Architect of the Capitol: Appointment Process and Current Legislation

Ida A. Brudnick
Analyst on the Congress

The Architect of the Capitol (AOC) is responsible for "the maintenance, operation, development, and preservation of 16.5 million square feet of buildings and more than 450 acres of land throughout" the United States Capitol Complex. 

The Architect is appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1990, established a 10-year term for the Architect as well as a bicameral, bipartisan congressional commission to recommend candidates to the President. As amended, this law provides for a commission consisting of 14 Members of Congress, including the Speaker of the House, the President pro tempore of the Senate, the House and Senate majority and minority leaders, and the chair and ranking minority members of the Committee on House Administration, the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, and the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. 

Alan M. Hantman was the first Architect appointed under the 1989 act. He declined to seek reappointment and served from January 30, 1997, to February 4, 2007. Stephen T. Ayers, who has served as Acting Architect of the Capitol since Mr. Hantman's retirement, was nominated by the President on February 24, 2010, for a 10-year term. The nomination was referred to the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration. The committee held a hearing on April 15, 2010, during which the chair and ranking member praised Mr. Ayers for his work as acting Architect and congratulated him on the nomination. 

During recent Congresses, multiple bills have been introduced that would alter the AOC appointment process and require the appointment to be made by the leadership of Congress rather than the President. One of these bills, H.R. 2843, the Architect of the Capitol Appointment Act of 2010, passed the House on February 3, 2010. 

Bills removing the President from the process of appointing the Architect have been discussed for at least 50 years. Some of the Architect's current duties, however, may potentially raise a question as to whether the Architect is an "Officer of the United States" such that his appointment must comply with the requirements of the Appointments Clause of the Constitution. 

For additional information on the AOC, please see CRS Report RL31121, The Capitol Visitor Center: An Overview, by Stephen W. Stathis; and CRS Report RL34694, Administering Green Programs in Congress: Issues and Options, by Jacob R. Straus.

Date of Report: April 23, 2010
Number of Pages: 18
Order Number: R41074
Price: $29.95

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act: History, Impact, and Issues

Robert Jay Dilger
Senior Specialist in American National Government

Richard S. Beth
Specialist on Congress and the Legislative Process

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) culminated years of effort by state and local government officials and various business interests to control, if not eliminate, the imposition of unfunded intergovernmental and private sector federal mandates. Advocates argued the statute was needed to forestall federal legislation and regulations that imposed obligations on state and local governments or businesses that resulted in higher costs and inefficiencies. Opponents argued that federal mandates may be necessary to achieve national objectives in areas where voluntary action by state and local governments and business failed to achieve desired results. 

UMRA provides a framework for the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to estimate the direct costs of mandates in legislative proposals to state and local governments and to the private sector, and for issuing agencies to estimate the direct costs of mandates in proposed regulations to regulated entities. Aside from these informational requirements, UMRA controls the imposition of mandates only through a procedural mechanism allowing Congress to decline to consider unfunded intergovernmental mandates in proposed legislation if they are estimated to cost more than specified threshold amounts. The procedural framework for congressional deliberations on unfunded mandates in legislation appears in Title I. The requirements that federal administrative agencies, unless otherwise prohibited by law, must follow in assessing the effects of proposed and final federal rules on state and local governments and the private sector appear in Title II. UMRA applies to any provision in legislation, statute, or regulation that would impose an enforceable duty upon state and local governments or the private sector. It does not apply to conditions of federal assistance; duties stemming from participation in voluntary federal programs; rules issued by independent regulatory agencies; rules issued without a general notice of proposed rulemaking; and rules and legislative provisions that cover individual constitutional rights, discrimination, emergency assistance, grant accounting and auditing procedures, national security, treaty obligations, and certain elements of Social Security. 

State and local government officials argue that UMRA has restrained the growth of unfunded federal mandates, but that its coverage should be broadened, with special consideration given to including conditions of federal financial assistance, such as those proposed for Medicaid under proposed health care reform legislation. Reflecting these views, on May 5, 2009, Representative Virginia Foxx introduced legislation, H.R. 2255, that would, among other things, broaden UMRA's coverage to include assessments of the costs of conditions of federal financial assistance and reasonably foreseeable indirect costs. Other organizations have argued that UMRA's coverage should be maintained or reinforced by adding exclusions for mandates regarding public health, safety, workers' rights, environmental protection, and the disabled. 

This report examines debates over what constitutes an unfunded federal mandate and UMRA's implementation. It focuses on UMRA's requirement that CBO issue written cost estimate statements for federal mandates in legislation, its procedures for raising points of order in the House and Senate concerning unfunded federal mandates in legislation, and its requirement that federal agencies prepare written cost estimate statements for federal mandates in rules. It also assesses UMRA's impact on federal mandates and arguments concerning UMRA's future, focusing on UMRA's definitions, exclusions, and exceptions which currently exempt many federal actions with potentially significant financial impacts on nonfederal entities. An examination of the rise of unfunded federal mandates as a national issue and a summary of UMRA's legislative history are provided in an Appendix.


Date of Report: April 15 2010
Number of Pages: 49
Order Number: R40957
Price: $29.95

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

A U.S.-centric Chronology of the International Climate Change Negotiations

Jane A. Leggett
Specialist in Energy and Environmental Policy

Under the 2007 "Bali Action Plan," countries around the globe sought to reach a "Copenhagen agreement" in December 2009 on effective, feasible, and fair actions beyond 2012 to address risks of climate change driven by human-related emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG). The Copenhagen conference was beset by strong differences among countries, however, and (beyond technical decisions) achieved only mandates to continue negotiating toward the next Conference of the Parties (COP) to be held in Mexico City in December 2010. The COP also "took note of" (not adopting) a "Copenhagen Accord," agreed among the United States and additional countries (notably including China), which reflects compromises on some key actions. 

As background to the ongoing negotiations, this document provides a U.S.-centric chronology of the international policy deliberations to address climate change from 1979-2009. It begins before agreement on the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 1992, and proceeds through the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, the Marrakesh Accords of 2001, the Bali Action Plan of 2007, and the Copenhagen conference in 2009. The Bali Action Plan mandated the Copenhagen negotiations on commitments for the period beyond 2012, when the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol ends. This chronology identifies selected external events and major multilateral meetings that have influenced the current legal and institutional arrangements, as well as contentious issues for further cooperation. 

Negotiations underway since 2007 have run on two tracks: one under the Kyoto Protocol (which is subsidiary to the Convention), to extend commitments of developed, Annex I, Parties beyond 2012. This track excludes the United States, which is not a Party to the Kyoto Protocol and has said it will not join the Protocol. The second track proceeds directly under the Convention under the Bali Action Plan and focuses on five primary elements: a "shared vision" for reducing global GHG emissions by around 2050; mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions; adaptation to impacts of climate change; financial assistance to low income countries; and technology development and diffusion. Among the most difficult issues have been provisions for mutual assurance of compliance among Parties through measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV) of GHG emissions and removals, nationally appropriate mitigation actions, and financial and technical support from the wealthiest countries for adaptation, technology, and capacity-building. Some progress has been made on arrangements to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD-plus). However, Parties did not reach consensus in Copenhagen on any of these elements, and the mandates for negotiation on the two tracks have been extended into 2010. The Copenhagen Accord may represent a supplemental or alternative track. Currently, the way forward remains unclear. 

Many in the U.S. Congress are concerned with the goals and obligations that a treaty or other form of agreement might embody. A particular concern regards parity of actions and trade competitiveness effects among countries. For U.S. legislators, additional issues include the compatibility of any international agreement with U.S. domestic policies and laws; the adequacy of appropriations, fiscal measures, and programs to achieve any commitments under the agreement; and the desirable form of the agreement and related requirements, with a view toward potential Senate ratification of the agreement and federal legislation to assure that U.S. commitments are met.


Date of Report: April 14, 2010
Number of Pages: 14
Order Number: R40001
Price: $29.95

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Reconciliation Directives: Components and Enforcement

Megan Suzanne Lynch
Analyst on Congress and the Legislative Process

The purpose of the reconciliation process is to enhance Congress's ability to bring existing spending, revenue, and debt-limit laws into compliance with current fiscal priorities established in the annual budget resolution. When Congress adopts a budget resolution, it is agreeing upon its budgetary goals for the upcoming fiscal year. In some cases, for these goals to be achieved, Congress must pass legislation that alters current revenue, direct spending, or debt-limit laws. Reconciliation instructions are the means by which Congress can establish the roles that specific committees will play in achieving these goals. 

Budget reconciliation is an optional, congressional process that consists of several different stages. The first stage in the reconciliation process is the adoption of the budget resolution. If Congress intends to utilize the reconciliation process to achieve its budgetary goals, reconciliation directives (also referred to as reconciliation instructions) must be included in the annual budget resolution. 

To achieve the budgetary goals set forth in the budget resolution, reconciliation directives designate which committee(s) should report reconciliation legislation, the date by which the committee(s) should report, the dollar amount of budgetary change to be achieved in the reconciliation legislation, and the time period over which the impact of the budgetary change should be measured. They might also include language identifying the type of budgetary change that should be reported as well as other procedural provisions, contingencies, and programmatic direction. This report discusses these various components of reconciliation instructions. 

There is no procedural mechanism for requiring a committee to report reconciliation legislation on time, or at all. Each chamber, however, has methods that it can employ to allow it to move forward with reconciliation legislation and to include legislative language that falls within the non-reporting committee's jurisdiction, in the event that a committee has not reported. These methods vary by chamber.


Date of Report: April 15, 2010
Number of Pages: 14
Order Number: R41186
Price: $29.95

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

House Standing Committee Chairs and Ranking Minority Members: Rules Governing Selection Procedures

Judy Schneider
Specialist on the Congress

House rules, Republican Conference rules, and Democratic Caucus rules each detail aspects of the procedures followed in selecting standing committee chairs and ranking minority members. This report summarizes those procedures and lists membership on each party's steering committee.


Date of Report: April 7, 2010
Number of Pages: 7
Order Number: RS21165
Price: $29.95

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Supreme Court Justices: Demographic Characteristics, Professional Experience, and Legal Education, 1789-2010

Susan Navarro Smelcer
Analyst on the Federal Judiciary

On May 1, 2009, Justice David H. Souter announced his retirement as an Associate Justice when the U.S. Supreme Court recessed for the summer. To fill this vacancy, President Barack Obama selected Sonia Sotomayor, a judge from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In announcing the nomination, President Obama noted her Ivy League education and extensive judicial experience. President Obama also emphasized Sotomayor's life story, discussing in particular her upbringing as a child of Puerto Rican-born parents in a Bronx housing project. 

The Sotomayor nomination prompted renewed discussion among Senators, media commentators, and scholars regarding racial, ethnic, gender, religious, professional, and educational diversity on the Court. With the upcoming retirement of Justice John Paul Stevens, announced on April 9, 2010, this discussion is likely to be renewed. With his departure, the Court will lose its only protestant Christian member. Justice Stevens is also the only active Justice to have served in the military during wartime. Against the backdrop of recent and pending changes to the Court's composition, this report examines the social, professional, and educational backgrounds of the Justices across the entire history of the Supreme Court. 

Over time, the Supreme Court has become more diverse in some ways and more homogeneous in others. When first constituted, and throughout most of its history, no women or minorities served on the Court. This changed with the appointment of the first African-American Justice, Thurgood Marshall, in 1967, and the first female Justice, Sandra Day O'Connor, in 1981. When Justice Marshall retired from the Court in 1991, he was succeeded by another African-American, Justice Clarence Thomas. Although Justice O'Connor, upon her retirement in 2006, was succeeded by a male, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., the Court's membership once again, in August 2009, included two female Justices, upon the confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor. 

The religious affiliations of the Court's members also has changed over time. For almost the first 50 years of the Court, all Justices were affiliated with protestant Christian churches. The first Jewish Justice, Louis Brandeis, was appointed in 1916. Currently, two Jewish Justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, serve on the Court. The first Catholic Justice, Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney, was appointed in 1836. With the confirmation of Justice Sotomayor, six of the nine current Justices identify as Roman Catholic. 

The career experiences of the Court's Justices, while quite diverse in the past, have become more homogeneous in recent times. Historically, Justices had served in a variety of professions, such as in the Cabinet, in a federal or state legislative body, or in a private legal practice. In the last 50 years, however, Justices have more and more frequently been elevated from positions on the federal circuit courts of appeals. Of the nine current Justices, all possess federal circuit court experience, and six have served as government attorneys in some capacity. No sitting Justice has served in a federal or state Cabinet position or legislature. Justice Sonia Sotomayor brings both experience as a private practitioner and a government attorney and is the only current Justice on the Court to have experience as a federal trial judge. 

Over time, Justices' legal educations have become more homogeneous, as well. In the last 20 years, especially, three Ivy League law schools—Harvard, Yale, and Columbia—have been disproportionately represented on the Court. Of the nine sitting Justices, eight have attended one of these three law schools, including recently confirmed Justice Sotomayor, who is a graduate of Yale Law School.


Date of Report: April 9, 2010
Number of Pages: 36
Order Number: R40802
Price: $29.95

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Impeachment: An Overview of Constitutional Provisions, Procedure, and Practice

Elizabeth B. Bazan
Legislative Attorney

Anna C. Henning
Legislative Attorney

For the first time since the judicial impeachments of 1986-1989, the House of Representatives has impeached two federal judges. On June 19, 2009, the House voted to impeach U.S. District Judge Samuel B. Kent of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The impeachment trial of Judge Kent before the Senate was dismissed after Judge Kent resigned from office and the House indicated that it did not wish to pursue the matter further. 

The impeachment process with respect to U.S. District Court Judge G. Thomas Porteous, Jr., from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, is ongoing. This impeachment inquiry was initiated in the 110th Congress and has continued in the 111th Congress. H.Res. 1031, a resolution impeaching Judge Porteous for high crimes and misdemeanors, was introduced on January 21, 2010. The resolution includes four articles of impeachment. The measure was referred to the House Judiciary Committee the same day. On March 4, 2010, H.Res. 1031 was reported out, H.Rept. 111-427, and placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 170. On March 11, 2010, the House impeached Judge Porteous. In four unanimous votes, the House approved each of the four articles of impeachment, then agreed to the impeachment resolution by a voice vote. On March 17, 2010, the House Managers presented these articles of impeachment before the bar of the Senate. Pursuant to S.Res. 457, the Senate issued a summons to Judge Porteous to answer the articles against him no later than April 7, 2010, and set the time line for the House to file a replication, should it choose to do so, by April 21, 2010. Then, under S.Res. 458, the Senate created an Impeachment Trial Committee to take evidence in the case. The full Senate, sitting as a Court of Impeachment, will make the ultimate decision whether to acquit or convict on each article and, if Judge Porteous is convicted on one or more articles, will impose judgment of removal alone or removal and disqualification from holding any further federal office. 

The impeachment process provides a mechanism for removal of the President, Vice President, and other federal civil officers found to have engaged in "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." The Constitution places the responsibility and authority to determine whether to impeach and to draft articles of impeachment in the hands of the House of Representatives. A number of means have been used to trigger the House's investigation, but the ultimate decision in all instances as to whether impeachment is appropriate rests with the House. Should the House vote to impeach and vote articles of impeachment specifying the grounds upon which impeachment is based, the matter is then presented to the Senate for trial. 

Under the Constitution, the Senate has the unique power to try an impeachment. The decision whether to convict on each of the articles must be made separately. A conviction must be supported by a two-thirds majority of the Senators present. A conviction on any one of the articles of impeachment brought against an individual is sufficient to constitute conviction in the trial of the impeachment. Should a conviction occur, then the Senate must determine what the appropriate judgment is in the case. The Constitution limits the judgment to either removal from office or removal and prohibition against holding any future offices of "honor, Trust or Profit under the United States." The precedents in impeachment suggest that removal may flow automatically from conviction, but that the Senate must vote to prohibit the individual from holding future offices of public trust, if that judgment is also deemed appropriate. A simple majority vote is required on a judgment. Conviction on impeachment does not foreclose the possibility of criminal prosecution arising out of the same factual situation. The Constitution does not permit the President to extend executive clemency to anyone in order to preclude his or her impeachment by the House or trial or conviction by the Senate.


Date of Report: April 8, 2010
Number of Pages: 33
Order Number: 98-186
Price: $29.95

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Days Reserved for Special Business in theHouse

Judy Schneider
Specialist on the Congress

As presented in the following table and described below, several provisions in the rules of the House provide for certain types of business to be privileged for consideration on specified days, some under special procedures.  

Date of Report: April 7, 2010
Number of Pages: 3
Order Number: 98-142
Price: $7.95

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Recall of Legislators and the Removal of Members of Congress from Office

Jack Maskell
Legislative Attorney

Under the United States Constitution and congressional practice, Members of Congress may have their services ended prior to the normal expiration of their constitutionally established terms of office by their resignation or death, or by action of the house of Congress in which they are a Member by way of an "expulsion," or by a finding that in accepting a subsequent "incompatible" public office, the Member would be deemed to have vacated his congressional seat. 

Under Article I, Section 5, clause 2, of the Constitution, a Member of Congress may be removed from office before the normal expiration of his or her constitutional term by an "expulsion" from the Senate (if a Senator) or from the House of Representatives (if a Representative) upon a formal vote on a resolution agreed to by two-thirds of the Members of that body present and voting. While there are no specific grounds for an expulsion expressed in the Constitution, expulsion actions in both the House and the Senate have generally concerned cases of perceived disloyalty to the United States, or the conviction of a criminal statutory offense which involved abuse of one's official position. Each house has broad authority as to the grounds, nature, timing, and procedure for an expulsion of a Member. However, policy considerations, as opposed to questions of authority, have appeared to restrain the Senate and House in the exercise of expulsion when it might be considered as infringing on the electoral process, such as when the electorate knew of the past misconduct under consideration and still elected or re-elected the Member. 

As to removal by recall, the United States Constitution does not provide for nor authorize the recall of United States officers such as Senators, Representatives, or the President or Vice President, and thus no Member of Congress has ever been recalled in the history of the United States. The recall of Members was considered during the time of the drafting of the federal Constitution in 1787, but no such provisions were included in the final version sent to the states for ratification, and the specific drafting and ratifying debates indicate an express understanding of the framers and ratifiers that no right or power to recall a Senator or Representative in Congress exists under the Constitution. Although the Supreme Court has not needed to directly address the subject of recall of Members of Congress, other Supreme Court decisions, as well as the weight of other judicial and administrative decisions, rulings, and opinions, indicate that (1) the right to remove a Member of Congress before the expiration of his or her constitutionally established term of office is one which resides exclusively in each house of Congress as expressly delegated in the expulsion clause of the United States Constitution, and (2) the length and number of the terms of office for federal officials, established and agreed upon by the states in the Constitution creating that federal government, may not be unilaterally changed by an individual state, such as through the enactment of a recall provision or a term limitation for a United States Senator or Representative. Under Supreme Court constitutional interpretation, since individual states never had the original sovereign authority to unilaterally change the terms and conditions of service of federal officials agreed to and established in the Constitution, such a power could not be "reserved" under the Tenth Amendment. Even the dissenters in the Supreme Court decision on the Tenth Amendment and term limits, who would have found a "reserved" authority in the states regarding "qualifications" of Members of Congress, conceded that the exclusive authority to remove a sitting Member is delegated to each house in the expulsion clause of the Constitution, and that with respect to "a power of recall ... the Framers denied to the States [such power] when they specified the terms of Members of Congress."


Date of Report: March 26, 2010
Number of Pages: 14
Order Number: RL30016
Price: $29.95

Document available electronically as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail sales@pennyhill.com or call us at 301-253-0881.

Recess Appointments: Frequently Asked Questions

Henry B. Hogue
Analyst in American National Government

Under the Constitution (Article II, Section 2, clause 2), the President and the Senate share the power to make appointments to high-level policy-making positions in federal departments, agencies, boards, and commissions. Generally, the President nominates individuals to these positions, and the Senate must confirm them before he can appoint them to office. The Constitution also provides an exception to this process. When the Senate is in recess, the President may make a temporary appointment, called a recess appointment, to any such position without Senate approval (Article II, Section 2, clause 3). This report supplies brief answers to some frequently asked questions regarding recess appointments.


Date of Report: March 29, 2010
Number of Pages: 9
Order Number: RS21308
Price: $29.95

Document available electronically as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail sales@pennyhill.com or call us at 301-253-0881.

Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Officials: Process for Adjusting Pay and Current Salaries

Barbara L. Schwemle
Analyst in American National Government

Leaders and Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives, the Vice President, individuals in positions on the Executive Schedule (EX), and federal justices and judges—all hereafter referred to as federal officials—are to receive an annual pay adjustment under the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, P.L. 101-194 (103 Stat. 1716, at 1769, 5 U.S.C. §5318 note). The percentage change in the wages and salaries for the private industry workers element of the Employment Cost Index (ECI), minus 0.5% (December indicator), provides the basis for the pay adjustment. In January 2010, the Vice President and federal officials paid on the EX schedule received a 1.5% salary increase. Members of Congress did not receive a pay adjustment in January 2010; Section 103 of Division J of P.L. 111-8, the Omnibus Appropriations Act for FY2009, enacted on March 11, 2009, denied the adjustment. Federal justices and judges also have not received a January 2010 pay adjustment. Section 140 of P.L. 97-92, enacted on December 15, 1981, provides that any salary increase for justices and judges must be specifically authorized by Congress, and this authorization has not been provided for 2010. 

The pay adjustment for federal officials required under the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 would be 0.9% in January 2011, the same as the January 2011 base pay adjustment required under the Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act of 1990, for federal civilian white-collar employees paid under the General Schedule (GS). For FY2011, however, the Budget of the U.S. Government included President Barack Obama's order to freeze pay for senior political officials—individuals in positions on the EX Schedule, non-career members of the Senior Executive Service, ambassadors who are not career Foreign Service, and senior White House staff with salaries of more than $100,000. The budget also reiterated that the policy prohibiting political appointees from receiving bonuses continues. 

Currently pending in the 111th Congress is legislation that would adjust the pay of federal justices and judges. The Federal Judicial Fairness Act of 2009, S. 2725, as introduced, would repeal the provision of law that requires Congress to specifically authorize any salary increases for justices and judges and amend current law to provide that justices and judges would receive the same overall average percentage pay adjustment as is authorized each year for the General Schedule (GS), the pay schedule that covers federal white-collar civilian employees in pay grades GS-1 through GS-15. 

EX pay rates provide limitations on maximum basic pay rates for members of the Senior Executive Service (SES), employees in senior-level (SL) and scientific and professional (ST) positions, and on basic pay, basic pay and locality pay combined, and total compensation for employees in General Schedule positions.


Date of Report: March 31, 2010
Number of Pages: 19
Order Number: RL33245
Price: $29.95

Document available electronically as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail sales@pennyhill.com or call us at 301-253-0881.

Congressional Oversight of Intelligence: Current Structure and Alternatives

Frederick M. Kaiser
Specialist in American National Government

Interest in congressional oversight of intelligence has risen again in Congresses, in part because of disputes over reporting to Congress by intelligence community (IC) components on sensitive matters, including developments generated by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The changes in the oversight structure adopted or proposed in the 110th and 111th Congresses, however, reflect earlier concerns. For instance, the House Democratic majority had pledged in the 110th Congress to enact the remaining recommendations from the U.S. National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, commonly known as the 9/11 Commission. Its unanimous 2004 report set the stage for a reconsideration of congressional oversight, concluding that it was "dysfunctional." The commission proposed two distinct solutions: (1) creation of a joint committee on intelligence (JCI), modeled after the defunct Joint Committee on Atomic Energy (JCAE), with authority to report legislation to each chamber; or (2) enhanced status and power for the existing select committees on intelligence, by making them standing committees and granting each one both authorization and appropriations power. A follow-up effort in 2010, headed by the co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission, observed that although "some progress has been made" in overseeing intelligence, the related field of homeland security reflected a "jurisdictional melee" among "fractured and overlapping jurisdictions .... [contributing to] an unworkable system." Another 2010 study—by the Commission on WMD—concluded that Congress has been slow "to reform itself" and that "congressional oversight remains dysfunctional." 

Proposals to create a joint committee on intelligence date to 1948 and the early years of the Cold War, when the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) were established. Similar plans have emerged in the meantime, although the lion's share were made before separate Intelligence Committees were established in the House (1977) and Senate (1976). The numerous proposals for a JCI, which would end the two existing intelligence panels, moreover, vary and raise competing viewpoints over practical matters and matters of principle. 

Although it did not adopt either of the 9/11 Commission proposals, Congress has pursued other initiatives to change its intelligence oversight structure and capabilities in the 110th and 111th Congresses. The House altered its arrangements in 2007 (via H.Res. 35, 110th Congress), when it created an advisory Select Intelligence Oversight Panel on the Appropriations Committee, a hybrid structure that combines members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Committee on Appropriations. The Senate has also changed its relationship between appropriations and intelligence. Other proposals have been considered, either in the 111th Congress or before. These include clarifying the independent audit authority of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) over the intelligence community, particularly the CIA; increasing the coordinative capabilities and reporting of relevant inspectors general (IGs); changing IC reporting requirements to Congress; and adding a new statutory IG covering the entire intelligence community and others for certain Defense Department entities. Several proposals in the FY 2010 Intelligence Authorization Act (H.R. 2701 and S. 1494, 111th Congress)—for example, dealing with congressional notification and GAO—have generated opposition from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the possibility of a presidential veto. 

This report first describes the Select Committees on Intelligence and then the former Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, often cited as a model for a counterpart on intelligence. The study also sets forth proposed characteristics for a joint committee on intelligence, differences among these, and their pros and cons. The report examines other actions and alternatives affecting congressional oversight in the field.


Date of Report: March 29, 2010
Number of Pages: 34
Order Number: RL32525
Price: $29.95

Document available electronically as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail sales@pennyhill.com or call us at 301-253-0881.

Lobbying Congress: An Overview of Legal Provisions and Congressional Ethics Rules

Jack Maskell
Legislative Attorney

This report provides a brief overview and summary of the federal laws, ethical rules, and regulations which may be relevant to the activities of those who lobby the United States Congress. The report provides a summary discussion of the federal lobbying registration and disclosure requirements of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, as amended by the "Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007," P.L. 110-81 (S. 1, 110th Congress); the Foreign Agents Registration Act; the issue of the propriety of contingency fees for lobbying; restrictions on lobbying with federal funds; post-employment ("revolving door") lobbying activities by former federal officials; and House and Senate ethics rules relevant to contacts with private lobbyists. 

The Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 was enacted to replace a nearly 50-year old lobbying registration law that was seen as vague and inadequate. The current lobbying registration and disclosure provisions establish clearer criteria and thresholds for determining when an organization should register its employees or staff as lobbyists or when a lobbying firm or individual lobbyist needs to register and identify clients. The act is directed at professional lobbyists, that is, those who receive payments to lobby for an employer or a client, and requires the registration and reporting of certain identifying information and general, broad financial data. In addition to the Lobbying Disclosure Act, the Foreign Agents Registration Act requires the registration and reporting from those who act as agents of a foreign government or foreign political party, and who engage in "lobbying" or other similar political advocacy activities on behalf of their foreign principal. 

Various provisions of federal law have been enacted and regulations promulgated to restrict the use of any federal funds for lobbying purposes, either by the agencies of the federal government or by federal contractors or grantees. 

In attempts to limit what has been perceived to be potential undue or improper influence in governmental processes, restrictions have been adopted to limit the post-employment lobbying of certain high ranking officials of the federal government for a period of time after they leave government service ("revolving door" laws). Additionally, to deal with similar perceptions of undue or improper influence and access, both Houses of Congress have adopted internal rules regarding the acceptance of gifts and favors by Members, officers or employees of the House or Senate from private sources, particularly from registered lobbyists or agents of foreign principals, or their clients. No gifts may be accepted by Members, officers, or employees except as permitted in the rules of the respective chamber; and thus even small gifts, as well as more significant travel expenses for conferences or "fact finding" events provided to congressional Members and staff from private parties such as lobbyists and their clients, are regulated and restricted by the provisions of House and Senate rule. Under the new "ethics and lobbying" law (P.L. 110-81), registered lobbyists must be familiar with these restrictions and regulations on gifts to Members of Congress in House and Senate rules, and must certify to the Government that they have not offered gifts or things of value to Members or staff which would violate these rules.


Date of Report: March 31, 2010
Number of Pages: 34
Order Number: RL31126
Price: $29.95

Document available electronically as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail sales@pennyhill.com or call us at 301-253-0881.

House Standing Committee Chairs and Ranking Minority Members: Rules Governing Selection Procedures

Judy Schneider
Specialist on the Congress

House rules, Republican Conference rules, and Democratic Caucus rules each detail aspects of the procedures followed in selecting standing committee chairs and ranking minority members. This report summarizes those procedures and lists membership on each party's steering committee.


Date of Report: March 30, 2010
Number of Pages: 7
Order Number: RS21165
Price: $29.95

Document available electronically as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail sales@pennyhill.com or call us at 301-253-0881.

Salary Linkage: Members of Congress and Certain Federal Executive and Judicial Officials

Barbara L. Schwemle
Analyst in American National Government

The salaries of Members of Congress, certain high-level federal officials (those paid at Level II of the Executive Schedule (EX)), and certain federal justices and judges have, until recently, generally been in parity for many years. The Ethics Reform Act of 1989 provides for annual pay adjustments to be established for the Members, the Vice President, federal officials paid under the EX Schedule, and federal justices and judges. The act also requires a Citizens' Commission on Public Service and Compensation and the President to recommend salaries in parity for these federal government positions. The commission has never been activated, and, thus, such recommendations have never been made.


Date of Report: April 1, 2010
Number of Pages: 9
Order Number: RS22038
Price: $29.95

Document available electronically as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail sales@pennyhill.com or call us at 301-253-0881.

President of the United States: Compensation

Barbara L. Schwemle
Analyst in American National Government

The Constitution of the United States provides that "The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected.... "(Constitution of the United States, Art. II, Sec. 1.) The amount of compensation, which is not specified in the Constitution, is set and adjusted by Congress. The President currently receives a salary of $400,000 per annum, which became effective at noon on January 20, 2001, under P.L. 106-58. (P.L. 106-58, Title VI, §644(a); September 29, 1999; 113 Stat. 430, at 478.) An expense allowance, currently set at $50,000, also is provided. This report discusses the President's compensation and the three most recent increases to the salary enacted in 1949 (81st Congress), 1969 (91st Congress), and 1999 (106th Congress).

For Further Information: http://pennyhill.net/?p=87

Date of Report: April 1, 2010
Number of Pages: 9
Order Number: RS20115
Price: $29.95

Document available electronically as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail sales@pennyhill.com or call us at 301-253-0881.

The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010: Summary and Legislative History

Robert Keith
Specialist in American National Government

On February 12, 2010, President Barack Obama signed H.J.Res. 45 into law, as P.L. 111-139. In addition to an increase in the statutory limit on the public debt to $14.294 trillion, the act contains two titles dealing with budgetary matters. Title I, referred to as the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, establishes a new budget enforcement mechanism generally requiring that direct spending and revenue legislation enacted into law not increase the deficit. Title II, which contains only a single section, pertains to routine investigations by the Comptroller General aimed at eliminating duplicative and wasteful spending. This report provides a summary and legislative history of P.L. 111-139, focusing on the features of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010. 

The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 (Statutory PAYGO Act) establishes a process intended, as Section 2 of the act states, "to enforce a rule of budget neutrality on new revenue and direct spending legislation." The budgetary effects of revenue and direct spending provisions enacted into law, including both costs and savings, are recorded by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on two PAYGO scorecards covering rolling five-year and 10-year periods (i.e., in each new session, the periods covered by the scorecards roll forward one fiscal year). The budgetary effects of PAYGO measures are determined by statements inserted into the Congressional Record by the chairmen of the House and Senate Budget Committees and referenced in the measures. As a general matter, the statements are expected to reflect cost estimates prepared by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). If this procedure is not followed for a PAYGO measure, then the budgetary effects of the measure are determined by OMB. 

Shortly after a congressional session ends, OMB finalizes the two PAYGO scorecards and determines whether a violation of the PAYGO requirement has occurred (i.e., if a debit has been recorded for the budget year on either scorecard). If so, the President issues a sequestration order that implements largely across-the-board cuts in nonexempt direct spending programs sufficient to remedy the violation by eliminating the debit. Many direct spending programs and activities are exempt from sequestration. If no PAYGO violation is found, no further action occurs and the process is repeated during the next session. 

The new statutory PAYGO process was created on a permanent basis; there are no expiration dates in the act. The process became effective upon enactment. 

As a budget enforcement tool, the new statutory PAYGO process is aimed at preventing, or at least discouraging, net deficit increases arising from the enactment of direct spending and revenue legislation. Any costs designated as emergencies are excluded from the scorecards, and significant costs associated with four specified categories of legislation may be excluded as well. In addition, significant savings stemming from the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports (CLASS) Act, establishing an insurance program for long-term care, are excluded from the scorecards. Finally, debt service costs are excluded as well. 

The statutory PAYGO process does not address deficit increases, stemming from changes in direct spending or revenue levels, that are projected to occur under existing law. Other budget enforcement procedures, such as the reconciliation process under the Congressional Budget Act (CBA) of 1974, may be used to reduce deficit levels projected under existing law. Further, the statutory PAYGO process does not apply to discretionary spending, which is provided in annual appropriations acts.

For Further Information: http://pennyhill.net/?p=87

Date of Report: April 2, 2010
Number of Pages: 26
Order Number: R41157
Price: $29.95

Document available electronically as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail sales@pennyhill.com or call us at 301-253-0881.

Filling Advice and Consent Positions at the Outset of a New Administration

Henry B. Hogue
Analyst in American National Government

Maureen Bearden
Information Research Specialist

Betsy Palmer
Analyst on Congress and the Legislative Process

In its 2004 report, the 9/11 Commission identified what it perceived were shortcomings in the appointment process during presidential transitions. The report asserted that delays in filling top executive branch leadership positions, such as those experienced during the 2000-2001 transition, could compromise national security policymaking in the early months of a new Administration. Although the unique circumstances of the 2000 presidential race truncated the ensuing transition period, the commission's observations could be applied to other recent transitions; lengthy appointment processes during presidential transitions, particularly between those of different political parties, have been of concern to observers for more than 20 years. The process is likely to develop a bottleneck during this time, even under the best of circumstances, due to the large number of candidates who must be selected, vetted, and, in the case of positions filled through appointment by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate (PAS positions), considered by that body. 

The appointment process has three stages: selection and vetting, Senate consideration, and presidential appointment. Congress has taken steps to accelerate appointments during presidential transitions. In recent decades, Senate committees have provided for pre-nomination consideration of Cabinet-level nominations; examples of such actions are provided in this report. In addition, recently adopted statutory provisions appear designed to facilitate faster processing of appointments during presidential transitions. Among the new statutory provisions were those enacted by Congress in response to 9/11 Commission recommendations, mainly in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. Also part of this act was a sense of the Senate resolution stating that nominations to national security positions should be submitted by the President-elect to the Senate by Inauguration Day, and that Senate consideration of all such nominations should be completed within 30 days of submission. 

The President has certain powers—constitutional recess appointment authority and statutory authority under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998—that he could, under certain circumstances, use unilaterally to fill PAS positions on a temporary basis. 

Analyses of data related to Cabinet and selected subcabinet appointments during four recent party-turnover transitions suggest the following: In general, transition-period Cabinet-level nominees were selected, vetted, considered, and confirmed expeditiously; they generally took office shortly after the new President's inauguration. Comparisons among the four transitions suggest that some Presidents announced their Cabinet-position selections sooner than did others, but that this did not appear to affect the pace of the overall appointment process. On average, the interval between election day and final disposition of nominations to selected subcabinet positions was more than twice as long as that of nominations to Cabinet-level positions, though nominees to subcabinet positions in some departments were faster than others. Comparisons among the median intervals for the four transitions suggest that (1) the time required for selection and vetting of nominees for these positions has grown longer; (2) the period of Senate consideration has also grown longer; (3) Senate consideration of nominations is generally faster than the selection and vetting process that precedes it; and (4) the median durations of the appointment process for the Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama transitions were notably longer than for the Reagan transition.

For Further Information: http://pennyhill.net/?p=87

Date of Report: April 1, 2010
Number of Pages: 48
Order Number: R40119
Price: $29.95

Document available electronically as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail sales@pennyhill.com or call us at 301-253-0881.

The Debate Over Selected Presidential Assistants and Advisors: Appointment, Accountability, and Congressional Oversight

Barbara L. Schwemle
Analyst in American National Government

Todd B. Tatelman
Legislative Attorney

Vivian S. Chu
Legislative Attorney

Henry B. Hogue
Analyst in American National Government

A number of the appointments made by President Barack Obama to his Administration or by Cabinet Secretaries to their departments have been referred to, especially by the news media, as "czars." For some, the term is being used to quickly convey an appointee's title (e.g., climate "czar") in shorthand. For others, it is being used to convey a sense that power is being centralized in the White House or certain entities. When used in the political-science literature, the term generally refers to White House policy coordination or an intense focus by the appointee on an issue of great magnitude. Congress has taken note of these appointments; several Members have introduced legislation or sent letters to President Obama to express their concerns. Legislation introduced includes H.Amdt. 49 to H.R. 3170; H.R. 3226; H.R. 3569; H.Con.Res. 185; H.R. 3613; H.Res. 778; S.Amdt. 2440 to H.R. 2996; S.Amdt. 2498 to H.R. 2996; S.Amdt. 2548 to S.Amdt. 2440 to H.R. 2996; and S.Amdt. 2549 to H.R. 2996. The Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, and the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs conducted hearings on the "czar" issue on October 6, 2009, and October 22, 2009, respectively. A summary of the hearings is included in this report. 

One issue of interest to Congress may be whether some of these appointments (particularly some of those to the White House Office), made outside of the advice and consent process of the Senate, circumvent the Constitution. A second issue of interest may be whether the activities of such appointees are subject to oversight by, and accountable to, Congress. 

This report provides brief background information and selected views on the role of some of these appointees and discusses selected appointments in the Obama Administration. Additionally, it discusses some of the constitutional concerns that have been raised about presidential advisors. These include, for example, the kinds of positions that qualify as the type that must be filled in accordance with the Appointments Clause, with a focus on examining a few existing positions established by statute, executive order, and regulation. The report also reviews certain congressional oversight processes and assesses the applicability of these processes to presidential advisors. Legislative and non-legislative options for congressional consideration are presented. Table A-1 in the Appendix lists selected legislation introduced in the 111th Congress that is related to the issues discussed in this report.


Date of Report: March 24, 2010
Number of Pages: 84
Order Number: R40856
Price: $29.95

Document available electronically as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail sales@pennyhill.com or call us at 301-253-0881.

Filling U.S. Senate Vacancies: Perspectives and Contemporary Developments

Thomas H. Neale
Specialist in American National Government

The election of incumbent Senators as President and Vice President in 2008, combined with subsequent cabinet appointments, resulted in the highest number of Senate vacancies during a presidential transition period in over 60 years. Vacant seats were filled in Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, and New York, all states in which the governor appoints a temporary replacement. Controversies surrounding the replacement process in two of these states drew scrutiny and criticism of both the particular circumstances and the appointment process itself. 

The use of temporary appointments to fill Senate vacancies is an original provision of the U.S. Constitution. The practice was revised in 1913 by the 17th Amendment, which substituted direct popular election in place of choice by state legislatures and specifically directed state governors to "issue writs of election to fill such vacancies." The amendment, however, also preserved the appointment option by authorizing state legislatures to "empower the [governor] to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election." 

Since 1913, most states have empowered their governors to fill Senate vacancies by temporary appointments. Some, however, limit the governor's power: appointed Senators in Arizona must be of the same political party as the prior incumbent, while in Hawaii, Utah, and Wyoming, the governor must choose a replacement from names submitted by the prior incumbent's party. Oregon, and Wisconsin, and until recently Massachusetts, require vacancies to be filled by special election. Oklahoma allows appointments in limited circumstances. Alaska passed both legislation and a ballot item requiring special elections, but its current status is unclear. Several states considered "election only" legislation in 2009, but only Connecticut adopted this procedure. 

Two alternative federal reform approaches emerged in the 111th Congress: legislative and constitutional. H.R. 899 would require special elections to fill all Senate vacancies, and would provide federal financial assistance of up to 50% of the state costs of the special election. S.J.Res. 7 and H.J.Res. 21 propose a constitutional amendment that would require all Senators to be elected, and would direct the governors of affected states to issue writs of election to fill Senate vacancies. The constitution subcommittees of the Senate and House Judiciary Committees held a joint hearing on the measures on March 11, 2009. On August 6, the Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution voted to approve S.J.Res. 7 and report it to the full committee. At the time of this writing no further action had been taken on any of the three measures. 

Following the death of Massachusetts Senator Edward M. Kennedy on August 25, 2009, Massachusetts enacted legislation that revised the state's previous election-only policy; the law authorized the governor to make a temporary appointment to serve until the special election. Governor Deval Patrick subsequently appointed Paul G. Kirk to fill the seat. Republican Scott Brown won the January 19, 2010, special election, and was sworn in on February 4. He will serve the balance of the term, which expires on January 3, 2013.  


Date of Report: March 22, 2010
Number of Pages: 20
Order Number: R40421
Price: $29.95

Document available electronically as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail sales@pennyhill.com or call us at 301-253-0881.

Supreme Court Justices: Demographic Characteristics, Professional Experience, and Legal Education, 1789-2010

Susan Navarro Smelcer
Analyst on the Federal Judiciary

On May 1, 2009, Justice David H. Souter announced his retirement as an Associate Justice when the U.S. Supreme Court recessed for the summer. To fill this vacancy, President Barack Obama selected Sonia Sotomayor, a judge from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In announcing the nomination, President Obama noted her Ivy League education and extensive judicial experience. President Obama also emphasized Sotomayor's life story, discussing in particular her upbringing as a child of Puerto Rican-born parents in a Bronx housing project. 

The Sotomayor nomination raised the prospect that, with her appointment, the nine-member Court would again have two female Justices and the first Justice to identify as Latina. The Sotomayor nomination also prompted renewed discussion among Senators, media commentators, and scholars regarding racial, ethnic, gender, religious, professional, and educational diversity on the Court. Against the backdrop of the Sotomayor nomination, this report examines the social, professional, and educational backgrounds of the Justices across the entire history of the Supreme Court. 

Over time, the Supreme Court has become more diverse in some ways and more homogeneous in others. When first constituted, and throughout most of its history, no women or minorities served on the Court. This changed with the appointment of the first African-American Justice, Thurgood Marshall, in 1967, and the first female Justice, Sandra Day O'Connor, in 1981. When Justice Marshall retired from the Court in 1991, he was succeeded by another African-American, Justice Clarence Thomas. Although Justice O'Connor, upon her retirement in 2006, was succeeded by a male, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., the Court's membership once again, in August 2009, included two female Justices, upon the confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor. 

The religious affiliations of the Court's members also has changed over time. For almost the first 50 years of the Court, all Justices were affiliated with protestant Christian churches. The first Jewish Justice, Louis Brandeis, was appointed in 1916. Currently, two Jewish Justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, serve on the Court. The first Catholic Justice, Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney, was appointed in 1836. With the confirmation of Justice Sotomayor, six of the nine current Justices identify as Roman Catholic. 

The career experiences of the Court's Justices, while quite diverse in the past, have become more homogeneous in recent times. Historically, Justices had served in a variety of professions, such as in the Cabinet, in a federal or state legislative body, or in a private legal practice. In the last 50 years, however, Justices have more and more frequently been elevated from positions on the federal circuit courts of appeals. Of the nine current Justices, all possess federal circuit court experience, and six have served as government attorneys in some capacity. No sitting Justice has served in a federal or state Cabinet position or legislature. Justice Sonia Sotomayor brings both experience as a private practitioner and a government attorney and is the only current Justice on the Court to have experience as a federal trial judge. 

Over time, Justices' legal educations have become more homogeneous, as well. In the last 20 years, especially, three Ivy League law schools—Harvard, Yale, and Columbia—have been disproportionately represented on the Court. Of the nine sitting Justices, eight have attended one of these three law schools, including recently confirmed Justice Sotomayor, who is a graduate of Yale Law School.


Date of Report: March 24, 2010
Number of Pages: 36
Order Number: R40802
Price: $29.95

Document available electronically as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail sales@pennyhill.com or call us at 301-253-0881.

Small Business Provisions in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

N. Eric Weiss
Specialist in Financial Economics

Oscar R. Gonzales
Analyst in American National Government

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA; P.L. 111-5), which was signed into law on February 17, 2009, makes supplemental appropriations for many federal programs in an effort to mitigate the effects of the economic recession that began in December 2007. This report provides an overview of key provisions related to the Small Business Administration (SBA). P.L. 111-5 provides a total of $730 million to SBA. Specifically, the act provides (1) an additional $630 million for loans and loan guarantees divided into two categories: $375 million is set aside for reimbursements, loan subsidies and loan modifications related to certain loans, and $255 million for loan guarantees of $35,000 or less in a new small business stabilization program (BSP) also known as America's Recovery Capital (ARC) loan program; (2) $30 million for expanding SBA's microloan program; (3) $25 million for staffing up to meet demands for new programs; (4) $20 million to improve lender oversight; (5) an additional $15 million for SBA's surety bond program and increases the size of the maximum bond; and (6) $10 million for the Office of Inspector General. 

P.L. 111-118, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010, enacted on December 19, 2009, provided an additional $125 million to extend modifications to the SBA's loan guarantee programs under ARRA through February 28, 2010. P.L. 111-144, the Temporary Extension Act of 2010, enacted on March 2, 2010, provided $60 million to extend those modifications through March 28, 2010. H.R. 4899, the Disaster Relief and Summer Jobs Act of 2010, would provide additional funding and extend the programs until April 30, 2010.


Date of Report: March 24, 2010
Number of Pages: 9
Order Number: R40241
Price: $29.95

Document available electronically as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail congress@pennyhill.com or call us at 301-253-0881.

Public Financing of Presidential Campaigns: Overview and Analysis

R. Sam Garrett
Analyst in American National Government

The presidential public campaign financing program is funded through "checkoff" designations on individual income tax returns. Choosing to participate (or not) in the checkoff does not affect one's tax liability or refund. Candidates who choose to participate in the program may receive taxpayer-funded matches of privately raised funds during primary campaigns, and grants during the general-election contest. Public funds also subsidize nominating conventions. The public financing system has remained largely unchanged since the 1970s. However, there is general agreement that, if the program is to be maintained, updates are necessary to provide greater financial resources and higher spending limits to participants. 

This report discusses current controversies and arguments for and against public financing of presidential campaigns, legislative history, elements of the program, taxpayer and candidate participation, financial status of the program, recent legislation, and analysis of various policy proposals. If Congress chooses to alter the program, consensus will be necessary in what has historically been a particularly complex and contentious area of campaign finance policy. 

Additional legislative activity on presidential public financing is generally expected during the 111th Congress. As of this writing, however, only one bill has been introduced. H.R. 2992 would eliminate public financing for presidential nominating conventions. No bills addressing candidate financing have yet been introduced. 

Four bills introduced in the 110th Congress (H.R. 776, S. 436, H.R. 4294, and S. 2412) would have updated the program, including candidate financing. Those bills, which were substantially similar, would have greatly increased the financial resources available to candidates, particularly through "escape hatch" provisions designed to allow candidates to respond to high-spending opponents. That feature does not currently exist. Overall, under the proposed increases, publicly financed candidates could have spent as much as $450 million, compared with approximately $126 million in 2008 (plus approximately $14 million in exempt fundraising, legal, and accounting costs). Part of the increased benefits to participants would have been funded by increasing the checkoff designation from $3 for individuals to $10, and from $6 to $20 for married couples filing jointly. It is unclear how taxpayers would respond to this change, particularly because the effects of a proposed public education program cannot be predicted. Taxpayer participation in public financing declined the only previous time that Congress increased the checkoff amount, but the higher designation amounts nonetheless substantially raised the balance in the Presidential Election Campaign Fund, at least in the short term. 

Finally, two bills (H.R. 72 and H.R. 484 in the 110th Congress) would have curtailed part or all of the public financing program. These approaches are likely to be attractive to those who believe that public financing is unnecessary, an improper use of taxpayer resources, or both. However, removing the option of public subsidies would leave presidential candidates entirely dependent upon private donations or personal resources. As this report discusses, various options, each with potential strengths and weaknesses, exist for revisiting the presidential public financing system.


Date of Report: March 25, 2010
Number of Pages: 41
Order Number: RL34534
Price: $29.95

Document available electronically as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail congress@pennyhill.com or call us at 301-253-0881.

Telework for Executive Branch Employees: A Side-by-Side Comparison of Legislation Pending in the 111th Congress

Barbara L. Schwemle
Analyst in American National Government

Legislation to enhance telework in the Executive Branch is currently pending in the 111th Congress. S. 707, the Telework Enhancement Act of 2009, and H.R. 1722, the Telework Improvements Act of 2010, were introduced on March 25, 2009, by Senator Daniel Akaka and Representative John Sarbanes, respectively. The Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs marked up S. 707 on May 20, 2009, and ordered the bill to be reported with an amendment favorably. The Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Postal Service, and the District of Columbia of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform marked up H.R. 1722 on March 24, 2010, and reported it favorably, as amended, to the full committee. The House bill would amend Title 5 of the United States Code by adding a new Chapter 65 entitled "Telework." 

S. 707 would define telework as a work arrangement in which an employee performs officially assigned duties at home or other worksites geographically convenient to the residence of the employee. Under H.R. 1722, telework would mean a work flexibility arrangement under which an employee performs the duties and responsibilities of his or her position, and other authorized activities, from an approved worksite other than the location from which the employee would work if not for the arrangement. Both bills would require the heads of executive branch agencies to establish policies under which employees (with some exceptions) could be eligible to participate in telework. Agencies would have to establish such policies within 180 days after enactment of the act (Senate bill) or within one year after the enactment of the new Chapter 65 of Title 5 United States Code (House bill). Employee participation in telework must not diminish either employee performance or agency operations (Senate bill) or agency operations and performance (House bill). 

Executive branch employees not eligible for telework generally would include those whose duties involve the daily direct handling of secure materials or on-site activity that cannot be handled remotely or at an alternative worksite (Senate bill) or the daily direct handling of classified information or are such that their performance requires on-site activity which cannot be carried out from a site removed from the employee's regular place of employment (House bill). S. 707 would require an employee to enter into a written agreement with the agency before participating in telework. The Senate and House legislation would require each executive branch agency to appoint a Telework Managing Officer, who would be responsible for implementing the telework policies. The agencies also would be required to provide training to managers, supervisors, and employees participating in telework. Both S. 707 and H.R. 1722 would provide for telework to be incorporated into an agency's Continuity of Operations (COOP) plans. The bills also would require the Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to submit annual reports on telework to Congress, and the Comptroller General (CG) to review the OPM report and then annually report to Congress on the progress of executive agencies in implementing telework. The Senate bill would require the CG to annually submit a report to Congress on telework at GAO and the agency Chief Human Capital Officers (CHCOs) to annually report to the chair and vicechair of the CHCO Council on telework in their organizations. S. 707 also would authorize test programs for telework travel expenses. 

This report presents a side-by-side comparison of the provisions of S. 707, as ordered to be reported, and H.R. 1722, as reported favorably, as amended, to the full committee.


Date of Report: March 30, 2010
Number of Pages: 17
Order Number: RL34516
Price: $29.95

Document available electronically as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail congress@pennyhill.com or call us at 301-253-0881.

Automated Political Telephone Calls (“Robo Calls”) in Federal Campaigns: Overview and Policy Options

R. Sam Garrett
Analyst in American National Government

Kathleen Ann Ruane
Legislative Attorney

Prerecorded telephone messages that provide information about political candidates or urge voters to go to the polls are a common campaign tactic. Anecdotal accounts suggest that the public often objects to the volume and frequency of these automated political calls (also called "auto calls" or "robo calls"). Despite often negative anecdotal information about automated political calls, they remain an inexpensive, effective way to reach hundreds or thousands of voters quickly. Campaigns and groups often rely on automated political calls to respond to last-minute campaign developments. 

Four bills introduced in the 111th Congress contain provisions that are particularly relevant for automated political calls. H.R. 116 (Foxx) would add automated political calls to the federal do not call list. S. 1077 (Feinstein) would restrict the timing and volume of calls and would require certain information to be disclosed. H.R. 4641 (Lofgren) proposes similar restrictions. Finally, H.R. 4749 (Price, N.C.) would extend "stand by your ad" disclaimer requirements to various political messages, including prerecorded calls. 

Automated political calls received attention in both chambers during the 110th Congress. Several bills (H.R. 248, H.R. 372, H.R. 479, H.R. 894, H.R. 1298, H.R. 1383, H.R. 1452, H.R. 4298, H.R. 5747, and S. 2624) would have added the calls to the federal do not call list, required additional reporting about the calls, or otherwise regulated the calls. The Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on Elections, held an oversight hearing on automated political calls on December 6, 2007. The Senate Rules and Administration Committee considered S. 2624 at a February 27, 2008, hearing. 

Empirical research and data about automated political calls are limited. Existing research suggests that the calls are an increasingly common campaign tactic and that various political committees spent millions of dollars on those efforts. Despite media reports of strong public disdain for automated political calls, the FEC has received few recent formal complaints on the issue. However, FEC enforcement data are not necessarily a reliable indicator of public sentiment toward automated political calls. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) reportedly does not track data about complaints it receives on automated political calls. This report provides an overview of how automated political calls are used in federal campaigns. 

This includes attention to recent spending estimates and polling data about automated political calls. The report also discusses legislation that would affect the calls. Policy options discussed in the report include maintaining the status quo, gathering additional data, revising federal disclosure or disclaimer requirements, adding the calls to the federal do not call list, or restricting the number and timing of calls. Some of those options would likely involve contentious questions about which organizations and messages should be regulated by campaign finance law. Constitutional issues could also affect some of those policy options. The "First Amendment Considerations" section provides a legal analysis.


Date of Report: March 22, 2010
Number of Pages: 24
Order Number: RL34361
Price: $29.95

Document available electronically as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail congress@pennyhill.com or call us at 301-253-0881.

Improper Payments Information Act of 2002: Background, Implementation, and Assessment

Garrett Hatch
Analyst in American National Government

Virginia A. McMurtry
Specialist in American National Government

On November 26, 2002, the Improper Payments Information Act (IPIA) was signed into law as P.L. 107-300 (116 Stat. 2350). Augmenting previous financial management reform laws, the IPIA seeks to increase financial accountability in the federal government, and thus reduce wasteful spending. The law requires agencies to identify each year programs and activities vulnerable to significant improper payments, to estimate the amount of overpayments or underpayments, and to report to Congress on steps being taken to reduce such payments. 

In May 2003, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued guidance to agencies on the implementation of the IPIA, which was revised and incorporated into OMB Circular A-123 as Appendix C in August 2006. OMB's guidance, while consistent with some provisions of the IPIA, has been criticized on several counts. Whereas the statute requires agencies to report to Congress on all programs with more than $10 million in estimated improper payments, OMB added an additional threshold, such that agencies must only report on programs with improper payments that exceed both $10 million and 2.5% of total program payments. Critics have identified a number of examples of programs with improper payments over $10 million that are not reported to Congress because they do not also meet the 2.5% threshold. In the 2006 update of its guidance, OMB stated that it may determine on a case-by-case basis that some programs are to be subject to annual Performance and Accountability Report requirements, even if they do not meet the 2.5% threshold. 

OMB's guidance has also been criticized for permitting agencies to exempt some programs from the IPIA's annual requirement for risk assessment. Under the act, every program and activity is to be reviewed each year. OMB's guidance, however, now allows agencies to review a program once every three years if it has been deemed low-risk. Critics say this runs counter to the language and intent of the IPIA, and that it leaves open the possibility that improper payments might go undetected during the exemption period. 

For FY2009, OMB reported a government-wide error rate of 5.0% and total improper payments of $98 billion. This figure does not cover all at-risk outlays which lack improper payment estimates and are not yet reflected in the error rate or improper payment amounts. Until valid estimates become available for all risk-susceptible programs, the full extent of the improper payments problem will remain unknown. 

In the 111th Congress, Senator Carper, along with four cosponsors, introduced S. 1508, the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act of 2009, similar to S. 2583 as reported in the 110th Congress. On July 29, 2009, the bill, as amended, was ordered reported favorably by the full committee. A companion measure, H.R. 3393, was introduced in the House. In 2009, both House and Senate subcommittees held hearings relevant to the issue of improper payments. President Obama has announced his support for the measures. 

On November 15, 2009, President Obama issued E.O. 13519, "Reducing Improper Payments and Eliminating Waste in Federal Programs." A White House memorandum regarding "Finding and Recapturing Improper Payments" followed on March 10, 2010.


Date of Report: March 25, 2010
Number of Pages: 26
Order Number: RL34164
Price: $29.95

Document available electronically as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail congress@pennyhill.com or call us at 301-253-0881.

The Electoral College: How It Works in Contemporary Presidential Elections

Thomas H. Neale
Specialist in American National Government

When Americans vote in presidential elections, they actually vote for electors, known collectively as the electoral college. These electors, chosen by the people, elect the President and Vice President. The Constitution assigns each state a number of electors equal to the combined total of its Senate and House of Representatives delegations, for a total of 538, including three electors for the District of Columbia. Anyone may serve as an elector, except Members of Congress, and persons holding offices of "Trust or Profit" under the Constitution. In each presidential election year, a slate or ticket of candidates for elector is nominated by political parties and other groups in each state. In November (November 4 in 2008), citizens cast one vote for the entire slate of electors pledged to their favored candidates. All the electors of the slate winning the most popular votes in the state are elected, except in Maine and Nebraska, which use the district system. The district system awards two electors on an at-large basis, and one in each congressional district. Electors assemble in their respective states on the Monday after the second Wednesday in December (December 15 in 2008). They are expected to vote for the candidates they represent. Separate ballots are cast for President and Vice President, after which the electoral college ceases to exist for another four years. The electoral vote results are counted and declared at a joint session of Congress, usually held on January 6 of the year succeeding the election, but alterable by legislation. For the 2008 election only, Congress set January 8, 2009, as the date on which the joint session would be held. A majority of electoral votes (currently 270 of 538) is required to win. For information on contemporary proposals to reform or eliminate the electoral college, please consult CRS Report R40895, Electoral College Reform: 111th Congress Proposals and Other Current Developments, by Thomas H. Neale.

 

The complex elements comprising the electoral college system are responsible for one of the most important state functions in the American political and constitutional system: the election of the President and Vice President. A failure to elect, or worse, the choice of a chief executive whose legitimacy might be open to question, could precipitate a profound constitutional crisis that would require prompt, judicious and well-informed action by Congress.

 

Date of Report: March 24, 2010
Number of Pages: 24
Order Number: RL32611
Price: $29.95

Document available electronically as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail congress@pennyhill.com or call us at 301-253-0881.

Federal Advisory Committees: An Overview

Wendy R. Ginsberg
Analyst in American National Government

Federal advisory committees—which may also be designated as commissions, councils, or task forces—are created as provisional advisory bodies that can circumvent bureaucratic constraints to collect a variety of viewpoints on specific policy issues. Advisory bodies have been created to address a host of issues, ranging from policies on organ donation to the design and implementation of the Department of Homeland Security. These committees are often created to help the government manage and solve complex or divisive issues. Such committees may be mandated to render independent advice or make recommendations to various bodies within the federal government by congressional statute, created by presidential executive order, or required by fiat of an agency head. 

Congress formally acknowledged the merits of using advisory committees to acquire viewpoints from business, academic, governmental, and other interests when it passed the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) in 1972 (5 U.S.C. Appendix—Federal Advisory Committee Act; 86 Stat.770, as amended). Enactment of FACA was prompted by the belief of many citizens and Members of Congress that such committees were duplicative, inefficient, and lacked adequate control or oversight. Additionally, some citizens believed the committees failed to sufficiently represent the public interest—an opinion punctuated by the closed-door meeting policies of many committees. FACA mandated certain structural and operational requirements for many federal committees, including formal reporting and oversight procedures for the advisory bodies. FACA requires that committee membership be "fairly balanced in terms of the points of view represented," and advice provided by committees be objective and accessible to the public. Additionally, FACA requires nearly all committee meetings be open to the public. Pursuant to statute, the General Services Administration (GSA) maintains and administers management guidelines for federal advisory committees. During FY2009, GSA reported a total of 924 active committees with nearly 82,000 total members that provided advice and recommendations to 50 federal agencies. The total operating costs for these committees in FY2009 was $361,493,408. Agency administrators, the President, and Congress continue to create federal advisory committees in the 111th Congress. 

Committees that fit certain FACA criteria and are created by the executive branch are governed by FACA guidelines. FACA was designed to eliminate duplication of committee expertise and make advisory bodies in the executive branch more transparent. Congress may decide, however, to place FACA requirements on a body that it statutorily created. Existing statutes are sometimes unclear as to whether a congressionally created committee would have to comply with FACA requirements—except in cases when the statute explicitly mandates FACA's applicability. 

Legislation (H.R. 1320) was reintroduced in the 111th Congress that would, among other actions, require members of advisory committees be selected without regard to their partisan affiliation. Also pursuant to the legislation, executive branch agency heads would be authorized to require members serving on agency advisory committees to fully disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest. Additionally, GSA's Administrator would be given authority to create regulations and guidelines to further ensure that an advisory committee offered impartial advice and recommendations. The bill would also require each advisory committee to create a website, publish advance notice of meetings, and provide public access to proceedings on its website. The bill was sent to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and reported from the committee on June 4, 2009. The bill was placed on the Union Calendar, but no further action was taken.


Date of Report: March 22, 2010
Number of Pages: 24
Order Number: R40520
Price: $29.95

Document available electronically as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail congress@pennyhill.com or call us at 301-253-0881

Membership of the 111th Congress: A Profile

Jennifer E. Manning
Information Research Specialist

This report presents a profile of the membership of the 111th Congress. Statistical information is included on selected characteristics of Members, including data on party affiliation, average age and length of service, occupation, religious affiliation, gender, ethnicity, foreign births, and military service. 

Currently, in the House of Representatives, there are 259 Democrats (including five Delegates and the Resident Commissioner), 177 Republicans, and five vacant seats. The Senate has 57 Democrats; 2 Independents, who caucus with the Democrats; and 41 Republicans. 

The average age of Members of both Houses of Congress at the beginning of the 111th Congress was 58.2 years; of Members of the House, 57.2 years; and of Senators, 63.1 years. The overwhelming majority of Members have a college education. The dominant professions of Members are public service/politics, business, and law. Protestants collectively constitute the majority religious affiliation of Members. Roman Catholics account for the largest single religious denomination, and numerous other affiliations are represented. 

The average length of service for Representatives at the beginning of the 111th Congress was 11.0 years (5.5 terms); for Senators 12.9 years ( 2.2 terms). 

A record number of 93 women serve in the 111th Congress: 76 in the House, 17 in the Senate. There are 41 African American Members of the House and one in the Senate. This number includes two Delegates. There are 29 Hispanic or Latino Members serving: 28 in the House, including the Resident Commissioner, and one in the Senate. Twelve Members (eight Representatives, two Delegates, and two Senators) are Asian or Native Hawaiian/other Pacific Islander. The only American Indian (Native American) serves in the House. .


Date of Report: March 24, 2010
Number of Pages: 10
Order Number: R40086
Price: $29.95

Document available electronically as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail congress@pennyhill.com or call us at 301-253-0881.

Extradition To and From the United States: Overview of the Law and Recent Treaties

Michael John Garcia
Legislative Attorney

Charles Doyle
Senior Specialist in American Public Law

"Extradition" is the formal surrender of a person by a State to another State for prosecution or punishment. Extradition to or from the United States is a creature of treaty. The United States has extradition treaties with over a hundred nations, although they are many countries with which it has no extradition treaty. International terrorism and drug trafficking have made extradition an increasingly important law enforcement tool. This is a brief overview of the adjustments made in recent treaties to accommodate American law enforcement interests, and then a nutshell overview of the federal law governing foreign requests to extradite a fugitive found in this country and a United States request for extradition of a fugitive found in a foreign country. 

Extradition treaties are in the nature of a contract and generate the most controversy with respect to those matters for which extradition may not be had. In addition to an explicit list of crimes for which extradition may be granted, most modern extradition treaties also identify various classes of offenses for which extradition may or must be denied. Common among these are provisions excluding purely military and political offenses; capital offenses; crimes that are punishable under only the laws of one of the parties to the treaty; crimes committed outside the country seeking extradition; crimes where the fugitive is a national of the country of refuge; and crimes barred by double jeopardy or a statute of limitations. 

Extradition is triggered by a request submitted through diplomatic channels. In this country, it proceeds through the Departments of Justice and State and may be presented to a federal magistrate to order a hearing to determine whether the request is in compliance with an applicable treaty, whether it provides sufficient evidence to satisfy probable cause to believe that the fugitive committed the identified treaty offense(s), and whether other treaty requirements have been met. If so, the magistrate certifies the case for extradition at the discretion of the Secretary of State. Except as provided by treaty, the magistrate does not inquire into the nature of foreign proceedings likely to follow extradition. 

The laws of the country of refuge and the applicable extradition treaty govern extradition back to the United States of a fugitive located overseas. Requests travel through diplomatic channels and the treaty issue most likely to arise after extradition to this country is whether the extraditee has been tried for crimes other than those for which he or she was extradited. The fact that extradition was ignored and a fugitive forcibly returned to the United States for trial constitutes no jurisdictional impediment to trial or punishment. Federal and foreign immigration laws sometimes serve as an alternative to extradition to and from the United States.


Date of Report: March 17, 2010
Number of Pages: 47
Order Number: 98-958
Price:$29.95
Document available electronically as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail congress@pennyhill.com or call us at 301-253-0881.

Appropriations Bills: What Is Report Language?

Sandy Streeter
Analyst on Congress and the Legislative Process

Report language refers to information provided in reports accompanying committee reported legislation as well as joint explanatory statements, which are included in conference reports. Report language contains more detailed guidance to departments and agencies than is provided in related appropriations bills or legislative text in conference reports. 

The House requires a written committee report to accompanying each reported bill.1 Although there is no comparable Senate requirement, the Senate Appropriations Committee typically prepares such reports. Both chambers require an explanatory statement to accompany each conference report.2 Although the entire document is generally referred to as a conference report, it comprises two separate parts. The conference report contains a conference committee's proposal for legislative language resolving the House and Senate differences on a measure, while the joint explanatory statement explains the conference report. 

Report language accompanying appropriations measures, and that in conference reports, generally includes detailed spending instructions, directives, expectations, and spending restrictions. The funding instructions set aside spending within lump-sum amounts in the bill or legislative text of the conference report for designated purposes, such as specified programs, projects, or activities. Congressionally initiated earmarks (referred to as congressional earmarks in the House and congressionally directed spending items in the Senate) are frequently provided in report language instead of the text of the measure or legislative text of the conference report.3 

Directives contained in report language may require or encourage departments or agencies to take specified action or refrain from taking a certain action. For example, a report might direct an agency to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of an activity or encourage an agency to implement specified regulations expeditiously. 

Spending restrictions might include instructions for a department or agency not to use funds provided in the bill for specified programs, projects, or activities, or they might set spending ceilings for these activities. 

Committee reports also usually provide a comparative statement of the funding levels requested by the President, contained in the bill, and proposed by the other chamber or committee, if any. In addition, both houses generally require their Appropriations Committees to provide additional information, such as a 

• cost estimate that provides a comparison of funding provided in the measure, except for continuing appropriations, with certain spending ceilings associated with the annual budget resolution (302(b) allocations);4 

• comparison of the text of statutes the committee proposes to amend or repeal with the proposed changes (the House also requires a description of the effect of 

1 Under House Rule XIII, clause 2. 2 House Rule XXII, clause 7(e), and Senate Rule XXVIII, paragraph 6. 3 For more information on congressional earmarks, see CRS Report RL34462, House and Senate Procedural Rules Concerning Earmark Disclosure, by Sandy Streeter. 4 House Rule XIII, clause 3(c)(2), and Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, 2 U.S.C. §§ 621, 639. For more information on the annual budget resolution and 302(b) allocations, see CRS Report 97-684, The Congressional Appropriations Process: An Introduction, by Sandy Streeter; and CRS Report R40472, The Budget Resolution and Spending Legislation, by Megan Suzanne Lynch 

any provision in a general appropriations bill5 that directly or indirectly changes the application of existing law);6 and 

• statement identifying appropriations for unauthorized purposes.7 

Procedures are available in both the Senate and House to waive or suspend these rules. In the House, rules may be waived by unanimous consent, on a motion to suspend the rules requiring a two-thirds vote, and by adopting a special rule waiving the rule(s), which requires a majority vote and is reported by the House Rules Committee. Waivers of Senate rules are typically by unanimous consent. 

The House requires that committee reports and joint explanatory statements include a list of congressional earmarks and their sponsors.8 Although the Senate does not require that such a list be included in committee reports, the Senate Appropriations Committee has generally done so.9 

Committee reports are typically prepared by the staff of the Senate and House Appropriations subcommittee with jurisdiction over the particular bill or provision at the direction of the appropriations subcommittee chair. Conflicts between the guidance in the Senate and House committee reports are usually resolved during conference on the bill and included in the joint explanatory statement. 

Because committee reports and managers' statements are not part of the legislative measures considered on the floor of the Senate or House, they are not subject to points of order to which bills and amendments may be vulnerable. 

Significantly, report language does not have statutory force, departments and agencies are not legally bound by their declarations.10 These documents do, however, explain congressional intent, and executive branch agencies take them seriously because they must justify their budget requests annually to the Appropriations Committees. 

5 In the House, general appropriations bill refers to the 12 annual regular appropriations bills and supplemental appropriations measures that provide funds for more than one purpose or agency. The term does not apply to continuing resolutions; in contrast, the Senate includes continuing resolutions as well. 6 House Rule XIII, clause 3(e) and (f)(1)(A) and Senate Rule XXVI, paragraph 12. 7 House Rule XIII, clause 3(f)(1)(B) and Senate Rule XVI, paragraph 7. For more information on House and Senate rules regarding such unauthorized appropriations, see CRS Report 97-684, The Congressional Appropriations Process: An Introduction, by Sandy Streeter; and CRS Report RS20371, Overview of the Authorization-Appropriations Process, by Bill Heniff Jr. 8 House Rule XXI, clause 9. 9 Senate Rule XLIV requires the chair of the committee reporting the bill or the Majority Leader to certify that a list (or a chart or other similar form) of all earmarks and the name of each Senator who submitted a request for each item listed has been available on a publicly accessible congressional website for at least 48 hours before the a vote on consideration of a measure. A similar requirement applies to conference reports. For information waiving or suspending these House and Senate earmark transparency rules, see CRS Report RL34462, House and Senate Procedural Rules Concerning Earmark Disclosure, by Sandy Streeter. 10 For more information, see CRS Report RL34373, Earmarks Executive Order: Legal Issues, by Thomas J. Nicola and T. J. Halstead; and CRS Report RL34648, Bush Administration Policy Regarding Congressionally Originated Earmarks: An Overview, by Clinton T. Brass, Garrett Hatch, and R. Eric Petersen

Date of Report: March 23, 2010
Number of Pages: 4
Order Number: 98-558
Price: $0.00 (THIS IS THE WHOLE REPORT Less Contact Info!)

Document available electronically as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail congress@pennyhill.com or call us at 301-253-0881.