Executive Compensation at the U. S. Postal Service: Issues for the 112th Congress

Wendy Ginsberg
Analyst in American National Government

Jaclyn Petruzzelli
Research Associate

Media reports and some Members of Congress have expressed concerns that the pay of U.S. Postal Service (USPS) executives is too high and should be reduced. USPS and others have argued that current compensation rates are needed to attract talented employees to a Postal Service that delivers mail and packages to homes and businesses throughout the United States without taxpayer assistance.

The 112th Congress has taken action on two bills that would limit USPS executive compensation or benefits. S. 1789 would remove certain “fringe benefits” and cap pay at Level I of the Executive Schedule ($199,700 in 2012). H.R. 2309 would prohibit Postal Service executives from receiving bonuses in years when USPS expenses eclipsed revenues and cap pay at Executive Schedule Level I in certain years.

This report examines the authorities governing executive compensation at USPS. It examines pay rates for other public-sector employees as well as certain private-sector employees to analyze how the pay of the Postmaster General and other Postal Service executives might compare.

At the end of FY2011, USPS employed 645,950 people. Within that total is a cadre of Postal Career Executive Service (PCES) employees. As of May 18, 2012, USPS had 640 PCES employees. The cadre is divided into two categories: executives and officers. Executives, of which there were 604, perform duties such as district manager or bulk-mail center manager. Officers, of which there were 36, serve at the pleasure of the Postmaster General (PMG) and include senior-level positions like area vice presidents and the Deputy Postmaster General.

PCES employees and the Postmaster General are paid pursuant to specific statutory authorities. Pay for PCES employees is capped at $276,840 in FY2012. A Postal Executive may earn more than that statutory cap if he or she qualifies for a performance-based pay bonus. Pay earned in excess of the pay cap may be deferred and collected upon retirement. Three USPS officers currently receive deferred pay.

PCES officers and the PMG receive certain benefits that are not provided to other federal employees, like free life insurance, financial counseling, and parking. Additionally, PCES employees have no cap on the number of annual leave days they can accrue. Federal employees in the Senior Executive Service (outside of the Postal Service) cannot accrue more than 90 days of annual leave. Further, the PMG is provided a driver and security services pursuant to certain statutory provisions.


Date of Report: July 23, 2012
Number of Pages: 15
Order Number: R42623
Price: $29.95

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.

To Order:

R42623.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, 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.

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

State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2013 Budget and Appropriations

Susan B. Epstein
Specialist in Foreign Policy

Marian Leonardo Lawson
Analyst in Foreign Assistance

Alex Tiersky
Analyst in Foreign Affairs

The 112th Congress is considering FY2013 international affairs funding within the context of the Budget Control Act (P.L. 112-25) that established discretionary spending limits for FY2012- FY2021 and contains automatic budget reductions (sequestration) on discretionary spending to begin on January 2, 2013.

International affairs expenditures typically amount to about 1.5% of the total federal budget. While some foreign policy and defense experts view that share as a small price to pay for a robust foreign affairs budget that they believe is essential to meeting national security and foreign policy objectives, others see international affairs spending, particularly foreign aid, as an attractive target for significant spending cuts in order to reduce deficit spending. Many expect a delay in passing the FY2013 foreign affairs budget and most of the other appropriations bills until after the November 2012 elections (two months into the new fiscal year), which may have more to do with election year politics, however, than lawmakers’ differing views on foreign affairs spending.

On February 13, 2012, the Obama Administration submitted its FY2013 budget proposal. The FY2013 request totals $54.87 billion for the State-Foreign Operations appropriations, including a core budget proposal of $46.63 billion plus $8.24 billion for extraordinary and temporary warrelated Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) in frontline states. The total request represents an increase of 2.6% over the estimated FY2012 funding level for the foreign affairs accounts, including $18.8 billion (a 4.5% increase) for State Department and Related Agencies and $36.1 billion (a 0.1% increase) for Foreign Operations. Within the budget process, the Administration is requesting authority in addition to appropriations ($770 million) for a new account—the Middle East and North Africa Incentive Fund (MENA IF)—to provide flexible and transparent support for Arab Spring countries in transition toward democracy. The request includes $8.2 billion for the front line states of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan (including $800 million for the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund (PCCF), even though most previously enacted PCCF funding has not been disbursed and many lawmakers are voicing concern about U.S. relations with, and aid to, Pakistan. For other key accounts, the Administration is seeking $7.9 billion for the Global Health Programs (GHP) account, $770 million for global climate change activities, and $643 million for family planning and reproductive health activities, including $39 million for the controversial U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA).

Early action by the House and Senate appropriators demonstrates differing priorities and funding levels. The House Appropriations Committee-approved State-Foreign Operations FY2013 funding bill (H.R. 5857/H.Rept. 112-494) provides a total of $48.5 billion (including $8.3 billion in OCO and $160 million in rescissions), while the Senate Committee bill (S. 3241/S.Rept. 112- 172) provides a total of $52.3 billion (including $2.3 billion in OCO). Both House and Senate Committees provide more than requested for GHP, but differ significantly on funding MENA IF—the House committee provides no funding for it, and the Senate committee recommends $1 billion. The House bill provides $461 million for international family planning and reproductive health activities, prohibits funding for UNFPA, and includes a “Mexico City Policy” provision prohibiting funding for organizations that perform or promote abortions. In contrast, the Senate bill includes $700 million for international family planning, including $44.5 million for UNFPA, and does not include “Mexico City Policy” language.

Last year was the first time the Department of State requested and Congress appropriated OCO funds. Congress attempted to rein in FY2012 spending but still meet war-related costs in the front line states of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. As a result, Congress appropriated $11.2 billion in OCO funds, nearly 30% more than the $8.7 billion requested by the Administration. The estimated overall FY2012 total funding level of $53.5 billion was about 10% less than the Administration’s FY2012 request, but 10% more than the FY2011 total.

The State Department, Foreign Operations, and Related Agencies appropriations legislation, in addition to funding U.S. diplomatic and foreign aid activities, has been the primary legislative vehicle through which Congress reviews the U.S. international affairs budget and influences executive branch foreign policy making in recent years. (Congress has not addressed foreign policy issues through a complete authorization process for State Department diplomatic activities since 2003 and since 1985 for foreign aid programs.) After a period of reductions in the late 1980s and 1990s, funding for State Department operations, international broadcasting, and foreign aid rose steadily from FY2002 to FY2010, largely because of ongoing assistance to Iraq and Afghanistan, new global health programs, and increasing assistance to Pakistan. Funding declined by 11.6% in FY2011 when Congress passed a continuing resolution (P.L. 112-10) significantly reducing U.S. government-wide expenditures, including foreign affairs. The FY2012 funding represents a 2.3% increase from the previous year, largely reflecting OCO support for frontline states.

This report analyzes the FY2013 request and congressional action related to FY2013 State- Foreign Operations legislation. Updates will occur to reflect congressional actions.


Date of Report: July 23, 2012
Number of Pages: 37
Order Number: R42621
Price: $29.95

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.

To Order:

R42621.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, 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.

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

Midnight Rulemaking

Maeve P. Carey
Analyst in Government Organization and Management

During the final months of recent presidential administrations, federal agencies have increased the number of issued regulations. This phenomenon is often referred to as “midnight rulemaking.” Various scholars and public officials have documented evidence of midnight rulemaking by several recent outgoing administrations, especially for those outgoing administrations that will be replaced by an administration of a different party.

One possible explanation for the issuance of “midnight rules” is the desire of the outgoing administration to complete its work and achieve certain policy goals before the end of its term of office—what has been termed the “Cinderella effect.” Because it may be difficult to change or eliminate rules after they have taken effect, issuing midnight rules can also help ensure a legacy for a President. This may especially be true when a party change will occur in the White House.

At times, certain rules issued during the last few months of an administration have been considered by some as controversial. For example, before President William J. Clinton left office, his administration issued energy efficiency standards for washing machines and a rule setting ergonomics standards in the workplace. Shortly before the end of President George W. Bush’s second term concluded, his administration finalized rules allowing states to determine whether concealed firearms may be carried in national parks and giving agencies greater responsibility to determine when and how their actions may affect species under the Endangered Species Act.

On the other hand, a recent study for the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS) concluded that many midnight regulations were “relatively routine matters not implicating new policy initiatives by incumbent administrations,” and that the “majority of the rules appear to be the result of finishing tasks that were initiated before the Presidential transition period or the result of deadlines outside the agency’s control (such as year-end statutory or court-ordered deadlines).” The study cited some evidence of the strategic use of midnight rules to implement certain desired policies before leaving office, but in general, the study said that “the perception of midnight rulemaking as an unseemly practice is worse than the reality.”

In the 112th Congress, companion bills entitled the Midnight Rule Relief Act of 2012 (H.R. 4607 and S. 2368) were introduced by Representative Reid Ribble and Senator Ron Johnson. The Midnight Rule Relief Act would establish a moratorium on the proposal or issuance of certain types of rules during the period between a presidential election day and inauguration day of a President’s final term in office. The law would only apply in cases “in which a President is not serving a consecutive term.” The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform reported H.R. 4607 on June 1, 2012. S. 2368 was referred to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs upon introduction.

This report provides an overview of midnight rulemaking and discusses actions that recent outgoing and incoming administrations have taken pertaining to midnight rules. It explains how an incoming President could change or eliminate midnight rules, and provides options for congressional oversight of midnight rules.


Date of Report: July 18, 2012
Number of Pages: 18
Order Number: R42612
Price: $29.95

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.

To Order:

R42612.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, 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.

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

Drought in the United States: CRS Experts

Amy Abel
Section Research Manager

Drought is commonly defined as a lack of precipitation over an extended period of time, usually a season or more, relative to some long-term average condition. While the technology and science to predict droughts have improved, regional predictions remain limited to a few months in advance. History suggests that severe and extended droughts are inevitable and part of natural climate cycles. The physical conditions causing drought in the United States are increasingly understood to be linked to sea surface temperatures (SSTs) in the tropical Pacific Ocean. Some studies have suggested that human influences on climate, caused by emissions of greenhouse gases, may be responsible for a drying trend. Although the impacts of drought can be significant nationally as well as regionally, comprehensive national drought policy does not exist. Developing such a policy would represent a significant challenge because of split federal and non-federal responsibilities, the existing patchwork of federal drought programs, and differences in regional conditions and risks.


Date of Report: July 17, 2012
Number of Pages: 3
Order Number: R42610
Price: $19.95

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.

To Order:

R42610.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, 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.

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

Information Relating to the Implementation of Executive Order 13576, "Delivering an Efficient, Effective, and Accountable Government"

To: Honorable Tom Coburn

This memorandum responds to your request of June 7, 2012, regarding Executive Order (E.O.) 13576 related aspects of the Barack Obama Administration's "Campaign to Cut Waste" initiative.  The Campaign to Cut Waste initiative, which was announced on the same day as the executive order, was not specifically required by statute.  Rather, the imitative could be characterized as an administrative effort that follows from more general duties and responsibilities under law and use of available discretion by the President, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and agencies.

Date of Report: July 12, 2012
Number of Pages: 9
Order Number: M-0601212
Price: $19.95

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.

To Order:

M-0601212.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, 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.

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

Congressional Liaison Offices of Selected Federal Agencies

Audrey Celeste Crane-Hirsch
Information Research Specialist

This list of about 200 congressional liaison offices is intended to help congressional offices in placing telephone calls and addressing correspondence to government agencies. In each case, the information was supplied by the agency itself and is current as of the date of publication. Entries are arranged alphabetically in four sections: legislative branch; judicial branch; executive branch; and agencies, boards, and commissions.

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

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


Date of Report: July 17, 2012
Number of Pages: 39
Order Number: 98-446
Price: $29.95


Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.

To Order:

98-446.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, 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.

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

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD): FY2013 Appropriations

Maggie McCarty, Coordinator
Specialist in Housing Policy

Libby Perl
Specialist in Housing Policy

Katie Jones
Analyst in Housing Policy

Eugene Boyd
Analyst in Federalism and Economic Development Policy

The President’s FY2013 budget requests nearly $34 billion in net new budget authority for the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in FY2013. This is about $4 billion less than was provided in FY2012. However, in terms of new appropriations for HUD’s programs and activities, the President’s budget actually requests an increase of more than $512 million compared to FY2012. The difference—a decrease in net budget authority versus an increase in new appropriations—is attributable to an estimated increase in the amount of excess receipts available from the FHA insurance fund, which are used to offset the cost of the HUD budget. The President’s budget requests increases in funding for public housing and homelessness assistance grants. The President’s budget requests decreases in funding for the project-based Section 8 rental assistance program and several community development-related programs.

S. 2322, the Transportation, HUD, and Related Agencies FY2013 appropriations bill reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations, includes about $35 billion in net new budget authority for HUD. That is about $1 billion more than the President’s request and more than $2 billion less than was provided in FY2012. In terms of new appropriations for HUD’s programs and activities (not accounting for offsets), S. 2322 would provide about $1 billion more than the President’s request and $2 billion more than FY2012. The largest increase is provided for the project-based Section 8 rental assistance account.

The House Appropriations Committee passed its version of the FY2013 Transportation-HUD appropriations bill on June 19, 2012 (H.R. 5972). It includes $33.6 billion for HUD, which is less than the Senate but more than the President requested. The bill includes increased funding for the Community Development Block Grant program, but no new funding for the HOPE VI/Choice Neighborhoods program. H.R. 5972 was considered by the House the week of June 25, 2012, and was approved, as amended on June 29, 2012. An amendment added during floor consideration would prohibit the transfer and use of other department funds to carry out the activities of the Sustainable Communities Initiative (SCI) grant program.

On June 21, 2012, the Obama Administration released a Statement of Administration Policy on the bill expressing opposition to certain program funding levels in the House bill and objecting to the House’s overall discretionary funding level for FY2013. For these reasons, the statement said that the President’s advisors would recommend that he veto H.R. 5972.


Date of Report: July 10, 2012
Number of Pages: 26
Order Number: R42517
Price: $29.95
   
Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.

To Order:

R42517.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, 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.

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

Postal Service: Collective Bargaining

Thomas J. Nicola
Legislative Attorney

This report describes the scope of the collective bargaining authority that Congress has granted to the Postal Service and authority of Congress to modify employee-management relations by altering that scope or the terms of collective bargaining agreements. It also summarizes some provisions—H.R. 2309, the Postal Reform Act of 2011, and S. 1789, the 21st Century Postal Service Act of 2012, both of the 112th Congress—that relate to collective bargaining.


Date of Report: July 11, 2012
Number of Pages: 15
Order Number: R42491
Price: $29.95
 
Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.

To Order:

R42491.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, 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.

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

Sexual Abuse of Children: Federal Criminal Offenses

Richard M. Thompson II
Legislative Attorney

Over the past 100 years, Congress has sought to prohibit acts of sexual abuse of minors and punish those who harm the nation’s children. These efforts began in the early 20th century when Congress prohibited the transportation of a minor in interstate commerce for the purpose of sexual exploitation, and continue to more modern measures such as outlawing the use of the Internet to lure children for sexual purposes. Nevertheless, Congress’s power in this area does have constitutional limits.

The power to create criminal laws in the United States resides most broadly with the states. The states retain a general police power to regulate for the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens. By contrast, Congress may only act within its express and implied powers, including the power to legislate for federal enclaves and in areas within its enumerated powers (e.g., commerce, spending, taxing). Congress has exercised both strands of authority to criminalize sexual abuse of children.

Congress began outlawing sexual abuse of minors in 1910 with the Mann Act, which outlawed the use of a common carrier to transport a minor in interstate commerce for an illegal sexual purpose. In subsequent enactments, including the Sexual Exploitation of Children Act of 1977, the Sexual Abuse Act of 1986, and the Protection of Children from Sexual Predators Act of 1998, Congress increased penalty provisions (including repeat offender provisions), expanded jurisdictional clauses, and broadened the list of prohibited acts, including aggravating factors warranting an increased penalty.

Presently, federal sexual abuse law is a hierarchy based on the age of the victim and whether the act involved aggravating circumstances. The most serious offense is when a child is murdered during the commission of a sexual offense. The penalty is death or up to life imprisonment. The least serious is sexual contact (as opposed to a sexual act) with a minor at least 12 years of age but younger than 16. This crime requires no aggravating circumstances and carries a possible four-year maximum prison sentence. Between these two crimes falls a host of other offenses prohibiting sexual abuse or contact. These include sexual abuse of a child at least 12 years of age but younger than 16, sexual contact with a child under the age of 12 years, and use of the mail or other facility of interstate commerce to persuade a minor under the age of 18 to engage in an illegal sexual act.

Because much of the prohibited conduct in these statutes overlaps, courts must consider the lesser-included offense doctrine when handling sexual abuse cases. This doctrine permits a court to instruct the jury on not only the offense charged by the government, but also a lesser offense that is “necessarily included” in the charged offense. This doctrine has been used to aid the prosecution in obtaining a conviction when proof of the charged offense is insufficient, but also assists defendants by allowing the jury to convict on the lesser included offense.


Date of Report: July 13, 2012
Number of Pages: 18
Order Number: R42132
Price: $29.95

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.

To Order:

R42132.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, 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.

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

Super PACs in Federal Elections: Overview and Issues for Congress

R. Sam Garrett
Specialist in American National Government

Super PACs emerged after the U.S. Supreme Court permitted unlimited corporate and union spending on elections in January 2010 (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission). Although not directly addressed in that case, related, subsequent litigation (SpeechNow v. Federal Election Commission) and Federal Election Commission (FEC) activity gave rise to a new form of political committee. These entities, known as super PACs or independent-expenditure-only committees (IEOCs), have been permitted to accept unlimited contributions and make unlimited expenditures aimed at electing or defeating federal candidates. Super PACs may not contribute funds directly to federal candidates or parties.

This report explores what super PACs are, how they developed, what they raised and spent in the 2010 election cycle, and preliminary analysis of 2012 activity. As of this writing, Congress has not amended the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) to formally recognize the role of super PACs. No legislation introduced in the 112th Congress focuses specifically on super PACs, but some bills contain relevant provisions. H.R. 3585 (Price, N.C.) proposes new disclaimer requirements that would apply to ads funded by super PACs and other entities. The same is true for a revised version of the DISCLOSE Act, H.R. 4010 (Van Hollen), introduced in the House in February 2012. Two Senate companion measures (S. 2219; S. 3369) have been introduced by Senator Whitehouse. The DISCLOSE Act would also require additional funding disclosure that could affect super PACs. The FEC has issued advisory opinions, but has not yet approved regulations on the subject.

Despite limited policy action on super PACs, these new entities are quickly occupying a major place in federal elections. In just 10 months of operation in 2010, almost 80 super PACs emerged, spending a total of approximately $90 million—more than $60 million of which went to elect or defeat federal candidates through independent expenditures. Super PAC financial activities appear likely to be even more ambitious in 2012. More than 600 super PACs are currently registered with the FEC. Some of the most prominent such groups are reportedly staffed by operatives with close ties to 2012 presidential campaigns. The groups had spent more than $140 million for the 2012 cycle by July 2012. Various issues related to super PACs may be relevant as Congress considers how or whether to pursue legislation or oversight on the topic. These include relationships with other political committees and organizations, transparency, and independence from campaigns.

For those advocating their use, super PACs represent freedom for individuals, corporations, and unions to contribute as much as they wish for independent expenditures that advocate election or defeat of federal candidates. Opponents of super PACs contend that they represent a threat to the spirit of modern limits on campaign contributions designed to minimize potential corruption.


Date of Report: July 13, 2012
Number of Pages: 35
Order Number: R42042
Price: $29.95

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.

To Order:

R42042.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, 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.

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