Samantar v. Yousef: The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and Foreign Officials

Jennifer K. Elsea
Legislative Attorney

Jordan E. Segall
Research Assistant

On June 1, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court decided unanimously in Samantar v. Yousef that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), which governs the immunity of foreign states in U.S. courts, does not apply in suits against foreign officials. The ruling clarifies that officials of foreign governments, whether present or former, are not entitled to invoke the FSIA as a shield, unless the foreign state is the real party in interest in the case. Samantar's particular facts involve the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) and the Tort Victims Protection Act (TVPA), but the ruling applies to all causes of action against foreign officials. The ruling leaves open the possibility that foreign officials have recourse to other sources of immunity or other defenses to jurisdiction or the merits of a lawsuit, such as foreign sovereign immunity under the common law, perhaps aided by State Department suggestions of immunity. The Court also left open the possibility that Congress could enact new provisions to address the immunity of foreign officials. 

Prior to the Samantar decision, most federal judicial circuits interpreted the FSIA to cover foreign officials as "agencies or instrumentalities" of the foreign state based on their interpretation that Congress had intended to fully codify the common law of foreign sovereign immunity. To the extent the FSIA exceptions codify sovereign immunity of states under the common law, as in the case of lawsuits based on commercial activity under the restrictive theory, the recognition of a separate theory of immunity for foreign officials may not yield results significantly different from those cases in which courts applied the FSIA. The same common law considerations some courts previously applied to determine whether a foreign official is an "agency or instrumentality" under the FSIA would likely lead to similar results where the common law is applied directly. However, where Congress enacts exceptions to the FSIA that depart from the common law, outcomes may vary from cases decided under the pre-Samantar approach. 

This report provides an overview of the FSIA, followed by a consideration of the remaining options for foreign officials who seek immunity from lawsuits, as well as some of the questions that may emerge from each option. The report also addresses legislation that would affect the immunity of foreign officials, including S. 2930.


Date of Report: August 24, 2010
Number of Pages: 20
Order Number: R41379
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.

Congressional Liaison Offices of Selected Federal Agencies

Audrey Celeste Crane-Hirsch
Information Research Specialist

This list of about 150 congressional liaison offices is intended to help congressional offices in placing telephone calls and addressing correspondence to government agencies. In each case, the information was supplied by the agency itself and is current as of the date of publication. Entries are arranged alphabetically in four sections: legislative branch; judicial branch; executive branch; and agencies, boards, and commissions. 

Specific telephone numbers for correspondence, publications, and fax transmissions have been provided for each applicable agency. When using fax, it is important to include the entire mailing address on a cover sheet, as many of the listed fax machines are not directly located in the liaison offices. For the convenience of the user, websites are included as well. 

A number of agency listings include an e-mail address. When e-mailing agencies please remember to include your name, affiliation, phone number, and return address, to ensure a speedy response. Users should be aware that e-mail is not a confidential means of transmission.


Date of Report: August 19, 2010
Number of Pages: 38
Order Number: 98-446
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.

Congress’s Early Organization Meetings

Judy Schneider
Specialist on the Congress

Since the mid-1970s, the House and Senate have convened early organization meetings in November or December of even-numbered years to prepare for the start of the new Congress in January. 

The purposes of these meetings are both educational and organizational. Educational sessions range from legislative procedures and staff hiring to current issues. Organizational sessions elect class officers, party leaders, and chamber officers; name committee representatives and other party officials; and select committee chairmen and often committee members. Such actions are officially ratified at the start of the new Congress.


Date of Report: August 18, 2010
Number of Pages: 4
Order Number: RS21339
Price: $19.95

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.

Expulsion, Censure, Reprimand, and Fine: Legislative Discipline in the House of Representatives

Jack Maskell
Legislative Attorney

The House of Representatives, in the same manner as the United States Senate, is expressly authorized within the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 5, clause 2) to discipline or "punish" its own Members. This authority of the House to discipline a Member for "disorderly Behaviour" is in addition to any criminal or civil liability that a Member of the House may incur for particular misconduct, and is used not merely to punish an individual Member, but to protect the institutional integrity of the House of Representatives, its proceedings, and its reputation. 

The House may discipline its Members without the necessity of Senate concurrence. The most common forms of discipline in the House are now "expulsion," "censure," or "reprimand"; although the House may also discipline its Members in other ways, including fine or monetary restitution, loss of seniority, and suspension or loss of certain privileges. In addition to such sanctions imposed by the full House of Representatives, the standing committee in the House which deals with ethics and official conduct matters, the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, is authorized by House Rules to issue a formal committee reproach in the form of a "Letter of Reproval" for misconduct which does not rise to the level of consideration or sanction by the entire House of Representatives. Additionally, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct has also expressed its disapproval of certain conduct in informal letters and communications to Members. 

The House may generally discipline its Members for violations of statutory law, including crimes; for violations of internal congressional rules; or for any conduct which the House of Representatives finds has reflected discredit upon the institution. Thus, each House of Congress has disciplined its own Members for conduct which has not necessarily violated any specific rule or law, but which was found to breach its privileges, demonstrate contempt for the institution, or which was found to reflect discredit on the House or Senate. When the most severe sanction of expulsion has been employed in the House of Representatives, however, the underlying conduct deemed by the House to have merited removal from office has historically involved either disloyalty to the United States Government, or the violation of a criminal law involving the abuse of one's official position, such as bribery. The House of Representatives has actually expelled only five Members in its history, but a number of Members in the past, facing likely congressional discipline for various misconduct, have resigned from Congress prior to any formal House action (or have lost their next election or primary, thus no longer falling within the jurisdiction of the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct).


Date of Report: August 9, 2010
Number of Pages: 25
Order Number: RL31382
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.

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: August 16, 2010
Number of Pages: 38
Order Number: R41337
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.

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. 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. 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. Also, on July 22, 2010, Representative Scott Garrett introduced legislation, H.R. 5818, to make private sector mandates subject to a point of order. 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: August 13, 2010
Number of Pages: 49
Order Number: R40957
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.

Small Business Administration Microloan Program

 Robert Jay Dilger
Senior Specialist in American National Government

The Small Business Administration's (SBA) Microloan program provides direct loans to qualified non-profit intermediary Microloan lenders who, in turn, provide "microloans" of up to $35,000 to small business owners, entrepreneurs, and non-profit child care centers. It also provides marketing, management, and technical assistance to Microloan borrowers and potential borrowers. The program was authorized in 1991 as a five-year demonstration project and became operational in 1992. It was made permanent, subject to reauthorization, in 1997. 

The SBA's Microloan program is designed to assist women, low-income, veteran, and minority entrepreneurs and small business owners and other individuals possessing the capability to operate successful business concerns by providing them small-scale loans for working capital or the acquisition of materials, supplies, or equipment. 

Critics of the SBA's Microloan program argue that it is expensive relative to alternative programs, duplicative of the SBA's 7(a) loan guarantee program, and subject to administrative shortfalls. The program's advocates argue that it provides assistance that reaches many who otherwise would not be served by the private sector and is an important source of capital and training assistance for low-income women and minority business owners. 

Congressional interest in the Microloan program has increased in recent years, primarily because microloans are viewed as a means to assist very small businesses, especially women- and minority-owned startups, to get loans that enable them to create jobs. Job creation, always a congressional interest, has taken on increased importance given the nation's current economic difficulties. 

This report discusses the arguments presented for having a Microloan program, describes the program's operating standards and requirements for lenders and borrowers, and examines the arguments presented by the program's critics and by its advocates. It concludes with an examination of H.R. 3854, the Small Business Financing and Investment Act of 2009, which was passed by the House on October 29, 2009, and is awaiting action in the Senate; S. 2869, the Small Business Job Creation and Access to Capital Act of 2009, which was ordered to be reported by the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship on December 10, 2009, and is awaiting further action in the Senate; and S.Amdt. 4594, an amendment in the nature of a substitute for H.R. 5297, the Small Business Jobs and Credit Act of 2010, which was introduced on August 5, 2010. They would authorize changes to several SBA programs, including the Microloan program, in an attempt to enhance job creation by increasing the availability of credit to small businesses.


Date of Report: August 11, 2010
Number of Pages: 22
Order Number: R41057
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. 

Small Business: Access to Capital and Job Creation

Robert Jay Dilger
Senior Specialist in American National Government

Oscar R. Gonzales
Analyst in Economic Development Policy

The Small Business Administration's (SBA) authorization is due to expire on September 30, 2010. The SBA administers several programs to support small businesses, including loan guarantees to help small businesses gain access to capital. This report addresses a core issue facing Congress during the SBA's reauthorization process: what, if any, additional action should the federal government take to enhance small business access to capital? 

Historically, small businesses (firms with less than 500 employees) have experienced greater job loss during economic recessions than larger businesses. Conversely, small businesses have led job creation during recent economic recoveries. As a result, many federal policymakers look to small businesses to lead the nation's recovery from its current economic difficulties. Some, including the chairs of the House and Senate Committees on Small Business and President Obama, have argued that current economic conditions make it imperative that the SBA be provided additional resources to assist small businesses in acquiring capital necessary to start, continue, or expand operations and create jobs. Others worry about the long-term adverse economic effects of spending programs that increase the federal deficit. They advocate business tax reduction, reform of financial credit market regulation, and federal fiscal restraint as the best means to assist small business economic growth and job creation. 

This report examines the pros and cons of federal intervention in the marketplace to enhance small business access to capital. It assesses recent federal credit market interventions, including the creation of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (TALF); modifications to the SBA's loan guarantee programs and other small business provisions under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA); empirical evidence concerning small business lending and borrowing, including the number and amount of small business loans guaranteed by the SBA; the efficacy of the SBA's programs designed to enhance small business access to capital; and two bills introduced in the 111th Congress, H.R. 3854, the Small Business Financing and Investment Act of 2009, and S. 2869, the Small Business Job Creation and Access to Capital Act of 2009, which are designed to enhance small business access to capital. 

This report also examines legislation to extend SBA loan modifications and fee subsidies that expired on May 31, 2010, including S.Amdt. 4594, an amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 5297, the Small Business Jobs and Credit Act of 2010. It would extend those loan modifications and subsidies through December 31, 2010. It also examines President Obama's State of the Union proposals—the "Small Business Jobs and Wages Tax Cut" to encourage small business job creation and wage increases and a $30 billion set-aside of TARP funds to encourage community banks to provide small business loans; the House-passed version of H.R. 5297, the Small Business Jobs and Credit Act of 2010, which would authorize a $30 billion Small Business Lending Fund to encourage community banks to provide small business loans, a $2 billion State Small Business Credit Initiative to provide funding to participating states with small business capital access programs, a $1 billion Small Business Early-Stage Investment Program to provide venture capital funding for startup companies, and about $3.8 billion in tax relief for small businesses; and S.Amdt. 4594, which would authorize a $30 billion Small Business Lending Fund similar to the House-passed version, a $1.5 billion State Small Business Credit Initiative, a number of changes to the SBA's loan guaranty programs, export promotion programs, contracting programs, and small business eligibility size standards, and about $12 billion in tax relief for small businesses.


Date of Report: August 9, 2010
Number of Pages: 31
Order Number: R40985
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.

Defining Small Business: An Historical Analysis of Contemporary Issues

Robert Jay Dilger
Senior Specialist in American National Government

Small business size standards are of congressional interest because the definition used determines eligibility for Small Business Administration (SBA) loans and consultative support assistance as well as federal contracting preferences and federal tax preferences. 

Although there is bipartisan agreement that the nation's small businesses play a key role in the American economy, there are differences of opinion concerning how to define them. The Small Business Act of 1953 (P.L. 83-163, as amended) authorized the Small Business Administration and made it responsible for establishing size standards for determining eligibility for federal small business assistance. The SBA currently uses one of the following four criteria to determine program eligibility for firms in 1,159 industrial classifications described in the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS): (1) number of employees; (2) average annual receipts in the previous three years; (3) asset size; or (4) for electrical power industries, the extent of power generation. Overall, the SBA currently classifies about 99.7% of all employer firms as small. 

Since issuing its initial small business size standards in 1956, the SBA has based its industry size standards on economic analysis. However, in the absence of precise statutory guidance and consensus on how to define small, the SBA's size standards have often been challenged, typically by industry representatives advocating a broadening of the size standards to allow more firms in their industry to be eligible for assistance and by Members of Congress concerned that the size standards may not adequately target the SBA's assistance to firms that they consider to be truly small. 

Congress is currently considering several bills that would authorize an alternative size standard as a means to allow more small businesses to meet the SBA's requirements to access SBA-backed loans. In the Senate, S. 3103, the Small Business Job Creation Act of 2010, S. 2869, the Small Business Job Creation and Access to Capital Act of 2009, and S.Amdt. 4594, an amendment in the nature of a substitute for H.R. 5297, the Small Business Jobs and Credit Act of 2010, which was introduced on August 5, 2010, would authorize the SBA to establish an alternative size standard using maximum tangible net worth and average net income after federal taxes for both the 7(a) and 504/CDC loan guaranty programs. 

In the House, H.R. 4302, the Small Business Job Creation and Access to Capital Act of 2009, was introduced as a companion bill for S. 2869, the Small Business Job Creation and Access to Capital Act of 2009. Also, H.R. 3854, the Small Business Financing and Investment Act of 2009, passed by the House on October 29, 2009, would authorize the SBA to establish an alternative size standard for the SBA's 7(a) loan guaranty program that is based on the business's maximum tangible net worth and average net income after taxes. Until that alternative size standard is established, the bill would authorize an interim alternative size standard for the 7(a) loan guaranty program that is based on the SBA's size standard for the 504/CDC loan guaranty program—a maximum tangible net worth not in excess of $8.5 million and average net income after federal taxes not in excess of $3 million for the preceding two completed fiscal years. 

This report provides an historical examination of the SBA's size standards, competing views that have been presented concerning how to define a small business, and how various proposals for changing the SBA's size standards would affect program eligibility.


Date of Report: August 11, 2010
Number of Pages: 27
Order Number: R40860
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.

Small Business Administration 504/CDC Loan Guaranty Program

Robert Jay Dilger
Senior Specialist in American National Government

The Small Business Administration (SBA) administers programs to support small businesses, including several loan guaranty programs designed to encourage lenders to provide loans to small businesses "that might not otherwise obtain financing on reasonable terms and conditions." The SBA's 504 Certified Development Company (504/CDC) loan guaranty program is administered through non-profit Certified Development Companies (CDC). It provides long-term fixed rate financing for major fixed assets, such as land, buildings, equipment, and machinery. Of the total project costs, a third-party lender must provide at least 50% of the financing, the CDC provides up to 40% of the financing through a 100% SBA-guaranteed debenture, and the applicant provides at least 10% of the financing. It is named from Section 504 of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-699, as amended), which authorized the program. In FY2009, the SBA funded 6,293 504/CDC loans amounting to about $3.8 billion. 

Congressional interest in the 504/CDC program has increased in recent years because of increased concern that small businesses might be prevented from accessing sufficient capital to assist in the economic recovery. Some Members have proposed to amend the 504/CDC program in an effort to increase the number, and amount, of 504/CDC loans. These proposals include increasing the program's current loan guaranty limit of $2 million for regular projects and $4 million for manufacturing projects; expanding the eligible uses for the loan proceeds; and continuing the subsidization of the program's third-party participation fee and CDC processing fee, which were initially enacted on a temporary basis under P.L. 111-5, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), and expired on May 31, 2010. 

This report opens with a discussion of the rationale provided for the 504/CDC program, the program's borrower and lender eligibility standards, program requirements, and program statistics, including loan volume, loss rates, use of the proceeds, borrower satisfaction, and borrower demographics. 

It then examines previous congressional action taken to enhance small business access to capital, including the temporary subsidization of 504/CDC program's third-party participation fee and CDC processing fee. It also examines issues raised concerning the SBA's administration of the program, including the oversight of 504/CDC lenders. 

The report concludes with an assessment of the Obama Administration's proposals and pending legislation, which would authorize changes to the 504/CDC program that are designed to enhance small business access to capital and extend the temporary subsidization of the 504/CDC program's third-party participation fee and CDC processing fee, including H.R. 3854, the Small Business Financing and Investment Act of 2009; S. 2869, the Small Business Job Creation and Access to Capital Act of 2009; and S.Amdt. 4594, an amendment in the nature of a substitute for H.R. 5297, the Small Business Jobs and Credit Act of 2010, which was introduced on August 5, 2010.


Date of Report: August 10, 2010
Number of Pages: 28
Order Number: R41184
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.

Small Business Administration 7(a) Loan Guaranty Program

Robert Jay Dilger
Senior Specialist in American National Government

The Small Business Administration (SBA) administers several programs to support small businesses, including loan guaranty programs designed to encourage lenders to provide loans to small businesses "that might not otherwise obtain financing on reasonable terms and conditions." The SBA's 7(a) loan guaranty program is considered the agency's flagship loan guaranty program. It is named from section 7(a) of the Small Business Act of 1953 (P.L. 83-163, as amended), which authorized the SBA to provide business loans and loan guaranties to American small businesses. In FY2009, the program guaranteed 38,307 loans amounting to about $9.2 billion. 

Congressional interest in small business access to capital, in general, and the SBA's 7(a) program, in particular, has increased in recent years for three interrelated reasons. First, small businesses have reportedly found it more difficult than in the past to access capital from private lenders. Second, there is evidence to suggest that small business has led job formation during previous economic recoveries. Third, both the number of SBA 7(a) loans funded and the total amount of 7(a) loans guaranteed have declined. The combination of these three factors has led to increased concern in Congress that small businesses might be prevented from accessing sufficient capital to enable small business to assist in the economic recovery. 

A number of congressional proposals would amend the SBA's 7(a) program in an effort to increase the number, and amount, of 7(a) loans. These proposals include increasing the program's current limit on the amount of the loan guaranty; increasing the maximum percentage of the guaranty; expanding the eligible uses for the loan proceeds; and continuing the temporary subsidization of 7(a) program fees and an increase in the program's loan guaranty rate to 90%. These loan modifications and subsidies were initially enacted under P.L. 111-5, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) and have been extended by law four times. These loan modifications and fee reductions expired on May 31, 2010. 

This report opens with a discussion of the rationale provided for the 7(a) program, the program's borrower and lender eligibility standards and program requirements, and program statistics, including loan volume, loss rates, use of the proceeds, borrower satisfaction and borrower demographics. 

It then examines previous congressional action taken to assist small businesses gain greater access to capital, including the temporary subsidization of 7(a) program fees and an increase in the program's loan guaranty rate to 90%. It also examines issues raised concerning the SBA's administration of the 7(a) program, including the oversight of 7(a) lenders and the program's lack of outcome-based performance measures. 

The report concludes with an assessment of the Obama Administration's proposals and pending legislation, which would authorize changes to the 7(a) program that are designed to enhance small business access to capital, including H.R. 3854, Small Business Financing and Investment Act of 2009; S. 2869, Small Business Job Creation and Access to Capital Act of 2009; and S.Amdt. 4594, an amendment in the nature of a substitute for H.R. 5297, the Small Business Jobs and Credit Act of 2010, which was introduced on August 5, 2010.


Date of Report: August 10, 2010
Number of Pages: 31
Order Number: R41146
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.

Expedited Rescission Bills in the 111th Congress: Comparisons and Issues

Virginia A. McMurtry
Specialist in American National Government

Under the framework established by the Impoundment Control Act (ICA) of 1974 (P.L. 93-344, 88 Stat. 297), the President may propose to rescind funding provided in an appropriations act by transmitting a special message to Congress and obtaining the support of both houses within 45 days of continuous session. If denied congressional approval during this time period, either by Congress ignoring the presidential rescission request or because one or both houses rejected the proposed rescission, the President must make the funding available to executive agencies for obligation and expenditure. 

Instead of allowing Congress to ignore presidential recommendations for rescissions, "expedited rescission" attempts to require congressional consideration of the rescission and a vote by at least one house on the proposals. If either house disapproves the request, the other house need take no action because approval by both houses is necessary to make the rescission permanent. This approach has attracted support over the years, including several bills introduced in the 111th Congress: S. 524/H.R. 1294, S. 640, S. 907/H.R. 4921, S. 3474/H.R. 5454, S. 3423, and H.R. 1390. Omnibus budget reform bills which contain expedited rescission provisions include H.R. 3268, H.R. 3964, S. 1808, and S. 3026. 

The Senate Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and International Security, on December 16, 2009, held a hearing on "Tools to Combat Deficits and Waste: Expedited Rescission Authority," and considered S. 524, S. 640, and S. 907. The Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution held a hearing on May 25, 2010, focusing on "The Legality and Efficacy of Line-Item Veto Proposals." 

On May 24, 2010, President Obama sent to Congress the Reduce Unnecessary Spending Act of 2010, a draft bill providing for expedited rescission procedures. On June 17, 2010, the House Budget Committee held a hearing focused explicitly on the "Administration's Expedited Rescission Proposal [H.R. 5454]." The sole witness was the Acting Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Dr. Jeffrey Liebman. 

A variety of issues related to expedited rescission measures that may prove of possible interest to Congress are noted in the report. Under the rubric of budgetary savings, some existing data suggest that enactment of expedited rescission authority for the President would have a relatively small impact on federal spending. Supporters acknowledge that expedited rescission would not be a panacea for deficit reduction, but that it would provide another useful tool for promoting fiscal discipline. The potential deterrent effect of the instrument has also been noted. The possible savings to be realized from expedited rescission depends on the breadth of coverage. In a rescission package subject to expedited congressional consideration, would the President be able to include any item of discretionary spending, and what about new items of direct (mandatory) spending? Would limited tax benefits be subject to cancellation under expedited rescission procedures? Other issues come under the subject of prerogatives of the legislative and the executive branches. Would the expedited procedures result in a President's spending priorities getting preference over those enacted by Congress? What about implications for relations between the President and Congress, with particular concern about the power of the purse? 

This report will be updated as events warrant.


Date of Report: August 19, 2010
Number of Pages: 28
Order Number: R41373
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 Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act: Overview and Issues

Kevin J. Coleman
Analyst in Elections

Members of the uniformed services and U.S. citizens who live abroad are eligible to register and vote absentee in federal elections under the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA, P.L. 99-410, 42 U.S.C.1973ff) of 1986. The law was enacted to improve absentee registration and voting for this group of voters and to consolidate existing laws. Since 1942, a number of federal laws have been enacted to assist these voters: the Soldier Voting Act of 1942 (amended in 1944), the Federal Voting Assistance Act of 1955, the Overseas Citizens Voting Rights Act of 1975 (both the 1955 and 1975 laws were amended in 1978 to improve procedures), and the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act of 1986. The law is administered by the Secretary of Defense, who delegates that responsibility to the Director of the Federal Voting Assistance Program at the Department of Defense (DOD). 

Improvements to UOCAVA (P.L. 99-410) were necessary as the result of controversy surrounding ballots received in Florida from uniformed services and overseas voters in the 2000 presidential election. The National Defense Authorization Act for FY2002 (P.L. 107-107; S. 1438) and the Help America Vote Act (P.L. 107-252; H.R. 3295) both included provisions concerning uniformed services and overseas voting. The President signed P.L. 107-107 on December 28, 2001, and P.L. 107-252 on October 29, 2002. The Defense Authorization Act for FY2005 (P.L. 108-375) amended UOCAVA as well, to ease the rules for use of the federal write-in ballot in place of state absentee ballots, and the Defense Authorization Act for FY2007 (P.L. 109-364) extended a DOD program to assist uniformed services and overseas voters. 

In the 111th Congress, a major overhaul of UOCAVA was accomplished when the President signed the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2010 (P.L. 111-84) on October 28. It included an amendment (S.Amdt. 1764) that contained the provisions of S. 1415, the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act. The Senate had approved the conference committee report (H.Rept. 111-288) on the defense authorization act (H.R. 2647) on October 22 and the House had done so on October 8. Also on the House side, the Committee on House Administration reported H.R. 2393, which would require the collection and express delivery of ballots from overseas military voters before the polls close on election day. A similar provision was included in the defense authorization act as enacted.


Date of Report: August 11, 2010
Number of Pages: 15
Order Number: RS20764
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.

Congressional Liaison Offices of Selected Federal Agencies

 Audrey Celeste Crane-Hirsch
Information Research Specialist

This list of about 150 congressional liaison offices is intended to help congressional offices in placing telephone calls and addressing correspondence to government agencies. In each case, the information was supplied by the agency itself and is current as of the date of publication. Entries are arranged alphabetically in four sections: legislative branch; judicial branch; executive branch; and agencies, boards, and commissions. 

Specific telephone numbers for correspondence, publications, and fax transmissions have been provided for each applicable agency. When using fax, it is important to include the entire mailing address on a cover sheet, as many of the listed fax machines are not directly located in the liaison offices. For the convenience of the user, websites are included as well. 

A number of agency listings include an e-mail address. When e-mailing agencies please remember to include your name, affiliation, phone number, and return address, to ensure a speedy response. Users should be aware that e-mail is not a confidential means of transmission. 

This report was produced for congressional offices only. It will be updated frequently. 

CONGRESSIONAL OFFICE USE ON


Date of Report: August 11, 2010
Number of Pages: 38
Order Number: 98-446
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. 

Speed of Presidential and Senate Actions on Supreme Court Nominations, 1900-2010

R. Sam Garrett
Analyst in American National Government

Denis Steven Rutkus
Specialist on the Federal Judiciary

The speed with which appointments to the Supreme Court move through various stages in the nomination-and-confirmation process is often of great interest not only to all parties directly involved, but, as well, to the nation as a whole. This report provides information on the amount of time taken to act on all Supreme Court nominations occurring between 1900 and the present. It focuses on the actual amounts of time that Presidents and the Senate have taken to act (as opposed to the elapsed time between official points in the process). For example, rather than starting the nomination clock with the official notification of the President of a forthcoming vacancy, this report focuses on when the President first learned of a Justice's intention to leave the Court (e.g., via a private conversation with the outgoing Justice), or received word that a sitting Justice had died. Likewise, rather than starting the confirmation clock with the transmission of the official nomination to the Senate, this report focuses on when the Senate became aware of the President's selection (e.g., via a public announcement by the President). 

The data indicate that the entire nomination-and-confirmation process (from when the President first learned of a vacancy to final Senate action) has generally taken almost twice as long for nominees after 1980 than for nominees in the previous 80 years. From 1900 to 1980, the entire process took a median of 59 days; from 1981 through 2010, the process took a median of 113 days. Although Presidents after 1980 have moved more quickly than their predecessors in announcing nominees after learning of vacancies (a median of 19.5 days compared with 34 days before 1980), the Senate portion of the process (i.e., from the nomination announcement to final Senate action) appears to take much longer than before (a median of 84 days from 1981 through 2009, compared with 17 days from 1900 through 1980). Notably, the amount of time between the nomination announcement and first Judiciary Committee hearing has almost quadrupled—from a median of 12.5 days (1900-1980) to 49 days (1981-2010). 

President Obama learned of another prospective vacancy on April 9, 2010. On May 10, 2010, President Obama announced he would nominate Solicitor General Elena Kagan to succeed Justice John Paul Stevens. From June 30 to July 1, 2010, the Senate Judiciary Committee held four days of hearings on the nomination, and on July 20, voted 13-6 to report the nomination to the Senate. On August 3, 2010, the Senate began its consideration of the nomination. The Senate confirmed Kagan as the nation's 112th Supreme Court Justice on August 5 by a 63-37 vote. The overall time for the Kagan appointment process was slightly longer than for other recent nominations. The entire period for presidential selection and Senate consideration and action on the 2009 Sonia Sotomayor nomination, for example, lasted 97 days, compared with 118 days for the Kagan nomination. Nonetheless, although the Kagan nomination took longer to move through the process than did the Sotomayor nomination, the total Kagan timetable was similar to those of other nominations since 1981. In fact, including the Kagan timetable data raised the median number of days for the entire process by only a day and a half—to 113 days, compared with 111.5 days for all Supreme Court nominations between 1981 and 2009.


Date of Report: August 6, 2010
Number of Pages: 53
Order Number: RL33118
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.

Conversion from the National Security Personnel System to Other Pay Schedules: Issues for Congress

Wendy R. Ginsberg
Analyst in Government Organization and Management

Most federal employees (59.1%) are paid on the General Schedule (GS), a pay scale that consists of 15 pay grades in which an employee's pay increases are to be based on performance and length of service. Some Members of Congress, citizens, and public administration scholars have argued that federal employee pay advancement should be more closely linked to job performance than it currently is on the GS. With these concerns in mind and with explicit congressional authorization, the Department of Defense (DOD) began developing the National Security Personnel System (NSPS) in 2003 as a unique pay scale attempting to more closely link employee pay to job performance. 

NSPS was beset by criticisms since it went into effect in 2006. The system faced legal and political challenges from unions and employees who claimed it was inconsistently applied and caused undeserved pay inequities, among other concerns. On October 7, 2009, House and Senate conferees reported a version of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 that included language to terminate NSPS. On October 8, 2009, the House agreed to the conference report. The Senate agreed to the conference report on October 22, 2009. On October 28, 2009, the President signed the bill into law (P.L. 111-84). DOD must now return employees currently enrolled in NSPS to the GS or to the pay system that previously applied to them or their position. If the employee's position did not exist prior to NSPS or if the previous pay scale was abolished during NSPS's lifetime, DOD must determine an appropriate pay scale for the employee. The return to the GS or other pay system must be completed by January 1, 2012, pursuant to the law. 

NSPS was initially intended to cover all DOD employees, but had a total final enrollment of roughly 227,000 DOD employees or 31.7% of the department's 717,000-person workforce. DOD has announced that it anticipates that approximately 75% of employees in NSPS will be placed in the GS by September 30, 2010. The remaining 25% of employees—most of whom would be placed in pay scales other than the GS—may take longer to transition out of NSPS. 

P.L. 111-84 included language preventing any employee from suffering a loss or decrease in pay as a result of the elimination of NSPS. Pursuant to statute, some transitioning employees have been placed on "retained pay," which allows them to maintain their NSPS rate of pay instead of transitioning to the GS pay rate assigned to their job's grade. In such cases, the GS rate of pay assigned to the employee's position may not reach the pay level the employee achieved under NSPS. Retained pay, pursuant to statute, requires that an employee receive half of the annual pay adjustment given to employees who are at the maximum payable rate for their GS grade (step 10). Some NSPS employees may argue that the cap on their annual pay increase amounts to a loss in pay, and, therefore, violates P.L. 111-84. 

This report focuses on the transition of employees from NSPS to non-NSPS pay systems. It does not address the operation of NSPS or other pay schedules. The report discusses how the transition is scheduled to occur and analyzes congressional options for oversight or legislative action.


Date of Report: August 4, 2010
Number of Pages: 13
Order Number: R41321
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 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 DISCLOSE ("Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections") Act. The House measure, H.R. 5175, sponsored by Representative Van Hollen, 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 that was first introduced in the Senate, S. 3295, is generally similar to the bill passed by the House. The same is true for S. 3628, a second measure—apparently intended to supersede S. 3295—that Senator Schumer introduced on July 21, 2010. There are, however, some important differences across the three bills, as discussed in this report. 

The bills appear to be aimed primarily at non-campaign actors, particularly corporations, unions, and tax-exempt organizations. The bills propose a combination of disclosure provisions and disclaimer provisions (which are sponsorship information included within a communication) that would apply to these entities and are designed to give regulators and the public additional information about political advertising that could emerge following Citizens United. The legislation also prohibits certain government contractors, foreign-controlled or owned corporations (including some U.S. subsidiaries of foreign corporations), and prospective recipients of Temporary Asset Relief Program (TARP) funds from making certain political expenditures. 

The bills do not increase contribution limits for candidate campaigns; they also generally do not address other political committees—parties and PACs. A notable exception would permit parties to make additional coordinated expenditures supporting their candidates. This is the only instance in which the bills explicitly allow for more political spending than would be possible under the status quo. 

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, and S. 3295 and S. 3628 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.


Date of Report: July 26, 2010
Number of Pages: 41
Order Number: R41264
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 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 and 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, 924 active committees had total operating costs of $361,493,408. As of July 30, 2010, 1,044 federal advisory committees were active during FY2010 with 66,389 total members. For that same period of time, total operating costs for committees in FY2010 were $364,358,825. 

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. 

In the 111th Congress, H.R. 1320, as passed by the House, would, among other actions, require members of advisory committees be selected without regard to their partisan affiliation. Also pursuant to the legislation, members of the committee would be given a summary of all ethics requirements associated with their appointments. 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 referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and reported by the committee on June 4, 2009. The bill passed the House on July 26, 2010. The next day, the bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. No further action has been taken on the bill.


Date of Report: August 2, 2010
Number of Pages: 25
Order Number: R40520
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 U.S. Postal Service and Six-Day Delivery: Issues for Congress

Wendy R. Ginsberg
Analyst in Government Organization and Management

After running modest profits from FY2004 through FY2006, the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) lost $5.3 billion in FY2007, $2.8 billion in FY2008, and $3.8 billion in FY2009. For FY2010, USPS projects revenue to decrease between 4% and 6% and for sales volume to decrease by 6% to 9%. The bleak economic forecast for USPS prompted its leaders, Congress, and the public to suggest methods that may increase revenue or reduce expenses. Among these cost-saving suggestions is reducing the number of days per week that USPS delivers mail. 

At a 2009 congressional hearing Postmaster General John E. Potter stated that six-day delivery "may simply prove to be unaffordable." He then "reluctantly" requested that Congress eliminate the six-day delivery requirement that is placed annually in appropriations laws. Some lawmakers criticized Mr. Potter's request, stating that reducing service days could cause even greater reductions in mail volume and lead to a "death spiral" for USPS. Other lawmakers argued that USPS should have the flexibility to eliminate six-day delivery if they decide it is necessary. Still other legislators are uncertain about the future of six-day mail delivery. 

At a U.S. Postal Service symposium on March 2, 2010, USPS Postmaster General John Potter announced that USPS would seek to eliminate the statutory requirement that the Postal Service deliver mail six days per week. In addition, he said USPS would submit a formal request to the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC), a USPS oversight body, seeking to move to five-day delivery. The Postal Service is required by statute to request an advisory opinion from the PRC at least 90 days prior to enacting this change. On March 24, 2010, USPS's Board of Governors approved the Postal Service management's request to seek a move to five-day delivery and to ask the PRC for its advisory opinion. On March 30, 2010, USPS asked the PRC to issue an advisory opinion on the move to five-day delivery. 

In 2008, two studies were conducted on the possible economic effects of reducing USPS delivery services. One study, conducted by USPS, estimated the financial savings of a five-day delivery week at $3.5 billion annually, with no anticipated reduction in sales volume. The other study, conducted by the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC), estimated the savings at $1.94 billion annually, which includes a significant estimated loss of sales volume. USPS commissioned a third study, released in March 2010, that found USPS could save $3 billion per year if Saturday delivery were eliminated. The new study included an estimated loss in sales volume prompted by the eliminated day of delivery. 

Other countries' mail services vary in their delivery schedules. Australia, Sweden, and Canada offer five-day delivery services. France, Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom (UK) have six-day delivery. New Zealand offers some customers a six-day delivery option, but charges additional fees for weekend deliveries. Significant differences among the various global postal services may prevent USPS from borrowing operating techniques that have been successful in other countries. 

This report will examine the history of six-day mail delivery and analyze potential effects of reducing USPS delivery from six to five days. It will then examine legislative options, including bills that have been introduced in the 111th Congress.


Date of Report: August 5, 2010
Number of Pages: 38
Order Number: R40626
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.

Congressional Review Act: Rules Not Submitted to GAO and Congress

Curtis W. Copeland
Specialist in American National Government

The Congressional Review Act (CRA; 5 U.S.C. §§801-808) was enacted to improve congressional authority over agency rulemaking, and requires federal agencies to submit all of their final rules to both houses of Congress and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) before they can take effect. GAO periodically compares the list of rules that are submitted to it with the rules that are published in the Federal Register to determine whether any covered rules have not been submitted. 

Between 1999 and 2009, GAO sent the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the Office of Management and Budget at least five letters listing more than 1,000 substantive final rules that GAO said it had not received. In each of those letters, GAO encouraged OIRA to use the information to ensure that the agencies complied with the CRA. The May 2009 letter listed 101 substantive rules that were published during FY2008 that GAO said had not been submitted. The missing rules were issued by different agencies, including the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Transportation, and Homeland Security. The topics covered by these rules varied, and included chemical facility anti-terrorism standards, designation of critical habitats for endangered species, the administration of direct farm loan programs, oil and gas lease operations, and changes to workplace drug and alcohol programs. As of October 2009, 99 of the 101 rules had still not been submitted to GAO and to both houses of Congress. OIRA sent an e-mail to federal agencies in November 2009 telling them to contact GAO regarding these missing rules. Although agencies began sending rules to GAO shortly thereafter, as of July 2010, 49 of the 101 missing rules still had not been submitted to GAO. 

On January 19, 2010, GAO sent OIRA a letter listing 31 substantive rules that were published during FY2009 that had not been submitted to GAO. OIRA subsequently sent another e-mail to the agencies reminding them of their CRA responsibilities and said it planned to provide GAO with a list of agency contacts. As of July 2010, all but 3 of the 31 missing rules had been submitted. 

H.R. 2247, which was passed by the House of Representatives on June 16, 2009, and is currently before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security, would amend the CRA and eliminate the requirement that federal agencies submit their rules to Congress before they can take effect. The rules would still have to be submitted to GAO, and GAO would be required to submit to each house of Congress a weekly report containing a list of the rules received. 

Congress may conclude that enactment of this legislation will improve agencies' ability and willingness to submit their covered rules, or that this is an administrative issue that should be resolved between GAO, OIRA, and the rulemaking agencies. Alternatively, Congress could require OIRA or GAO to take additional actions to ensure compliance with the CRA's reporting requirements. Congress could also require GAO to provide a copy of its CRA compliance reports to Congress, publish the reports in the Federal Register, or publish the list of missing rules on its website.


Date of Report: August 2, 2010
Number of Pages: 34
Order Number: R40997
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.

House of Representatives and Senate Staff Levels in Member, Committee, Leadership, and Other Offices, 1977-2010

R. Eric Petersen
Analyst in American National Government

Parker H. Reynolds
Analyst in American National Government

Amber Hope Wilhelm
Graphics Specialist

The manner in which staff are deployed within an organization may reflect the mission and priorities of that organization. In Congress, employing authorities hire staff to carry out duties in Member-office, committee, leadership, and other settings. The extent to which staff in those settings change may lend insight into the work of the two chambers over time. Some of the insights that might be taken from staff levels include an understanding of the division of congressional work between Members working individually through their personal offices, or collectively, through committee activities; the relationship between committee leaders and chamber leaders, which could have implications for the development and consideration of legislation or the use of congressional oversight; and the extent to which specialized chamber administrative operations have grown over time. 

This report provides staffing levels in House and Senate Member, committee, leadership, and other offices since 1977. Data presented here are based on staff listed by chamber entity (offices of Members, committees, leaders, officers, officials, and other entities) in telephone directories published by the House and Senate. These directories were chosen because they are the only official, publicly available resource that provides a concise breakdown of House and Senate staff by internal organization. 

In the past three decades, staff working for the House and Senate has grown. Between 1977 and 2009, the number of House staff grew from 8,831 to 9,808, or 11.06%. In the Senate, the number of staff has grown steadily, from 3,380 in 1977 to 6,099 in 2010, or 80.44%. There are differences in the scale of growth between the chambers, but there are similarities in the patterns of change in the distribution of staff among congressional entities. In each chamber, for example, there have been increases in the number of staff working in chamber leadership offices, and larger increases in the staffing of chamber officers and officials. In the House and Senate, staff working for Members have shifted from committee settings to the personal offices of Members. Some of these changes may be indicative of the growth of the House and Senate as institutions, or the value the chambers place on their activities.


Date of Report: August 10, 2010
Number of Pages: 35
Order Number: R41366
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.

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). 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 reporting 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. On April 28, 2010, the House passed H.R. 3393, as amended, by voice vote. On June 23, the Senate passed S. 1508, as amended, under unanimous consent. The House approved S. 1508, as amended, on July 15, 2010, by vote of 414-0, and President Obama signed the measure into law on July 22, 2010 (P.L. 111-204). 

On November 20, 2009, President Obama issued E.O. 13520, "Reducing Improper Payments and Eliminating Waste in Federal Programs." A White House memorandum regarding "Finding and Recapturing Improper Payments" followed on March 10, 2010. On March 22, 2010, OMB issued government-wide guidance on the implementation of E.O. 13519.


Date of Report: July 27, 2010
Number of Pages: 28
Order Number: RL34164
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.

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

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 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

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.

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

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 Obama Administration’s Open Government Initiative: Issues for Congress

Wendy R. Ginsberg
Analyst in Government Organization and Management

On his first full day in office (January 21, 2009), President Barack Obama issued two memoranda "for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies" that were related to transparency in government. One memorandum focused on the administration of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), and the other focused on transparency and open government. The transparency memorandum committed the administration to "an unprecedented level of openness" and to the establishment of "a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration." Some scholars argue that these memoranda were a significant break from the policies of the previous administration. 

Over the next few months, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)—a component of the Executive Office of the President—administered a series of online public feedback forums as part of a comprehensive Open Government Initiative (OGI). Through the forums, OMB sought input from federal employees and the public on ways to improve government transparency, increase public participation with the federal government, and encourage collaboration among federal government agencies, private citizens, and other entities. 

On December 8, 2009, the Obama Administration released a third memorandum, an Open Government Directive (OGD), that included more detailed instructions for departments and agencies on how they are to "implement the principles of transparency, participation, and collaboration." Among other policy initiatives, the memorandum required all federal agencies to release three "high-value" datasets that were previously unpublished. In addition, the memorandum required each agency to designate a "high-level senior official to be accountable for the quality and objectivity of, and internal controls over, the Federal spending information" that agencies currently provide to government websites like USAspending.gov and Recovery.gov. Each agency was also required to create an "open government plan … that will describe how it will improve transparency and integrate public participation and collaboration into its activities." The presidential memorandum included a series of staggered deadlines for implementing each part of the directive. 

Both the Administration and private organizations have examined federal agency efforts to meet the OGD's requirements. These examinations have found that agencies met the requirements, but with varying results. Some agencies completed the OGD requirements by setting up required websites, but providing limited information or public participation. Other agencies explored methods of integrating their newly released datasets into their open government websites and providing forums for the public to offer thoughts on ways to improve the sites further. 

This report reviews and discusses President Obama's Open Government Initiative and the Open Government Directive. The report then analyzes both agency response to the OGI and the OGD, and examines whether the OGD's requirements can meet the stated goals of the Administration. The report discusses the three central tenets of the Administration's OGD—transparency, public participation, and collaboration—and analyzes each one individually to determine whether agencies are meeting these requirements and whether the requirements may improve the effectiveness of the federal government. .


Date of Report: August 9, 2010
Number of Pages: 33
Order Number: R41361
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.

House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct: A Brief History of Its Evolution and Jurisdiction

Jacob R. Straus
Analyst on the Congress

The United States Constitution (Article 1, Section 5, clause 1) provides each House of Congress with the sole authority to establish rules, judge membership requirements, and punish and expel Members. From 1789 to 1967, the House of Representatives dealt with disciplinary action against Members on a case-by-case basis, often forming ad-hoc committees to investigate and make recommendations when acts of wrongdoing were brought to the chamber's attention. Events of the 1960's, including the investigation of Representative Adam Clayton Powell for alleged misuse of Education and Labor Committee funds, prompted the creation of a permanent ethics committee and the writing of a Code of Conduct for Members, officers, and staff of the House. 

Begun as a select committee in the 89th Congress (1965-1966), the House created a 12-member panel to "recommend to the House … such … rules or regulations … necessary or desirable to insure proper standards of conduct by Members of the House and by officers and employees of the House, in the performance of their duties and the discharge of their responsibilities." Acting on the select committee's recommendations, the House created a permanent Committee on Standards of Official Conduct in the 90th Congress (1967-1968). 

This report briefly outlines the background of ethics enforcement in the House of Representatives, including the creation of both the Select Committee on Ethics and the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. The report also focuses on various jurisdictional and procedural changes that the committee has experienced since 1967 and discusses the committee's current jurisdiction and procedures. 

For additional information on ethics in the House of Representatives, please refer to CRS Report R40760, House Office of Congressional Ethics: History, Authority, and Procedures, by Jacob R. Straus; CRS Report RL30764, Enforcement of Congressional Rules of Conduct: An Historical Overview, by Jacob R. Straus; CRS Report RL31126, Lobbying Congress: An Overview of Legal Provisions and Congressional Ethics Rules, by Jack Maskell; and CRS Report RL31382, Expulsion, Censure, Reprimand, and Fine: Legislative Discipline in the House of Representatives, by Jack Maskell.


Date of Report: August 2, 2010
Number of Pages: 30
Order Number: 98-15
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.