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 have addressed 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: January 12, 2011
Number of Pages: 17
Order Number: R41240
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.
R. Eric Petersen
Specialist in American National Government
Jennifer E. Manning
Information Research Specialist
Erin Hemlin
Research Associate
Questions about the personal security and safety of members of Congress and their staffs have arisen in the aftermath of a recent attack in Tucson, Arizona, and following reports of an increase in the number of threats made against members of Congress.
Two measures have been introduced in the 112th Congress to address issues related to violence against members and congressional staff. On January 19, 2011, Representative Robert A. Brady of Pennsylvania introduced H.R. 318 to amend title 18, United States Code, to punish threats to commit violent crimes against members of Congress. On January 20, 2011, Representative Laura Richardson introduced H.R. 367, the Freedom to Serve Without Fear Act of 2011, which would prohibit the knowing possession of a firearm near a venue at which a member of Congress is performing official duties or campaigning for public office.
Since 1789, available information from official and private sources suggests that there have been at least 21 instances of attacks involving 24 members who were targeted by assailants. There have been 12,013 individuals who have served as Representatives or Senators since 1789. In 11 instances, the attacks were thwarted, or resulted in no serious injuries to members. Another three incidents resulted in wounds to seven members. Finally, seven instances resulted in the deaths of seven members.
It appears that five of the incidents of attacks on members also affected some congressional staff. Four of the incidents resulted in the wounding of congressional staff. Two incidents, a 1998 event in which a gunman entered the Capitol, and the Tucson shooting on January 8, 2011, resulted in fatalities to two congressional law enforcement personnel and one civilian employee of the House, respectively.
Date of Report: January 25, 2011
Number of Pages: 12
Order Number: R41609
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.
Robert Jay Dilger
Senior Specialist in American National Government
Oscar R. Gonzales
Analyst in Economic Development Policy
The Small Business Administration (SBA) administers several programs to support small businesses, including loan guaranty programs to enhance small business access to capital; programs to increase small business opportunities in federal contracting; direct loans for businesses, homeowners, and renters to assist their recovery from natural disasters; and access to entrepreneurial education to assist with business formation and expansion. It also administers the Small Business Investment Company (SBIC) Program. Authorized by P.L. 85-699, the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended, the SBIC program enhances small business access to venture capital by stimulating and supplementing “the flow of private equity capital and long term loan funds which small business concerns need for the sound financing of their business operations and for their growth, expansion, and modernization, and which are not available in adequate supply.” Facilitating the flow of capital to small businesses to stimulate the national economy was, and remains, the SBIC program’s primary objective.
The SBA does not make direct investments in small businesses. It works with 307 privately owned and managed SBICs licensed by the SBA to provide financing to small businesses with private capital the SBIC has raised and with funds the SBIC borrows at favorable rates because the SBA guarantees the debenture (loan obligation).
SBICs pursue investments in a broad range of industries, geographies, and stage of investment. Some SBICs specialize in a particular field or industry in which their management has expertise, while others invest more generally. Most SBICs concentrate on a particular stage of investment (i.e., start-up, expansion, or turnaround) and identify a geographic area in which to focus.
The SBIC program currently has invested about $15.0 billion in small businesses, with about $8.7 billion raised from private capital and $6.3 billion guaranteed by the SBA. In FY2010, the SBA guaranteed $931 million in SBIC small business investments, and SBICs provided another $1.1 billion in investments from private capital, for a total of more than $2.0 billion in financing for 1,331 small businesses.
Congressional interest in the SBIC program has increased in recent years primarily because it is viewed as a means to stimulate economic activity, create jobs, and assist in the national economic recovery. However, there are disagreements concerning whether the program should target additional assistance to startup and early-stage small businesses, which are generally viewed as relatively risky investments but also as having a relatively high potential for job creation.
This report examines the SBIC program’s structure and operation, focusing on SBIC eligibility requirements, investment activity, and program statistics. It also examines legislation considered during the 111th Congress, including H.R. 3854, the Small Business Financing and Investment Act of 2009, H.R. 5554, the Small Business Assistance and Relief Act of 2010, and P.L. 111-240, the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which address the following SBIC-related issues: (1) the targeting of additional assistance to startup and early-stage small businesses, (2) the SBA’s management of the program’s financial risk and its processing of SBIC applications, and (3) whether the program’s financing levels are appropriate given the nation’s current economic circumstances.
Date of Report: January 10, 2011
Number of Pages: 32
Order Number: R41456
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.
Jennifer K. Elsea
Legislative Attorney
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 considered by the 111th Congress that would have affected the immunity of foreign officials (the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, S. 2930, 111th Cong.).
Date of Report: January 11, 2011
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.
Royce Crocker
Specialist in American National Government
On December 21, 2010, the number of seats allocated to each state for the House of Representatives was announced. This allocation likely will determine representation to the House for the next five Congresses.
The Constitution requires that states be represented in the House of Representatives in accord with their population. It also requires that each state have at least one Representative, and that there be no more than one Representative for every 30,000 persons. For the 2010 apportionment, this could have meant a House of Representatives as small as 50 or as large as 10,306 Representatives.
Apportioning seats in the House of Representatives among the states in proportion to state population as required by the Constitution appears on the surface to be a simple task. In fact, however, the Constitution presented Congress with issues that provoked extended and recurring debate. How many Representatives should the House comprise? How populous should congressional districts be? What is to be done with the practically inevitable fractional entitlement to a House seat that results when the calculations of proportionality are made? How is fairness of apportionment to be best preserved? Apportioning the House can be viewed as a system with four main variables: (1) the size of the House, (2) the population of the states, (3) the number of states, and (4) the method of apportionment.
Over the years since the ratification of the Constitution, the number of Representatives has varied, but in 1941 Congress resolved the issue by fixing the size of the House at 435 members. How to apportion those 435 seats, however, continued to be an issue because of disagreement over how to handle fractional entitlements to a House seat in a way that both met constitutional and statutory requirements and minimized inequity.
The intuitive method of apportionment is to divide the United States population by 435 to obtain an average number of persons represented by a member of the House. This is sometimes called the ideal size congressional district. Then a state’s population is divided by the ideal size to determine the number of Representatives to be allocated to that state. The quotient will be a whole number plus a remainder—say 14.489326. What is Congress to do with the 0.489326 fractional entitlement? Does the state get 14 or 15 seats in the House? Does one discard the fractional entitlement? Does one round up at the arithmetic mean of the two whole numbers? At the geometric mean? At the harmonic mean? Congress has used, or at least considered, several methods over the years.
Every method Congress has used or considered has its advantages and disadvantages, and none has been exempt from criticism. Under current law, however, seats are apportioned using the equal proportions method, which is not without its critics. Some charge that the equal proportions method is biased toward small states. They urge Congress to adopt either the major fractions or the Hamilton-Vinton method as more equitable alternatives. A strong mathematical case can be made for either equal proportions or major fractions. Deciding between them is a policy matter based on whether minimizing the differences in district sizes in absolute terms (through major fractions) or proportional terms (through equal proportions) is most preferred by Congress.
Date of Report: January 11, 2011
Number of Pages: 30
Order Number: R41357
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.
Posts
