Search Penny Hill Press

Friday, May 28, 2010

Campaign Finance Policy After Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission: Issues and Options for Congress

R. Sam Garrett
Analyst in American National Government

Following the Supreme Court's January 21, 2010, ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, questions have emerged about which policy options could be available to Congress. This report provides an overview of selected campaign finance policy options that may be relevant. It also briefly comments on how Citizens United might affect political advertising. A complete understanding of how Citizens United will affect the campaign and policy environments is likely to be unavailable until at least the conclusion of the 2010 election cycle. 

As Congress considers legislative responses, at least two broad choices could be relevant. First, Congress could provide candidates or parties with additional access to funds to combat corporate influence in elections. Second, Congress could restrict spending under certain conditions or require those making expenditures post-Citizens United to provide additional information to voters or regulators. Options within both approaches could generate substantial debate. Some may contend that the only way to provide Congress with the power to directly affect the content of the ruling would be to amend the Constitution. 

More than 40 bills introduced during the 111th Congress may be relevant for legislative responses to Citizens United. These include, but are not necessarily limited to, H.Con.Res. 13, H.J.Res. 13, H.J.Res. 68, H.J.Res. 74, H.J.Res. 84, H.Res. 1275, H.R. 158, H.R. 1095, H.R. 1826, H.R. 2038, H.R. 2056, H.R. 3574, H.R. 3859, H.R. 4431, H.R. 4432, H.R. 4433, H.R. 4434, H.R. 4435, H.R. 4487, H.R. 4510, H.R. 4511, H.R. 4517, H.R. 4522, H.R. 4523, H.R. 4527, H.R. 4537, H.R. 4540, H.R. 4550, H.R. 4583, H.R. 4617, H.R. 4630, H.R. 4644, H.R. 4749, H.R. 4768, H.R. 4790, H.R. 5175, S.J.Res. 28, S. 133, S. 752, S. 2954, S. 2959, S. 3004, and S. 3295. Most recently, Senator Schumer and Representative Van Hollen introduced S. 3295 and H.R. 5175 respectively. That legislation, which has been a focus of recent attention, is known as the "DISCLOSE Act," an acronym for "Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections." (For additional discussion of the House version of the DISCLOSE Act, which has been the subject of recent legislative action, a CRS memorandum, "Overview of H.R. 5175, the DISCLOSE Act and Current Federal Campaign Finance Law," is available from the author.) Given the pace of developments since the ruling, this report is not intended to be exhaustive. Relevant legislation that has been introduced thus far is reflected through selected examples and in Table 1 at the end of this report. Additional legislation will be included in future updates. 

This report is not intended to provide a legal analysis of Citizens United or of constitutional issues that might affect the policy options discussed here. CRS Report R41045, The Constitutionality of Regulating Corporate Expenditures: A Brief Analysis of the Supreme Court Ruling in Citizens United v. FEC, by L. Paige Whitaker, and CRS Report R41096, Legislative Options After Citizens United v. FEC: Constitutional and Legal Issues, by L. Paige Whitaker et al., discuss legal and constitutional issues.

R41096 can also be found here: http://www2.pennyhill.com/?p=3081

Date of Report: May 17, 2010
Number of Pages: 25
Order Number: R41054
Price: $29.95

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

Thursday, May 27, 2010

Legislative Options After Citizens United v.FEC: Constitutional and Legal Issues

L. Paige Whitaker
Legislative Attorney

Erika K. Lunder
Legislative Attorney

Kate M. Manuel
Legislative Attorney

Jack Maskell
Legislative Attorney

Michael V. Seitzinger
Legislative Attorney

In Citizens United v. FEC, the Supreme Court invalidated two provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), finding that they were unconstitutional under the First Amendment. The decision struck down the long-standing prohibition on corporations using their general treasury funds to make independent expenditures, and Section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), prohibiting corporations from using their general treasury funds for "electioneering communications." BCRA defines "electioneering communication" as any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that refers to a clearly identified federal candidate made within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary. The Court determined that these prohibitions constitute a "ban on speech" in violation of the First Amendment. The Court, however, upheld the disclaimer and disclosure requirements in Sections 201 and 311 of BCRA as applied to a movie regarding a presidential candidate that was produced by Citizens United, a taxexempt corporation, and the broadcast advertisements it planned to run promoting the movie. 

As a result of the Court's ruling, federal campaign finance law no longer restricts corporate or, most likely, labor union use of general treasury funds to make independent expenditures for any communication expressly advocating election or defeat of a candidate. In addition, the law now also permits corporate and union treasury funding of electioneering communications. However, the law prohibiting contributions to candidates, political parties, and political action committees (PACs) from corporate and labor union general treasuries still applies. 

In response to the Supreme Court's ruling, various proposals have been discussed and legislation has been introduced in the 111th Congress, including for example H.Con.Res. 13, H.J.Res. 13, H.J.Res. 68, H.J.Res. 74, H.R. 158, H.R. 1095, H.R. 1826, H.R. 2038, H.R. 2056, H.R. 3574, H.R. 3859, H.R. 4431, H.R. 4432, H.R. 4433, H.R. 4434, H.R. 4435, H.R. 4487, H.R. 4510, H.R. 4511, H.R. 4517, H.R. 4522, H.R. 4523, H.R. 4527, H.R. 4537, H.R. 4540, H.R. 4550, H.R. 4583, H.R. 4617, H.R. 4630, H.R. 4644, H.R. 5175, S.J.Res. 28, S. 133, S. 752, S. 2954, S. 2959, and S. 3004. This report provides an analysis of the constitutional and legal issues raised by several proposals, organized by regulatory topic: increasing disclaimer requirements, increasing disclosure for tax-exempt organizations, requiring shareholder notification and approval, restricting U.S. subsidiaries of foreign corporations, restricting political expenditures by government contractors and grantees, taxing corporate independent expenditures, and providing public financing for congressional campaigns. The report also addresses amending the Constitution. 

For a comprehensive discussion of legislation that has been introduced and an analysis of policy options, see CRS Report R41054,
Campaign Finance Policy After Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission: Issues and Options for Congress, by R. Sam Garrett. For a legal analysis of the Supreme Court's ruling, see CRS Report R41045, The Constitutionality of Regulating Corporate Expenditures: A Brief Analysis of the Supreme Court Ruling in Citizens United v. FEC, by L. Paige Whitaker. .


Date of Report: May 24, 2010
Number of Pages: 31
Order Number: R41096
Price: $29.95

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

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

Kevin R. Kosar
Analyst in American National Government

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

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

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

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

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

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


Date of Report: May 21, 2010
Number of Pages: 18
Order Number: R41024
Price: $29.95

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

Federal Budget Process Reform in the 111th Congress: A Brief Overview

Robert Keith
Specialist in American National Government

Procedural change is a recurrent feature of federal budgeting, although the scope and impact of changes may vary from year to year. In order to advance their budgetary, economic, or political objectives, both Congress and the President regularly propose and make changes to the federal budget process. This report briefly discusses the context in which federal budget process changes are made and identifies selected reform proposals by major category. The identification of reform proposals in this report is not intended to be comprehensive. 

A variety of sources give rise to the interest in budget process reform, including Congress, the President, state and local government officials, and special commissions, among others. Congress initiated a thorough overhaul of its internal budget process and ameliorated ongoing conflicts with President Richard Nixon over the withholding of appropriated funds through enactment of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. President Bill Clinton, like many Presidents before him, requested line-item veto authority, which Congress granted in 1996 in the Line Item Veto Act (but was invalidated by court action in 1998). State and local government officials were instrumental in securing passage of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. Finally, special commissions, such as the President's National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (the "9/11 Commission"), have recommended changes in budget structure and procedure that have been adopted. 

The federal budget process is rooted in constitutional mandates, statutory requirements, House and Senate rules and practices, and administrative directives. Thus, there are several avenues through which budget process changes can occur. Either chamber may focus on changes in its rules, thereby minimizing the time needed to effect the change and the scale of potential conflict needed to be resolved, but at the same time possibly minimizing the impact of the changes. Broader and potentially more consequential changes, involving statutes or constitutional amendments, may entail a larger set of participants in the decision-making (i.e., the other chamber, the President, state legislatures), likely escalating the effort required to reach agreement and lengthening the time period before the changes take effect. 

Legislative changes in the budget process may take the form of freestanding bills or joint resolutions (e.g., the Line Item Veto Act), or may be incorporated into other budgetary legislation, such as acts raising the debt limit (e.g., the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, also referred to as the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act), implementing reconciliation instructions (e.g., the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990), or providing annual appropriations (e.g., revisions in the Senate's cap on discretionary appropriations). Budget process changes also may be included in the annual budget resolution (a concurrent resolution), or in simple House or Senate resolutions.


Date of Report: May 20, 2010
Number of Pages: 19
Order Number: R40113
Price: $29.95

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

Wednesday, May 26, 2010

Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board: New Independent Agency Status

Garrett Hatch
Analyst in American National Government

Recommended by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (9/11 Commission), the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) was initially established as an agency within the Executive Office of the President (EOP) in 2004. Critics, however, maintained that the board appeared to be a presidential appendage, devoid of the capability to exercise independent judgment and assessment or to provide impartial findings and recommendations. This viewpoint gained acceptance in the 110th Congress when the PCLOB was reconstituted as an independent agency within the executive branch by the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act (IR9/11CA), signed into law on August 6, 2007. The Obama Administration has not yet nominated members to the board.


Date of Report: May 21, 2010
Number of Pages: 11
Order Number: RL34385
Price: $29.95

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

OMB’s Financial Management Line of Business Initiative: A Brief Overview

Garrett Hatch
Analyst in American National Government

Federal financial management systems generate the information that is used by government officials to manage and oversee agency programs and operations. Concerns about the quality of agency financial information, and about the costs of operating and modernizing the systems that produce it, have prompted a number of systems improvement initiatives in recent years. One such effort, the Financial Management Line of Business (FMLOB), seeks to improve the cost, quality, and performance of government financial systems by consolidating agency core systems functions at a limited number of third-party shared service providers (SSPs), and by standardizing the related business processes government-wide. 

As part of the initiative, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in 2006 directed all federal agencies needing to upgrade or modernize their financial management systems either to transfer their core financial functions to an SSP, seek designation as an SSP, or to prove that they can operate their in-house systems with less risk and at a lower cost than an SSP. Agencies that undergo migration must, in most cases, select their SSPs through competitions between public and private organizations. OMB's guidance also requires all agencies eventually to adopt government-wide business and accounting practices, which are under development in FMLOB workgroups. 

It is widely acknowledged that consolidation and standardization might improve the cost and quality of agency financial data. Proponents suggest that the sooner agencies move to SSPs, the sooner the government might enhance its efficiency and capacity for oversight. Concerns have been expressed, however, by both public and private sector observers, that the initiative is moving too fast, and that important issues surrounding the transition to shared service providers have not been adequately addressed. Critics argue that migration should be delayed until agencies have strengthened their internal controls, fully evaluated the qualifications of potential SSPs, and educated their personnel about the initiative. Evidence from previous systems modernization efforts suggests that these issues might put the FMLOB at increased risk for cost overruns, schedule delays, and problems with the accuracy of the data after implementation. 

Effective congressional oversight of agency programs and operations is dependent, in part, on the availability of timely and accurate financial data. Congress has invested billions of dollars in systems modernization projects in recent years, but these efforts have not consistently yielded significant improvements in the information they produce. The House Subcommittee on Government Management, Finance, and Accountability has held several hearings on the initiative, although no bills have been introduced. 

This report examines the origins and objectives of the FMLOB, outlines the arguments of the initiative's supporters and critics, and discusses the project's status.


Date of Report: May 20, 2010
Number of Pages: 11
Order Number: RL33765
Price: $29.95

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

Supreme Court Nominee Elena Kagan: Role in the Solomon Amendment Litigation

Jody Feder
Legislative Attorney

On May 10, 2010, President Obama nominated Elena Kagan to replace Justice John Paul Stevens as a member of the Supreme Court. Unlike the vast majority of other nominees to the Supreme Court, Kagan, a former dean at Harvard Law School (HLS) and current Solicitor General, has not been a member of the judiciary and therefore has never issued the judicial opinions that are a traditional source of insight into a nominee's legal views. Nevertheless, Kagan has written, contributed to, or otherwise signaled agreement with a wide array of legal documents during the course of her career, and some understanding of her views may be gleaned from these documents. 

During her tenure as dean of HLS, Kagan, in conjunction with 39of her faculty colleagues at the law school, signed an amicus curiae brief in support of the Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights (FAIR). At the time, FAIR, which consisted of a consortium of law schools and faculty members, was in the process of challenging the constitutionality of the Solomon Amendment, a federal law that requires colleges and universities that receive federal funds to give military recruiters the same access to students and campuses that is provided to other employers. The brief signed by Kagan and her colleagues offered a statutory argument and did not address broader constitutional arguments. Like many law schools and other academic institutions, HLS maintains a nondiscrimination policy that requires any employer that conducts on-campus recruiting to sign a document stating that it does not discriminate on various grounds, including "race, color, creed, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, marital or parental status, disability, source of income, or status as a veteran." HLS, along with many other institutions of higher education, had sought to bar military recruiters from its campus in response to the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) policy, which, with certain exceptions, requires the discharge of members of the armed services who engage in specified types of homosexual conduct. Ultimately, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Solomon Amendment in the 2006 case Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc.


Date of Report:May 21, 2010
Number of Pages: 9
Order Number: R41248
Price: $29.95

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

Monday, May 24, 2010

The Jurisprudence of Justice John Paul Stevens: The Constitutionality of Congressional Term Limits and the Presidential Line Item Veto

Kate M. Manuel
Legislative Attorney

Justice John Paul Stevens authored the majority opinions in both U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton and Clinton v. City of New York, which struck down term limits for federal legislators and the federal Line Item Veto Act, respectively. While the Supreme Court seems unlikely to address the constitutionality of term limits or the line-item veto in the future, Justice Stevens's conclusion that the absence of constitutional provisions expressly authorizing the exercise of certain powers constitutes a denial of these powers seems likely to influence the Court in the future, particularly in cases involving what Justice Kennedy and others have characterized as "horizontal" or "vertical" separation of powers. Horizontal separation of powers questions involve the relationship between the three branches of the federal government (i.e., legislative, executive, judicial), while vertical separation of powers questions involve the relationship between the federal government, state governments, and individual citizens. In Term Limits, the majority held that states lack the power to impose term limits on Members of Congress because the Constitution grants them no such power. Similarly, in Clinton, the majority held that a federal statute allowing the President to "cancel" certain provisions of law was unconstitutional because "[t]here is no provision in the Constitution that authorizes the President" to do so. Under these precedents, it would appear that a constitutional amendment would be necessary to allow for either congressional term limits or the presidential line-item veto. 

The opinions authored by Justice Stevens in Term Limits and Clinton are consistent with what commentators have characterized as his generally "pro federalist" approach to other issues, such as those involving the Commerce Clause, the Tenth Amendment, and the Fourteenth Amendment. For a more in-depth discussion of his approach to federalism, see CRS Report R41244, The Jurisprudence of Justice John Paul Stevens: Selected Federalism Issues, by Kenneth R. Thomas.


Date of Report: May 18, 2010
Number of Pages: 12
Order Number: R41246
Price: $29.95

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

The Jurisprudence of Justice John Paul Stevens: Selected Federalism Issues

Kenneth R. Thomas
Legislative Attorney

Structurally, the Constitution establishes a federal government with discrete, limited powers, reserving authority not given to the federal government under the Constitution to the states and the people. The uncertain contours of this dual system have often resulted in Supreme Court decisions on the reach of the federal government's limited powers and the core autonomy of the states. Congress, for example, has invoked the Commerce Clause to regulate local, and sometimes non-economic, activities that historically have been subject to regulation under state police powers. Also, Congress has invoked its power to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment to regulate state activity that might otherwise be beyond its reach. States, on the other hand, have cited the Tenth Amendment to resist what they perceive as congressional overreaching into essential state functions. 

During Justice John Paul Stevens's tenure on the Supreme Court, the Court has continued to develop its jurisprudence on these constitutional provisions in resolving tension between federal versus state authority. Justice Stevens himself has written notable opinions on a range of federalism issues. These opinions generally indicate a viewpoint that it is difficult to clearly distinguish between federal and state spheres of power, and a tendency to recognize a limited federal role in issues that affect state prerogatives and local activities.


Date of Report: May 19, 2010
Number of Pages: 10
Order Number: R41244
Price: $29.95

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

Real Property Disposition: Overview and Issues for the 111th Congress

Garrett Hatch
Analyst in American National Government

Federal executive branch agencies hold an extensive real property portfolio that includes nearly 900,000 buildings and structures, and 41 million acres of land worldwide. These assets have been acquired over a period of decades to help agencies fulfill their diverse missions. The government's portfolio encompasses properties with a range of uses, including barracks, health clinics, warehouses, laboratories, national parks, boat docks, and offices. As agencies' missions change over time, so, too, do their real property needs, thereby rendering some assets less useful or unneeded altogether. 

Real property disposition is the process by which federal agencies identify and then transfer, donate, or sell facilities and land they no longer need. Disposition is an important asset management function because the costs of maintaining unneeded properties can be substantial, consuming billions of dollars that might be applied to pressing real property needs, such as acquiring new space and repairing existing facilities, or to other policy issues, such as reducing the national debt. 

Audits of agency real property portfolios have found that the government holds thousands of unneeded properties, and must spend hundreds of millions of dollars annually to maintain them. Agencies have said that their disposal efforts are often hampered by legal and budgetary disincentives, and competing stakeholder interests. In addition, Congress is limited in its capacity to conduct oversight of the disposal process because it lacks access to reliable, comprehensive real property data. The government's inability to efficiently dispose of its unneeded property is a major reason that federal real property management has been identified by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) as a "high-risk" area since 2003. 

This report begins with an explanation of the real property disposal process, and then discusses some of the factors that have made disposition inefficient and costly. It then examines real property legislation introduced in the 111th Congress that would address those problems, including the Federal Real Property Disposal Enhancement Act of 2009 (H.R. 2495), S.Amdt. 1042, and the President's FY2011 budget request. The report concludes with policy options for enhancing both the disposal process and congressional oversight of it. 
.


Date of Report: May 18, 2010
Number of Pages: 17
Order Number: R41240
Price: $29.95

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

Sunday, May 23, 2010

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, introduced by Senator Olympia Snowe on March 10, 2010, and S. 2869, the Small Business Job Creation and Access to Capital Act of 2009, introduced by Senator Mary Landrieu on December 10, 2009, would authorize the SBA to use maximum tangible net worth of not more than $15 million and average net income after federal taxes of not more than $5 million for the two full fiscal years before the date of the application as an alternative to the use of the SBA's industry size standards 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 by Representative Neil Abercrombie on December 14, 2009, 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, introduced by Representative Kurt Schrader and 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: May 12, 2010
Number of Pages: 26
Order Number: R40860
Price: $29.95

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

Thursday, May 20, 2010

Senate Confirmation Process: A Brief Overview

Lorraine H. Tong
Analyst in American National Government

The role of the Senate in the confirmation process is defined in the Constitution. Article II, Section 2 provides that the President "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint high government officials." Positions requiring confirmation are specified by statute. Senate Rule XXXI regulates proceedings on nominations in executive sessions ("executive" in this case refers to executive business, not to a closed or secret session). Each Senate committee may adopt its own procedures as long as they do not conflict with Senate rules.


Date of Report: May 12, 2010
Number of Pages: 6
Order Number: RS20986
Price: $19.95

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

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) 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: May 12, 2010
Number of Pages: 12
Order Number: RS20764
Price: $29.95

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

Duration of Continuing Resolutions in Recent Years

Robert Keith
Specialist in American National Government

Continuing appropriations acts, commonly known as continuing resolutions, have been an integral component of the annual appropriations process for decades. Whenever action on one or more of the regular appropriations acts for a fiscal year is incomplete as the end of a congressional session nears, one issue that arises is the appropriate duration of any period for which continuing resolutions will be used. 

Continuing resolutions may have a relatively short duration in the expectation that action on the regular appropriations acts will be concluded within several days or weeks. Alternatively, continuing resolutions may have a longer duration to postpone final action on appropriations decisions until after elections or into the beginning of the next congressional session. Finally, a continuing resolution may provide funding for the remainder of the fiscal year. 

The duration of a continuing resolution refers to the period for which continuing appropriations are made available for the use of agencies. (Legislative provisions, as opposed to funding provisions, contained in a continuing resolution may remain in effect for a longer period, even as permanent law.) The period ends either upon enactment of the applicable regular appropriations act or on an expiration date specified in the continuing resolution, whichever occurs first. 

Over the past half century, the timing patterns for congressional action on regular appropriations acts have varied considerably, but tardy enactment has been a recurring problem. During the 59- year period covering FY1952-FY2010, all of the regular appropriations acts were enacted on time in only four instances (FY1977, FY1989, FY1995, and FY1997). No continuing resolutions were enacted for three of these fiscal years, but continuing resolutions were enacted for FY1977 to fund certain unauthorized programs whose funding had been dropped from the regular appropriations acts. Further, no continuing resolutions were enacted for FY1953 even though all but one of the regular appropriations were enacted late. 

Full-year continuing resolutions provide funding for one or more of the regular appropriations acts for the remainder of the fiscal year. While Congress has employed full-year continuing resolutions on many occasions, it has not done so consistently over time. For each of the 11 fiscal years covering FY1978-FY1988, Congress enacted a full-year continuing resolution. Three years later, Congress enacted another full-year continuing resolution, for FY1992. Most recently, a full year continuing resolution was enacted for FY2007. 

During the past 13 fiscal years (FY1998-FY2010), Congress provided funding under continuing resolutions for an average each year of nearly four months (111.5 days). The period for which continuing appropriations were provided in these 13 years ranged from 21 days to 365 days. On average, each of the 79 continuing resolutions enacted during this period lasted for about 18 days.


Date of Report: May 13, 2010
Number of Pages: 21
Order Number: RL2614
Price: $29.95

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

Supreme Court Nominations Not Confirmed, 1789-2009

Henry B. Hogue
Analyst in American National Government

On May 10, 2010, President Barack Obama submitted a nomination to fill the vacancy to be left by Justice John Paul Stevens's retirement. Prior to this, from 1789 through 2009, Presidents had submitted 159 nominations to Supreme Court positions. Of these, 36 were not confirmed by the Senate. The 36 nominations represent 31 individuals whose names were sent forward to the Senate by Presidents (some individuals were nominated more than once). Of the 31 individuals who were not confirmed the first time they were nominated, however, six were later nominated again and confirmed. The Supreme Court nominations discussed here were not confirmed for a variety of reasons, including Senate opposition to the nominating President, nominee's views, or incumbent Court; senatorial courtesy; perceived political unreliability of the nominee; perceived lack of ability; interest group opposition; and fear of altering the balance of the Court. The Senate Committee on the Judiciary has played an important role in the confirmation process, particularly since 1868. 

All but the most recent of these nominations have been the subject of extensive legal, historical, and political science writing, a selected list of which is included in this report.


Date of Report: May 11, 2010
Number of Pages: 29
Order Number: RL31171
Price: $29.95

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

Wednesday, May 19, 2010

Continuing Resolutions: Latest Action and Brief Overview of Recent Practices

Sandy Streeter
Analyst on Congress and the Legislative Process

Most routine operations of federal departments and agencies are funded each year through the enactment of several regular appropriations acts. Because these bills are annual, expiring at the end of the fiscal year (September 30), regular appropriations bills for the subsequent fiscal year must be enacted by October 1. Final action on most regular appropriations bills, however, is frequently delayed beyond the start of the fiscal year. When this occurs, the affected departments and agencies are generally funded under temporary continuing appropriations acts until the final funding decisions become law. Because continuing appropriations acts are generally enacted in the form of joint resolutions, such acts are referred to as continuing resolutions (or CRs). 

CRs may be divided into two categories based on duration—those that provide interim (or temporary) funding and those that provide funds through the end of the fiscal year. Interim continuing resolutions provide funding until a specific date or until the enactment of the applicable regular appropriations acts, if earlier. Full-year continuing resolutions provide funding in lieu of one or more regular appropriations bills through the end of the fiscal year

Over the past 35 years, the nature, scope, and duration of continuing resolutions gradually expanded. From the early 1970s through 1987, CRs gradually expanded from being used to provide interim funding measures of comparatively brief duration and length to measures providing funding through the end of the fiscal year. The full-year measures included, in some cases, the full text of one or more regular appropriations bills and contained substantive legislation (i.e., provisions under the jurisdiction of committees other than the House and Senate Appropriations Committees). Since 1988, continuing resolutions have primarily been interim funding measures, and included major legislation less frequently. 

In certain years, delay in the enactment of regular appropriations measures and CRs has led to periods during which appropriations authority has lapsed. Such periods generally are referred to as funding gaps

Because Congress and the President did not complete action on all 12 FY2010 regular appropriations bills until over two and half months after the deadline, two FY2010 continuing resolutions were enacted. The first, Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2010, extended funding at generally FY2009 spending levels for 11 outstanding regular bills through October 31, 2009. It was included as Division B in the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2010. The President signed the measure on October 1, 2009 (P.L. 111-68; 123 Stat. 2023, 2043). By the end of October, five FY2010 regular bills had become law. Therefore, the President signed a second CR, Further Continuing Appropriations, 2010, on October 30, 2009, which generally continued funding levels provided in the initial CR for the outstanding bills through December 18, 2009 (see Division B, Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010; P.L. 111-88; 123 Stat. 2904, 2972). 

On December 19, 2009, Congress completed action on a third CR, H.J.Res. 64 (111th Congress), a standalone measure, which would have extended funding through December 23, 2009. But, this measure was rendered moot when the President signed the final FY2010 regular appropriations bill, Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010 (P.L. 111-118; 123 Stat. 3409). On December 30, 2009, President Obama vetoed H.J.Res. 64 while Congress was not in session; such a veto is often referred to as a "pocket veto." In addition, the President returned H.J.Res. 64 to the House of Representatives pursuant to the so-called "protective return" procedure.


Date of Report: May 13, 2010
Number of Pages: 16
Order Number: RL30343
Price: $29.95

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

Tuesday, May 18, 2010

Campaign Finance Policy After Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission: Issues and Options for Congress

R. Sam Garrett
Analyst in American National Government

Following the Supreme Court's January 21, 2010, ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, questions have emerged about which policy options could be available to Congress. This report provides an overview of selected campaign finance policy options that may be relevant. It also briefly comments on how Citizens United might affect political advertising. A complete understanding of how Citizens United will affect the campaign and policy environments is likely to be unavailable until at least the conclusion of the 2010 election cycle. 

As Congress considers legislative responses, at least two broad choices could be relevant. First, Congress could provide candidates or parties with additional access to funds to combat corporate influence in elections. Second, Congress could restrict spending under certain conditions or require those making expenditures post-Citizens United to provide additional information to voters or regulators. Options within both approaches could generate substantial debate. Some may contend that the only way to provide Congress with the power to directly affect the content of the ruling would be to amend the Constitution. 

More than 40 bills introduced during the 111th Congress may be relevant for legislative responses to Citizens United. These include, but are not necessarily limited to, H.Con.Res. 13, H.J.Res. 13, H.J.Res. 68, H.J.Res. 74, H.Res. 1275, H.R. 158, H.R. 1095, H.R. 1826, H.R. 2038, H.R. 2056, H.R. 3574, H.R. 3859, H.R. 4431, H.R. 4432, H.R. 4433, H.R. 4434, H.R. 4435, H.R. 4487, H.R. 4510, H.R. 4511, H.R. 4517, H.R. 4522, H.R. 4523, H.R. 4527, H.R. 4537, H.R. 4540, H.R. 4550, H.R. 4583, H.R. 4617, H.R. 4630, H.R. 4644, H.R. 4749, H.R. 4768, H.R. 4790, H.R. 5175, S.J.Res. 28, S. 133, S. 752, S. 2954, S. 2959, S. 3004, and S. 3295. Most recently, Senator Schumer and Representative Van Hollen introduced S. 3295 and H.R. 5175 respectively. That legislation, which has been a focus of recent attention, is known as the "DISCLOSE Act," an acronym for "Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections." Given the pace of developments since the ruling, this report is not intended to be exhaustive. Relevant legislation that has been introduced thus far is reflected through selected examples and in Table 1 at the end of this report. Additional legislation will be included in future updates. 

This report is not intended to provide a legal analysis of Citizens United or of constitutional issues that might affect the policy options discussed here. CRS Report R41045,
The Constitutionality of Regulating Corporate Expenditures: A Brief Analysis of the Supreme Court Ruling in Citizens United v. FEC, by L. Paige Whitaker, and CRS Report R41096, Legislative Options After Citizens United v. FEC: Constitutional and Legal Issues, by L. Paige Whitaker et al., discuss legal and constitutional issues.


Date of Report: May 13, 2010
Number of Pages: 25
Order Number: R41054
Price: $29.95

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

Thursday, May 13, 2010

Former Presidents: Pensions, Office Allowances, and Other Federal Benefits

Wendy R. Ginsberg
Analyst in Government Organization and Management

The Former Presidents Act (FPA; 3 U.S.C. § 102 note) charges the General Services Administration (GSA) with providing former Presidents a pension, support staff, office support, travel funds, and mailing privileges. The FPA was enacted to "maintain the dignity" of the Office of the President by giving a former President—and his or her spouse—certain benefits so that he would not have to enter unsuitable occupations after leaving office. Former Presidents may currently receive a pension that is equal to pay for the head of an executive department (Executive Level I), which is $199,700 as of January 1, 2010. 

The President's FY2011 budget requested $3,907,000 for expenditures for former Presidents, $151,000 more than the $3,756,000 requested for FY2010. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 (P.L. 111-117) appropriated President Barack Obama's requested $3,756,000 for expenditures of former Presidents in FY2010. 

Prior to enactment of the FPA in 1958, former Presidents leaving office received no pension or federal assistance. After leaving office, some former Presidents—including Ulysses S. Grant and Harry S. Truman—struggled financially. In 1912, industrialist and philanthropist Andrew Carnegie unveiled a plan to pay $25,000 pensions to all future former Presidents and their widows. The pensions were to be funded by the Carnegie Foundation of New York. Some Members of Congress and the public suggested it was inappropriate for a private company to pay pensions to former Presidents. Legislation was introduced that year to grant public pensions to former Presidents, but none of the bills were reported from committee. William Howard Taft, the only former President who was then eligible for Carnegie's offer, refused the pension. 

Since 1962, the U.S. Secret Service has provided protection to former Presidents because of their status as "visible national symbol[s]." Protection has subsequently been expanded to cover a former President's wife until death or remarriage. Minor children of former Presidents who are under 16 years of age also receive protection. In 1994, the law was amended to limit U.S. Secret Service coverage to 10 years for any President, and his spouse, who entered office after January 1, 1997. President George W. Bush is the first former President affected by this statutory change. 

On September 26, 2008, a bill (P.L. 110-326) was enacted, extending U.S. Secret Service Protection to a Vice President, his or her spouse, and family members for up to six months after leaving office. Previously, Secret Service protection for a Vice President and his or her family was provided on an ad hoc basis. 

This report describes the benefits Presidents receive upon leaving office, details the history of the FPA, and analyzes some legislative options for the 111th Congress related to former Presidents.


Date of Report: May 3, 2010
Number of Pages: 18
Order Number: RL34631
Price: $29.95

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

Wednesday, May 12, 2010

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 Performance and Accountability Report requirements, even if they do not meet the 2.5% threshold. 

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

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

In the 111th Congress, Senator Carper, along with four cosponsors, introduced S. 1508, the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act of 2009, similar to S. 2583 as reported in the 110th Congress. On July 29, 2009, the bill, as amended, was ordered reported favorably by the full committee. A companion measure, H.R. 3393, was introduced in the House. In 2009, both House and Senate subcommittees held hearings relevant to the issue of improper payments. On April 28, 2010, the House passed H.R. 3393, as amended, under suspension of the rules by voice vote. President Obama has announced his support for the measures. 

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: May 7, 2010
Number of Pages: 27
Order Number: RL34164
Price: $29.95

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

Legal Protections for Subcontractors on Federal Prime Contracts

Kate M. Manuel
Legislative Attorney

This report discusses payment and other protections for subcontractors on certain federal contracts under the Miller Act, the Prompt Payment Act, and the Small Business Act. Such protections have recently become a topic of congressional and public interest because of the effects of the recession upon small businesses. Many subcontractors on federal prime contracts are small businesses, and small businesses generally receive special consideration under federal law and policy. 

The Miller Act of 1935 authorizes subcontractors who furnished labor or materials used in carrying out federal construction projects valued in excess of $100,000 to bring a civil action against prime contractors' payment bonds to obtain payments due. Congress enacted the Miller Act to compensate for the difficulties that subcontractors would otherwise have in obtaining payment from federal construction contractors, given that they cannot place a mechanic's lien on the work because the government has sovereign immunity. The doctrine of sovereign immunity protects the government from being sued without its consent, and the Contract Disputes Act waives the government's sovereign immunity only as to suits involving contracts to which it is a party, not subcontracts under these contracts. Relatedly, there is no privity of contract, or direct contractual relationship, between the government and the subcontractor, which means that the subcontractor cannot sue to enforce the payment or other terms of the subcontract against the government. 

The 1988 amendments to the Prompt Payment Act provide an additional form of payment protection for subcontractors on federal construction contracts by requiring federal agencies to include in their contracts a clause obligating the prime contractor to pay the subcontractor for "satisfactory" performance within seven days of receiving payment from the government. Absent such a clause in the prime contract, the prime contractor would generally be free to agree to whatever payment terms it wishes with the subcontractor and would not necessarily pay the subcontractor as quickly. 

The Small Business Act provides a different sort of protection for some prospective subcontractors by requiring that prime contractors agree to plans for subcontracting some percentage of the work to be performed under certain federal contracts with various types of small businesses (e.g., women-owned small businesses, service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses). Without such subcontracting plans, or similar contract terms, prime contractors would be free to subcontract with whomever they wish for the completion of work under the contract and would not be required to deal with these categories of small businesses. 

Members of the 111th Congress have introduced legislation that would augment these protections by (1) requiring contractors with subcontracting plans to notify the Small Business Administration (SBA) whenever they pay a reduced price to a subcontractor (S. 2989); (2) requiring that contractors work with the subcontractors whom they identified in any subcontracting plans submitted with their bids or offers (H.R. 4134); and (3) requiring SBA to promulgate regulations to govern its review of subcontracting plans, including standards for determining contractors' "good faith compliance" with such plans (H.R. 5109).


Date of Report: May 10, 2010
Number of Pages: 13
Order Number: R41230
Price: $29.95

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

Tuesday, May 11, 2010

Post Office and Retail Postal Facility Closures: Overview and Issues for Congress

Kevin R. Kosar
Analyst in American National Government

In common parlance, "post office" is used to refer to a wide variety of facilities operated by the United States Postal Service (USPS). In administrative practice, the USPS differentiates among several categories of postal facilities. Regarding one category of its facilities, the USPS announced in May 2009 that it was considering the closure of 3,105 of its then 4,851 post office branches and stations. These facilities provide the public with postal services, such as stamp sales, post office boxes, and package shipping. Since the original announcement, the USPS has indicated that the number of possible closures may be fewer than 162. 

This report provides (1) information on this recent announcement; (2) historical data on the number of post offices and other retail postal facilities; (3) an explanation of the legal authorities relevant to retail postal facility closures; (4) a review of the retail postal facility closure processes, including data on public appeals of closures, and H.R. 658's and H.R. 4612's proposed alterations to the processes; and (5) a concluding discussion that suggests observations and possible issues for Congress 

The USPS has cited financial duress as a reason for its proposed closure of post office branches and stations. According to the USPS, the post office branches and stations under consideration for closure are located in metropolitan areas. The USPS has not indicated whether any employees would lose their positions. Most postal employees are protected from layoffs by collective bargaining agreements. 

As of FY2009, the USPS had 35,823 retail postal facilities, including post offices, post office branches and stations, community post offices, and contract postal units. This is 16.9% fewer than existed in 1970 when the USPS was established as an independent establishment of the executive branch. 

By law, the USPS does not rely on appropriations to fund its operations. It must support itself through the sales of postal services. Congress has given the USPS considerable discretion to decide how many post offices to erect and where to place them. The USPS also is obliged to provide the public with adequate access to postal services. 

Both federal law and the USPS's rules prescribe a post office closure process. The U.S. Postal Service must notify the affected public and hold a 60-day comment period prior to closing a post office. Should the USPS decide to close a post office, the public has 30 days to appeal the decision to the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC). Between FY1998 and FY2009, 26 of the approximately 791 post office closures were appealed to the PRC. The USPS uses an expedited version of this process to close post office branches, stations, and community post offices. 

Federal law requires the USPS to arrange its delivery and service network to most efficiently serve the public. However, the proposed closures may raise a number of issues, including public participation in the closure process, the effects on postal workers, and the possible effects of closures on communities. Congress may wish to consider a variety of measures to address these possible issues.


Date of Report: April 28, 2010
Number of Pages: 22
Order Number: R40719
Price: $29.95

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

Monday, May 10, 2010

Presidential Travel: Policy and Costs

L. Elaine Halchin
Specialist in American National Government

For security and other reasons, the President, Vice President, and First Lady use military aircraft when they travel. The White House generally categorizes the trips as fulfilling either official or political functions. Often, a trip involves both official and political, or unofficial, activities. When a trip is for an official function, the government pays all costs, including per diem (food and lodging), car rentals, and other incidental expenses. When a trip is for political or unofficial purposes, those involved must pay for their own food and lodging and other related expenses, and they must also reimburse the government with the equivalent of the airfare that they would have paid had they used a commercial airline. When a trip involves both official and political activities, a formula determines the amount to be reimbursed for that part of the trip involving political activities. Whether a trip is for official or political purposes, the Air Force pays all operational and other costs incurred by the use of the aircraft. While the travel policies of specific Administrations concerning the reimbursement of expenses for unofficial travel generally are not publicly available, it appears that policy guidelines developed by the Reagan White House have served as a basis for the travel policies of subsequent Administrations.


Date of Report: April 26, 2010
Number of Pages: 8
Order Number: RS21835
Price: $29.95

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

Thursday, May 6, 2010

Federal Evacuation Policy: Issues for Congress

Bruce R. Lindsay
Analyst in American National Government

When government officials become aware of an impending disaster, they may take steps to protect citizens before the incident occurs. Evacuation of the geographic area that may be affected is one option to ensure public safety. If implemented properly, evacuation can be an effective strategy for saving lives. Evacuations and decisions to evacuate, however, can also entail complex factors and elevated risks. Decisions to evacuate may require officials to balance potentially costly, hazardous, or unnecessary evacuations against the possibility of loss of life due to a delayed order to evacuate. 

Some observers of evacuations, notably those from New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina, claim evacuations pose unique challenges to certain segments of society. From their perspective, special-needs populations, the transit-dependent, and individuals with pets faced particular hardships associated with the storm. This, they claim, is because some evacuation plans, and the way in which they were carried out, appeared to inadequately address their unique circumstances or needs. 

In responding to these challenges, then-Senator Obama introduced S. 1685 in the 109th Congress, which would have directed the Secretary of Homeland Security to ensure that each state provided detailed and comprehensive information regarding its pre-disaster and post-disaster plans for the evacuation of individuals with special needs in emergencies. President Barack Obama indicated during his campaign that he would continue to pursue similar evacuation polices. 

Another facet of evacuation is sheltering displaced individuals. For short-term sheltering, federally provided resources include food, water, cots, and essential toiletries. When displaced individuals need long-term sheltering, federal policy provides financial assistance for alternative accommodations such as apartments, motels and hotels, recreational vehicles, and modular units. 

While federal law provides for certain aspects of civilian emergency evacuation, evacuation policy generally is established and enforced by state and local officials. In recent years, Members of Congress have focused, in part, on policy options that addressed issues of equity during evacuations as well as attempts to integrate federal, state, and local evacuation efforts more fully. 

This report discusses federal evacuation policy and analyzes potential lessons learned from the evacuations of individuals in response to the Gulf Coast hurricanes of 2005. Several issue areas that might arise concerning potential lawmaking and oversight on evacuation policy are also highlighted.


Date of Report: April 29, 2010
Number of Pages: 19
Order Number: RL34745
Price: $29.95

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

Wednesday, May 5, 2010

District of Columbia Voting Representation in Congress: An Analysis of Legislative Proposals

Eugene Boyd
Analyst in Federalism and Economic Development Policy

This report provides a summary and analysis of legislative proposals that would provide voting representation in Congress to residents of the District of Columbia. Since the issue of voting representation for District residents was first broached in 1801, Congress has considered five legislative options: (1) seek voting rights in Congress by constitutional amendment, (2) retrocede the District to Maryland (retrocession), (3) allow District residents to vote in Maryland for their representatives to the House and Senate (semi-retrocession), (4) grant the District statehood, and (5) define the District as a congressional district for the purpose of voting representation in the House of Representatives. 

On January 6, 2009, the non-voting delegate for the District of Columbia, Eleanor Holmes Norton, introduced H.R. 157, the District of Columbia Voting Rights Act of 2009, a bill that would permanently increase the size of the House from 435 to 437 Members and provide voting representation to the District and the state most likely to gain an additional representative, Utah. Weeks later, on January 23, 2009, Representative Dana Rohrabacher introduced H.R. 665, a bill that would provide voting rights to District citizens by retroceding the District of Columbia to Maryland. Also on January 6, Senator Lieberman introduced S. 160, a related bill of the same title as H.R. 157. The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee reported S. 160 on February 12, 2009. The House Judiciary Committee reported an amended version of H.R. 157 on February 25, 2009, by a vote of 20-12. A provision amending the city's gun control laws was introduced during Committee markup of the bill, but was withdrawn before a vote. The full Senate passed the bill on February 26, 2009, by a vote of 61-37. The Senate bill includes a controversial provision unrelated to voting rights that would amend the District's gun control laws. 

These proposals would grant voting representation by statute, eschewing the constitutional amendment process and statehood option. Any proposal considered by Congress faces three distinct challenges. It must (1) address issues raised by Article 1, Sec. 2 of the Constitution, which limits voting representation to states; (2) provide for the continued existence of the District of Columbia as the "Seat of Government of the United States" (Article 1, Sec. 8); and (3) consider its impact on the 23rd Amendment to the Constitution, which grants three electoral votes to the District of Columbia. For a discussion of constitutional issues of proposed legislation, see CRS Report RL33824, The Constitutionality of Awarding the Delegate for the District of Columbia a Vote in the House of Representatives or the Committee of the Whole, by Kenneth R. Thomas.


Date of Report: April 19, 2010
Number of Pages: 29
Order Number: RL33830
Price: $29.95

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

Tuesday, May 4, 2010

Presenting Measures to the President for Approval: Possible Delays

Richard S. Beth
Specialist on Congress and the Legislative Process

The Constitution requires Congress to present each measure it enacts to the President for approval. In contrast, the Constitution requires the President to act on measures within 10 days of their presentment and is silent on the amount of time that may elapse before Congress presents each measure to the President. Not being subject to a constitutional constraint, Congress has sometimes temporarily withheld enrolled measures from presentment, either when the President is absent or to avoid a possible pocket veto. 

Before an enrolled measure can be presented to the President, it must be enrolled, or prepared in its final form; the enrolled text must then be verified; and the measure must then be signed by the presiding officers of both houses. For long measures or at times of heavy congressional workload, these processes may take some time. Rules of Congress require that measures be presented "forthwith" after being signed, but do not lay specific constraints on the amount of time that may be taken in enrollment, verification, and signature. 

Generally speaking, data suggest that the time between second chamber passage of a measure and its enrollment and presentment to the President is almost always completed in a timely fashion. For example, over the past 20 years, in no year did the average time between second chamber passage of a conference report and presentment of the enrolled measure to the President exceed 11 calendar days. 

Occasionally in recent years, however, significant delays appear to have occurred between final action by Congress on a measure and its presentment to the President for reasons related not to institutional or administrative considerations, but to policy or partisan disputes. Some of these instances have met with protests, particularly within the House of Representatives. Precedents indicate that in the House, at least, any "unreasonable" delay in presenting a measure to the President, or preparing it for such presentment, might give rise to a question of the privileges of the House, which include matters affecting the integrity of the proceedings of the House. On these grounds a resolution requiring the prompt performance of necessary actions, or directing other remedies, might be privileged for consideration in the House. Such resolutions were presented on at least one occasion in 1888 and one in 1991. Though neither was adopted, one was held to raise a question of privilege, and in the other case, the chair affirmed the principle that such a situation might give rise to a question of privilege.


Date of Report: May 3, 2010
Number of Pages: 15
Order Number: R41217
Price: $29.95

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

Monday, May 3, 2010

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 (e.g., via receipt of a formal retirement letter), 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 2009 (when the most recent Supreme Court appointment was completed), the process took a median of 111.5 days. Although Presidents after 1980 have moved more quickly than their predecessors in announcing nominees after learning of vacancies (a median of 18 days compared with 34 days before 1980), the Senate portion of the process (i.e., from the nomination announcement to final Senate action) now appears to take much longer than before (a median of 80.5 days from 1981 through 2009, compared with 17 days from 1900 through 1980). Most notably, the amount of time between the nomination announcement and first Judiciary Committee hearing has more than quadrupled—from a median of 12.5 days (1900-1980) to 50.5 days (1981-2009). The most recent confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice, that of Sonia Sotomayor in 2009, illustrated the lengthier overall time frame for recent Supreme Court appointments. Forty-eight days elapsed between President Barack Obama's announcement of then-Judge Sotomayor's selection and the start of Judiciary Committee hearings on the nomination. The entire interval from the time at which the President apparently first learned of the vacancy until final Senate consideration lasted 97 days. 

Most recently, on April 9, 2010, Justice John Paul Stevens announced that he would retire from regular service when the Court recesses for the summer. Almost immediately, the President, Members of Congress, and members of the media began to comment on a potential schedule for considering Justice Stevens' replacement. One hundred and seventy-eight days will elapse between Justice Stevens' April 9 retirement announcement and the October 4, 2010, start of the Court's next term. That interval is well beyond the median overall time taken by Presidents to nominate and the Senate to consider and act on Supreme Court nominees since 1981 (111.5 days). As with previous nominations to the Court, the selection process, the Senate schedule, and other factors will affect the timetable that emerges for the next Supreme Court nomination. The Senate may proceed at any pace it deems appropriate after a nominee is announced.


Date of Report: April 21, 2010
Number of Pages: 52
Order Number: RL33118
Price: $29.95

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

Sunday, May 2, 2010

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

Elizabeth B. Bazan
Legislative Attorney

Anna C. Henning
Legislative Attorney

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

The impeachment process with respect to U.S. District Court Judge G. Thomas Porteous, Jr., from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, is ongoing. This impeachment inquiry was initiated in the 110th Congress and has continued in the 111th Congress. H.Res. 1031, a resolution impeaching Judge Porteous for high crimes and misdemeanors, was introduced on January 21, 2010. The resolution includes four articles of impeachment. The measure was referred to the House Judiciary Committee the same day. On March 4, 2010, H.Res. 1031 was reported out, H.Rept. 111-427, and placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 170. On March 11, 2010, the House impeached Judge Porteous. In four unanimous votes, the House approved each of the four articles of impeachment, then agreed to the impeachment resolution by a voice vote. On March 17, 2010, the House Managers presented these articles of impeachment before the bar of the Senate. Pursuant to S.Res. 457, the Senate issued a summons to Judge Porteous to respond to the articles of impeachment. He filed his answer to the articles against him on April 7, 2010, and the House filed its replication to the answer on April 15, 2010. Under S.Res. 458, the Senate created an Impeachment Trial Committee to take evidence in the case. The full Senate, sitting as a Court of Impeachment, will make the ultimate decision whether to acquit or convict on each article and, if Judge Porteous is convicted on one or more articles, will impose judgment of removal alone or removal and disqualification from holding any further federal office. 

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

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


Date of Report: April 22, 2010
Number of Pages: 33
Order Number: 98-186
Price: $29.95

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

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 for the 111th Congress.


Date of Report: April 12, 2010
Number of Pages: 36
Order Number: R40626
Price: $29.95

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