Prosecution of Public Corruption: An Overview of Amendments Under H.R. 2572 and S. 2038

Charles Doyle
Senior Specialist in American Public Law

The House Judiciary Committee has approved an amended version of the Clean Up Government Act (H.R. 2572). The Senate has passed nearly identical provisions as Title II of the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act (S. 2038). Title II, however, was dropped from the bill prior to its enactment as P.L. 112-105, 126 Stat. 291 (2012). Among other things, Title II and H.R. 2572 would each: 

•         Expand the scope of federal mail and wire fraud statutes to reach undisclosed self-dealing by public officials—in response to Skilling. 

•         Amend the definition of official act for bribery purposes—to overcome the Valdes decision. 

•         Adjust the federal gratuities provision to reach “goodwill” gifts—in response to Sun Diamond. 

•         Increase the criminal penalties that attend various bribery, illegal gratuities, embezzlement statutes, and related provisions. 

•         Extend the statute of limitations from five to six years for several corruption offenses. 

•         Authorize the trial of perjury and obstruction charges in the district of the adversely effected judicial proceedings. 

•         Authorize the trial of multi-district cases in any district in which an act in furtherance is committed. 

•         Increase the number of public corruption offenses considered and wiretap predicate offenses. 

H.R. 2572, alone, would: 

•         Increase the maximum penalties under the federal bribery and illegal gratuities statute. 

•         Amend the federal law criminalizing the theft or embezzlement of federal property to include property of the District of Columbia. 

•         Limit the prosecution of bribery and illegal gratuity cases under 18 U.S.C. 201 to cases involving $1,000 or more. 

This report is available in an abridged version, as CRS Report R42015, Prosecution of Public Corruption: An Abridged Overview of Amendments Under H.R. 2572 and S. 2038, by Charles Doyle, which lacks the footnotes, attributions, and citations to authority found in this report. Related CRS Reports include CRS Report R40852, Deprivation of Honest Services as a Basis for Federal Mail and Wire Fraud Convictions, by Charles Doyle, and CRS Report R41930, Mail and Wire Fraud: A Brief Overview of Federal Criminal Law, by Charles Doyle.


Date of Report: April 11, 2012
Number of Pages: 25
Order Number: R42016
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.

International Travel by Congress: Legislation, Background, and Potential Policy Options

R. Eric Petersen, Coordinator
Specialist in American National Government

Terrence L. Lisbeth
Reference Assistant

Mabel Gracias
Reference Assistant

International travel by Members of Congress and their staff is an issue of long-standing interest among some members of the public, media outlets, and Members. Questions regarding the purposes and destinations of international travel by Congress frequently arise, as do questions about the ability to track the costs and benefits of such travel. There is no single source that identifies all international travel undertaken by the House or Senate, and no means to identify the number of trips taken, destinations visited, travelers, total costs, or costs paid for by funds appropriated to government entities other than Congress. This report provides information and analysis on the use of foreign currency expended in support of congressional travel to international destinations that is paid for with appropriated funds and authorized by the House or Senate; on measures related to international travel by Congress introduced in the 111th and 112th Congresses; and on potential options for Congress related to international travel by Members and staff. This report does not provide data on travel costs borne by executive agencies that support congressional travel, as those data are not publicly available.

Under current law, the use of foreign currency in conjunction with international travel by Congress must be disclosed. Those data were tabulated, and suggest that the number of disclosures filed in both chambers and expenditures have grown since 1993, but not in a consistent manner suggesting a readily identifiable pattern of activity. It cannot be determined from available data whether the increase is attributable to increased travel or use of foreign currency, decreased utilization of privately sponsored travel, or change in the manner in which the House or Senate document their use of foreign currency through the disclosure process.

In the 112th Congress, legislation has been introduced to study and change the manner in which such travel is authorized, funded, and disclosed. Measures include H.R. 2340, introduced by Representative Mike Quigley; H.R. 638 and H.R. 882, introduced by Representative Timothy V. Johnson; and S. 429, introduced by Senator Claire McCaskill.


Date of Report: March 29, 2012
Number of Pages: 30
Order Number: R41388
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.

Members’ Representational Allowance: History and Usage

Ida A. Brudnick
Specialist on the Congress

Members of the House of Representatives have one consolidated allowance, the Members’ Representational Allowance (MRA), with which to operate their offices. The MRA was first authorized in 1996 and was made subject to regulations and adjustments of the Committee on House Administration. Representatives have a high degree of flexibility to use the MRA to operate their offices in a way that supports their congressional duties and responsibilities, and individual office spending may be as varied as the districts Members represent.

In the 112th Congress, the House agreed to H.Res. 22, which reduced the amount authorized for salaries and expenses of Member, committee, and leadership offices in 2011 and 2012. This resolution, agreed to on January 6, 2011, stated that the MRA allowances for these years may not exceed 95% of the amount established for 2010. The FY2011 and FY2012 appropriations acts (P.L. 112-10 and P.L. 112-74) also reduced the appropriation.

Information on individual office spending is published in the quarterly Statements of Disbursement of the House. Following increased interest in the MRA, then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi in June 2009 directed the then-Chief Administrative Officer to make future statements available on the website of the House of Representatives. The initial release, which was made available on November 30, 2009, contained information on spending for the quarter ending September 30, 2009. Subsequent Statements have also been made available at http://disbursements.house.gov/.

In addition to recurring administrative provisions in the annual appropriations acts requiring amounts remaining in the MRA be used for deficit reduction or to reduce the federal debt, numerous bills and resolutions addressing the MRA have been introduced. This legislation has generally fallen into three major categories: (1) attempts to change the MRA procedure or regulate, authorize, or encourage the use of funds for a particular purpose; (2) stand-alone legislation that would govern the use of unexpended balance, including language to require these funds to go toward deficit reduction; and (3) bills that would limit or change the growth of overall MRA or adjustment among Members.

This report provides a history and overview of the MRA and examines spending patterns over three years—2005, 2006, and 2007. The data exclude non-voting Members, including Delegates and the Resident Commissioner. Members who were not in Congress for all of the first session of a Congress, whether the Member left Congress prior to the end of the year or entered any time after the beginning of the session, were also excluded. Similarly, Members who were not sworn in at the beginning of the Congress or did not remain until the end of the second session were not included in the analysis of the second session. This limitation resulted in data analyzing 431 Members for 2005, 426 for 2006, and 427 for 2007. Information is provided on total spending and spending for various categories, including personnel compensation; personnel benefits; travel; rent, utilities, and communications; printing and reproduction; other services; supplies and materials; transportation of things; equipment; and franked mail. The data collected demonstrate that, despite variations when considering all Members, many Members allocate their spending in a similar manner.


Date of Report: April 13, 2012
Number of Pages: 19
Order Number: R40962
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.

Federalism Issues in Surface Transportation Policy: Past and Present

Robert Jay Dilger
Senior Specialist in American National Government

American federalism, which shapes the roles, responsibilities, and interactions among and between the federal government, the states, and local governments, is continuously evolving, adapting to changes in American society and American political institutions. The nature of federalism relationships in surface transportation policy has also evolved over time, with the federal government’s role becoming increasingly influential, especially since the Federal-Aid to Highway Act of 1956, which authorized the interstate highway system. In recent years, state and local government officials, through their public interest groups (especially the National Governors Association, National Conference of State Legislatures, National Association of Counties, National League of Cities, U.S. Conference of Mayors, and American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials), have lobbied for increased federal assistance for surface transportation grants and increased flexibility in the use of those funds. They contend that they are better able to identify surface transportation needs in their states than federal officials and are capable of administering federal grant funds with relatively minimal federal oversight. They also argue that states have a long history of learning from one another. In their view, providing states flexibility in the use of federal funds results in better surface transportation policy because it enables states to experiment with innovative solutions to surface transportation problems and then share their experiences with other states. Others argue that the federal government has a responsibility to ensure that federal funds are used in the most efficient and effective manner possible to promote the national interest in expanding national economic growth and protecting the environment. In their view, providing states increased flexibility in the use of federal funds diminishes the federal government’s ability to ensure that national needs are met. Still others have argued for a fundamental restructuring of federal and state government responsibilities in surface transportation policy, with some responsibilities devolved to states and others remaining with the federal government.

Congressional attention to federalism issues in surface transportation policy tends to increase during reauthorizations of the federal highway and mass transit program. The current highway and mass transit program, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA; P.L. 109-59), after being extended nine times, is set to expire on June 30, 2012. Its reauthorization is expected to generate considerable legislative activity during the 112th Congress. Issues addressed by Congress in the recent past, and expected to receive continued attention, include SAFETEA’s funding level and financing, especially proposals addressing the Highway Trust Fund’s fiscal sustainability, state funding guarantees, and congressional earmarks.

This report provides an historical perspective on contemporary federalism issues in surface transportation policy that are likely to be addressed by Congress during the 112th Congress, including possible devolution of programmatic responsibility to states and proposals to change state maintenance-of-effort requirements and state cost matching requirements.


Date of Report: April 10, 2012
Number of Pages: 41
Order Number: R40431
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.

Franking Privilege: Historical Development and Options for Change

Matthew Eric Glassman
Analyst on the Congress

The franking privilege, which allows Members of Congress to transmit mail matter under their signature without postage, has existed in the United States since colonial times. During the 18th and 19th centuries, the franking privilege served a fundamental democratic role, allowing Members of Congress to convey information to their constituents about the operations of government and policy matters before Congress. Conversely, it also provided a mechanism for citizens to communicate their feelings and concerns to Members (prior to 1873, Members could both send and receive mail under the frank). Congress has also occasionally granted the privilege to various executive branch officers and others. Although the rise of alternative methods of communication in the late 19th and early 20th centuries have arguably reduced the democratic necessity of franking, Members of Congress continue today to use the frank to facilitate communication with their constituents.

The franking privilege has carried an element of controversy throughout American history. During the 19th century, the privilege was commonly attacked as financially wasteful and subject to widespread abuse through its use for other than official business. Although concerns about cost and abuse continued in the 20th century, strong criticism of the franking privilege developed regarding the use of the frank as an influence in congressional elections and the perceived advantage it gives incumbent Members running for reelection. Contemporary opponents of the franking privilege continue to express concerns about both its cost and its effect on congressional elections.

In attempting to balance a democratic need for the franking privilege against charges of abuse, Congress has routinely amended the franking statutes. In general, the franking privileges granted to Members at any given point in time can be defined by five dimensions: who is entitled to frank mail, what is entitled to be franked, how much material can be sent, where franked material can be sent, and when franked material be sent. Historically, changes to the franking privilege typically have not altered all of these dimensions at once, resulting in a wide variety of legislative arrangements of the franking privilege. Similarly, proposed options for future legislative changes may involve altering some, but not all, of these dimensions.

This report will be updated as legislative action warrants. See also CRS Report RS22771, Congressional Franking Privilege: Background and Recent Legislation, by Matthew Eric Glassman; CRS Report RL34188, Congressional Official Mail Costs, by Matthew Eric Glassman; and CRS Report R40569, Election Year Restrictions on Mass Mailings by Members of Congress: How H.R. 2056 Would Change Current Law, by Matthew Eric Glassman.


Date of Report: March 30, 2012
Number of Pages: 26
Order Number: RL34274
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.