Introduction On April 23, 2020, Congress passed its fourth measure including supplemental appropriations to respond to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The Paycheck Protection Program and Health Care Enhancement Act (the act; P.L. 116-139 ) includes enhancements for the Small Business Administration's Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), Economic Injury Disaster Loans (EIDL), and Emergency EIDL grants, and emergency supplemental appropriations for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Small Business Administration (SBA). The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the act will result in $321.3 billion in additional direct spending for the PPP, and $162.1 billion in additional discretionary spending, including $50 billion for EIDL and $10 billion for Emergency EIDL grants. Legislative History H.R. 266 was first passed by the House on January 11, 2019, as an FY2020 annual appropriations measure unrelated to COVID-19. The bill was read twice and placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar on January 15, 2019, but the Senate did not act on the original legislation. The Senate agreed to take up the measure on April 21, 2020. The bill was laid before the Senate by unanimous consent and an amendment in the nature of a substitute replaced the original text with that of the "Paycheck Protection Program and Health Care Enhancement Act." The Senate passed the bill the same day by voice vote. The House of Representatives took up the amended bill on April 23, 2020, suspending the rules and passing it by a vote of 388-5, with one Member voting present. The President signed the bill into law on April 24, 2020, as P.L. 116-139 . Provisions of the Paycheck Protection Program and Health Care Enhancement Act Division AâSmall Business Programs The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act ( P.L. 116-136 ; the CARES Act) established the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), and provided it $349 billion. The PPP authorized loans with a two-year term at a 1% interest rate to small businesses and other organizations adversely affected by COVID-19. Loan payments are deferred for six months and feature loan forgiveness up to the amount borrowed under specified conditions related to the borrower's retention of employees and employee wages. The SBA started accepting PPP loan applications on April 3, 2020. Because the program neared its $349 billion authorization limit, the SBA stopped accepting new PPP loan applications on April 15, 2020. Over 1.66 million loans were approved by nearly 5,000 lenders. Most of the loans (74%) were for under $150,000. The CARES Act also enhanced SBA Economic Injury Disaster Loans (EIDL) from January 31, 2020, through December 31, 2020, expanding eligibility and taking other steps, such as establishing Emergency EIDL grants of up to $10,000, to make resources more broadly and quickly available to small businesses. The Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2020 ( P.L. 116-123 ) had provided the SBA an additional $20 million to support EIDL. The CARES Act appropriated $10 billion for Emergency EIDL grants. The SBA also stopped accepting new COVID-19-related EIDL loan applications on April 15, 2020, because that program neared its appropriations limit for credit subsidies. COVID-19-related EIDL applications which had already been received continue to be processed on a first-come first-served basis. The SBA approved nearly 30,000 COVID-19-related EIDLs totaling nearly $5.7 billion, and 755,476 Emergency EIDL grants totaling nearly $3.3 billion. Division A of P.L. 116-139 increases the PPP authorization limit from $349 billion to $659 billion, and increases the direct appropriation in the CARES Act for the program from $349 billion to more than $670 billion to support that authorization amount. Division A of the act also: requires that no less than $30 billion of the additional PPP authorization amount be set aside for loans issued by insured depository institutions and credit unions with consolidated assets of $10 billion to $50 billion; requires that no less than $30 billion of the additional PPP authorization amount be set aside for loans issued by community financial institutions (including community development financial institutions (CDFIs), minority depository institutions, community development corporations, and SBA microloan intermediaries), and insured depository institutions and credit unions with consolidated assets less than $10 billion; and makes agricultural enterprises with not more than 500 employees eligible for EIDL and Emergency EIDL grants during the covered period (January 31, 2020, through December 31, 2020). Division BâAdditional Emergency Appropriations for Coronavirus Response Division B of P.L. 116-139 is a supplemental appropriations measure providing $100 billion for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) through the Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund (PHSSEF) and $62 billion for the Small Business Administration ($50 billion for EIDL, $10 billion for Emergency EIDL grants, and $2.1 billion for SBA salaries and expenses). All of the supplemental appropriations are designated as being emergency requirements under the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 ( P.L. 99-177 , as amended), and thus do not count against the statutory limits on discretionary spending for FY2020. Each appropriation in P.L. 116-139 , Division B, explicitly provides its resources "to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus, domestically or internationally." Table 1 details the supplemental appropriations included in Division B, as well as subdivision and transfers of those appropriations outlined in P.L. 116-139 . Title IâDepartment of Health and Human Services Title I provides $100 billion in emergency supplemental appropriations to the HHS Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund (PHSSEF), an account used in appropriations acts to provide the HHS Secretary with one-time or emergency funding, as well as annual funding for the office of the HHS Assistance Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR). Of the $100 billion, $75 billion is additional funding for the HHS "Provider Relief Fund," established with an initial appropriation of $100 billion in the CARES Act. These funds remain available until expended, and are to be used "to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus, domestically or internationally, for necessary expenses to reimburse, through grants or other mechanisms, eligible health care providers for health care related expenses or lost revenues that are attributable to coronavirusâ¦." Both P.L. 116-139 and the CARES Act define eligible providers broadly as any that provide "diagnoses, testing, or care for individuals with possible or actual cases of COVID-19â¦." HHS has made initial distributions from the Provider Relief Fund. The remaining $25 billion, also available until expended, is provided to augment national capacity for COVID-19 containment, such as expanded testing capacityâincluding supplies such as personal protective equipment (PPE)âand workforce and technical capacity for disease surveillance and contact tracing. Among other allowable uses, these funds may be used to build, purchase, renovate, or rent non-federally owned facilities. Of the $25 billion, the act requires the HHS Secretary to transfer specified amounts to HHS agencies as follows: Not less than $11 billion for states, localities, territories, tribes, tribal organizations, urban Indian health organizations, or health service providers to tribes. Of this amount, not less than $2 billion is for states, localities, and territories according to the formula for the CDC Public Health Emergency Preparedness cooperative agreement in FY2019; and not less than $4.25 billion is for the same awardees according to a formula based on relative number of cases of COVID-19. Of that $4.25 billion, not less than $750 million is for tribes, tribal organizations, urban Indian health organizations, or health service providers to tribes. Not less than $1 billion for CDC for surveillance, epidemiology, and laboratory capacity expansion; contact tracing; data systems modernization; outreach; and workforce support to expand and improve COVID-19 testing. Not less than $1.806 billion for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) as follows: not less than $306 million for the National Cancer Institute to develop, validate, improve, and implement serological testing and associated technologies for COVID-19; not less than $500 million for the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering for research, development, and implementation of point-of-care and other rapid testing for COVID-19; and not less than $1 billion for the NIH Office of the Director, broadly to support the agency's research and development efforts regarding COVID-19 testing. Not less than $1 billion for the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) for advanced research, development, manufacturing, production, and purchase of diagnostic, serologic, or other COVID-19 tests or related supplies, and other activities related to COVID-19 testing. $22 million for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Salaries and Expenses, for activities associated with diagnostic, serological, antigen, and other COVID-19 tests, and related administrative activities. $600 million for the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) for grants under the Health Centers program, covering a broader range of facilities than was previously eligible. $225 million for HRSA for rural health clinics, using the distribution procedures developed for the Provider Relief Fund established under the CARES Act. Not more than $1 billion to cover the cost of testing for the uninsured, using the National Disaster Medical System (NDMS) Definitive Care Reimbursement Program according to the Families First Coronavirus Response Act, P.L. 116-127 . Numerous reporting requirements apply to this $25 billion appropriation. General provisions in Title I allow the HHS Secretary to transfer PHSSEF funds to HHS agencies, as specified, with attendant reporting to the appropriations committees; and require the Secretary to transfer up to $6 million to the HHS Office of Inspector General for oversight of activities funded by this act through the PHSSEF. Title IIâIndependent Agencies Because Division A provides significant additional authorization, resources, and direction for SBA's PPP and EIDL programs, the Title II provisions are for the most part straightforward. $50 billion is provided for the cost of EIDL, and $10 billion for Emergency EIDL grants, to fulfil the authorization in Division A. The $2.1 billion included for SBA's Salaries and Expenses appropriation remains available until the end of FY2021, to support the agency's increased rate of operations in providing COVID-19 pandemic relief.


Introduction On August 1, 2018 , the World Health Organization (WHO) reported a new Ebola outbreak in eastern DRC, about a week after having declared the end of a separate outbreak in the west of the country. As of September 24, 2019, the WHO had reported 3,175 cases in the current outbreak, including 2,119 deaths. About 58% of all cases have been women and 28% children. The current outbreak is the 10 th on record in DRC, the largest to have occurred in the country, and the second largest ever, after the 2014-2016 Ebola outbreak in West Africa. Cases have been concentrated in North Kivu and Ituri provinces ( Figure 1 ), where long-running conflicts had already caused a protracted humanitarian crisis and are complicating Ebola control efforts. The number of new Ebola cases identified per week has fluctuated since the start of the outbreak ( Figure 2 ), but has generally trended downward slowly since peaking in April 2019. The current outbreak has coincided with a fraught political transition process in DRC. A new president, parliament, provincial-level assemblies, and governors were elected between late 2018 and mid-2019, after years of delays, gridlock, political violence, and repression of opposition voices. Election delays in the Ebola-affected areas, an opposition stronghold, heightened tensions and spurred conspiracy theories, arguably hindering Ebola response. President Felix Tshisekedi, inaugurated in January 2019, was previously an opposition figure, but the coalition of his predecessor Joseph Kabila won supermajorities in parliament and at the provincial level. Observers questioned the legitimacy of the election results, and tense negotiations between the two political blocs (Tshisekedi's and Kabila's) delayed the naming of a new cabinet until late August 2019, while complicating relations between the national and provincial/local officials. Several factors have foiled outbreak control efforts, including low Ebola awareness (early symptoms are similar to other common ailments like malaria), community distrust of health interventions, belated visits to health facilities (at which point survival prospects decline rapidly), and infection prevention control lapses in health facilities. Attacks by militia and criminal groups, political protests, health worker strikes, and security force abuses have also disrupted and impeded the response. In mid-September, for example, violent attacks in a new hotspot (Lwemba, Ituri Province) after the death of a local healthcare worker from Ebola prompted the indefinite suspension of Ebola control activities in the area. As a result, new cases continue to stem from unknown chains of transmission, and deaths continue to occur outside Ebola treatment centers. U.S. officials and other health experts have repeatedly raised concerns about broader challenges in DRC related to its health care system, political tensions, local grievances, and instability. USAID Administrator Mark Green testified to Congress in April 2019 that in DRC, "You have a failed democracy in many, many waysâ¦. It will take more than simply a medical approach. It will take a development approach to try to tackle this terrible disease and to contain its outbreak." After traveling to DRC in August 2019, Administrator Green wrote, "Decades of corrupt, authoritarian rule during which communities were denied any meaningful voice in their government have undermined the Congolese people's trust in institutions." Health experts have been troubled by reports of Ebola cases in major DRC cities (including the capital of North Kivu, Goma) and outside of DRC. Between June and August 2019, a total of four cross-border cases were detected in Uganda. Observers expressed optimism about the rapid detection and containment of these cases, but new concerns have arisen about subsequent suspected cases in Tanzania. In mid-September, WHO was informed by unofficial sources of a number of suspected Ebola cases in that country, including in the capital city of Dar es Salaam, while Tanzanian authorities asserted that there were no confirmed or suspected Ebola cases in the country. WHO has reportedly since sent personal protective equipment (PPE) and vaccination supplies to Tanzania, and recommended that the sickened patients (one of whom reportedly died) receive secondary confirmation testing at a WHO facility. As of September 21, none of the cases had received secondary confirmation. Ebola control in other neighboring countries such as South Sudan, Burundi, or Central Africa Republic, which have minimal state capacity and are affected by protracted conflicts and political crises, could be highly challenging if required. The International Response Outbreak control, treatment, and disease surveillance activities are being carried out primarily by DRC government employees (including health workers and frontline workers, who provide routine and essential services), as well as by international nongovernmental organizations, with U.N. agencies (including the WHO), other multilateral entities (including the World Bank), and foreign governments providing funding, expertise, coordination, and logistical assistance. Classic Ebola outbreak control protocol entails infection prevention control (IPC) in health care facilities; management and isolation of patients in Ebola Treatment Centers (ETCs); fever surveillance with rapid diagnosis; tracing of Ebola cases and their contacts; and community awareness and adherence to IPC protocols, safe patient and body transport, safe burials, and household and environmental decontamination. The extraordinary conditions on the ground in affected areas of eastern DRC have limited the effectiveness of conventional control measures, however, and are requiring ever-evolving strategies for containment, including aggressive vaccination campaigns (see text box below). Since the WHO declared the outbreak to be a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) in July 2019, it has sought to garner additional donor funds, as well as international support for addressing the political and security issues affecting Ebola control. In July 2019, the WHO and the DRC Ministry of Health (MoH) released a fourth strategic response plan to "definitively defeat" the Ebola epidemic ( Table 1 ). The strategic plan is expected to cost over $462 million, including about $288 million for the public health response portion ( Table 1 ). In July 2019, the World Bank announced that it would provide $300 million toward the plan, about half of which would support the public health response, on top of prior funding commitments (discussed below). The public health portion of the strategic plan, covering July 1 through December 31, 2019, purportedly takes into account lessons learned from the third strategic response plan (February through July 2019). This portion of the plan is based on strengthening political commitment, security, and operational support to improve acceptance of the response and access to insecure areas; deepening support for addressing the varied needs of communities affected by Ebola (beyond a single-minded focus on containment efforts), as a means toward fostering community ownership and involvement in Ebola responses; improving financial planning, monitoring and reporting; and bolstering preparedness of neighboring provinces and countries. The World Bank has urged other countries to provide additional support, and the WHO Director-General has urged donors to address disbursement delays. As of September 11, 2019, the WHO had received less than $60 million of the $288 million it sought for the current phase of the public health response. The United States is the top country donor for the public health response and has provided almost $158 million for the Ebola humanitarian response, largely supporting activities by nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), as discussed below. DRC Government Role DRC government employees and other Congolese nationals are the primary responders to the Ebola epidemic on the ground. As WHO Executive Director for Health Emergencies Dr. Michael Ryan noted in June 2019, "If you go into the treatment facilities now it is Congolese doctors and nurses in the front line. There may be NGO or WHO badges on the tents but the doctors and nurses are Congolese; surveillance officers are Congolese; 80% of the vaccinators in this response are Congolese." The DRC government has provided health workers and administrative personnel, hired local frontline workers, organized volunteers, and conducted information awareness campaigns. The government has also offered certain health services free of charge in selected government health facilities, with donor support (discussed below). From the start of the current outbreak, the DRC government's health responses were coordinated by the MoH, as in past Ebola outbreaks in DRC. In July 2019, however, President Tshisekedi transferred coordination responsibilities to an expert committee headed by the director of DRC's biomedical research institute, Dr. Jean-Jacques Muyembe, who reports directly to the president. Dr. Muyembe is a recognized expert on Ebola who helped investigate the first known outbreak of the disease, in DRC in 1976. Then-Health Minister Dr. Oly Ilunga resigned following Dr. Muyembe's appointment, citing a dilution of his authority as well as confusion about the coordination of DRC government Ebola responses, an insufficient focus on the health system, and opposition to utilizing the Johnson & Johnson experimental vaccine (see text box above). Ilunga was subsequently the target of scathing criticism in the leaked report of a DRC government investigative commission, which indicated, among other things, that Ilunga and his team had displayed an "aggressive and ostentatious attitude" when visiting the outbreak area and had squandered Ebola response funds on fancy cars and hotel rooms. These developments have suggested an internal power struggle over policy and control of funds for Ebola response. U.N. and Other Multilateral Organizations Humanitarian experts, including U.S. officials, have repeatedly asserted that broader humanitarian access and security issues have stymied outbreak control efforts, and that international response efforts require increased coordination and transparency. In response to such concerns, in May 2019 U.N. Secretary-General AntÃ³nio Guterres appointed MONUSCO Deputy Special Representative David Gressly, a U.S. citizen, to serve as a new U.N. Emergency Ebola Response Coordinator charged with establishing a "strengthened coordination and support mechanism" for Ebola response. While the WHO is to continue to lead "all health operations and technical support activities to the government," Gressly is leading a broader U.N.-wide effort to strengthen political engagement, financial tracking, humanitarian coordination, and "preparedness and readiness planning" for Goma and surrounding countries. Gressly, who continues to report to the head of MONUSCO, portrayed his new role as a reflection of the need for "more than just a public health response." The WHO has deployed some 700 personnel to DRC since the current outbreak began. These personnel are coordinating the public health response and providing operational and technical support to DRC government personnel and other actors. Particular areas of focus include detection and rapid isolation of Ebola cases, intensification of rapid multidisciplinary public health actions for Ebola cases, community engagement, and health system strengthening. In addition, the WHO is coordinating regional readiness exercises and assessments in adjacent areas of DRC and neighboring countries. Vaccination and disease surveillance efforts have been bolstered in Uganda, Rwanda, and Burundi. The World Bank has stepped up its role in supporting the Ebola response effort since mid-2019. On July 24, the World Bank Group announced it was mobilizing up to $300 millionâto be financed through the Bank's International Development Association and its Crisis Response Windowâon top of $100 million disbursed previously through the International Development Association and the Bank's Pandemic Emergency Financing Facility (PEF). The PEF announced a further $30 million disbursement for DRC on August 23, 2019. World Bank resources have financed free health care and essential medicines in clinics in all affected areas, hazard pay for frontline health workers, handwashing stations, mobile laboratories, decontamination teams, psychosocial support teams, community engagement campaigns, and vaccination efforts. The injection of new resources aims to build on existing World Bank support to strengthen the DRC health system. The African Union (AU) Africa Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Africa CDC) has supported international response efforts by deploying members of its voluntary response corps to DRC and neighboring countries. Africa CDC voluntary responders include epidemiologists and anthropologists, as well as communication, laboratory, and logistics experts from various African countries who are "on standby for emergency deployment." To date, these responders have trained local health workers and community volunteers, set up laboratories, supplied personal protective equipment, and trained people in port-of-entry screening. The U.S. Government Response USAID and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) deployed staff to DRC and the region when the outbreak was first detected in August 2018. The United States is also the top country donor to the Ebola response effort, as noted above. As of September 10, USAID had announced more than $148 million for direct support to the Ebola response within DRC and another $9.8 million to support preparedness and prevention activities in neighboring countries. Those funds were drawn primarily ($156.1 million) from unobligated FY2015 International Disaster Assistance (IDA) funds that Congress appropriated on an emergency basis for Ebola response during the West Africa outbreak ( P.L. 113-235 ). According to USAID, the available balance of FY2015 emergency IDA Ebola funds stood at $105.5 million as of September 9. More broadly, the United States is the top bilateral humanitarian donor to DRC and the top financial contributor to MONUSCO, which is providing logistical and security support to Ebola response efforts. USAID Administrator Green testified before Congress in April 2019 that "there is sufficient money for fighting Ebola in DRC," asserting that nonfinancial challenges posed the primary constraint to containment efforts. U.S. funding commitments have continued to grow since then, however, as the outbreak has persisted and broadened. U.S. personnel are providing technical support from Kinshasa, Goma, and neighboring Rwanda and Uganda, while implementing partners (U.N. agencies and NGOs) are administering Ebola response efforts within the outbreak zone with U.S. resources. The Administration has placed strict constraints on the movement of U.S. personnel to and within affected areas, due to security threats. In September 2018, USAID and CDC withdrew personnel from the immediate outbreak zone due to security concerns, despite CDC's stated preference to maintain staff in the field. U.S. support for outbreak control has included the following: USAID has provided grant funding to NGOs and U.N. entities carrying out Ebola response and preparedness activities, drawing primarily on IDA funds (as noted above). In October 2018, USAID deployed a Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART) to coordinate the U.S. response in support of the DRC government, the WHO, and other partners. USAID Ebola response funds have supported disease surveillance, infection prevention and control, safe and dignified burials, water and sanitation aid, prepositioning of medical supplies, humanitarian coordination, and logistics. U.S. bilateral economic and health aid funding for DRC has also supported programs that may ease humanitarian access or otherwise complement Ebola response activities. CDC personnel have provided direct technical support to the DRC government, the WHO, and USAID's DART for disease surveillance, contact tracing, data management, infection protection and control, risk communication and community engagement, laboratory strengthening, emergency management, and surveillance at points of entry. CDC staff also have supported Ebola preparedness efforts in neighboring countries. The Department of Defense has supplied laboratory training to Ugandan researchers and has partnered with them to conduct clinical Ebola vaccine trials. Challenges Security Threats and Political Tensions Security threats have periodically forced the temporary cessation of Ebola case management in some areas, interrupted contact tracing, and frustrated surveillance efforts in high-transmission areas. Dozens of armed groups are active in the areas most affected by the outbreak. These include an array of local militias, along with the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), a relatively large and opaque group implicated in attacks on U.N. peacekeepers, local military forces, and civilians. Road travel is often dangerous, with frequent reports of militia attacks, armed robbery, and kidnappings. In April 2019, the Islamic State claimed responsibility for an attack on local soldiers previously attributed to the ADF, the latest in a series of signs of emerging ties between the two. State security force personnel reportedly maintain ties with armed groups and have been implicated in atrocities, including civilian massacres in Beni territory since 2014. Local mistrust of government officials and outsiders (including Congolese who are not from the immediate area)âsometimes rooted in conflict dynamics, ethnic tensions, and political frictionâhas prompted some community resistance to Ebola control efforts and led to attacks on health workers and facilities, including Ebola treatment centers. Some communities in Beni and Butembo have long opposed DRC's central government and complained of neglect and persecution. WHO officials have urged broader international support for "political mediation, engagement with opposition, and negotiated solutions," asserting that "[j]ust purely focusing on community engagement and participation will not fix what are deep seated political issues that need to be addressed at a higher level." Perceptions that outsiders are profiting financially from the outbreak, or that international intervention is driven more by fear of contagion than concern for locals' wellbeing, appear to have fueled conspiracy theories and community resistance. At a July 15 donors event on Ebola response in Geneva, WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghabreyesusi said that Congolese in the outbreak zone had asked him, "Are you here to help us, or to prevent this thing from coming to you? Are you doing this for us, or for yourself?" He added, "It embarrasses me.â¦ We should not appear to be seen as if we are parachuting in and out because of Ebola." DRC's then-Health Minister argued in the same meeting that local perceptions that the response was bringing cash into the region had fueled threats to health workers, including kidnappings. Health System Constraints Local perceptions that donors are more concerned with preventing the spread of Ebola to their countries than with helping Congolese communities are rooted, in part, in enduring health challenges. Maternal and infant deaths, for example, have for years regularly exceeded the current count of Ebola deaths but have received comparatively little attention. Authorities have redirected health resources in some areas for Ebola control, deepening local frustrations. Vaccination campaigns have also been interrupted in some Ebola hotspots. In Ituri province, for example, inadequate supply of measles vaccine has limited containment of a measles outbreak that began in January and has infected over 161,000 people, claiming over 3,000 lives. Health workers also are fighting a cholera outbreak that has infected over 15,000 people and killed at least 287. The WHO has reported that Ebola transmission is likely occurring in ill-equipped and understaffed health facilities. Inconsistent adherence to infection prevention and control, periodic disruptions in supply chain systems, and limited access to water for handwashing in some health facilities have complicated Ebola control efforts. In addition, some health workers have refused to wear personal protective equipment in health facilities or perform rudimentary infection prevention and control measures due to threats of violence by some members of the community. As of August 27, 2019, 156 health workers had contracted Ebola, at least 34 of whom had died. The MoH, WHO, and other partners have identified health facilities of concern and are addressing lapses in triage, case detection, and infection prevention and control. Reported Progress Community Engagement. The WHO and implementing partners have worked to deepen local engagement, with some reported positive results. Local Ebola committees in Butembo and Katwa (at the center of the outbreak zone in North Kivu), for example, are chaired and managed by community members who plan Ebola awareness and sensitization campaigns. Improved community engagement has reportedly contributed to increased participation in vaccine campaigns and safe and dignified burial practices. For example, the WHO reported in July 2019 that a high-risk contact in Katwa had sought vaccination and offered to bring other contacts. In an effort to reduce the risk of transmission and broaden access to Ebola treatment and case finding, the WHO also plans to establish smaller patient transit centers closer to communities. Replicating engagement activities in emergent hot spots remains a challenge, however. Ebola Therapeutics Advance. In August 2019, a clinical trial of four investigational Ebola treatments in DRC identified two "strong performers," leading the WHO to state that "these are the only drugs that future patients will be treated with." The trial, launched in late 2018, was co-sponsored by DRC's national biomedical research institute and the U.S. National Institutes of Health, and was carried out by an international research consortium coordinated by the WHO. Issues for Congress U.S. Funding for DRC Ebola Response In FY2015, in the context of the West Africa outbreak, Congress appropriated $5.1 billion for Ebola response and preparedness on an emergency basis, including $1.436 billion in multiyear International Disaster Assistance (IDA) funds (Title IX of Division J, P.L. 113-235 ). U.S. funding for responding to the current outbreak has drawn primarily on the unobligated balance of these IDA funds. According to USAID, $105.5 million of these funds remained available for expenditure as of September 9, 2019. Should the outbreak continue or expand in new ways, Congress may consider what funding mechanisms, if any, the United States might use to support Ebola control. At the same time, the United States remains the lead country donor to the current Ebola response effort. Members may examine the U.S. role, vis-Ã -vis other actors (including other countries, multilateral entities, and private sources), in financing Ebola response activities, and may debate strategies for securing additional contributions from other donors. U.S. Aid Restrictions Related to Trafficking in Persons DRC is ranked as "Tier III" (worst) under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA, P.L. 106-386 , as amended), which triggers prohibitions on certain types of U.S. aid absent a full or partial presidential waiver. In FY2019, in a departure from previous practice, President Trump did not partially waive the restrictions for DRC. Thus, pursuant to the TVPA, no "nonhumanitarian, nontrade-related" assistance may be provided "to the government" of DRC. IDA funds, the core source of funding for U.S. Ebola response support to date, are exempt from the TVPA restrictions (22 U.S.C. Â§7102[10]). The TVPA further exempts economic and development assistance "in support of programs of nongovernmental organizations." In practice, the Administration has interpreted the TVPA restrictions to apply broadly to various programs funded through the Development Assistance (DA) and Economic Support Fund (ESF) accounts, including some that would be implemented by NGOs, though it has not publicly provided a full account of affected activities. Some Members of Congress have expressed concern that some U.S. assistance that could help promote humanitarian access in Ebola-affected areas has been held up as a result. Testifying before the Senate in July 2019, a senior USAID official affirmed that some FY2018 aid resources that could help with Ebola control remained restricted in connection with the TVPA, but he and other Administration witnesses did not provide further details. Two bills introduced in the 116 th Congress ( S. 1340 , the Ebola Eradication Act of 2019, and H.R. 3085 , a House companion bill) would authorize assistance for a range of activities that could help lower community resistance or otherwise support Ebola control efforts in DRC and neighboring states, "notwithstanding" the TVPA restrictions. S. 1340 passed the Senate on September 23, 2019. Similar language was included in a draft FY2020 State, Foreign Operations Appropriations bill circulated by the Senate Appropriations Committee on September 18, 2019. That bill would also broadly provide at least $298.3 million in U.S. bilateral assistance for "stabilization, global health, and bilateral economic assistance" to DRCâslightly higher than the U.S. allocation for DRC in recent years, not counting food aidâ"including in areas affected by, and at risk from, the Ebola virus disease." Global Health Security The current Ebola outbreak has prompted resumption of discussions about strengthening health systems worldwide, particularly with regard to pandemic preparedness. In 2014, during the Obama Administration, the United States and the WHO co-launched the Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA) to improve countries' ability to prevent, detect, and respond to infectious disease threats. The United States, the largest donor to this multilateral effort, pledged to support it with $1 billion from FY2015 through FY2019. The Trump Administration has built on these efforts. In May 2019, the White House released the United States Government Global Health Security Strategy , which outlined the U.S. role in extending the Global Health Security Agenda and improving global health security worldwide. Although the Trump Administration, through the strategy and public statements, has supported extending the GHSA through 2024, officials have not provided comprehensive information on what that support would entail. Members of Congress may continue to debate what role, if any, the United States should play in supporting global health system strengthening efforts to bolster global health security, and whether to adjust funding levels to meet ongoing and future infectious disease threats. Through regular appropriations, disease outbreak prevention and global health security efforts are funded through USAID pandemic influenza and CDC global health protection line items ( Table 2 ). On September 19, 2019, the House passed the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2020, and Health Extenders Act of 2019 ( H.R. 4378 ), which would authorize the transfer to the CDC of up to $20 million for Ebola preparedness and response activities from the Infectious Disease Rapid Response Reserve Fund. Other relevant bills introduced in the 116 th Congress include H.R. 2166 , which would codify U.S. engagement in the GHSA as specified in an executive order issued by the Obama Administration, and H.R. 826 , which seeks to facilitate research and treatment of neglected tropical diseases, including Ebola.


Introduction On July 2, 1862, with the passage of the first Morrill Act (12 Stat. 503; 7 U.S.C. 301 et seq.), the United States began a then novel policy of providing federal support for post-secondary education, specifically for agriculture and the mechanical arts. The national system of land-grant colleges and universities that has developed since then is recognized for its breadth, reach, and excellence in teaching, research, and extension. Located in every state, Washington, D.C., and many insular areas , these institutions educate the next generation of farmers, ranchers, and citizens, and form the backbone of a national network of agricultural extension and experiment stations. Later federal legislation expanded the scope and reach of the 1862 Morrill Act. Beyond providing initial resources for establishment of the land-grant institutions, the federal government contributes funds annually through a variety of capacity and competitive grants administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA). Capacity grants, also known as formula funds, are allocated to states based on statutory formulas. Competitive grants are awarded to specific projects selected through peer-review processes. In many cases, the states and territorial governments complement federal appropriations through matching funds. Legislation has also expanded the land-grant system to include historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs) and tribal colleges and universities (TCUs). Additional institutional categories are recognized for specific programs. These categories include non-land-grant colleges of agriculture (NLGCAs), Hispanic-serving agricultural colleges and universities (HSACUs), and cooperating forestry schools. Looking forward, the scheduled fall 2019 relocation of NIFA from its current location in Washington, D.C.; the shifting balance of public and private investment in agricultural research; disparities in state matching funds among the different classes of land-grant institutions; and the funding of TCU land-grant institutions may invite congressional engagement. While state and local governments have roles in the U.S. land-grant university system, this report focuses on federal laws, appropriations, and other matters. Overview: History, Institutions, and Mission History Post-secondary education in the American colonies was available to a limited segment of society and focused on a few subject areas. Colonial colleges established in association with Christian denominations enrolled predominantly white men in classical and professional disciplines. New colleges created following independence of the United States from Great Britain broadened enrollment and fields of study. However, lack of reliable funding meant that many closed. In the early- to mid-19 th century, demand grew for post-secondary education in agricultural and technical disciplines, as did interest in educating the populace more broadly. Johnathan Baldwin Turner, a professor at Illinois College, championed a more accessible "industrial education." His "Plan for a State University for the Industrial Classes," presented at an academic conferenceÂ in 1850, contained many elements of the yet-to-be established land-grant university system. In 1857, Representative Justin Smith Morrill of Vermont introduced a bill to establish colleges of agriculture through grants of land to the states. The bill proposed giving federal land, or rights to such land, to the states for the purpose of establishing these colleges. The federal government was already giving land to states to encourage the development of railroads, for example through the Land Grant Act of 1850 (9 Stat. 466). However, granting land to states to establish institutions of higher education was a novel prospect. Congress passed Morrill's bill in 1859 by a slim margin, largely along a North-South divide, and it could not overcome a Presidential veto by James Buchanan. Morrill, who had never attended college himself, presented the bill once again in 1862. The political landscape had changed by then, with onset of the Civil War and accompanying absence of Members of Congress from the southern states. Further, the second introduction of the bill expanded proposed areas of study at the colleges to include military strategy in addition to agricultural and mechanical arts. This bill passed overwhelmingly, and President Abraham Lincoln signed it on July 2, 1862. This first Morrill Act, described in greater detail below, marked the beginning of the U.S. land-grant university system. Notably, Lincoln signed the Morrill Act just seven weeks after signing legislation to establish USDA (12 Stat. 387, enacted May 15, 1862). Between 1872 and 1890, then Senator Morrill introduced twelve bills focused on strengthening the early land-grant university system. Congress passed the last of those bills, and President Benjamin Harrison signed into law the Morrill Act of 1890 (26 Stat. 417). This second Morrill Act provided funding for the land-grant university system and prohibited racial discrimination in admissions policies. It led to the establishment of a group of historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs) known as the 1890 Institutions. The land-grant university system further expanded in 1994 with the addition of a group of tribal colleges and universities (TCUs) now identified as the 1994 Institutions. Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico introduced the Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act in 1993. This act became Sections 531-335 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act reauthorization ( P.L. 103-382 ), and President William J. Clinton signed it into law on October 20, 1994. What Is a Land-Grant College or University? Land-grant institutions are colleges and universities designated to receive benefits of the Morrill Acts of 1862 and 1890. These acts promoted establishment of institutions of higher learning focused on the agricultural and mechanical arts, without excluding other scientific and classical studies. Land-grant institutions now address many academic fields in addition to those of their foundational colleges of agriculture. There is at least one land-grant institution in each U.S. state, the District of Columbia, the Federated States of Micronesia, and many U.S. territories (see Figure 1 for a map). In 2017, 1.7 million students were enrolled across 109 land-grant colleges and universities, with a portion of those enrolled in those institutions' colleges of agriculture. The federal government provides annual appropriations to U.S. states and territories, often with matching requirements, for use in the land-grant university system. Types of Land-Grant Institutions There are three categories of land-grant institution, named for the year in which legislation established them: 1862, 1890, and 1994. The " Foundational Legislation " section of this report discusses relevant establishment legislation for these institutions in detail. Most generally, 1862 Institutions are the original land-grant colleges and universities established through the Morrill Act of 1862, as amended. There are fifty-seven 1862 Institutions, located in each state, U.S. territory, and in the District of Columbia. The 1890 Institutions are HBCUs established as land-grant institutions as a result of the Morrill Act of 1890, as amended. There are nineteen 1890 Institutions, primarily in the southeastern states. The 1994 Institutions are TCUs recognized through the Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994, as amended. Congress has defined thirty-six 1994 Institutions through statute. The federal government recognizes additional categories of institutions that are not land-grant institutions, and yet support the mission of the land-grant university system (as discussed below). Cooperating forestry schools, HSACUs, and NLGCAs are eligible for federal funding through specific programs. Three Pillars: Teaching, Research, and Extension Federal legislation has given rise to the three functional pillars of land-grant institutions. First among them is the teaching function established through the Morrill Acts of 1862 and 1890. Later legislation added research and extension, establishing the roles of land-grant institutions in producing original agricultural research and in bringing that research to the non-university public through agricultural extension. Foundational Legislation The U.S. land-grant university system has evolved over the past 150 years. Multiple pieces of legislation have added to its original mission, expanded its reach, and adjusted its funding structure. This section identifies enacted legislation that is among the most significant for land-grant universities (see Table 1 for a summary of select statutes). Details regarding federal funding and state matching requirements are discussed in the section following this legislative overview (" Funding "). Funding discussed in this report is discretionary unless otherwise stated. Teaching The Morrill Act of 1862 (12 Stat. 503; 7 U.S.C. 301 et seq.) was officially titled, "An Act Donating Public Lands to the Several States and Territories which may provide Colleges for the Benefit of Agriculture and the Mechanic Arts" (see legislative excerpt in the text box below). It designated that each state would receive 30,000 acres of federal land for each member of the Senate and House of Representatives it had in Congress at the time. In cases in which insufficient public land was available, states would instead receive land scrip , or certificates of entitlement to such public lands. Money from the sale of this land or land scrip was to be used to support at least one college with the primary purpose of teaching agriculture and the mechanical arts, to "promote the liberal and practical education of the industrial classes in the several pursuits and professions in life." The act prohibited states from using the funds for constructing or maintaining buildings. The Morrill Act of 1890 (26 Stat. 417; 7 U.S.C. 321 et seq.) responded to the need to finance the institutions established through the first Morrill Act. Today, the second Morrill Act is most recognized for its role in the establishment of HBCU land-grant institutions. It provided each state and territory with annual appropriations for the endowment and maintenance of the land-grant colleges. This money was to be used for instruction in specific academic disciplines, and for facilities for such instruction. The second Morrill Act prohibited racial discrimination in admission policies of institutions receiving these funds ( 7 U.S.C. 323 ) . However, it permitted states and territories to meet this requirement by establishing separate institutions "of like character" for white and non-white students. In such cases, annual appropriations would be divided "equitably" between the two institutions in a manner proposed by the state or territory and reported to the Secretary of the Interior. This condition ultimately resulted in the establishment of 19 federally recognized 1890 Institutions, primarily in the southeastern states. Just over 100 years after the Morrill Act of 1890 facilitated the addition of HBCUs, the Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994 ( P.L. 103-382 Â§531-535; 7 U.S.C. 301 note) added TCUs to the land-grant university system. This act originally designated twenty-nine 1994 Institutions, considered to be land-grant institutions established in accordance with the Morrill Act of 1862 except for the manner in which they would be funded. In lieu of land or land scrip, annual appropriations would endow and maintain them. The Native American Institutions Endowment Fund was created in the U.S. Treasury, and interest payments are distributed annually on a formula basis. Institutions may use these endowment payments at their discretion. The 1994 Institutions are eligible for some, but not all, research and extension funds that are available to 1862 Institutions established through the first Morrill Act. There are currently 36 TCUs designated as 1994 Institutions. Research Agricultural research in the land-grant university system impacts daily life. Among diverse areas of investigation, researchers at land-grant institutions explore best practices for livestock, fish, and plant breeding; analyze agricultural value chains; examine interactions among soil health, agricultural productivity, and water quality; and look for new and safer pesticides to protect crop production, human health, and the environment. Discoveries achieved through this research at land-grant institutions have improved the lives of producers and consumers in diverse ways. The Hatch Act of 1887 (24 Stat. 440; 7 U.S.C. 361a et seq.) instituted the research function of land-grant universities. It provided for establishment of "a department to be known and designated as an 'agricultural experiment station ... '" under the direction of each land-grant institution established under the first Morrill Act. They would aid " ... in acquiring and diffusing among the people of the United States useful and practical information on subjects connected with agriculture and to promote scientific investigation and experiment respecting the principles and applications of agricultural science ... " The Hatch Act provided for appropriations to support original agricultural research at these stations, distributed to the states based on a formula in the law. Federal funds distributed in this manner are referred to as capacity grants or formula funds. The Hatch Act ultimately led to development of State Agricultural Experiment Stations (SAES) in each U.S. state, insular area, and the District of Columbia. In the modern day, not all of these stations are physical places, and may be represented instead through individual or groups of researchers at 1862 Institutions, or at associated agricultural or research sites within the state. The 1890 Institutions are not eligible for Hatch Act appropriations. In 1977, the Evans-Allen Act ( P.L. 95-113 Â§1445; 7 U.S.C. 3222 ) gave 1890 Institutions access to agricultural research capacity grants. The Evans-Allen Act is Section 1445 in the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (NARETPA) ( P.L. 95-113 Â§1440-1445; 7 U.S.C. 3222). Evans-Allen funds are appropriated and then distributed according to a statutory formula, in a manner similar to Hatch Act appropriations. The 1994 Institutions are not eligible for research capacity grants under the Hatch or Evans-Allen Acts. However, Section 251 of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act (AREERA) of 1998 ( P.L. 105-185 ) gave these institutions access to separate competitive agricultural research funding. AREERA amended the Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994 to authorize USDA to award research grants to 1994 Institutions on a competitive basis. This provision requires that the 1994 Institution applying for these funds certify that the proposed research will be conducted in partnership with the USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS), an 1862 or 1890 Institution, or a cooperating forestry school. Congress has provided appropriations for this competitive grants program. However, lack of predictable annual research funding on a formula basis has raised concerns that 1994 Institutions cannot build their institutional agricultural research capabilities, as 1862 and 1890 Institutions have done. For more, see " Funding of 1994 Institutions ." By the mid-20 th century, forestry science capacity was increasingly seen as falling behind national needs. The McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry Act of 1962 (P.L. 87-788; 16 U.S.C. 582a-1 et seq.) authorized forestry research funds. This act encourages coordination of forestry research efforts among state colleges and universities and the federal government. These funds are apportioned to the states in amounts determined by the Secretary of Agriculture in consultation with an advisory council. These apportionments were originally available only to 1862 Institutions, their affiliated SAESs, or public colleges or universities offering graduate training in forestry. The 1890 Institutions were made eligible in Section 7412 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, also known as the 2008 farm bill ( P.L. 110-246 ). The 1994 Institutions were made eligible in Section 7604 of the 2018 farm bill (Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, P.L. 115-334 ). Additional federal legislation has authorized a variety of competitive research grants, and is addressed in " Funding ." Extension Agricultural extension brings agricultural research findings to the people who can put them into practice. Since passage of the Smith-Lever Act in 1914, the United States has developed an expansive Cooperative Extension System operated through the land-grant university system in partnership with federal, state, and local governments. Partners include NIFA, cooperative extension services at land-grant colleges and universities, and cooperative extension service offices in nearly each of the country's approximately 3,000 counties and its territories. Extension agents based at field offices and land-grant institutions work with local agricultural producers and community members to demonstrate or put into practice knowledge gained through agricultural research. Agriculture faculty at land-grant institutions may have appointments that are fully teaching, research, or extension, or some combination of the three. The extension function adds non-formal education to the land-grant mission. The Smith-Lever Act of 1914 (38 Stat. 372; 7 U.S.C. 341 et seq.) responded to interest in ensuring that agricultural research findings would make their way to producers and improve agricultural practices. This act provided for capacity funds â annual appropriations, distributed to the states on a formula basis â for cooperative extension. It led to establishment of the cooperative extension service associated with 1862 Institutions. The Smith-Lever Act, as amended, also contains competitive funding provisions. Smith-Lever capacity funds are not available to 1890 Institutions. The 1890 Institutions gained access to extension appropriations, distributed on a formula basis, in 1977 through the Section 1444 of NARETPA ( P.L. 95-113 Â§1444; 7 U.S.C. 3221 ). Thus NARETPA provided 1890 Institutions access to appropriations for both agricultural research (via Section 1445, or the Evans-Allen Act) and extension (via Section 1444). The 1994 Institutions gained access to federal extension funding in 1998. Section 201 of AREERA ( 7 U.S.C. 343 (b)(3)) amended the Smith-Lever Act to authorize appropriations for USDA to distribute to 1994 Institutions on a competitive basis, with such funds to be administered in cooperation with an 1862 or 1890 Institution. Thus AREERA provided 1994 Institutions access to both competitive research (Section 251) and extension (Section 201) appropriations. Land-Grant Institutions in the District of Columbia and Insular Areas In addition to expanding the mission of the land-grant system, legislation also increased its geographical expanse. Beginning in 1908, modern U.S. territories began to participate in the land-grant system. Today, land-grant institutions are located in the District of Columbia and the insular areas of American Samoa, Guam, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Whereas at the time of the Morrill Act in 1862, the United States had vast tracts of federal lands available for sale to endow new colleges and universities, this was not the case in the 20 th century. Land-grant institutions newly recognized in this time period were appropriated funds for their endowment and maintenance, in lieu of land or land scrip. Although classified as 1862 Institutions, their funding details vary according to specific legislation. The University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez was established as a land-grant institution in 1908 after the benefits of the first and second Morrill Acts were extended to Puerto Rico. The University of the District of Columbia, at the time known as Federal City College, received land-grant status in 1968 through amendment (P.L. 90-354) of Title I of the District of Columbia Public Education Act of 1966 (P.L. 89-791). Colleges in the U.S. Virgin Islands and Guam became land-grant institutions through Section 506 of the Educational Amendments of 1972 (P.L. 92-318). Institutions in American Samoa and what is now the Federated States of Micronesia received similar recognition through the Educational Amendments of 1980 ( P.L. 96-374 Â§1361). A college in the Northern Mariana Islands was added in 1986 ( P.L. 99-396 Â§9). Designation of New Land-Grant Institutions Section 7111 of the 2018 farm bill prohibits designation of any new land-grant institution that would be eligible to receive capacity grants for agricultural research, extension, and related programs (e.g., Hatch Act, Smith-Lever Act, and McIntire-Stennis Act). This change does not affect the eligibility of 1994 Institutions certified in the future to receive McIntire-Stennis funds. Congress made this change with the primary intention of avoiding the duplication of administrative costs that would accompany any division of an existing land-grant institution into more than one entity. Other Institutions Certain public colleges and universities that are not 1862, 1890, or 1994 Institutions can participate in elements of the land-grant university system through specific grants programs administered by USDA. Non-Land-Grant Colleges of Agriculture (NLGCAs) The classification of non-land-grant college of agriculture (NLGCA) was defined in the 2008 farm bill ( P.L. 110-246 , Â§7101; 7 U.S.C. 3103(14) ), and this definition was revised in Section 7102 of the 2018 farm bill. Public colleges and universities are eligible to apply to USDA for NLGCA certification if they are not 1862, 1890, or 1994 Institutions and they offer bachelors, masters or doctoral degrees in food, agriculture, or natural resources in specified agriculturally relevant areas. As of July 2019, more than 40 certified NLGCAs are located in 23 states. The NLGCAs meet eligibility requirements for the Capacity Building Grants for Non-Land-Grant Colleges of Agriculture program administered by NIFA. This competitively funded program for NLGCAs was first authorized by the Agricultural Act of 2014 ( P.L. 113-79 ), also known as the 2014 farm bill, and was reauthorized in the 2018 farm bill. Private colleges and universities remain ineligible. Hispanic-Serving Agricultural Colleges and Universities (HSACUs) Section 7101 of the 2008 farm bill (7 U.S.C. 3103(10)) defined a group of Hispanic-serving agricultural colleges and universities (HSACUs) which could benefit from integrated research, education, and extension competitive grants offered through USDA. Certified HSACU institutions must demonstrate that 25% of full-time enrollment is Hispanic, that the institution offers accredited agriculture-related degree programs, and that Hispanic students received at least 15% of degrees awarded in agricultural programs over the most recent two-year period. The definition further clarifies that an HSACU cannot also be an 1862 Institution. As of 2019, USDA has certified more than 150 HSACUs. Section 7129 of the 2008 farm bill called for establishment of a Hispanic-Serving Agricultural Colleges and Universities Fund in the U.S. Treasury (7 U.S.C. 3243). It authorized annual appropriations for FY2008 and each fiscal year thereafter, and distribution of appropriations and income from the fund to HSACUs on a formula basis. Congress has not appropriated funds for the HSACU Fund since its establishment in 2008, and thus distributions have not been made. Section 7129 of the 2008 farm bill also authorized appropriations for annual payments to HSACU institutions; competitively distributed institutional capacity-building grants; and competitive research and extension grants programs specific to HSACU. These programs have not received appropriations. Cooperating Forestry Schools Cooperating forestry schools (defined at 7 U.S.C. 3103(5)) are those institutions that are eligible to receive funds under the McIntire-Stennis Act. These include 1862, 1890 and 1994 Institutions in addition to non-land-grant "State-supported colleges and universities offering graduate training in the sciences basic to forestry and having a forestry school." States must certify the institutions that are eligible for assistance, and determine the proportionate amounts of assistance to be extended to them if there is more than one cooperating forestry school within a state. Originally, an institution could not be certified as both a cooperating forestry school and an NLGCA. Section 7102 of the 2018 farm bill removed this restriction. Funding The USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) administers federal capacity and competitive grants to partner institutions for research, education, and extension activities (see Table 2 for NIFA discretionary appropriation details). C a pacity grants are recurring federal appropriations allocated to states based on legislative formulas. States are generally required to contribute matching funds, and specific project decisions are made locally. Competitive grants are awarded to specific projects selected through peer-review processes, without consideration of the state of the sponsoring institution. Researchers and institutions must apply for these funds. Capacity Grants, also known as Formula Funds Federal legislation, as discussed earlier, provides capacity grants to land-grant institutions for research, education, and extension (see Table 1 ). NIFA administers these grants in collaboration with states, colleges, and universities. Land-grant colleges, universities, and associated state institutions use these funds to conduct research and extension in support of state agriculture, food, and forestry systems, as well as issues of socioeconomic welfare in communities and families in rural and urban areas. The Hatch Act, Smith-Lever Act, Evans-Allen Act, and McIntire-Stennis Act are the largest sources of capacity funds. Hatch Act: Research Funding for 1862 Institutions Funding for agricultural research under the Hatch Act of 1887 as amended is allocated to the SAES and associated agriculture colleges of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the insular areas. Eligible state institutions must submit a Plan of Work to NIFA for approval before these funds are distributed. The Hatch Act identifies the distribution of federal payments to states for FY1955 as a fixed base, and any sums appropriated in excess of the 1955 level are to be distributed in the following manner: 3% to the USDA for administration of the Hatch Act; 20% equally to each state; 26% to each state in amounts proportionate to the relative rural population of each state to the total rural population of all states; 26% to each state in amounts proportionate to the relative farm population of each state to the total farm population of all states; and 25% to the Hatch Multistate Research Fund for multi-disciplinary, multi-institutional research activities to solve problems concerning more than one state. Federal funds provided under the Hatch Act to state institutions must be matched with non-federal funding on a dollar-for-dollar basis. Section 7213 of the 2002 farm bill (Farm Security and Rural Investment Act, P.L. 107-171 ) and Section 7404 of the 2008 farm bill amended the Hatch Act such that the insular areas and the District of Columbia, respectively, are required to provide matching funds of an amount equal to not less than 50% of the Hatch Act funds they receive. These amendments also provided that the Secretary of Agriculture may waive the matching requirement of an insular area or the District of Columbia for any fiscal year if the Secretary determines that its government is unlikely to meet the matching requirement for that fiscal year. Other provisions of interest within the Hatch Act include: Multistate research. In accordance with provisions of AREERA, at least 25% of available Hatch Act funds must be used to support multi-state research. Integrated activities. States must also expend 25% or twice the level spent in FY1997 (whichever is less) on activities that integrate cooperative research and extension. Carryover. Section 7(c) permits SAES to carry over unexpended funds for use during the following fiscal year. If those funds that have been carried over are not spent by the end of the second year, they are deducted from the following year's allotment. Evans-Allen Act: Research Funding for 1890 Institutions The Evans-Allen Act provides capacity funding for food and agricultural research at 1890 Institutions in a manner similar to the distribution of Hatch Act funds to 1862 Institutions. As with Hatch Act fund recipients, Evans-Allen recipients are required to submit a Plan of Work to NIFA for approval before the funds are distributed. Section 1445(a)(2) of NARETPA (7 U.S.C. 3222(a)(2)), as amended by Section 7122 of the 2008 farm bill, requires that Evans-Allen appropriations shall not be less than 30% of the annual Hatch Act appropriations. However, Evans-Allen appropriations have not met this threshold. They equaled approximately 22% of Hatch Act appropriations in FY2019 (see Table 2 ). Three percent of Evans-Allen funds are reserved for NIFA administrative, technical, and other services. The balance of the funds is distributed as follows: 20% equally to each state; 40% in an amount proportionate to the rural population of the state in which the eligible institution is located to the total rural population of all states in which eligible institutions are located; and 40% in an amount proportionate to the farm population of the state in which the eligible institution is located to the total farm population of all the states in which eligible institutions are located. Section 1449(c) of NARETPA as amended (7 U.S.C. 3222d) requires that federal funds for research and for extension at 1890 Institutions be matched by the state from non-federal sources on a dollar-for-dollar basis. The Secretary may waive the matching funds requirement above the 50% level for an eligible institution if the Secretary determines that the state will be unlikely to satisfy the matching requirement for a given fiscal year. This waiver, while allowing institutions to receive federal funding, has raised questions about overall funding equities. For additional details see " Disparity in State Matching Funds ." McIntire-Stennis Act: Forestry Research Funding The McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry Act of 1962 as amended authorizes research appropriations for certified cooperating forestry schools, including 1862 Institutions. The 1890 Institutions were made eligible for McIntire-Stennis funding through Section 7412 of the 2008 farm bill. The 1994 Institutions that offer associate or baccalaureate degrees in forestry were made eligible in Section 7604 of the 2018 farm bill. Unlike the statutorily designated formulas under the Hatch and Smith-Lever Acts, funding apportionments under the McIntire-Stennis Act are made by the Secretary of Agriculture in consultation with a 16-member council (fulfilled through the Forestry Research Advisory Council of the USDA Forest Service), which includes representatives of relevant forestry research institutions. Three statutorily defined factors are considered in making apportionments (16 U.S.C. 582a-4): 1. total non-federal expenditures for forestry research by state-certified institutions; 2. total state acreage in non-federal commercial forest land; and 3. volume of timber from growing stock cut annually in the state. The federal apportionment also requires a dollar-for-dollar match of non-federal funds that, unlike Hatch and Evans-Allen, cannot be waived. Smith-Lever Act: Extension Funding for 1862 Institutions The Smith-Lever Act of 1914 (38 Stat. 372) as amended authorizes the Cooperative Extension System and provides capacity grants to 1862 Institutions for their cooperative extension education activities. Capacity grants are distributed according to Smith-Lever sections 3(b) and 3(c) (7 U.S.C. 343(b) and 7 U.S.C. 343(c)). Smith-Lever capacity grants provide about 65% of total federal funding for extension activities. Competitive funding provisions within the Smith-Lever Act, including section 3(d) (7 U.S.C. 343(d)) and specific provisions within section 3(b), are addressed in the " Competitive Smith-Lever Provisions for Extension at 1862, 1890, and 1994 Institutions " section of this report. States can use Smith-Lever 3(b) and 3(c) capacity grants for locally determined projects as well as for high priority regional and national concerns. Eligible state institutions must submit a Plan of Work to NIFA for approval before these funds are distributed. Smith-Lever 3(b) capacity funds are distributed based on the FY1962 distribution of cooperative extension funds. For Smith-Lever 3(c) funds, 4% are reserved for NIFA administrative, technical, and other services, and the balance is distributed to the states in the following proportions: 20% equally to each state; 40% in amounts proportionate to the relative rural population of each state to the total rural population of all states; and 40% in amounts proportionate to the relative farm population of each state to the total farm population of all states. Federal funds provided under the Smith-Lever Act to state institutions must be matched with non-federal funds on a dollar-for-dollar basis. Matching requirements for the District of Columbia and the insular areas are subject to matching requirements of at least 50% of the Smith-Lever funds they receive. Further, the Secretary of Agriculture may waive the matching requirement for the District of Columbia or an insular area for any fiscal year if the Secretary determines that it is unlikely to meet the matching requirement for that fiscal year. Smith-Lever requires states to expend 25% of federal Smith-Lever 3(b) and 3(c) capacity grants, or twice the level spent in FY1997 (whichever is less), on cooperative extension activities in which two or more states cooperate to address issues facing more than one state. They must expend the same percentage or amount on activities that integrate cooperative research and extension. Institutions receiving Smith-Lever capacity grants can carry over unexpended funds from one fiscal year to the next. NARETPA Section 1444: Extension Funding for 1890 Institutions Section 1444 of NARETPA (7 U.S.C. 321-329) provides capacity grants for extension education programs at 1890 Institutions in a manner similar to Smith-Lever Act funding for 1862 Institutions. Section 7121 of the 2008 farm bill amended Section 1444(a)(2) of NARETPA so that an amount equal to at least 20% of the total annual appropriation under the Smith-Lever Act sections 3(b) and 3(c) shall be allocated to 1890 Institutions for their extension activities. However, 1890 Institution extension appropriations have not met this threshold. They equaled approximately 15% of Smith-Lever appropriations in FY2019 (see Table 2 ). Funds are distributed according to the same formula used for Evans-Allen 1890 Institution research funds, except that 4%, rather than 3%, of total funds are reserved to NIFA for administrative, technical, and other services. State matching requirements for 1890 Institution extension funds are the same as described for 1890 Institution research funds (see " Evans-Allen Act: Research Funding for 1890 Institutions " and " Disparity in State Matching Funds " for additional details). Before the 2018 farm bill, 1890 Institutions could carry over no more than 20% of their extension appropriations from one fiscal year into the next. The 1862 Institutions have no such limitation. Section 7114 of the 2018 farm bill (7 U.S.C. 3221(a)) allows 1890 Institutions to carry over up to 100% of their extension appropriations. This change may allow 1890 Institutions greater flexibility to plan long-term projects. Native American Institutions Endowment Fund: Capacity Funding for 1994 Institutions Section 533(c) of the Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 301 note) requires annual distributions of interest on the Native American Institutions Endowment Fund. The 1994 Institutions receive payments, based on a statutorily established formula, from the interest earned on the endowment corpus. No withdrawals are made from the corpus of the endowment. There is no matching requirement, and endowment funds do not expire. The institutional recipients may use funds at their discretion, for the support and maintenance of the colleges for the benefit of the agricultural and mechanical arts. In FY2019, the endowment fund produced about $4.6 million in interest. Four percent of the available funds are reserved to NIFA for administrative services. The balance of the interest income is distributed to the 1994 Institutions according to the following formula: 40% in equal shares to the 1994 Institutions and 60% to be distributed among the 1994 institutions based on the "Indian student count" for each institution for the fiscal year. Hispanic-Serving Agricultural Colleges and Universities Fund: Research, Education, and Extension Funding for HSACUs Section 1455 of NARETPA as amended requires annual distributions of interest on the HSACU Fund. No interest has accrued to date, as Congress has not provided appropriations for the HSACU Fund. Four percent of available funds are to be reserved to NIFA for administrative services. The balance of the interest income is to be distributed to the HSACUs according to the following formula (7 U.S.C. 3243): 40% in equal shares to the HSACUs and 60% to be distributed among the HSACUs on a pro rata basis based on the Hispanic enrollment count of each institution. Competitive Grants Many provisions in various laws authorize competitive grants for agriculture and forestry research, education, and extension. The following highlights some major provisions relevant to the land-grant university system, as well as two new programs authorized in the 2018 farm bill. Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) The Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) (7 U.S.C. 3157) is USDA's largest competitive grants program for agricultural science research. The 2008 farm bill established AFRI, and subsequent farm bills reauthorized it. AFRI is authorized to be appropriated $700 million annually, from FY2008 to FY2023. Its appropriation has grown from $202 million in FY2009 ( P.L. 111-8 ) to $415 million for FY2019 ( P.L. 116-6 ). See Table 2 for appropriation levels in recent years. AFRI funds are not reserved specifically for land-grant institutions. Eligible recipients of AFRI awards include State Agricultural Experiment Stations (SAES); colleges and universities; university research foundations; other research institutions and organizations; federal agencies; national laboratories; private organizations or corporations; individuals; or any combination of the aforementioned entities. AFRI grants support research, education, and extension activities in six priority areas identified in the farm bill: plant health and production and plant products (27% of estimated AFRI funds); animal health and production and animal products (22%); food safety, nutrition, and health (15%); bioenergy, natural resources, and environment (12%); agriculture systems and technology (13%); and agriculture economics and rural communities (12%). Competitive Smith-Lever Provisions for Extension at 1862, 1890, and 1994 Institutions Section 201 of AREERA amended the Smith-Lever Act to authorize agricultural extension appropriations for 1994 Institutions, awarded on a competitive basis. This is included as a separate competitive funding provision within Smith-Lever section 3(b) (7 U.S.C. 343(c)). A 1994 Institution may administer such funds in cooperation with an 1862 or 1890 Institution. NIFA awards these funds through the Tribal Colleges Extension Program (TCEP). In addition, Smith-Lever 3(d) funds, originally distributed via formula and reserved for 1862 Institutions, address special programs or concerns of regional or national importance. Smith-Lever 3(d) funds support the (1) Farm Safety and Youth Safety Education Program, (2) Children, Youth, and Families at Risk, (3) Federally-Recognized Tribes Extension Program, and (4) New Technology for Agricultural Extension Program. Section 7403 of the 2008 farm bill extended eligibility for Smith-Lever 3(d) funds to 1890 Institutions and required that all 3(d) funding be awarded on a competitive basis. Section 7609 of the 2018 farm bill authorized 1994 Institutions to compete for and receive funds for two of the four 3(d) programs: Children, Youth, and Families at Risk funding, and the Federally-Recognized Tribes Extension Program. Competitive Research Grants for 1994 Institutions In 1998 Congress, through passage of AREERA, amended the Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994 to authorize a competitive research grants program for 1994 Institutions, and to authorize appropriations for the program. Later farm bills amended some of the original provisions. As amended, the program allows scientists at 1994 Institutions to participate in agricultural research activities that address tribal, national, and multi-state priorities. The 1994 Institutions may conduct this work in cooperation with the Agricultural Research Service, an 1862 or 1890 Institution, an NLGCA, or a cooperating forestry school. NIFA administers the Tribal Colleges Research Grants Program (TCRGP). New Competitive Grants for 1890 Institutions in the 2018 Farm Bill Section 7117 of the 2018 farm bill authorizes grants for students enrolled in 1890 Institutions who intend to pursue careers in the food and agricultural sciences. It makes $40 million of mandatory funding from the Commodity Credit Corporation available until expended. In addition, it authorizes $10 million in annual discretionary funding. Section 7213 calls for USDA to recognize at least three centers of excellence at 1890 Institutions. Each center of excellence should focus on research and extension activities in at least one of six specified areas: student success and workforce development; nutrition, health, wellness, and quality of life; farming systems, rural prosperity, and economic sustainability; global food security and defense; natural resources, energy and the environment; and emerging technologies. It authorizes annual appropriations of $10 million. Issues for Congress 2019 Relocation of NIFA NIFA is USDA's extramural research agency, meaning that it funds research conducted at other institutions. It provides scientific leadership and administers federal grant programs for the land-grant university system. Since its creation in 2008, staff entirely based in Washington, D.C. have carried out NIFA program coordination and planning. Its predecessor agency, the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES), was also located entirely in Washington, D.C. In August, 2018, the Secretary of Agriculture announced the intention to relocate the majority of NIFA and employees out of the National Capital Region. A cost-benefit analysis released on June 13, 2019, indicated that 294 of 315 NIFA positions would be required to relocate. While the cost-benefit analysis references 315 NIFA positions, NIFA has 412 permanent full-time positions. Staffing of 315 at the time of the cost-benefit analysis indicates an initial vacancy rate of 24.6%, before relocation plans were developed. Concurrent with the release of the cost-benefit analysis, the Secretary announced that NIFA would be moved to the Kansas City Region. USDA has reported that 73 NIFA employees accepted relocation by the July 15 decision deadline. These data suggest that NIFA may start its work in Kansas City with 75% or more of positions located there empty or filled by recent hires. Reduced staffing levels have the potential to affect NIFA's ability to manage the congressionally mandated programs that fund the land-grant university system. For more information, see CRS In Focus IF11166, Proposed Relocation/Realignment of USDA's ERS and NIFA , by Tadlock Cowan. Shifting Balance of Public versus Private Research Funding Public investment in agricultural research in the United States has declined in inflation-adjusted dollars since 2008, while private funding has steadily increased. The share of food and agriculture research funded by the public sector decreased from around 50% between 1970 and 2008 to less than 25% in 2013. Figure 2 provides an overview, prepared by the USDA Economic Research Service, of agricultural research funding in 2013 from federal, state, and non-governmental sources. Many factors have influenced this shift in funding sources. These include expansion of markets and increasing globalization of trade; laws and legal decisions since the 1970s that paved the way for intellectual property rights for biological innovations and commercial products derived from federally sponsored research; technical advances in biotechnology innovation that have increased potential profitability of agricultural research; and declining state investment in agricultural research since the 1990s. A 2012 report by President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) states that private industry has an important role in agricultural research, and that public funding is essential to meeting agricultural research challenges. In May, 2019, the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities and the Charles Valentine Riley Memorial Foundation called for increased public funding of agricultural research, in part to ensure that the United States remains globally competitive in agricultural technology and productivity. Whereas public funding pursues public goods, with the exception of some private foundations, private funding is typically oriented to generating profit. Thus the shift from predominantly public funding of agricultural research to more private funding has the potential to shape agricultural research towards crops, livestock, and technologies with the greatest profit potential and away from smaller crops or technologies that may not prove to be as profitable. Increasing federal appropriations for agricultural research or requiring increases in state matching funds may bolster basic research and research on agricultural products and activities that are important to some agricultural constituencies, yet currently have limited economic incentives. Disparity in State Matching Funds Federal research and extension capacity grants to the land-grant system generally require one-to-one non-federal matching funds. All states meet the matching requirements for their 1862 Institutions, which are predominantly white. In contrast, ten of the nineteen 1890 Institutions, which are predominantly black, received a full match from their states in FY2016. Those 1890 Institutions that do not meet the 100% matching funds requirement must apply to USDA for a waiver or forfeit their federal capacity funding. While receiving a waiver allows an 1890 Institution to receive its allocation of federal funding, such a waiver reduces the total public support for the institution, from the combination of federal and state funding, compared with what it would receive if a complete match was provided. This opens a disparity between 1890 and 1862 Institutions. If states had contributed 100% matching funds, overall state contributions for research and extension at 1890 Institutions would have been $17.8 million higher in FY2015, and in $18.5 million higher in FY2016 than actual matching contributions.. In 1977 when Congress, through NARETPA, originally created the Evans-Allen research and NARETPA Section 1445 extension capacity funding for 1890 Institutions, it did not require state matching funds. Through AREERA in 1998, Congress instituted an initial 30% state matching requirement for FY2000 that increased to 50% by FY2002. At that time, Congress gave USDA the ability to waive the state matching requirement for FY2000, but not thereafter. The 2002 farm bill ( P.L. 107-171 ) increased the matching requirement over time until it reached 100% in FY2007. The 2002 farm bill reintroduced the ability for USDA to issue waivers, above the 50% level, if a state was unlikely meet the matching requirement. Eliminating the opportunity to apply for a waiver may result in some states increasing their matching funds to ensure that their 1890 Institutions qualify for federal funding. However, this change may result in other institutions becoming ineligible to receive any federal funds if their states do not increase their matching contributions. Another option that may incentivize increased non-federal matching is to increase the waiver threshold above 50%. Section 7116 of the 2018 farm bill (7 U.S.C. 3221(a)) addresses concerns about disparities in state matching funds through a transparency requirement. It requires that USDA report annually "the allocations made to, and matching funds received by, 1890 Institutions and 1862 Institutions ... for each of the agricultural research, extension, education, and related programs ... " under the relevant statutes (Smith-Lever 3(b) and 3(c), Hatch, and Sections 1444 and 1445 of NARETPA). Supporters of the 1890 Institutions voice hope that the new transparency requirement will encourage states to provide 100% matching funding for those institutions. Funding of 1994 Institutions The 1994 Institutions, which are all tribal colleges and universities, make up the newest class of land-grant institution. Significant institutional differences among the 1862, 1890, and 1994 Institutions, in terms of numbers of students served, types of degrees awarded, and focal missions, factor into federal funding allocations. While land-grant designation gave 1994 Institutions new access to federal funding, this access is more limited than that of 1862 and 1890 Institutions. Table 3 illustrates differences in federal research funding among land-grant institution types. In FY2018, 1994 Institutions as a group received appropriations equal to about 1.2% of the research funds, through the Tribal College Research Grants Program, as 1862 Institutions received through Hatch Act appropriations. They received about 2% of the extension funds, through the Tribal Colleges Extension Program, as 1862 Institutions received through Smith-Lever capacity grant programs. In comparison, there were 61.5% as many 1994 Institutions as 1862 Institutions in FY2018. The American Indian Higher Education Consortium (AIHEC), a non-profit group representing TCUs, has consistently requested increased appropriations for 1994 Institutions, characterizing the difference in funding between 1994 and 1862 Institutions as an inequity. Others might argue that funding differences are appropriate to the different academic structures and institutional missions of 1994 and 1862 Institutions. Section 7120 of the 2018 farm bill included 1994 Institutions in one new avenue for competitive funding. This section, titled "New Beginning for Tribal Students," authorizes USDA to make competitive grants, with a one-to-one matching funds requirement, to land-grant institutions targeting support for tribal students. Institutions may use such funds to support tribal students through recruiting, tuition and related fees, experiential learning, and student services. No state may receive more than $500,000 per year through this program. Appendix. List of Land-Grant Institutions by State