paychecks for September 22 through October 5, 2013 Pay Period; U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Guidance for Shutdown Furloughs , September 2015; U.S. Chief Human Capital Council, Memorandum for Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies . Fact Sheet: Pay and Benefits Information for Employees Affected by the Lapse in Appropriations. January 23, 2019; U.S. Chief Human Capital Council, Memorandum for Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies. Government Fair Treatment Act of 2019 , January 23, 2019; U.S. Chief Human Capital Council, Memorandum for Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies. Telework and other Workplace Flexibilities for Excepted Employees during a Lapse in Appropriations . January 23, 2019.

The following documents are from the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) and current Administration websites. These documents cover statements made by Presidents and Administration officials during government shutdowns and are arranged by date.

Presidential Statements Related to FY1996 Shutdowns

Historical Context . The November 1995 shutdown began on November 14, 1995, and ended on November 19, 1995. An estimated 800,000 federal employees were furloughed during the five full days of the shutdown. The furlough action was due to the expiration of a continuing resolution ( P.L. 104-31 ), which funded the government through November 13, 1995. On November 13, President William Clinton vetoed a second continuing resolution ( H.J.Res. 115 ) and a debt limit extension bill ( H.R. 2586 ) and instructed agencies to begin shutdown operations. The following presidential statements occurred during this time period.

U.S. President (Clinton), November 13, 1995, President's Message to Congress on Continuing Resolution Veto , available at https://clintonwhitehouse6.archives.gov/1995/11/1995-11-13-president-message-to-congress-on-continuing-res-veto.html . U.S. President (Clinton), November 14, 1995, Statement by the President on Government Shutdown , available at https://clintonwhitehouse6.archives.gov/1995/11/1995-11-14-for-the-record-president-on-government-shutdown.html . U.S. President (Clinton), November 17, 1995, Transmittal to Congress of Presidential C.R ., available at https://clintonwhitehouse6.archives.gov/1995/11/1995-11-17-transmittal-to-congress-of-presidential-cr.html . U.S. President (Clinton), November 18, 1995, Radio Address by the President to the Nation , available at https://clintonwhitehouse6.archives.gov/1995/11/1995-11-18-radio-address-by-the-president-to-the-nation.html . U.S. President (Clinton), November 19, 1995, Statement by the President on Budget Agreement , available at https://clintonwhitehouse6.archives.gov/1995/11/1995-11-19-statement-by-the-president-on-budget-agreement.html .

Historical Context . The December 1995-January 1996 shutdown began on December 16, 1995, and ended on January 6, 1996. The shutdown was triggered by the expiration of a continuing funding resolution enacted on November 20, 1995 ( P.L. 104-56 ), which funded the government through December 15, 1995. This shutdown officially ended on January 6, with the passage of three continuing resolutions (CRs) ( P.L. 104-91 , P.L. 104-92 , and P.L. 104-94 ). There were five additional short-term continuing resolutions needed to prevent further funding gaps from occurring through April 26, 1996, when the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996 ( P.L. 104-134 ) was enacted to fund any agencies or programs not yet funded through FY1996. The following presidential statements occurred during the time period of December 15, 1995, through January 6, 1996.

U.S. President (Clinton), December 15, 1995, Statement by the President on Budget Negotiations , available at https://clintonwhitehouse6.archives.gov/1995/12/1995-12-15-president-statement-on-budget-negotiations.html . U.S. President (Clinton), December 16, 1995, Radio Address by the President to the Nation , available at https://clintonwhitehouse6.archives.gov/1995/12/1995-12-16-radio-address-by-the-president-to-the-nation.html . U.S. President (Clinton), December 18, 1995, Statement by the President on the Budget , available at https://clintonwhitehouse6.archives.gov/1995/12/1995-12-18-statement-by-the-president-on-the-budget.html . U.S. President (Clinton), December 22, 1995, Statement by the President on Signing House Joint Res. 136 , available at https://clintonwhitehouse6.archives.gov/1995/12/1995-12-22-president-statement-on-signing-house-joint-res.html . U.S. President (Clinton), December 23, 1995, Radio Address by the President to the Nation , available at https://clintonwhitehouse6.archives.gov/1995/12/1995-12-23-radio-address-by-the-president-to-the-nation.html . U.S. President (Clinton), January 4, 1996, Statement by the President on House Joint Resolution 153 , available at https://clintonwhitehouse6.archives.gov/1996/01/1996-01-04-president-statement-on-house-joint-resolution.html . U.S. President (Clinton), January 6, 1996, Statement by the President on Balanced Budget Proposal , available at https://clintonwhitehouse6.archives.gov/1996/01/1996-01-06-president-remarks-on-balanced-budget-proposal.html . U.S. President (Clinton), January 6, 1996, Statement by the President in Signing H.R. 1358 , available at https://clintonwhitehouse6.archives.gov/1996/01/1996-01-06-president-statement-in-signing-hr.html . U.S. President (Clinton), January 6, 1996, Statement by the President in Signing H.R. 1643 , available at https://clintonwhitehouse6.archives.gov/1996/01/1996-01-06-president-statement-in-signing-hr-a.html . U.S. President (Clinton), January 6, 1996, Radio Address by the President to the Nation , available at https://clintonwhitehouse6.archives.gov/1996/01/1996-01-06-radio-address-by-the-president-to-the-nation.html .

Presidential Statements Related to FY2014 Shutdown

Historical Context . A shutdown occurred at the beginning of FY2014 (October 1, 2013) and lasted for a total of 16 full days. At the beginning of the fiscal year, none of the 12 regular appropriations bills for FY2014 were enacted. In addition, a continuing resolution to provide temporary funding for the previous year's projects and activities had also not been enacted. On September 30, however, an automatic continuing resolution was enacted that covered FY2014 pay and allowances for (1) certain members of the Armed Forces, (2) certain Department of Defense (DOD) civilian personnel, and (3) other specified DOD and Department of Homeland Security contractors ( P.L. 113-39 ).

A continuing resolution was signed into law ( P.L. 113-46 ) on October 17, 2013, which ended the shutdown and allowed government departments and agencies to reopen. The following presidential statements occurred during the time period of September 30, 2013, through October 19, 2013, and included discussion of the shutdown.

U.S. President (Obama), September 30, 2013, Statement by the President , available at https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2013/09/30/statement-president . U.S. President (Obama), September 30, 2013, Weekly Address: Averting a Government Shutdown and Expanding Access to Affordable Healthcare , available at https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2013/09/28/weekly-address-averting-government-shutdown-and-expanding-access-affordable-healthca . U.S. President (Obama), October 1, 2013, Remarks by the President on the Affordable Care Act and the Government Shutdown , available at https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2013/10/01/remarks-president-affordable-care-act-and-government-shutdown . U.S. President (Obama), October 3, 2013, Remarks by the President on the Government Shutdown, available at https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2013/10/03/remarks-president-government-shutdown . U.S. President (Obama), October 5, 2013, Weekly Address: End This Government Shutdown , available at https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2013/10/05/your-weekly-address-end-government-shutdown . U.S. President (Obama), October 7, 2013, Remarks by the President at FEMA Headquarters, available at https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2013/10/07/remarks-president-fema-headquarters . U.S. President (Obama), October 12, 2013, Weekly Address: Let's Get Back to the Work of the American People , available at https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2013/10/12/weekly-address-let-s-get-back-work-american-people . U.S. President (Obama), October 16, 2013, Statement by the President of the United States, available at https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2013/10/16/statement-president-united-states . U.S. President (Obama), October 17, 2013, Remarks by the President on the Reopening of the Government , available at https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2013/10/17/remarks-president-reopening-government . U.S. President (Obama), October 19, 2013, Weekly Address: Working Together on Behalf of the American People, available at https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2013/10/19/weekly-address-working-together-behalf-american-people .

Presidential and Administration Statements Related to the FY2018 Shutdown

Historical Context. At the beginning of FY2018, none of the 12 regular appropriations bills had been enacted, so the federal government operated under a series of CRs. The first, P.L. 115-56 , provided government-wide funding through December 8, 2017. The second, P.L. 115-90 , extended funding through December 22, and the third, P.L. 115-96 , extended it through January 19, 2018.

In the absence of agreement on legislation that would further extend the period of these CRs, a funding gap began with the expiration of P.L. 115-96 at midnight on January 19. A furlough of federal personnel began over the weekend and continued through Monday of the following week, ending with enactment of a fourth CR, P.L. 115-120 , on January 22.

The following presidential and Trump Administration statements occurred during the time period of January 19, 2018, through January 22, 2018, and included discussion of the shutdown.

January19, 2018, Press Briefing by OMB Director Mick Mulvaney and Legislative Affairs Director Marc Short on the Potential Government Shutdown, available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/press-briefing-by-omb-director-mick-mulvaney-and-legislative-affairs-director-marc-short-on-the-potential-government-shutdown01192018/ .

January 20, 2018, Press Briefing by OMB Director Mick Mulvaney and Legislative Affairs Director Marc Short on the Government Shutdown , available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/press-briefing-omb-director-mick-mulvaney-legislative-affairs-director-marc-short-government-shutdown/ .

U.S. President (Trump) January 22, 2018, Statement from President Donald J. Trump , available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/statement-president-donald-j-trump-8/ .

January 22, 2018, Press Briefing by Press Secretary Sarah Sanders available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/press-briefing-press-secretary-sarah-sanders-012218/ .

Presidential Statements Related to FY2019 Shutdown

Historical Context. The December 2018-January 2019 partial government shutdown began on December 22, 2018, and ended on January 25, 2019. At the beginning of FY2019 (October 1, 2018), five of the 12 regular appropriations bills had been enacted in consolidated appropriations bills and the other seven appropriations bills were funded under two CRs. The first CR , P.L. 115-245 , provided funding for these remaining seven appropriations bills through December 7, 2018. The second CR, P.L. 115-298 , extended funding for these seven appropriations bills through December 21, 2018. When no agreement was reached on legislation to further extend the period of these CRs for the remaining seven appropriations bills, a funding gap began with the expiration of the funding in P.L. 115-298 at midnight at the end of the day on December 21, 2018.

The funding gap ended when a CR was signed into law on January 25, 2019, which ended the partial government shutdown and allowed government departments and agencies to reopen. The partial government shutdown lasted 35 days making it the longest shutdown in history, compared with other shutdowns that have occurred since key Department of Justice opinions were issued in 1980 and 1981. The following presidential statements occurred during the time period of December 21, 2019, through January 25, 2019, and included discussion of the shutdown.

U.S. President (Trump), December 27, 2018, Remarks by President Trump in Christmas Video Teleconference with Members of the Military , available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-christmas-video-teleconference-members-military/ .

U.S. President (Trump), January 4, 2019, Remarks by President Trump After Meeting with Congressional Leadership on Border Security , available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-meeting-congressional-leadership-border-security/ . U.S. President (Trump), January 8, 2019, President Donald J. Trump's Address to the Nation on the Crisis at the Border , available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trumps-address-nation-crisis-border/ . U.S. President (Trump), January 11, 2019, Remarks by President Trump During Briefing at the Rio Grande Valley U.S.-Mexico Border , available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-briefing-rio-grande-valley-u-s-mexico-border/ . January 11, 2019, Remarks by Vice President Pence Before Meet-and-Greet with U.S. Customs and Border Patrol Employees , available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-vice-president-pence-meet-greet-u-s-customs-border-patrol-employees/ . U.S. President (Trump), January 25, 2019, Remarks by President Trump on the Government Shutdown , available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-government-shutdown/ .


Land and Water Conservation Fund: Appropriations for “Other Purposes”

Summary: The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-578) created the LWCF in the Treasury as a funding source to implement the outdoor recreation goals set out by the act. The LWCF Act authorizes the fund to receive $900 million annually, with the monies available only if appropriated by Congress (i.e., discretionary appropriations). The fund also receives mandatory appropriations under the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 (GOMESA). The level of annual appropriations for the LWCF has varied since the origin of the fund in FY1965.

Summary: The LWCF Act outlines uses of the fund for federal and state purposes. Of the total made available through appropriations or deposits under GOMESA, not less than 40% is to be used for "federal purposes" and not less than 40% is to be used to provide "financial assistance to states." The act lists the federal purposes for which the President is to allot LWCF funds "unless otherwise allotted in the appropriation Act making them available." These purposes primarily relate to acquisition of lands and waters (and interests therein) by the federal government. With regard to state purposes, the act authorizes a matching grant program to states for outdoor recreation purposes. Throughout the LWCF's history, appropriations acts typically have provided funds for land acquisition and outdoor recreational grants to states.

Summary: Beginning in FY1998, appropriations also have been provided each year (except FY1999) to fund other purposes related to natural resources. The extent to which the LWCF should be used for purposes other than federal land acquisition and outdoor recreation grants to states, and which other purposes should be funded from the LWCF, continue to be the subject of legislation and debate in Congress. In the past few decades, Presidents have sought LWCF funds for a variety of other purposes. Congress chooses which if any of these requests to fund, and has chosen programs not sought by the President for a particular year. Among other programs, appropriations have been provided for facility maintenance of the land management agencies, ecosystem restoration, the Historic Preservation Fund, the Payments in Lieu of Taxes program, the Forest Legacy Program, State and Tribal Wildlife Grants (under the Fish and Wildlife Service), the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund, U.S. Geological Survey science and cooperative programs, and Bureau of Indian Affairs Indian Land and Water Claim Settlements.

Summary: Since FY1998, a total of $2.7 billion has been appropriated for other purposes, of a total LWCF appropriation of $18.9 billion over the history of the fund. The Fish and Wildlife Service and the Forest Service have received the largest shares of the total appropriations for other purposes, about $1.4 billion (53%) and $1.0.billion (38%), respectively, from FY1998 to FY2019. Several agencies shared the remaining $0.2 billion (9%) of the appropriations.

Summary: Both the dollar amounts and the percentages of annual LWCF appropriations for other purposes have varied widely since FY1998. The dollar amounts have ranged from $0 in FY1999 to $456.0 million in FY2001. The percentage of annual funds provided for other purposes ranged from 0% in FY1999 to a high of 59% in both FY2006 and FY2007. In some years, the appropriation for other purposes was significantly less than the Administration requested. For instance, for FY2008, the George W. Bush Administration sought $313.1 million; the appropriation was $101.3 million. The appropriation for other purposes last exceeded $100.0 million in FY2010, and most recently was $93.3 million, in FY2019.

Summary: Prior to FY2008, several other purposes typically were funded each year from LWCF. Since FY2008, funds have been appropriated annually only for grants under two programs: Forest Legacy and Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund. These two programs and a third grant program—State and Tribal Wildlife Grants—have received more than three-quarters ($2.1 billion, 79%) of the total appropriation for other purposes since FY1998.

The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Act of 1965 was enacted to "assist in preserving, developing, and assuring accessibility to ... outdoor recreation resources." Two main goals of the law were to facilitate participation in recreation and "to strengthen the health and vitality" of U.S. citizens. To accomplish these goals, purposes of the law included "providing funds" for federal land acquisition and for federal assistance to states generally related to outdoor recreation.

The fund is authorized to receive $900 million in revenues annually under the LWCF Act. Each year the fund accrues revenues at this level. The fund accumulates the majority of its revenues from oil and gas leases on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). It also accumulates revenues from the federal motorboat fuel tax and surplus property sales. However, revenues that accrue under the LWCF Act are available only if appropriated by Congress through the discretionary appropriations process.

The LWCF receives additional revenue (beyond the $900 million) from OCS leasing under the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 (GOMESA). Unlike revenues under the LWCF Act, GOMESA revenues are mandatory appropriations (and thus are not subject to annual appropriation by Congress). They can be used only for grants to states for outdoor recreation purposes.

The overall level of annual appropriations (discretionary and mandatory combined) has varied widely since the fund's origin in FY1965. Of the total revenues that have accrued throughout the program's history ($40.9 billion), less than half have been appropriated ($18.9 billion) through FY2019. Thus, the unappropriated balance in the fund is estimated at $22.0 billion through FY2019.

The LWCF Act outlines uses of the fund for federal and state purposes. It states that of the total made available to the fund, not less than 40% is to be used for "federal purposes" and not less than 40% is to be used to provide "financial assistance to states." The act lists the federal purposes for which the President is to allot LWCF funds "unless otherwise allotted in the appropriation Act making them available." These purposes primarily relate to the acquisition of lands and waters (and interests therein) by the federal government. With regard to state purposes, the act authorizes a matching grant program to states for outdoor recreation purposes.

In practice, over the history of the LWCF, appropriations acts have provided funding for three general purposes. First, for each year since FY1965, appropriations for land acquisition have been provided to some or all of the major federal land management agencies—the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), National Park Service (NPS), and Forest Service (FS). Second, for nearly every year since FY1965, appropriations have funded the outdoor recreation matching grant program, to assist states in recreational planning, acquiring recreational lands and waters, and developing outdoor recreational facilities. Third, beginning in FY1998, appropriations from the LWCF have been provided each year, except FY1999, to fund other federal programs with related natural resource purposes. Hereinafter, the third type of appropriations is referred to as funding other purposes .

The $18.9 billion appropriated from the fund through FY2019 has been allocated in different proportions among federal land acquisition, the state grant program, and other purposes. The largest portion of the total—$11.4 billion—has been appropriated for federal land acquisition. The state grant program has received the second-largest portion, $4.8 billion. Other purposes have received the remaining $2.7 billion. Appendix A shows the total LWCF appropriation for other purposes.

Congress continues to consider the extent to which the LWCF should fund purposes other than federal land acquisition and outdoor recreation grants to states. Some traditional LWCF advocates and beneficiaries have expressed concern about expanding the use of the funds, particularly if such expansion results in lower appropriations for land acquisition and outdoor recreation grants to states. Some Members of Congress, Presidents, and stakeholders have supported funding other purposes in order to draw on the balance in the fund for policy priorities, to shift the focus of the fund from land acquisition, or to achieve other goals.

A number of measures introduced in recent Congresses sought to authorize funding from the LWCF for various other purposes. These measures were not enacted. They included proposals to specify an amount or percentage of funding for two programs that are currently funded by the LWCF—the Forest Legacy Program and Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation grants—although the LWCF Act does not specifically authorize this funding. Other proposals sought to authorize programs or activities that have not been funded by LWCF in the past, or that have been rarely funded by LWCF in the past. For instance, one 115 th Congress bill would have authorized LWCF funding for certain programs and activities of the major land management agencies, including deferred maintenance, critical infrastructure, visitor services, and clean-up efforts; the Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program; and certain offshore energy exploration, innovation, and education activities. As another example, one 115 th Congress bill proposed to authorize LWCF funding for financial assistance from the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development for park and recreation infrastructure projects.

The balance of this report discusses the other purposes for which LWCF appropriations have been provided throughout the fund's history. It identifies the amount of funding contained in annual appropriations laws for other purposes and the types of purposes for which funds have been appropriated.

A total of $72.0 million was appropriated from the LWCF for other purposes in FY1998, the first year in which LWCF was used to fund other purposes. The total included $60.0 million for maintenance needs of the four land management agencies and $12.0 million for rehabilitation and maintenance of the Beartooth Highway (in Wyoming and Montana). In FY1998, total LWCF appropriations had spiked to approximately $969 million from the FY1997 level of about $159 million.

Both the dollar amounts and the percentages of annual LWCF appropriations for other purposes have varied widely since FY1998. (See Appendix B .) Over the most recent 10 years, LWCF appropriations for other purposes fluctuated, declining overall from $132.5 million in FY2010 to $93.3 million in FY2019 (in current dollars). However, the FY2019 level was the highest appropriation since FY2010.

Beginning in FY2011, appropriations for other purposes in each year have been less than $100 million, as was the case for FY1998-FY2000. Appropriations for other purposes were at their lowest dollar amount in FY1999, when no funds for other purposes were appropriated. The next-lowest dollar value was provided for FY2000, when a total of $20.0 million was appropriated for three purposes: Elwha River Ecosystem restoration (in Washington), deferred maintenance of the NPS, and the FS Forest Legacy program.

By contrast, from FY2001 to FY2010, appropriations for other purposes exceeded $100 million in each year. In fact, during four of these years (FY2004-FY2007), the annual appropriation was between $200 million and $225 million. The appropriation surpassed $400 million in another year during the period. Specifically, the $456.0 million appropriation in FY2001 was more than double the amount provided for other purposes in any other year. These appropriations were used to fund more than a dozen programs in the Clinton Administration's Lands Legacy Initiative. In that year, total LWCF appropriations exceeded the annual authorization level, totaling nearly $1 billion. This record level of funding was provided partly in response to President Clinton's Lands Legacy Initiative, which sought $1.4 billion for about two dozen resource-protection programs, including the LWCF. It also was provided partly in response to some congressional interest in securing increased and more certain funding for the LWCF.

The highest percentage of annual funds provided for other purposes occurred in FY2006 and FY2007 (59% in both years), in response to President George W. Bush's request for funding for an array of programs. For instance, in FY2007 the Bush Administration sought funding from the LWCF for 15 programs in addition to land acquisition and state grants. For that year, the appropriation for five other purposes was $216.1 million, out of a total LWCF appropriation of $366.1 million.

In some years, the appropriation for other purposes was significantly less than the Administration requested. For example, for FY2008 the Bush Administration sought $313.1 million for other purposes, or 83% of the total request of $378.7 million. The FY2008 appropriation for other purposes was $101.3 million, or 40% of the LWCF total of $255.1 million.

The $2.7 billion appropriated from the LWCF from FY1998 to FY2019 for other purposes represents 27% of the $10.0 billion total appropriations from LWCF during the period. FWS and FS have received the largest shares of the appropriations for other purposes, about $1.4 billion (53%) and $1.0 billion (38%), respectively. BLM, NPS, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs have shared the remaining $0.2 billion (9%) of the appropriations for other purposes. (See Figure 1 .)

Because there is no set of other purposes specified in the LWCF Act to be funded from the LWCF, presidents have sought funds for a variety of purposes. Congress has chosen which of these requests to fund from the LWCF, and whether to fund any additional programs from the LWCF not suggested by the President. Appropriations for other purposes have been provided for more than a dozen diverse natural resource-related programs, including facility maintenance of the land management agencies, ecosystem restoration, the Historic Preservation Fund, the Payments in Lieu of Taxes program, the FS Forest Legacy program, FWS State and Tribal Wildlife Grants, the FWS Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund, U.S. Geological Survey science and cooperative programs, and Bureau of Indian Affairs Indian Land and Water Claim Settlements. (See Appendix A .)

Although in earlier years several other purposes typically were funded from LWCF, since FY2008, funds have been appropriated annually only for grants under two programs: Forest Legacy and Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund. (See Appendix B and Figure 2 . ) The total appropriation from LWCF for these two programs (since FY1998) is $1.7 billion, or 63% of all appropriations for other purposes ($2.7 billion). These two programs and a third grant program funded prior to FY2008 from LWCF—FWS State and Tribal Wildlife Grants—have received more than three-quarters ($2.1 billion, 79%) of the total appropriations for other purposes. The appropriations through FY2019 are $944.4 million for Forest Legacy (35% of the other purposes total), $753.3 million for Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund (28% of total), and $448.5 million for State and Tribal Wildlife Grants (17% of total).

Grants under the Forest Legacy program are used to acquire lands or conservation easements to preserve private forests threatened by conversion to non-forest uses, such as agriculture or residences. FS provides matching grants to states through a competitive process that requires state approval and then national approval and ranking. The ranking is based on the importance of the project (potential public benefits from protection), the likelihood of the forest's conversion to non-forest uses, and the strategic relevance of the project, among other factors. The program is implemented primarily through state partners, usually state forestry agencies. State partners generally acquire, hold, and administer the easements or land purchases, although the federal government also may do so.

The Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund provides grants "for species and habitat conservation actions on non-Federal lands, including habitat acquisition, conservation planning, habitat restoration, status surveys, captive propagation and reintroduction, research, and education." In addition to appropriations from LWCF, the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund typically receives additional appropriations. In recent years, the appropriations from LWCF generally have been used for two types of land acquisition grants provided to state and territories on a matching basis. Recovery land acquisition grants have been made for acquisition of habitats in support of species recovery goals and objectives. Habitat conservation plan land acquisition grants have been made for acquisition of lands that are associated with habitat conservation plans.

State and Tribal Wildlife Grants are provided to states, territories, and tribes to develop and implement programs for the benefit of fish and wildlife and their habitats, including nongame species. State and Tribal Wildlife Grants received funding from the LWCF for FY2001-FY2007; subsequently, funding has been provided from the General Fund of the U.S. Treasury. Currently, the largest portion of the program is for formula grants to states and territories on a matching basis. Funds from the formula grants may be used to develop state conservation plans and to implement specific conservation projects. Smaller amounts of funding have been appropriated for competitive grants to states and territories, and to tribal governments. The competitive grant programs do not have matching requirements.

Appendix A shows the total LWCF appropriations for other purposes summed from FY1998 to FY2019. Appendix B shows the other purposes that received LWCF appropriations each year, the amount of LWCF appropriations for each purpose, and the total annual appropriations for other purposes.

Appendix A. Total LWCF Appropriations for Other Purposes

Appendix B. Annual LWCF Appropriations for Other Purposes


Summary: The Railroad Retirement Board (RRB), an independent federal agency, administers retirement, survivor, disability, unemployment, and sickness insurance for railroad workers and their families. During FY2017, the RRB paid nearly $12.5 billion in retirement, disability, and survivor benefits to approximately 548,000 beneficiaries and paid $105.4 million in unemployment and sickness benefits to approximately 28,000 claimants. Of the total $12.5 billion benefit payments in the same fiscal year, 60.0% was paid to retired workers, 8.0% to disabled workers, 14.4% to spouses, and 16.8% to survivors.

Summary: The Railroad Retirement Act (RRA) authorizes retirement, disability, and survivor benefits for railroad workers and their families. RRA is financed primarily by payroll taxes, financial interchanges from Social Security, and transfers from the National Railroad Retirement Investment Trust (NRRIT). Railroad retirement payroll taxes have two tiers: the Tier I tax is essentially the same as the Social Security payroll tax and the Tier II tax is set each year based on the railroad retirement system's asset balances, benefit payments, and administrative costs. In FY2017, the gross RRA funding was about $12.7 billion.

Summary: Railroad retirement annuities are also divided into two tiers. Tier I annuities are designed to be nearly equivalent to Social Security benefits and are based on both railroad retirement and Social Security-covered employment. However, Tier I annuities are more generous than Social Security benefits in certain situations. For example, at the age of 60, railroad workers with at least 30 years of covered railroad work may receive unreduced retirement annuities. Tier II annuities are similar to private pensions and based solely on covered railroad service. Tier II annuities are paid in addition to Tier I annuities.

Summary: Railroad disability annuities may be payable to totally disabled railroad workers who are permanently disabled from all work and occupational disabled workers who are found to be permanently disabled from their regular railroad occupations. Eligible spouses and survivors of railroad workers may receive a certain portion of Tier I and Tier II benefits, but divorced spouses and surviving divorced spouses are eligible for only a certain portion of Tier I benefits.

Summary: The Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act (RUIA) authorizes unemployment and sickness benefits for railroad workers. RUIA is financed solely by railroad employers, whose contributions are based on the taxable earnings of their employees. Eligibility for railroad unemployment and sickness benefits is based on recent railroad service and earnings. The maximum daily unemployment and sickness benefit payable in the benefit year that began July 1, 2018, is $77, and the maximum benefit for a biweekly claim is $770. Normal benefits are paid for up to 26 weeks in a benefit year. The railroad unemployment and sickness system remains affected by sequestration, as unemployment benefits will continue to be reduced through at least September 30, 2019.

The Railroad Retirement Board (RRB), an independent federal agency, administers retirement, survivor, disability, unemployment, and sickness insurance for railroad workers and their families under the Railroad Retirement Act (RRA) and the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act (RUIA). These acts cover workers who are employed by railroads engaged in interstate commerce and related subsidiaries, railroad associations, and railroad labor organizations. Lifelong railroad workers receive railroad retirement benefits instead of Social Security benefits; railroad workers with nonrailroad experience receive benefits either from railroad retirement or Social Security, depending on the length of their railroad service.

The number of railroad workers has been declining since the 1950s, although the rate of decline has been irregular and recent years have seen increases in railroad employment after reaching an all-time low of 215,000 workers in January 2010. Recently, railroad employment peaked in April 2015 to 253,000 workers, the highest level since November 1999, and then declined through FY2017, falling to 221,000 workers. The total number of beneficiaries under the RRA and RUIA decreased from 623,000 in FY2008 to 574,000 in FY2017, and total benefit payments increased from $10.1 billion to $12.6 billion during the same time. During FY2017, the RRB paid nearly $12.5 billion in retirement, disability, and survivor benefits to approximately 548,000 beneficiaries. Almost $105.4 million in unemployment and sickness benefits were paid to approximately 28,000 claimants.

This report explains the programs under RRA and RUIA, including how each program is financed, the eligibility rules, and the types of benefits available to railroad workers and family members. It also discusses how railroad retirement relates to the Social Security system. For a quick overview of this topic, see CRS In Focus IF10481, Railroad Retirement Board: Retirement, Survivor, Disability, Unemployment, and Sickness Benefits .

Railroad Retirement, Survivor, and Disability Benefits

The RRA authorizes retirement, survivor, and disability benefits for railroad workers and their families. In December 2017, there were a total of 526,100 RRA beneficiaries, decreasing from 672,400 in 2001. This decline might partly result from the decline in railroad employment in the past five decades. The average monthly benefit for each beneficiary was about $1,986 in 2017, which increased from $1,043 in 2001, reflecting the growth in average wages and prices (see Figure 1 ).

The railroad retirement, disability, and survivor program is mainly financed by payroll taxes, financial interchanges from Social Security, and transfers from the National Railroad Retirement Investment Trust (NRRIT) (see Figure 2 ), all of which accounted for 93.9% of the $12.7 billion gross funding of the RRA program during FY2017. The remaining 6.1% of the program was financed by federal income taxes levied on railroad retirement benefits, interest on investment and other revenue, and general appropriations to pay the costs of phasing out vested dual benefits.

Payroll taxes, which provided 47.0% of gross RRA funding in FY2017, are the largest funding source for railroad retirement, survivor, and disability benefits. Railroad retirement payroll taxes are divided into two tiers—Tier I and Tier II taxes. The Tier I tax is the same as the Social Security payroll tax: railroad employers and employees each pay 6.2% on earnings up to $132,900 in 2019. The Tier II tax is set each year based on the railroad retirement system's asset balances, benefit payments, and administrative costs. In 2019, the Tier II tax is 13.1% for employers and 4.9% for employees on earnings up to $98,700. Tier II taxes are used to finance Tier II benefits, the portion of Tier I benefits in excess of Social Security retirement benefits (such as unreduced early retirement benefits for railroad employees with at least 30 years of railroad service), and supplemental annuities.

Tier I payroll taxes are deposited in the Social Security Equivalent Benefit Account (SSEBA), which pays the Social Security level of benefits and administrative expenses allocable to those benefits. The SSEBA also receives or pays the financial interchange transfers between the railroad retirement and Social Security systems. The financial interchange with Social Security provided 32.6% of gross RRA funding in FY2017. The purpose of the financial interchange is to place the Social Security trust funds in the same position they would have been in, if railroad employment had been covered under Social Security since that program's inception.

Tier II tax revenues that are not needed to pay current benefits or associated administrative costs are held in the National Railroad Retirement Investment Trust (NRRIT), which is invested in both government securities and private equities. NRRIT transfers provide another revenue source for railroad benefits, and they were 14.3% of gross RRA funding in FY2017. Prior to the Railroad Retirement and Survivors' Improvement Act of 2001 ( P.L. 107-90 ), surplus railroad retirement assets could only be invested in U.S. government securities—just as the Social Security trust funds must be invested in securities issued or guaranteed by the U.S. government. The 2001 act established the NRRIT to manage and invest the assets in the Railroad Retirement Account in the same way that the assets of private-sector and most state and local government pension plans are invested. The remainder of the railroad retirement system's assets, such as assets in SSEBA, continues to be invested solely in U.S. government-issued or -granted securities.

The combined fair market value of Tier II taxes and NRRIT assets is designed to maintain four to six years' worth of RRB benefits and administrative expenses. To maintain this balance, the Railroad Retirement Tier II tax rates automatically adjust as needed. This tax adjustment does not require congressional action, according to Section 204 of the 2001 act.

To be insured for railroad benefits, a worker must generally have at least 10 years of covered railroad work or 5 years performed after 1995 and "insured status" under Social Security rules (generally 40 earnings credits) based on combined railroad retirement and Social Security-covered earnings. An insured railroad worker's family may be entitled to receive railroad retirement benefits. If a worker does not qualify for railroad retirement benefits, his or her railroad work counts toward Social Security benefits. Of the total $12.5 billion benefit payments during FY2017, 60.0% (or $7.5 billion) were paid in retirement annuities to retired workers, 8.0% (or $1.0 billion) in disability annuities, 14.4% (or $1.8 billion) in spouse annuities, and 16.8% (or $2.1 billion) in survivor annuities.

Tier I annuities are designed to be nearly equivalent to Social Security Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance benefits. Tier I annuities are calculated using the Social Security benefit formula and are based on both railroad retirement and Social Security-covered employment. However, Tier I annuities are more generous than Social Security benefits in certain situation. For example, at the age of 60, railroad workers with at least 30 years of covered railroad work may receive unreduced retirement annuities. At the full retirement age (FRA), which is gradually increasing from 65 to 67 for Social Security and railroad retirement beneficiaries, insured workers with fewer than 30 years of service may receive full retirement ann uities. Alternatively, workers with fewer than 30 years of service may, starting at the age of 62, receive annuities that have been reduced actuarially for the additional years the worker is expected to spend in retirement. Tier I benefit reductions for early retirement are similar to those in the Social Security system. As the FRA rises, so will the reduction for early retirement. If a railroad employee delays retirement past FRA, Tier I annuities are increased by a certain percentage for each month up until the age of 70, which is identical to the benefit increase provided by Delayed Retirement Credits under the Social Security system.

In general, Social Security benefits are subtracted from Tier I annuities, because work covered by Social Security is counted toward Tier I annuities. Beneficiaries insured by both systems receive a single check from the RRB. Railroad retirement annuities may also be reduced for certain pensions earned through federal, state, and local government work that is not covered by Social Security. For early retirees who continue to work for a nonrailroad employer while receiving the retirement benefit during the year prior to FRA, Tier I benefits are reduced by $1 for every $2 earned above an exempt amount ($17,040 in 2018). After Tier I benefits are first paid, they increase annually with a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) in the same manner as Social Security benefits.

Retirement annuities are not payable to workers who continue to work in a covered railroad job or who return to railroad work after retirement.

Tier II retirement annuities are paid in addition to Tier I annuities and any private pension and retirement saving plans offered by railroad employers. They are similar to private pensions and based solely on covered railroad service. Tier II annuities for current retirees are equal to seven-tenths of 1% of the employee's average monthly earnings in the 60 months of highest earnings, times the total number of years of railroad service. Tier II annuities are increased annually by 32.5% of the Social Security COLA.

Tier II annuities are not (in contrast to Tier I annuities) reduced if a worker receives Social Security benefits or a government pension that was not covered by Social Security. For railroad retirees and spouses who work for their last pre-retirement nonrailroad employer while receiving retirement benefits, Tier II annuities are reduced by $1 for every $2 earned, capped at 50% of the Tier II annuity. There is no cap to the earnings-related reduction in railroad Tier I or Social Security benefits. In addition, the earnings-related reduction applies to all Tier II beneficiaries regardless of age, whereas for railroad Tier I and Social Security benefits, the earnings-related reduction applies only until the beneficiary reaches FRA.

Other Retired Worker Benefits: Supplemental Annuities and Vested Dual Benefits

Tier II payroll taxes also finance a supplemental annuity program. Supplemental annuities are payable to employees first hired before October 1981, aged 60 with at least 30 years of covered railroad service or aged 65 and older with at least 25 years of covered railroad service, and a current connection with the railroad industry.

In addition, general revenues finance a vested dual benefit for those who were insured for both railroad retirement and Social Security in 1974 when the two-tier railroad retirement benefit structure was established. Neither supplemental annuities nor vested dual benefits are adjusted for changes in the cost of living during retirement. Supplemental annuities are subject to the same earnings reductions as Tier II benefits; vested dual benefits are subject to the same earnings reductions as Tier I benefits.

Railroad workers may be eligible for disability annuities if they become disabled regardless of whether the disability is caused by railroad work. The RRB determines whether a worker is disabled based on the medical evidence provided during the application process. Railroad workers found to be totally and permanently disabled from all work may be eligible for Tier I benefits at any age if the worker has at least 10 years of railroad service. Totally disabled workers may also receive Tier II benefits at the age of 62 if they have 10 or more years of service. Occupational disability annuities are also payable to workers found to be permanently disabled from their regular railroad occupations, if the worker is at least 60 years old with 10 years of service (or any age with 20 years of service), and with a current connection to the railroad industry. A five-month waiting period after the onset of disability is required before any disability annuity can be payable.

Disability annuities are not payable if a worker is currently employed in a covered railroad job. Disability benefits are suspended if a beneficiary earns more than a certain amount after deducting certain disability-related work expenses. The Tier I portion of disability benefits may be reduced for the receipt of workers compensation or government disability benefits.

In any month that a worker collects a railroad retirement or disability annuity, his or her spouse may also be eligible for a spousal annuity equal to or greater than the benefit he or she would have received if the worker's railroad work had been covered by Social Security. A spouse is eligible for a spousal annuity when he or she reaches the same minimum age required for the worker (i.e., either at the age of 60 or 62, depending on years of the worker's service). At any age, a spouse may be eligible for a spousal annuity if he or she cares for the worker's unmarried child under the age of 18 (or a child of any age that was disabled before the age of 22). An individual must have been married to the railroad worker for at least one year before he or she applies for the spousal annuities, with certain exceptions. A qualifying spouse receives 50% of the worker's Tier I benefit before any reductions (or, if higher, a Social Security benefit based on his or her own earnings). Spouses may also receive 45% of the worker's Tier II benefit before any reductions.

Divorced spouses of retired or disabled railroad workers may also be eligible for spousal annuities. A divorced spouse may receive 50% of the worker's Tier I benefit before reductions, but no Tier II benefits. To qualify, the former spouse must have been married to the worker for at least 10 years and must not currently be married (remarriages if any must have terminated); both the worker and former spouse must be at least 62 years old.

For spouses, as for railroad workers, Social Security benefits are subtracted from Tier I annuities. The Tier I portion of a spouse annuity may also be reduced for receipt of any pension from government employment not covered by Social Security based on the spouse's own earnings. Spouses are subject to reductions based on the primary worker's earnings as well as on their own earnings. For example, for early retirement, spouses are subject to different benefit reductions from workers. Finally, spouse annuities are reduced by the amount of any railroad benefits earned based on their own work.

After the worker's death, surviving spouses, former spouses, children, and other dependents may be eligible to receive survivor annuities, which are paid in addition to any private life insurance offered by railroad employers. To be insured for survivor annuities, the worker must have had a current connection with the railroad industry at the time of death. Railroad survivor annuities are generally higher than comparable Social Security benefits because railroad workers' families may be entitled to Tier II annuities as well as Tier I annuities (as noted above, Tier I annuities are equivalent to Social Security benefits). In cases where no monthly survivor annuities are paid, a lump-sum payment may be made to certain survivors.

The widows and widowers of railroad workers may be eligible to receive survivor annuities. At FRA, a surviving spouse may be eligible for 100% of the worker's Tier I annuity (or his or her own Social Security or railroad retirement Tier I benefit, if higher). The widow(er) may also receive up to 100% of the worker's Tier II annuity. As early as the age of 60 (or age 50, if disabled), widows and widowers may receive reduced survivor annuities. A qualifying widow(er) must have been married to the deceased railroad worker for at least nine months, with certain exceptions. At any age, a widow(er) caring for a deceased worker's child under the age of 18 may receive a survivor annuity equal to 75% of the worker's Tier I annuity, as well as up to 100% of the worker's Tier II annuity. Widow(er)s who are the natural or adoptive parent of the deceased worker's child do not have to meet the length of marriage requirement.

Survivor annuities may also be payable to a surviving divorced spouse or remarried widow(er). To qualify for benefits, a surviving divorced spouse has to be married to the employee for at least 10 years and is unmarried or remarried after age 60 (age 50 for disabled surviving divorced spouse). A surviving divorced spouse who is unmarried can qualify for benefits at any age if caring for the employee's child who is under age 16 or disabled. Benefits are limited to the amounts Social Security would pay (Tier I only) and therefore are less than the amount of the survivor annuity otherwise payable.

Railroad workers' children may also receive survivor annuities. To qualify, a child must be unmarried and under the age of 18 (or 19 if still in high school). Disabled adult children may qualify if their disability began before the age of 22. Eligible children receive 75% of the worker's Tier I annuity and 15% of the worker's Tier II annuity. In addition, if a worker's parent was dependent on the worker for at least half of the parent's support, he or she may receive 82.5% of the worker's Tier I annuity and 35% of the worker's Tier II annuity after reaching age 60.

Survivor annuities are not payable to a current railroad employee, and survivor annuities are reduced by any railroad retirement benefit the survivor has earned through his or her own railroad work. Survivors receive the same reductions as retired workers for Social Security benefit receipt; they also have reductions from government pension receipts that are not covered by Social Security. A family maximum applies to survivor benefits, usually applicable when three or more survivors receive benefits on a worker's record (not counting divorced spouses).

In summary, Table 1 provides data on railroad retirement, survivor, and disability annuities as of June 2018.

Railroad Unemployment and Sickness Benefits

Railroad workers may qualify for daily unemployment and sickness benefits under the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act (RUIA). These monetary benefits are paid in addition to any paid leave or private insurance an employee may have. For sickness benefits, a worker must be unable to work because of illness or injury. Sickness benefits are distinct from disability benefits because they are intended to cover a finite, temporary period of time. Workers may not earn any money while receiving unemployment or sickness benefits.

Figure 3 displays the monthly number of beneficiaries with unemployment and sickness benefits from January 2002 to July 2018, respectively. Although the number of sickness beneficiaries stayed relatively stable over time, the number of unemployment insurance beneficiaries increased significantly during and after the most recent economic recession from 2007 to 2009.

Railroad unemployment and sickness benefits are financed solely by railroad employers' payroll taxes, based on the taxable earnings of their employees. Employers' tax rates depend on the past rates of unemployment and employees' sickness claims. For calendar year 2018, the employer tax rate ranges from 2.2% to 12.0% on the first $1,560 of each employee's monthly earnings.

The payroll tax proceeds not needed immediately for unemployment and sickness insurance benefits or operating expenses are deposited in the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Account maintained by the Treasury. This account, together with similar unemployment insurance accounts for each state, forms a Federal Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund whose deposits are invested in U.S. government securities, and the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Account receives interest based on these deposits. During FY2017, payroll tax contributions from railroad employers totaled $126.4 million and interest income was about $4 million.

The RUIA provides for employers to pay a surcharge if the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Account falls below an indexed threshold amount. The surcharge is added to the employer's tax rate. However, the total tax rate plus the surcharge cannot exceed the maximum rate of 12.0%, unless the surcharge is 3.5%, in which case the maximum tax rate is increased to 12.5%. From 2004 through 2010, the surcharge was 1.5%. The surcharge in 2011 was 2.5% and 1.5% in 2012 with no surcharges in 2013 or 2014. The surcharge in 2018 was 1.5%, the same as the level in the past three years.

Eligibility for railroad unemployment and sickness benefits is based on recent railroad service and earnings. The annual benefit year begins on July 1. Eligibility is based on work in the prior year, or the base year. To qualify in the benefit year beginning July 1, 2018, railroad workers must have base year earnings of $3,862.50 in calendar year 2017, counting no more than $1,545 per month. New railroad workers must also have at least five months of covered railroad work in the base year. To receive unemployment benefits, a worker must be ready, willing, and able to work.

The maximum daily unemployment and sickness benefit payable in the benefit year that began July 1, 2018, is $77, and the maximum benefit for a biweekly claim is $770. However, due to sequestration pursuant to the Budget Control Act of 2011 ( P.L. 112-25 , as amended), the maximum daily benefit of $77 is reduced by 6.2% to $72.23 and the maximum biweekly benefit is reduced by 6.2% to $722.26 through September 30, 2019. Railroad workers receive these benefits only to the extent that they are higher than other benefits they receive under the RRA, the Social Security Act, or certain other public programs, including workers compensation.

Unemployment and sickness beneficiaries may receive normal benefits for up to 26 weeks in a benefit year or until the benefits they receive equal their creditable earnings in the base year if sooner. Employees with at least 10 years of covered railroad service may qualify for extended benefits for 13 weeks after they have exhausted normal benefits. Table 2 displays the number and average weekly amount of RUIA benefits paid in June 2018.

Workers who apply for unemployment benefits are automatically enrolled in a free job placement service operated by railroad employers and the RRB.


Alternative Fuel and Advanced Vehicle Technology Incentives: A Summary of Federal Programs

Summary: A wide array of federal incentives supports the development and deployment of alternatives to conventional fuels and engines in transportation. These incentives include tax deductions and credits for vehicle purchases and the installation of refueling systems, federal grants for conversion of older vehicles to newer technologies, mandates for the use of biofuels, and incentives for manufacturers to produce alternative fuel vehicles. The current array of incentives for alternative fuels and related technologies does not reflect a single, comprehensive strategy, but rather an aggregative approach to a range of discrete public policy issues, including goals of reducing petroleum consumption and import dependence, improving environmental quality, expanding domestic manufacturing, and promoting agriculture and rural development.

Summary: Current federal programs are administered by five key agencies: Department of the Treasury (Treasury), Department of Energy (DOE), Department of Transportation (DOT), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The incentives and programs described in this report are organized by the responsible agency.

Summary: Treasury (through the Internal Revenue Service, IRS) administers tax credits and deductions for alternative fuel and advanced technology vehicle purchases, expansion of alternative fuel refueling infrastructure, and incentives for the production and/or distribution of alternative fuels. Many of these incentives have expired in recent years. DOE (mainly through the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, EERE) administers research and development (R&D) programs for advanced fuels and transportation technology, grant programs to deploy alternative fuels and vehicles, and a loan program to promote domestic manufacturing of high-efficiency vehicles. DOT (mainly through the Federal Highway Administration, FHWA, and Federal Transit Administration, FTA) administers grant programs to deploy "clean fuel" buses and other alternative fuel vehicles. DOT (through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NHTSA) also administers federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, which include incentives for production of alternative fuel vehicles. EPA (mainly through the Office of Transportation and Air Quality, OTAQ) administers the Renewable Fuel Standard, which mandates the use of biofuels in transportation. EPA also administers grant programs to replace older diesel engines with newer technology. USDA (mainly through the Rural Business-Cooperative Service, RBS) administers grant, loan, and loan guarantee programs to expand agricultural production of biofuel feedstocks, conduct R&D on biofuels and bioenergy, and establish and expand facilities to produce biofuels, bioenergy, and bioproducts.

A range of federal incentives supports the development and deployment of alternatives to conventional fuels and engines in transportation. These incentives include tax deductions and credits for vehicle purchases and the installation of refueling systems, federal grants for conversion of older vehicles to newer technologies, mandates for the use of biofuels, and incentives for manufacturers to produce alternative fuel vehicles. Some of these incentives have expired in recent years when their authorizations expired.

Many of the policy choices presented for alternative fuel and advanced vehicle technologies originated as a response to the nation's interest in reducing petroleum imports, a goal first articulated at the time of the two oil embargoes imposed by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) in the 1970s. While President Richard Nixon is often cited as the first President to call for "energy independence," successive Presidents and Congresses have made efforts to reduce petroleum import dependence as well.

As shown in Figure 1 , since peaking in 2005, net U.S. oil imports have fallen by 70%. Factors in this reversal include the last recession, which reduced domestic demand, followed by a rise in the supply of U.S. oil and oil alternatives due to increased private sector investment and federal incentives, some of which are cited in this report. In addition, the United States has become a net exporter of petroleum products (while it remains a net importer of crude oil). With declining U.S. import dependence, reliance on petroleum and petroleum products may be less of a factor in promoting alternative fuels and alternative fuel vehicles in the future.

In addition to concerns over petroleum import dependence, other factors also have driven policy on alternative fuels and advanced vehicle technologies. Federal incentives do not reflect a single, comprehensive strategy but rather an aggregative approach to a range of discrete public policy issues, including improving environmental quality, expanding domestic manufacturing, and promoting agriculture and rural development.

Factors Behind Alternative Fuels and Technologies Incentives

While a reliance on foreign sources of petroleum was an overriding concern for much of the past 40 years, other factors, such as rural development, promotion of domestic manufacturing, and environmental concerns, have also shaped congressional interest in alternative fuels and technologies. A variety of programs affecting the development and commercialization of alternative fuels and technologies have been proposed and enacted, each with its own benefits and drawbacks. (This report does not evaluate the effectiveness of alternative fuel programs and incentives.) Alternative fuels programs can be generally classified into six categories: expanding domestic ethanol production; establishing other alternative fuels; encouraging the purchase of nonpetroleum vehicles; reducing fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions; supporting U.S. vehicle manufacturing; and funding U.S. highways.

Ethanol has been seen as a homegrown alternative to imported oil. A number of programs were put in place to encourage its domestic development (instead of importing from other ethanol producers, such as Brazil). To spur establishment of this domestic industry, Congress has enacted a number of laws, which are beneficial to states that have a large concentration of corn growers (corn being the raw material feedstock in most U.S. ethanol). Many of the incentives for ethanol production have been included in farm-related legislation and appropriations acts and hence have been administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), or in tax provisions administered by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The volumetric ethanol excise tax credit (VEETC) provided a tax credit to gasoline suppliers who blended ethanol with gasoline. The small ethanol producer tax credit provided a limited additional credit for small ethanol producers. Both credits expired at the end of 2011. Since 2005, petroleum refiners and importers have been required to supply biofuels as a share of their gasoline and diesel supply. This mandate, the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), has been an impetus for expanded production and use of ethanol and other biofuels.

Establishing Other New Alternative Fuels

In addition to ethanol, Congress has sought to spur development of other alternative fuels, such as biodiesel, cellulosic biofuel, hydrogen, liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), compressed natural gas (CNG), and liquefied natural gas (LNG). Some of these fuels have been supported through tax credits (such as the biodiesel tax credit), federal mandates (mainly the RFS), and R&D programs (such as the Biomass Research and Development Initiative, which provides grants for new technologies leading to the commercialization of biofuels).

Encouraging the Purchase of Nonpetroleum Vehicles

Congress has enacted laws which seek to boost consumer adoption by providing tax credits for the purchase of some vehicles that consume far less petroleum than conventional vehicles, or that do not consume petroleum at all. These tax credit programs generally are limited in duration as a way to encourage early adopters to take a risk on new kinds of vehicles. The proponents contend that once a significant number of such new cars and trucks are on the road, additional buyers would be attracted to them, the increased volume would result in lower prices, and the tax credits would no longer be needed. Currently, a credit is available for the purchase of plug-in electric vehicles. Expired credits include incentives for hybrid vehicles, fuel cell vehicles, advanced lean burn technology vehicles, and certain alternative fuel vehicles. Congress has also enacted tax credits to spur the expansion of infrastructure to fuel such vehicles, although these credits have likewise expired.

Reducing Fuel Consumption and Vehicle Emissions

Several agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Transportation (DOT), have been mandated by statute to address concerns over fuel consumption and vehicle emissions through programs for alternative fuels. The most significant and long-standing program to reduce vehicle fuel consumption is the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program administered by DOT. Under CAFE, each manufacturer's fleet must meet specific miles-per-gallon standards for passenger vehicles and light trucks. If a manufacturer fails to do so, it is subject to financial penalties. Manufacturers can accrue credits toward meeting CAFE standards for the production and sale of certain types of alternative fuel vehicles. A joint rulemaking process between DOT and EPA links future CAFE standards with greenhouse gas (GHG) standards promulgated under EPA's Clean Air Act authority. DOT also established the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) to fund programs that intended to reduce emissions in urban areas that exceed certain air quality standards. At EPA, the Diesel Emission Reduction Act (DERA) was implemented with a goal of reducing diesel emissions by funding and implementing new technologies. In addition, EPA's RFS mandates the use of renewable fuels for transportation. Under the RFS, some classes of biofuels must achieve GHG emission reductions relative to gasoline.

Supporting U.S. Motor Vehicle Manufacturing

The Department of Energy (DOE), in partnership with U.S. automakers, federal labs, and academic institutions, has funded and overseen research and development programs on vehicle electrification for decades, in particular research focused on how to produce economical batteries that extend electric vehicle range. These R&D programs were supplemented in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA; P.L. 111-5 ) to include grants to U.S.-based companies for facilities to manufacture advanced battery systems, component manufacturers, and software designers to boost domestic production and international competitiveness. The Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing (ATVM) loan program at DOE, established by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 ( P.L. 110-140 ), has supported manufacturing plant investments to enable the development of technologies to reduce petroleum consumption, including the manufacture of electric and hybrid vehicles, although no new loans have been approved since 2011.

As described below (see " Motor Fuel Excise Taxes "), one of the earliest fuels-related federal programs is the motor vehicle fuels excise tax first passed in the Highway Revenue Act of 1956 to fund construction and maintenance of the interstate highway system. Originally, only gasoline and diesel were taxed, but as newer fuels became available (such as ethanol and compressed natural gas), they were added to the federal revenue program, but often at lower tax rates than gasoline or diesel. Lower tax burdens for some fuels or vehicles may effectively incentivize those choices over conventional options. However, lower tax burdens for these vehicles and fuels could compromise federal highway revenue. The vehicles responsible for lower tax revenues include traditional internal combustion engine vehicles with higher mileage per gallon as well as new technology electric and hybrid cars.

The federal tax incentives and programs discussed in this report aim to support the development and deployment of alternative fuels. There is no central coordination of how these incentives interact. In general, they are independently administered by separate federal agencies, including five agencies: Department of the Treasury, DOE, DOT, EPA, and USDA.

This report focuses strictly on programs that directly support alternative fuels or advanced vehicles. It does not address more general programs (e.g., general manufacturing loans, rural development loans), or programs that have been authorized but never funded. The programs are presented by agency, starting with those that generally address the above factors, followed by those that are fuel- or technology-specific. Programs that expired or were repealed on or after December 31, 2017, are included in Appendix A , Recently Expired or Repealed Programs. Congress may explore whether to reinstate these expired programs or establish similar programs.

1. a summary of the programs discussed in the body of the report, listed by agency ( Table B-1 ); 2. a listing of programs and incentives for alternative fuels, by fuel type ( Table B-2 ); 3. a listing of programs and incentives for advanced technology vehicles, by vehicle type ( Table B-3 ); and 4. a listing of recently expired programs by agency ( Table B-4 ).

Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program (ATVM)

Bioenergy Technologies Program (formerly the Biomass and Biorefinery Systems R&D Program)

Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies Program

Corporate Average Fuel Economy Program Alternative Fuel Vehicle Credits

Bioenergy Program for Advanced Biofuels20

Biomass Crop Assistance Program (BCAP; §9011)21

Biomass Research and Development (BRDI)22

Biorefinery, Renewable Chemical, and Biobased Product Manufacturing Assistance Program (formerly the Biorefinery Assistance Program)24

Rural Energy for America Program (REAP) Grants and Loans25

Appendix A. Recently Expired or Repealed Programs

Alternative Fuel Refueling Property Credit

Biodiesel or Renewable Diesel Income Tax Credit

Biodiesel or Renewable Diesel Mixture Tax Credit

Incentives for Alternative Fuel and Alternative Fuel Mixtures

Plug-In Electric Vehicle Credit (Two- or Three-Wheeled)

Second Generation Biofuel Producer Credit (previously the Credit for Production of Cellulosic and Algae-Based Biofuel)

Special Depreciation Allowance for Second Generation (Cellulosic and Algae-Based) Biofuel Plant Property

Table B-1 provides a summary of the programs discussed in the body of the report, listed by agency; Table B-2 lists programs and incentives for alternative fuels, by fuel type; Table B-3 lists programs and incentives for advanced technology vehicles, by vehicle type; and Table B-4 lists programs by agency that have expired or were repealed since December 31, 2017.