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: July 22, 2010
Number of Pages: 85
Order Number: R40856
Price: $29.95


Follow us on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

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 Appointment Process: Roles of the President, Judiciary Committee, and Senate

Denis Steven Rutkus
Specialist on the Federal Judiciary

The appointment of a Supreme Court Justice is an event of major significance in American politics. Each appointment is of consequence because of the enormous judicial power the Supreme Court exercises as the highest appellate court in the federal judiciary. Appointments are usually infrequent, as a vacancy on the nine-member Court may occur only once or twice, or never at all, during a particular President's years in office. Under the Constitution, Justices on the Supreme Court receive lifetime appointments. Such job security in the government has been conferred solely on judges and, by constitutional design, helps insure the Court's independence from the President and Congress.

The procedure for appointing a Justice is provided for by the Constitution in only a few words. The "Appointments Clause" (Article II, Section 2, clause 2) states that the President "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the supreme Court." The process of appointing Justices has undergone changes over two centuries, but its most basic feature—the sharing of power between the President and Senate—has remained unchanged: To receive lifetime appointment to the Court, a candidate must first be nominated by the President and then confirmed by the Senate. Although not mentioned in the Constitution, an important role is played midway in the process (after the President selects, but before the Senate considers) by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

On rare occasions, Presidents also have made Court appointments without the Senate's consent, when the Senate was in recess. Such "recess appointments," however, were temporary, with their terms expiring at the end of the Senate's next session. The last recess appointments to the Court, made in the 1950s, were controversial because they bypassed the Senate and its "advice and consent" role.

The appointment of a Justice might or might not proceed smoothly. From the first appointments in 1789 through its consideration of nominee Sonia Sotomayor in 2009, the Senate confirmed 123 out of 159 Court nominations . Of the 36 unsuccessful nominations, 11 were rejected in Senate roll-call votes, while nearly all of the rest, in the face of committee or Senate opposition to the nominee or the President, were withdrawn by the President or were postponed, tabled, or never voted on by the Senate. (Six individuals, however, whose initial Supreme Court nominations were not confirmed, were later re-nominated and confirmed.)

Over more than two centuries, a recurring theme in the Supreme Court appointment process has been the assumed need for excellence in a nominee. However, politics also has played an important role in Supreme Court appointments. The political nature of the appointment process becomes especially apparent when a President submits a nominee with controversial views, there are sharp partisan or ideological differences between the President and the Senate, or the outcome of important constitutional issues before the Court is seen to be at stake.

For a listing of all nominations to the Court and their outcomes (not counting the pending Supreme Court nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan), see CRS Report RL33225, Supreme Court Nominations, 1789 - 2009: Actions by the Senate, the Judiciary Committee, and the President, by Denis Steven Rutkus and Maureen Bearden.


Date of Report: July 22, 2010
Number of Pages: 64
Order Number: RL31989
Price: $29.95



Follow us on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

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.

Federal Civil Rights Statutes: A Primer

Jody Feder
Legislative Attorney

Under federal law, an array of civil rights statutes are available to protect individuals from discrimination. This report provides a brief summary of selected federal civil rights statutes, including the Civil Rights Act, the Equal Pay Act, the Voting Rights Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Fair Housing Act, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the Rehabilitation Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Equal Educational Opportunities Act, the Age Discrimination Act, the Civil Service Reform Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Congressional Accountability Act, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, and the Reconstruction Statutes.


Date of Report: July 21, 2010
Number of Pages: 12
Order Number: RL33386
Price: $29.95


Follow us on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

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.

The Indian Trust Fund Litigation: An Overview of Cobell v. Salazar

Todd Garvey
Legislative Attorney

Reportedly, if Congress does not authorize the settlement recently reached in Cobell v. Salazar without any material changes by August 6, 2010, it will be rendered null and void. In this settlement, signed on December 7, 2009, the government agreed to pay $1.4 billion to members of the class who sought to have a historical accounting of their IIM accounts (an abbreviation for Individual Indian Monies). An additional $2 billion is to be provided by the government for the purpose of consolidating fractionated trust and restricted lands.

First filed in 1996, Cobell v. Salazar involves the Department of the Interior's (DOI's) management of several money accounts. These money accounts, or IIMs, as distinguished from tribal trust funds, are monies which the federal government holds for the benefit of individual Indians. The conflict in the case traces to the federal government's trust responsibility with respect to American Indians. In the capacity of trustee, the United States holds title to much of Indian tribal land and land allotted to individual Indians. Receipts from leases, timber sales, or mineral royalties are paid to the federal government for disbursement to the appropriate Indian property owners. Flowing from the federal trusteeship of Indian lands and mineral resources are fiduciary responsibilities on the part of the United States to manage Indian monies and assets which have been derived from these lands and are held in trust. However, several of the beneficiaries of these trust funds have alleged that DOI has mismanaged these funds and filed suit in order to obtain a proper accounting of these funds and to receive damages if warranted.

In January 2008, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia reached the conclusion that DOI would be unable to produce the required accounting. Instead, in a later hearing on August 7, 2008, the district court imposed a remedy of $455.6 million in restitution, which differed greatly from what the plaintiffs had sought—approximately $47 billion. In its ruling, the court rejected the plaintiffs' methodology of computing the amount owed to the trust beneficiaries and their additional claims for "benefit to the government" for funds not credited to the accounts of the beneficiaries. However, on July 24, 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia reversed the district court, ordering that DOI, in light of the limited appropriations provided by Congress, conduct the best accounting possible with the monies available. Plaintiffs filed a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court to review the court of appeals decision.

The purpose of this report is to provide a brief background of the history leading up to the litigation and a review of the issues that have proven so difficult for the judiciary to resolve. The report will be updated as warranted by judicial decisions or legislative action.


Date of Report: July 13, 2010
Number of Pages: 14
Order Number: RL34628
Price: $29.95


Follow us on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

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.

Federal Programs Available to Unemployed Workers

Katelin P. Isaacs, Coordinator  
Analyst in Income Security  

David H. Bradley  
Analyst in Labor Economics  

Janemarie Mulvey  
Specialist in Aging and Income Security  

John J. Topoleski  
Analyst in Income Security

Four groups of federal programs target unemployed workers: unemployment insurance, health care assistance, job search assistance, and training. This report presents information on federal programs targeted to unemployed workers specifically, but does not attempt to discuss meanstested programs (such as Medicaid or SSI) that are available regardless of employment status. 

When eligible workers lose their jobs, the Unemployment Compensation (UC) program may provide up to 26 weeks of income support through the payment of regular UC benefits. Unemployment benefits may be extended for up to 53 weeks by the temporarily authorized Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC08) program and additionally extended for up to 13 or 20 weeks by the permanent Extended Benefit (EB) program if certain economic conditions exist within the state. Certain groups of workers who lose their jobs on account of international competition may qualify for additional or supplemental income support through Trade Adjustment Act (TAA) programs or, if they are aged 50 or older, for Reemployment Trade Adjustment Assistance (RTAA). If an unemployed worker is not eligible to receive UC benefits and the worker's unemployment may be directly attributed to a declared major disaster, a worker may be eligible to receive Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA) benefits. 

Two federal laws may aid unemployed workers in the purchase of health insurance. The first, the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA), allows unemployed workers in certain circumstances to continue health insurance coverage from their employers. The second, the Health Coverage Tax Credit (HCTC), allows certain TAA and RTAA participants to receive an advanceable and refundable tax credit for purchasing health insurance. 

Federal support for Americans seeking assistance to obtain, retain, or change employment is undertaken by a national system of local One-Stop Career Centers (One-Stops) that were established by the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998. A variety of services and partner programs—notably including UC and TAA—are located within or linked to One-Stops, which primarily provide job search assistance, career counseling, labor market information, and other employment services. Core labor exchange services (matching job seekers and employers) are provided by the U.S. Employment Service (ES), which was first established by the Wagner- Peyser Act of 1933 and most recently amended under Title III of WIA. In addition to ES, Title I of WIA authorizes resources for similar core and intensive employment services for youth, adults, dislocated workers, and targeted populations. 

WIA Title I is also the nation's central job training legislation, providing funds for traditional, onthe- job, customized, and other forms of training to individuals unable to obtain or retain employment through other services. 

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5, known as ARRA or the 2009 stimulus package), as amended, contains several provisions related to unemployment benefits. ARRA provisions affect unemployment income support as well as health insurance (COBRA and HCTC) programs.


Date of Report: June 23, 2010
Number of Pages: 19
Order Number: RL34251
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.

Chief Administrative Officer of the House: History and Organization

Jacob R. Straus
Analyst on the Congress

The Chief Administrative Officer of the House of Representatives (CAO) is an elected officer of the House, chosen at the beginning of each Congress. The office of the CAO consists of three divisions: the immediate office of the CAO, operations, and customer solutions. Together, these divisions oversee human resources, financial services, technology infrastructure, procurement, facilities management, and other House support functions. The position of CAO was initially created at the beginning of the 104th Congress to assume the duties previously performed by the Director of Non-Legislative and Financial Services, as well as to manage the operations of other House administrative offices and support services.


Date of Report: June 10, 2010
Number of Pages: 19
Order Number: RS22731
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.

Enrollment of Legislation: Relevant Congressional Procedures

Valerie Heitshusen
Analyst on Congress and the Legislative Process

An enrolled bill or resolution is the form of a measure finally agreed to by both chambers of Congress. Enrollment occurs in the chamber where the measure originated and is carried out by enrolling clerks under the supervision of the Clerk of the House of Representatives and Secretary of the Senate. Enrolled bills and joint resolutions are signed by the presiding officers of each chamber (or their designees) and are presented to the President by the House Clerk or Secretary of the Senate, depending on the chamber of origination.

In instances in which Congress determines that the enrolled measure does not reflect congressional intent, it can require that changes be made by adopting a concurrent resolution directing the House Clerk or Secretary of the Senate to do so. If the enrolled measure has already been presented to the President—but not yet enacted or vetoed—the concurrent resolution can request its return to allow specified corrections to be made.

If Congress wishes to alter an enacted measure, new legislation must be enacted to do so. In rare instances, the constitutionality of certain measures has been challenged based on allegations that the enrolled (and therefore, enacted) text did not accurately reflect congressional action. In considering these cases, the federal courts have typically relied on precedent to refuse review of the enrollment process (or other pre-enactment congressional procedures).


Date of Report: June 15, 2010
Number of Pages: 9
Order Number: RL34480
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.

Independent Evaluators of Federal Programs: Approaches, Devices, and Examples

Frederick M. Kaiser
Specialist in American National Government

Clinton T. Brass
Analyst in Government Organization and Management

Congress and the executive, as well as outside organizations, have long been attentive to the evaluation of federal programs, with frequent interest paid to the independent status of the evaluator. This interest continues into the current era, with numerous illustrations of the multifaceted approaches adopted and proposed.

An evaluation may provide information at any stage of the policy process about how a federal government policy, program, activity, or agency is working. Congress has required evaluations through legislation (or requested these via its committee and Member offices); and the executive branch has pursued evaluations through presidential or agency directives.

Part of choosing how to carry out an evaluation involves deciding if some kind of "independence" would be a desirable attribute. Observers often see independence as a means of avoiding or deterring bias and ensuring an objective, impartial assessment. In the context of evaluation, independence may apply to an evaluation or to an evaluator. On one hand, for example, the term may relate to independence of an evaluation from the policy preferences of an individual or group ("independent evaluation"), perhaps by prohibiting political appointees from revising or evaluating a program. Independence may refer to an entity that conducts evaluations that also is located outside the immediate organization responsible for policy implementation ("independent evaluator").

There is some diversity of opinion regarding the definition of independence and how it might be ensured. For example, an evaluator's "external" status, outside the organization that is implementing a program, does not necessarily equate with independence. Nor would an evaluator's "internal" status, inside the implementing organization, necessarily equate with a lack of independence for an evaluation (e.g., if an expert panel reviewed the internally produced evaluation for bias). There is varying opinion concerning when independence is necessary, or possibly counterproductive, and what value it may bring.

The differences of opinion among definitions and perceived need notwithstanding, instances of independent program evaluators appear to be growing in number and variety at the federal level.

This report focuses on examples of independent evaluators (IEs): when an evaluation is to be conducted by an entity outside the immediate organization that is responsible for policy implementation, and the entity also is intended to have one or more dimensions of independence. IEs and similar constructs, however, vary across a number of characteristics and attributes: structure, jurisdiction, authority, resources, length of tenure, and specific duties and responsibilities. These differences, in turn, could affect their capabilities, effectiveness, and assistance to others, including their contributions to the oversight of a program or project by Congress and the executive branch.

After an overview of such entities—which encompass new units created specifically for conducting an evaluation as well as existing ones, such as the Government Accountability Office and offices of the inspectors general—this report suggests possible broad characteristics and criteria of independent evaluators or similar units, which could be valuable in oversight or legislative endeavors. The Appendix describes a number of such offices—past, present, and proposed—along with citations to relevant official documents and other materials for each example (public laws, legislative proposals, executive branch directives, and secondary analyses).


Date of Report: June 21, 2010
Number of Pages: 37
Order Number: R41337
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.

National Monuments and the Antiquities Act

Carol Hardy Vincent
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy

Kristina Alexander
Legislative Attorney

The Antiquities Act of 1906 authorizes the President to create national monuments on federal lands that contain historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, or other objects of historic or scientific interest. The President is to reserve "the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected." The act was designed to protect federal lands and resources quickly, and Presidents have proclaimed about 130 monuments. Congress has modified many of these proclamations and has abolished some monuments. Congress also has created monuments under its own authority.

Presidential establishment of monuments sometimes has been contentious—for example, President Franklin Roosevelt's creation of the Jackson Hole National Monument in Wyoming (1943); President Carter's massive Alaskan withdrawals (1978); and President Clinton's establishment of 19 monuments and enlargement of three others (1996-2001). The Obama Administration's consideration of areas for possible monument designation has renewed controversy over the Antiquities Act.

Issues have included the size of the areas and types of resources protected; the effects of monument designation on land uses; the level and types of threats to the areas; the inclusion of nonfederal lands within monument boundaries; the act's limited process compared with the public participation and environmental review aspects of other laws; and the agency managing the monument.

Opponents have sought to revoke or limit the President's authority to proclaim monuments. Congress is currently considering proposals to preclude the President from unilaterally creating monuments in particular states, and to impose environmental studies and public input procedures, among other changes. Monument supporters favor the act in its present form, asserting that the public and the courts have upheld monument designations and that many past designations that initially were controversial have come to be supported. They contend that the President needs continued authority to promptly protect valuable resources on federal lands from potential threats.


Date of Report: July 20, 2010
Number of Pages: 15
Order Number: R41330
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.

The DISCLOSE Act: Overview and Analysis

R. Sam Garrett
Analyst in American National Government

L. Paige Whitaker
Legislative Attorney

Erika K. Lunder
Legislative Attorney

As it has periodically for decades, Congress is again considering how or whether to regulate campaign financing. The latest iteration of the debate over which kinds of groups should be permitted to spend funds on political advertisements, and how so, was renewed on January 21, 2010, when the Supreme Court of the United States issued its decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Following Citizens United, corporations and labor unions may now fund political advertisements explicitly calling for election or defeat of federal candidates— provided that the advertisements are not coordinated with the campaign. The legislative response receiving the most attention to date—and the emphasis of this report—is the House version of the DISCLOSE ("Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections") Act, H.R. 5175, sponsored by Representative Van Hollen. This bill was reported, as amended, by the Committee on House Administration on May 25, 2010. The House of Representatives passed the bill, with additional amendments, on June 24, 2010, by a 219-206 vote. Senator Schumer's companion legislation, S. 3295, which the Senate may consider in the coming weeks, is generally similar to the bill passed by the House. There are, however, some important differences between the two measures, as discussed in this report.

This report provides an overview and analysis of (1) major policy issues addressed in the DISCLOSE Act, which responds to Citizens United; (2) major provisions of H.R. 5175, as passed by the House, S. 3295, as introduced in the Senate, versus current federal law; and (3) issues for congressional consideration and potential implications of enacting or not enacting the DISCLOSE Act. The legislation proposes a combination of disclosure and disclaimer provisions designed to provide additional information to regulators and the public about political advertising that could emerge following Citizens United. The legislation also prohibits government contractors, corporations subject to certain control or ownership by foreign nationals (including some U.S. subsidiaries of foreign corporations), and recipients of Temporary Asset Relief Program (TARP) funds from making certain political expenditures. A variety of issues for Congress discussed in this report, such as how various provisions in the bill might be interpreted or implemented, may be relevant for House and Senate consideration of the DISCLOSE Act.


Date of Report: July 16, 2010
Number of Pages: 37
Order Number: R41264
Price: $29.95

The report is available via eMail 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 eMail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Proposals to Reform “Holds” in the Senate

Walter J. Oleszek
Senior Specialist in American National Government

"Holds" are an informal senatorial custom unrecognized in Senate rules or precedents. They allow Senators to give notice to their respective party leader that certain measures or matters should not be brought up on the floor. Implicit in the practice is that a Senator will object to taking up a bill or nomination on which he or she has placed a hold. The Senate's majority leader, who exercises primary responsibility for determining the chamber's agenda, traditionally in consultation with the minority leader, is the final arbiter as to whether and for how long he will honor a hold placed by a Member or group of lawmakers.

The exact origin of holds has been lost in the mists of history. Their ostensible purpose is to provide advance notice to Senators as to when a measure or matter, in which they have expressed an interest by placing holds, is slated to be called up by the majority leader. However, since the 1970s, holds came into greater prominence in the Senate as more Members began to employ holds as a way to try to accomplish their policy or political objectives.

In a Senate with a large and complex workload, and more dependent than ever on unanimous consent agreements to process its expanding business, holds provide significant leverage to Members who wish to delay action on legislation or nominations. Given the heightened potency of holds, there have been many initiatives over the years to reform the Senate's hold practices.

This report examines, over a more than three-decade period, a wide range of proposals to reform holds. In general, the objective of these recommendations is not to abolish holds but to infuse more accountability, uniformity, and transparency in their use and to make it clear that holds are not a veto on the majority leader's prerogative of calling up measures or matters. The historical record underscores that it has been difficult to revise a practice, now a regular feature of the Senate's workways, that provides parliamentary influence and leverage to every Senator. The reform proposals examined are as follows:

(1) Impose time limits
(2) Abolish holds
(3) Uniform procedure for holds
(4) No indefinite, or permanent, holds
(5) Prohibit blanket holds
(6) End secret holds
(7) Require more than one Senator to place a hold
(8) Permit a privileged resolution to terminate holds
(9) Restrict filibuster opportunities
(10) Determination by majority leader to proceed


Date of Report: July 15, 2010
Number of Pages: 20
Order Number: RL31685
Price: $29.95

The report is available via eMail 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 eMail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Executive Compensation: SEC Regulations and Congressional Proposals

Michael V. Seitzinger
Legislative Attorney

Concern about shareholder value, corporate governance, and the economic and social impact of escalating pay for corporate executives has led to a controversy regarding the practices of paying these executives. On July 26, 2006, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC or Commission) voted to adopt revisions to its rules on disclosure of executive compensation. On December 22, 2006, the SEC announced that it had adopted changes to the July 26 rules. These December 22 changes have become somewhat controversial, with opponents saying that they obfuscate executive compensation and with proponents saying that the changes are necessary to give a truly accurate picture of executive compensation. On December 16, 2009, the SEC adopted rule changes titled "Proxy Disclosure Enhancements." The provisions addressing disclosures of executive compensation require a discussion of overall employee compensation policies and practices if risks arise that are reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect upon the company.

Additionally, proposals have been made in the current and recent Congresses to limit executive compensation and the amount of deferred compensation for tax purposes. In the 110th Congress, two laws containing executive compensation provisions were enacted: P.L. 110-289, the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, and P.L. 110-343, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. Bills have also been introduced in the 111th Congress concerning limiting executive compensation. In the 111th Congress, Title VII of P.L. 111-5, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), sets forth restrictions on the compensation of executives of companies during the period in which any obligation arising from financial assistance provided under the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) remains outstanding. In July 2009 the House Committee on Financial Services circulated a discussion draft of H.R. 3269, the Corporate and Financial Institution Compensation Fairness Act of 2009. On July 31, 2009, the House passed an amended version of H.R. 3269, which is included as Title II of H.R. 4173, passed by the House on December 11, 2009. The Senate considered a proposal of a financial regulatory reform bill, of which Subtitle E of Title IX concerned executive compensation.

Both the House and the Senate passed bills with provisions applying to executive compensation. The House- and Senate-passed executive compensation provisions differed, in some cases significantly. The House and Senate conferees on Wall Street reform passed an executive compensation subtitle. On June 30, 2010, the House agreed to the conference report for H.R. 4173, now referred to as the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The bill has been referred to the Senate.

On March 3, 2009, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in Jones v. Harris Associates, a case which challenges the fees charged by a mutual fund's investment advisers as excessive and a breach of fiduciary duty. Interest in this case from the executive compensation angle centers on the possibility that the decision may provide a hint as to what the Court could consider excessive executive compensation if it has before it a case concerning, for example, government actions limiting executive compensation. On November 2, 2009, the Court heard oral argument in this case. On March 30, 2010, the Court held that, in order to be successful in holding that an adviser misled the fund's directors and thereby violated his fiduciary duty, investors must show that an investment adviser has charged a "fee that is so disproportionately large that it bears no reasonable relationship to the services rendered and could not have been the product of arm's length bargaining."


Date of Report: July 13, 2010
Number of Pages: 12
Order Number: RS22583
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.

The Office of the Parliamentarian in the House and Senate

Valerie Heitshusen
Analyst on Congress and the Legislative Process

The House and the Senate each has an Office of the Parliamentarian to provide expert advice and assistance on questions relating to the meaning and application of that chamber's legislative rules, precedents, and practices. The Speaker began naming a parliamentarian in 1927; the Senate first recognized its parliamentarian in 1935. At present, the House parliamentarian is assisted by a deputy, four assistants, and three clerks. The Senate office currently comprises the parliamentarian, two senior assistant parliamentarians, the assistant parliamentarian, and the parliamentary assistant.


Date of Report: July 14, 2010
Number of Pages: 3
Order Number: RS20544
Price: $19.95

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.

Party Leaders in the House: Election, Duties, and Responsibilities

Valerie Heitshusen
Analyst on Congress and the Legislative Process

Each major party in the House has a leadership hierarchy. This report summarizes the election, duties, and responsibilities of the Speaker of the House, the majority and minority leaders, and the whips and whip system. For a listing of all past occupants of congressional party leadership positions, see CRS Report RL30567, Party Leaders in the United States Congress, 1789-2010, by Valerie Heitshusen.


Date of Report: July 14, 2010
Number of Pages: 4
Order Number: RS20881
Price: $19.95

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.

Federal Mandatory Minimum Sentences: The Safety Valve and Substantial Assistance Exceptions

Charles Doyle
Senior Specialist in American Public Law

Federal law requires a sentencing judge to impose a minimum sentence of imprisonment following conviction for any of a number of federal offenses. Congress has created two exceptions. One is available in all cases when the prosecutor asserts that the defendant has provided substantial assistance in the criminal investigation or prosecution of another, 18 U.S.C. 3553(e). The other, commonly referred to as the safety value, is available, without the government's approval, for a handful of the more commonly prosecuted drug trafficking and unlawful possession offenses that carry minimum sentences, 18 U.S.C. 3553(f).

Qualification for the substantial assistance exception is ordinarily only possible upon the motion of the government. In rare cases, the court may compel the government to file such a motion when the defendant can establish that the refusal to do so was based on constitutionally invalid considerations, or was in derogation of a plea bargain obligation or was the product of bad faith.

Qualification for the safety valve exception requires a defendant to satisfy five criteria. His past criminal record must be minimal; he must not have been a leader, organizer, or supervisor in the commission of the offense; he must not have used violence in the commission or the offense, and the offense must not have resulted in serious injury; and prior to sentencing, he must tell the government all that he knows of the offense and any related misconduct.

Congress has instructed the United States Sentencing Commission to report on the operation of federal mandatory minimum sentencing provisions. A majority of the Federal judges responding to a Commission survey agree that the two exceptions should be expanded. A number of Commission hearing witnesses have also urged that the provisions be amended.


Date of Report: July 14, 2010
Number of Pages: 15
Order Number: R41326
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.

Points of Order, Rulings, and Appeals in the House of Representatives

Valerie Heitshusen
Analyst on Congress and the Legislative Process

The Speaker usually does not take the initiative to prevent the House from considering proposals or taking actions that would violate the House's rules.1 Instead, whenever a Member believes that the House's legislative procedures are being violated in some way, or are about to be violated, that Member may insist that the House's procedures be enforced by making a point of order against the alleged violation. Points of order against measures or amendments may be waived in the House by unanimous consent, pursuant to a special rule reported from the Rules Committee and adopted by majority vote on the floor, or via suspension of the rules.


Date of Report: July 15, 2010
Number of Pages: 4
Order Number: 98-307
Price: $19.95

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.

Constitutional Issues Raised by Pending Bills to Expand Liability under the Death on the High Seas Act and the Jones Act

To: House Judiciary Committee
Attention: Stephanie Moore

From: Robert Meltz
Legislative Attorney

Kenneth R. Thomas
Legislative Attorney

This memorandum is in response to your request to evaluate the constitutional issues implicated by H.R. 5503, the Securing Protections for the Injured from Limitations on Liability Act, as ordered to be reported from the House Committee on the Judiciary on June 23, 2010. Specifically, you requested an evaluation of the constitutional issues raised by the retroactive application of proposed expanded liability provisions of the Death on the High Seas Act and the Jones Act.


Date of Report: June 28, 2010
Number of Pages: 4
Order Number: M-962810
Price: $19.95

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.

Resources for Grantseekers

Merete F. Gerli
Information Research Specialist

This report describes key sources of information on government and private funding, and outlines eligibility for federal grants. Federal grants are intended for projects benefiting states and communities. Individuals may be eligible for other kinds of benefits or assistance, or small busineses and students may be eligible for loans. Free information is readily available to grantseekers who generally know best the details of their projects. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) describes 1600 federal programs, 1000 of them grants, and can be searched by keyword, subject, department or agency, program title, beneficiary, and applicant eligibility. Federal department and agency websites provide additional information and guidance, and provide state agency contacts. Once a program has been identified, eligible grantseekers may apply electronically for grants at the website Grants.gov through a uniform process for all agencies. Through Grants.gov, they may identify when federal funding notices and deadlines for a CFDA program become available, sign up for e-mail notification of funding opportunities, and track the progress of submitted applications.

Under the President's stimulus package, additional federal grants and other assistance are made available via state agencies. The report includes links to key information sources such as Recovery.gov, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Since government funds may be limited, the report also discusses sources of private and corporate foundation funding. The Foundation Center is a clearinghouse for information about private, corporate, and community foundations, with collections of resources in every state.

Included in this report are sources of information on writing grant proposals. See also CRS Report RL32159, How to Develop and Write a Grant Proposal, by Merete F. Gerli.

Sources described in this report are also included in the CRS website, Grants and Federal Domestic Assistance Web Page, by Luis A. DeCastro and Merete F. Gerli. Upon request, this website may be added to a Member's home page. For congressional staff, see also CRS Report RL34035, Grants Work in a Congressional Office, by Merete F. Gerli.


Date of Report: July 6, 2010
Number of Pages: 12
Order Number: RL34012
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.

How to Develop and Write a Grant Proposal

Merete F. Gerli
Information Research Specialist

This report is intended for Members and staff assisting grant seekers in districts and states and covers writing proposals for both government and private foundations grants. In preparation for writing a proposal, the report first discusses preliminary information gathering and preparation, developing ideas for the proposal, gathering community support, identifying funding resources, and seeking preliminary review of the proposal and support of relevant administrative officials.

The second section of the report covers the actual writing of the proposal, from outlining of project goals, stating the purpose and objectives of the proposal, explaining the program methods to solve the stated problem, and how the results of the project will be evaluated, to long-term project planning, and, finally, developing the proposal budget.

The last section of the report provides a listing of free grants-writing websites, including guidelines from the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance and the Foundation Center's "Proposal Writing Short Course."

Related CRS reports are CRS Report RL34035, Grants Work in a Congressional Office, by Merete F. Gerli; CRS Report RL34012, Resources for Grantseekers, by Merete F. Gerli; and CRS Report RS21117, Ethical Considerations in Assisting Constituents With Grant Requests Before Federal Agencies, by Jack Maskell.


Date of Report: July 6, 2010
Number of Pages: 17
Order Number: RL32159
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.

Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007: The Role of the Clerk of the House and the Secretary of the Senate

Jacob R. Straus
Analyst on the Congress

On September 14, 2007, President George W. Bush signed S. 1, the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-81), into law. The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act (HLOGA) amended the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (P.L. 104-65, as amended) to provide, among other changes to federal law and House and Senate rules, additional and more frequent disclosures of lobbying contacts and activities. This report focuses on the role of the Clerk of the House of Representatives and the Secretary of the Senate in implementing the new lobbying registration and disclosure requirements and provides an overview of the guidance document they have jointly issued.

Under the HLOGA and its predecessors, the Clerk of the House and the Secretary of the Senate manage the registration, filing process, and the collection of documents submitted by the lobbying community. Prior to the HLOGA, lobbyists were required to file documents with both the Clerk and the Secretary. These forms are now filed electronically and jointly. In addition, the Clerk and the Secretary are responsible for making documents publicly available and reporting incorrect or false filings to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia.

To provide direction to the lobbying community, the Clerk of the House and the Secretary of the Senate jointly issued a guidance document for HLOGA in December 2007. The guidance document identifies eight substantive changes to the 1995 Lobbying Disclosure Act, and discusses how the Clerk and Secretary interpret and plan to implement the HLOGA's new provisions. In addition, the guidance document provides direction on successful completion of quarterly registration and disclosure documents, the new semi-annual reporting requirement, and interpretation of the Clerk and Secretary's role in referring the new criminal and civil penalties for filing incorrect or false information to the U.S. attorney.

The guidance document has been amended seven times since its initial issuance. Most recently, the document was updated on June 15, 2010, to include quarterly reporting of lobbying activities and semiannual reporting of certain contributions.

For further analysis on the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act and its other provisions, including amendments to House and Senate gift rules, travel restrictions, and campaign contributions, see CRS Report RL34166, Lobbying Law and Ethics Rules Changes in the 110th Congress, by Jack Maskell; CRS Report RL31126, Lobbying Congress: An Overview of Legal Provisions and Congressional Ethics Rules, by Jack Maskell; CRS Report RS22566, Acceptance of Gifts by Members and Employees of the House of Representatives Under New Ethics Rules of the 110th Congress, by Jack Maskell; and CRS Report R40245, Lobbying Registration and Disclosure: Before and After the Enactment of the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007, by Jacob R. Straus.


Date of Report: June 25, 2010
Number of Pages: 15
Order Number: RL34337
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.

Members of Congress Who Die in Office: Historic and Current Practices

R. Eric Petersen
Analyst in American National Government

Jennifer E. Manning
Information Research Specialist

Since 1973, 82 Members of Congress—68 Representatives, and 14 Senators—have died in office. When a sitting Member dies, the House and Senate carry out a number of actions based on chamber rules, statutes, and longstanding practices. Some observances, such as adjourning briefly as a mark of respect to the deceased, appointing Member delegations to attend funerals of deceased colleagues, or paying the costs of a funeral from public funds, were initially observed in the earliest Congresses, or predate the national legislature established under the Constitution. It appears that contemporary congressional response to the death of a sitting Member is affected by a number of external factors including the following: circumstances of the Member's death, preferences of the deceased Member or the Member's family regarding funeral services, whether

Congress is in session when the Member dies, pending congressional business at the time of the Member's death, and events external to Congress at the time. Congressional response to the death of a sitting Member could be characterized as a broad set of actions that are determined in detail at or around the time of the death, in response to a wide array of factors. Broadly, these actions fall into five categories, including announcement or acknowledgment on the House or Senate floor; consideration of resolutions of condolence; a funeral or other rites; issues related to the deceased Member's office, staff, and survivor benefits; and publication of memorials.

This report, which will be updated as events warrant, is one of several CRS products focusing on various aspects of congressional operations and administration. Others include CRS Report RL30064, Congressional Salaries and Allowances, by Ida A. Brudnick; CRS Report RL34619, Use of the Capitol Rotunda, Capitol Grounds, and Emancipation Hall: Concurrent Resolutions, 101st to 111th Congress, by Matthew Eric Glassman and Jacob R. Straus; and CRS Report RL34545, Congressional Staff: Duties and Functions of Selected Positions, by R. Eric Petersen.


Date of Report: July 1, 2010
Number of Pages: 27
Order Number: RL34347
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.

Asian Pacific Americans in the United States Congress

Lorraine H. Tong
Analyst in American National Government

In the 111th Congress, a record 13 Asian Pacific Americans were elected to the United States Congress: 2 Senators, 9 Representatives, and 2 Delegates. Of the 41 Asian Pacific Americans who have served in Congress from 1903 to the present, there have been 5 Senators (3 of whom have also served in the House), 16 Representatives, 7 territorial Delegates, and 13 Resident Commissioners from the Philippine Islands. Resident Commissioners served from 1907-1946 while the Philippines was a U.S. territory and commonwealth (all were Philippine born). Of the 28 Asian Pacific Americans who were not resident commissioners, 18 were Democrats and 10 were Republicans.

The ancestry of these Asian Pacific Americans has included Chinese, Chamorro, Filipino, Asian Indian, Japanese, Korean, Native Hawaiian, Samoan, Thai, and Vietnamese. They have represented California, Hawaii, Louisiana, Ohio, Oregon, Virginia, American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. They have served in leadership positions, including committee and subcommittee chairmanships.

This report presents information on Senators, Representatives, and Delegates, including party affiliations, length and dates of service, and committee assignments. The bipartisan and bicameral Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus is also discussed in this report.


Date of Report: July 7, 2010
Number of Pages: 25
Order Number: 97-398
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.

Senate Policy Committees

R. Eric Petersen
Analyst in American National Government

This report discusses the history of the two Senate policy committees and explains their structure, operation, and functions.

Created in 1947, the Senate Republican and Democratic Policy Committees are party leadership structures. Each is an analytical arm of its respective party leadership. Their fundamental missions are to achieve policy integration and to promote party unity through the dissemination of information about policy and other Senate matters.

The two policy committees are different in structure and operation, a contrast that appears to be rooted in different leadership styles within the two party organizations. Republican leadership has traditionally been shared among Senators other than the party floor leader; customarily, the Democratic leadership positions of party floor leader, chair of the Democratic Policy Committee (DPC), and chair of the Democratic Conference have been posts held by the same person. Additionally, where both policy committees once functioned largely as service agencies, peripheral to party leadership, today, the two party entities have assumed roles more important to the overall leadership structure in the Senate. The style and activities of the Republican Policy Committee (RPC) and DPC have, over the years, been shaped largely by the party leaders, particularly when the party is in the opposition.


Date of Report: June 23, 2010
Number of Pages: 10
Order Number: RL32015
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.

The President Pro Tempore of the Senate: History and Authority of the Office

Christopher M. Davis
Analyst on Congress and the Legislative Process

The U.S. Constitution establishes the office of the President pro tempore of the Senate to preside over the Senate in the Vice President's absence. Since 1947, the President pro tempore has stood third in line to succeed to the presidency, after the Vice President and the Speaker of the House.

Although the President pro tempore's powers are limited and not comparable to those of the Speaker of the House, as the chamber's presiding officer, he is authorized to perform certain duties. For example, he may decide points of order (subject to appeal) and enforce decorum in the Senate chamber and galleries.

Early in the nation's history, some Presidents pro tempore appointed Senators to standing committees. While they no longer do so, election to the office is considered one of the highest honors bestowed by the Senate, and Presidents pro tempore are traditionally accorded a somewhat larger salary and allowances for staff.

Eighty-eight different Senators have served as President pro tempore. Sixty-one served prior to 1900, when Vice Presidents routinely presided over the chamber and Presidents pro tempore were elected to serve only for limited periods when the Vice President was absent or ill, or the office was vacated. Frequently, several different Presidents pro tempore were chosen in a single congressional session, "on the basis of their personal characteristics, popularity, and reliability." (See Robert C. Byrd, "President Pro Tempore of the Senate," in Donald C. Bacon, Roger H. Davidson, and Morton Keller, eds., The Encyclopedia of the Congress, 4 vols., New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995, vol. 3, p. 1604.) The President pro tempore in the 111th Congress is Senator Daniel K. Inouye, Democrat of Hawaii.

Since 1890, the President pro tempore has customarily been the majority party Senator with the longest continuous service. Twice, the Senate has also created an office of Deputy President pro tempore to honor a colleague, and an office of Permanent Acting President pro tempore in a third instance for the same reason. In 2001, the Senate also created an office of President pro tempore Emeritus.

This report traces the constitutional origins and development of the office of President pro tempore of the Senate, reviews its current role and authority, and provides information on Senators who have held this office, and the more recently created subsidiary offices, over the past two centuries.


Date of Report: June 30, 2010
Number of Pages: 30
Order Number: RL30960
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.

Party Leaders in the United States Congress, 1789-2010

Valerie Heitshusen
Analyst on Congress and the Legislative Process

This report briefly describes current responsibilities and selection mechanisms for 15 House and Senate party leadership posts and provides tables with historical data, including service dates, party affiliation, and other information for each. Tables have been updated as of the report's issuance date to reflect leadership changes.

Although party divisions appeared almost from the First Congress, the formally structured party leadership organizations now taken for granted are a relatively modern development. Constitutionally-specified leaders, namely the Speaker of the House and the President pro tempore of the Senate, can be identified since the first Congress. Other leadership posts, however, were not formally recognized until about the middle of the 19th century, and some are 20th century creations.

In the earliest Congresses, those House Members who took some role in leading their party were often designated by the President as his spokesperson in the chamber. By the early 1800s, an informal system developed when the Speaker began naming his lieutenant to chair one of the most influential House committees. Eventually, other members wielded significant influence via other committee posts (e.g., the post-1880 Committee on Rules). By the end of the 19th century, the formal position of floor leaders had been established in the House.

The Senate was slower than the House to develop formal party leadership positions, and there are similar problems in identifying individual early leaders. For instance, records of party conferences in the 19th century Senate are not available. Memoirs and other secondary sources reveal the identities of party conference or caucus chairs for some, but not all, Congresses after about 1850, but these posts carried very little authority. It was not uncommon for Senators to publicly declare that within the Senate parties, there was no single leader. Rather, through the turn of the 20th century, individuals who led the Senate achieved their position through recognized personal attributes, including persuasion and oratorical skills, rather than election or appointment to formal leadership posts. The formal positions for Senate party floor leaders eventually arose from the position of conference chair.

Owing to the aforementioned problems in identifying informal party leaders in earlier Congresses, the tables in this report identify each leadership position beginning with the year in which each is generally regarded to have been formally established. The report excludes some leadership posts in order to render the amount of data manageable. A bibliography cites useful references, especially in regard to sources for historical data, and an appendix explains the abbreviations used to denote political parties.


Date of Report: June 29, 2010
Number of Pages: 39
Order Number: RL30567
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.

Grants Work in a Congressional Office

Merete F. Gerli
Information Research Specialist

Members of Congress receive frequent requests from grant seekers needing funds for projects in districts and states. The congressional office should first determine its priorities regarding the appropriate assistance to give constituents, from providing information on grants programs to active advocacy of projects. Congressional grants staff can best help grant seekers by first themselves gaining some understanding of the grants process.

Each office handles grants requests in its own way, depending upon the Member's legislative agenda and overall organization and workload. There may be a full-time grants specialist or several staff members under the supervision of a grants coordinator working solely in the area of grants and projects. In some offices, all grants requests are handled in the district or state office; in others, they are answered by the Washington, DC, staff.

To assist grant seekers applying for federal funds, congressional offices can develop working relationships with grants officers in federal and state departments and agencies. Because more than 90% of federal funds go to state and local governments that, in turn, manage federal grants and sub-award to applicants in their state, congressional staff need to identify their own state administering offices. For example, much of the current economic stimulus funding (see the website Recovery.gov at http://www.recovery.gov) is being allocated through existing grants-inaid programs.

To educate constituents, a congressional office may sometimes provide selected grant seekers information on funding opportunities; or may sponsor seminars on federal and private assistance. Because most funding resources are on the Internet, Member home pages can also link to grants sources such as the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance and Grants.gov so that constituents themselves can search for grants and funding opportunities. The CRS Web page, Grants and Federal Domestic Assistance, Merete F. Gerli (see sample at http://crs.gov/resources/Pages/ member-grant.html), can be added to a Member's home page upon request, and is updated automatically on House and Senate servers. Another CRS Web page, Grants and Federal Assistance, by Merete F. Gerli, at http://crs.gov/resources/Pages/CS-Grants.aspx, covers key CRS products.

Congressional staff can use CRS reports to learn about grants work and to provide information on government and private funding. In addition to the current report, these include CRS Report RS21117, Ethical Considerations in Assisting Constituents With Grant Requests Before Federal Agencies, by Jack Maskell; CRS Report RL34012, Resources for Grantseekers, by Merete F. Gerli; and CRS Report RL32159, How to Develop and Write a Grant Proposal, by Merete F. Gerli. CRS also offers reports on block grants and the appropriations process; federal assistance for homeland security and terrorism preparedness; and federal programs on specific subjects and for specific groups, such as state and local governments, police and fire departments, libraries and museums, nonprofit organizations, small business, and other topics. An internal grants manual outlining office policies and procedures should be developed to help grants staff. With reductions in federal programs, grants specialists should also become familiar with other funding, such as private or corporate foundations, as alternatives or supplements to federal grants.


Date of Report: June 30, 2010
Number of Pages: 27
Order Number: RL34035
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.

The U.S. Postal Service’s Financial Condition: Overview and Issues for Congress

Kevin R. Kosar
Analyst in American National Government

This report provides an overview of the U.S. Postal Service's (USPS's) financial condition, recent legislation to alleviate the USPS's financial challenges, and possible issues for the 111th Congress.

Since 1971, the USPS has been a self-supporting government agency that covers its operating costs with revenues generated through the sales of postage and related products and services.

Recently, the USPS has experienced significant financial challenges. After running modest profits from FY2004 through FY2006, the USPS lost $5.3 billion in FY2007 and $2.8 billion in FY2008. In May 2009, the USPS warned that it might experience a cash shortage at the end of September 2009. Two months later, the Government Accountability Office added the USPS's financial condition "to the list of high-risk areas needing attention by the Congress and the executive branch."

On September 30, 2009, Congress enacted H.R. 2918, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act [of] 2010. President Barack Obama signed the bill into law (P.L. 111-68) the next day. Section 164 of the law alleviated the USPS's cash shortage by reducing the USPS's statutorily required September 30, 2009, payment to the Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits Fund from $5.4 billion to $1.4 billion. (The USPS must repay the $4 billion deferred obligation after FY2016.)

While Congress alleviated the USPS's FY2009 cash shortage, it is unclear what the future holds for the USPS's finances. Even with this assistance, the USPS had an FY2009 operating loss of $3.8 billion, and a $1.9 billion loss in the first half of FY2010. The USPS's auditor has stated that there is "significant uncertainty" as to whether the USPS will have the cash required to make its FY2010 payment to its Retiree Health Benefits Fund.

A number of ideas for incremental reforms have been put forth that would improve the USPS's financial condition in the short term so that it might continue as a self-funding government agency, all of which would require Congress to amend current postal law. The ideas include (1) increasing the USPS's revenues by altering postage rates and increasing its offering of nonpostal rates and services; and (2) reducing the USPS's expenses by a number of means, such as recalculating the USPS's retiree health care and pension obligations and payments, closing postal facilities, and reducing mail delivery from six to five days.


Date of Report: July 1, 2010
Number of Pages: 18
Order Number: R41024
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.

Congressional Member Organizations: Their Purpose and Activities, History, and Formation

Robert Jay Dilger
Senior Specialist in American National Government

There are 729 informal Member organizations listed in the Congressional Yellow Book or registered with the Committee on House Administration. According to self-reported information contained in the Congressional Yellow Book, the House's 643 informal Member organizations had from 1 to 244 members, with an average membership of 25, and the Senate's 86 informal Member organizations had from 1 to 88 members, with an average membership of 10. On average, House Members report membership in 37 informal Member organizations and Senators report membership in 16. Of these 729 informal organizations, 324 are registered with the Committee on House Administration as a congressional Member organization (CMO).

The term "congressional Member organization" refers to a group of Members who join together in pursuit of common legislative objectives and register the organization with the Committee on House Administration. In many instances, Members assign personal staff (including shared employees) under the Member's control to assist the CMO in carrying out its legislative objectives. Any informal group of House Members who wish to use personal staff to work on behalf of an informal Member group, discuss their membership in the group in official communications, or mention their membership on their official House website must register the group with the Committee on House Administration as a CMO. There are no registration requirements in the Senate.

Informal Member organizations that are not registered with the Committee on House Administration (including those in the Senate) are called "informal Member groups." The term "informal Member organization" is used when referring to both CMOs and informal Member groups. This report focuses on CMOs, primarily because they tend to be more long-lasting and influential than informal Member groups.

CMOs exist to affect public policy, either directly through policy advocacy for a region or an issue, or indirectly by attracting media attention, or through the socialization and orientation of its Members. Nearly all CMOs serve as a forum for the exchange of information. Many hold regular Member or staff meetings, either weekly, monthly, or quarterly depending on the legislative calendar, to exchange information and develop legislative strategy. Many also invite outside speakers and groups to make presentations to the CMO's Members.

This report examines the purpose and activities of CMOs and the reasons Members form them. It also identifies and describes seven CMO types, and it provides an overview of the historical development of informal Member organizations since the first Congress, focusing on their regulation in the House by the Committee on House Oversight/Committee on House Administration, the rise and fall of legislative service organizations, and the House's decision in 1995 to issue regulations for establishing CMOs and governing their behavior. It concludes with a step-by-step guide for House Members and staff who might be interested in forming a CMO. Many of the steps in the guide may be of interest to Senators and their staff who are considering forming an informal Member group in the Senate.


Date of Report: June 28, 2010
Number of Pages: 29
Order Number: R40683
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 Appointment Process: Roles of the President, Judiciary Committee, and Senate

Denis Steven Rutkus
Specialist on the Federal Judiciary

The appointment of a Supreme Court Justice is an event of major significance in American politics. Each appointment is of consequence because of the enormous judicial power the Supreme Court exercises as the highest appellate court in the federal judiciary. Appointments are usually infrequent, as a vacancy on the nine-member Court may occur only once or twice, or never at all, during a particular President's years in office. Under the Constitution, Justices on the Supreme Court receive lifetime appointments. Such job security in the government has been conferred solely on judges and, by constitutional design, helps insure the Court's independence from the President and Congress.

The procedure for appointing a Justice is provided for by the Constitution in only a few words. The "Appointments Clause" (Article II, Section 2, clause 2) states that the President "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the supreme Court." The process of appointing Justices has undergone changes over two centuries, but its most basic feature—the sharing of power between the President and Senate—has remained unchanged: To receive lifetime appointment to the Court, a candidate must first be nominated by the President and then confirmed by the Senate. Although not mentioned in the Constitution, an important role is played midway in the process (after the President selects, but before the Senate considers) by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

On rare occasions, Presidents also have made Court appointments without the Senate's consent, when the Senate was in recess. Such "recess appointments," however, were temporary, with their terms expiring at the end of the Senate's next session. The last recess appointments to the Court, made in the 1950s, were controversial because they bypassed the Senate and its "advice and consent" role.

The appointment of a Justice might or might not proceed smoothly. From the first appointments in 1789 through its consideration of nominee Sonia Sotomayor in 2009, the Senate confirmed 123 out of 159 Court nominations . Of the 36 unsuccessful nominations, 11 were rejected in Senate roll-call votes, while nearly all of the rest, in the face of committee or Senate opposition to the nominee or the President, were withdrawn by the President or were postponed, tabled, or never voted on by the Senate. (Six individuals, however, whose initial Supreme Court nominations were not confirmed, were later re-nominated and confirmed.)

Over more than two centuries, a recurring theme in the Supreme Court appointment process has been the assumed need for excellence in a nominee. However, politics also has played an important role in Supreme Court appointments. The political nature of the appointment process becomes especially apparent when a President submits a nominee with controversial views, there are sharp partisan or ideological differences between the President and the Senate, or the outcome of important constitutional issues before the Court is seen to be at stake.

For a listing of all nominations to the Court and their outcomes (not counting the pending Supreme Court nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan), see CRS Report RL33225, Supreme Court Nominations, 1789 - 2009: Actions by the Senate, the Judiciary Committee, and the President, by Denis Steven Rutkus and Maureen Bearden.


Date of Report: July 2, 2010
Number of Pages: 64
Order Number: RL31989
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.

The Budget Reconciliation Process: The Senate’s “Byrd Rule”

Robert Keith
Specialist in American National Government

Reconciliation is a procedure under the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 by which Congress implements budget resolution policies affecting mainly permanent spending and revenue programs. The principal focus in the reconciliation process has been deficit reduction, but in some years reconciliation has involved revenue reduction generally and spending increases in selected areas. Although reconciliation is an optional procedure, it has been used most years since its first use in 1980 (20 reconciliation bills have been enacted into law and three have been vetoed).

During the first several years' experience with reconciliation, the legislation contained many provisions that were extraneous to the purpose of implementing budget resolution policies. The reconciliation submissions of committees included such things as provisions that had no budgetary effect, that increased spending or reduced revenues when the reconciliation instructions called for reduced spending or increased revenues, or that violated another committee's jurisdiction.

In 1985 and 1986, the Senate adopted the Byrd rule (named after its principal sponsor, Senator Robert C. Byrd) on a temporary basis as a means of curbing these practices. The Byrd rule was extended and modified several times over the years. In 1990, the Byrd rule was incorporated into the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 as Section 313 and made permanent (2 U.S.C. 644).

A Senator opposed to the inclusion of extraneous matter in reconciliation legislation may offer an amendment (or a motion to recommit the measure with instructions) that strikes such provisions from the legislation, or, under the Byrd rule, a Senator may raise a point of order against such matter. In general, a point of order authorized under the Byrd rule may be raised in order to strike extraneous matter already in the bill as reported or discharged (or in the conference report), or to prevent the incorporation of extraneous matter through the adoption of amendments or motions. A motion to waive the Byrd rule, or to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the chair on a point of order raised under the Byrd rule, requires the affirmative vote of three-fifths of the membership (60 Senators if no seats are vacant).

The Byrd rule provides six definitions of what constitutes extraneous matter for purposes of the rule (and several exceptions thereto), but the term is generally described as covering provisions unrelated to achieving the goals of the reconciliation instructions.

The Byrd rule has been in effect during Senate consideration of 18 reconciliation measures from late 1985 through the present. Actions were taken under the Byrd rule in the case of 14 of the 18 measures. In total, 65 points of order and 52 waiver motions were considered and disposed of under the rule, largely in a manner that favored those who opposed the inclusion of extraneous matter in reconciliation legislation (46 points of order were sustained, in whole or in part, and 43 waiver motions were rejected).


Date of Report: July 2, 2010
Number of Pages: 39
Order Number: RL30862
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.

State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2011 Budget and Appropriations

Marian Leonardo Lawson
Analyst in Foreign Assistance

Susan B. Epstein
Specialist in Foreign Policy

Kennon H. Nakamura
Analyst in Foreign Affairs

The annual State, Foreign Operations, and Related Agencies appropriations bill has been the primary legislative vehicle through which Congress reviews the U.S. international affairs budget and influences executive branch foreign policy making in recent years, as Congress has not regularly considered these issues through a complete authorization process for State Department diplomatic activities since 2003 and for foreign aid programs since 1985. Funding for Foreign Operations and State Department/Broadcasting programs has been steadily rising since FY2002, after a period of decline in the 1980s and 1990s. Ongoing assistance to Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as large new global health programs and rapidly increasing assistance to Pakistan, has kept the international affairs budget at historically high levels in recent years. The change of Administration in 2009 did not disrupt this trend.

On February 1, 2010, President Obama submitted a budget proposal for FY2011 that requests $58.49 billion for the international affairs budget, a 16% increase over the enacted FY2010 funding level. If $1.8 billion in "forward funding" of FY2010 priorities appropriated in FY2009 supplemental legislation is counted toward FY2010 rather than FY2009 totals, as it has by the Administration, the increase would be 12%. The Administration has also requested $4.46 billion in supplemental FY2010 foreign operations funds for activities in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq and $1.7 billion for humanitarian relief and reconstruction effort in Haiti. If these supplemental funding requests were enacted, the FY2011 request would be 3% above the FY2010 enacted level, or represent level funding if the FY2009 forward funding is attributed to the FY2010 total.

This report focuses only on the $56.65 billion requested for programs and activities funded through the State-Foreign Operations appropriations bill, which excludes some portions of the International Affairs request and includes funding for certain commissions requested as part of other budget functions. The Administration requested significant increases for building State and USAID capacity; aid to Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq; and activities under the Administration's Global Health, Food Security, and Global Climate Change initiatives. Programs for which the Administration recommended reduced funding, compared with enacted FY2010 levels, are contributions to international organizations, commissions and foundations, and peacekeeping operations.

This report analyzes the FY2011 request, recent-year funding trends, and congressional action related to FY2011 State-Foreign Operations legislation.


Date of Report: July 2, 2010
Number of Pages: 32
Order Number: R41228
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.