Charles Doyle
Senior Specialist in American Public Law
Federal law requires a sentencing judge to impose a minimum sentence of
imprisonment following conviction for any of a number of federal offenses.
Congress has created two exceptions. One is available in all cases when
the prosecutor asserts that the defendant has provided substantial
assistance in the criminal investigation or prosecution of another, 18 U.S.C. 3553(e).
The other, commonly referred to as the safety value, is available, without the government’s
approval, for a handful of the more commonly prosecuted drug trafficking and unlawful
possession offenses that carry minimum sentences, 18 U.S.C. 3553(f).
Qualification for the substantial assistance exception is ordinarily only
possible upon the motion of the government. In rare cases, the court may compel
the government to file such a motion when the defendant can establish that
the refusal to do so was based on constitutionally invalid considerations,
or was in derogation of a plea bargain obligation or was the product of bad
faith.
Qualification for the safety valve exception requires a defendant to satisfy
five criteria. His past criminal record must be minimal; he must not have
been a leader, organizer, or supervisor in the commission of the offense;
he must not have used violence in the commission or the offense, and the
offense must not have resulted in serious injury; and prior to sentencing, he
must tell the government all that he knows of the offense and any related
misconduct.
Congress has instructed the United States Sentencing Commission to report on
the operation of federal mandatory minimum sentencing provisions. A majority of
the federal judges responding to a Commission survey agree that the two
exceptions should be expanded. A number of Commission hearing witnesses
have also urged that the provisions be amended. The Commission’s report
suggested that Congress consider expanding the safety valve to cover other offenses
and to reach offenders with a slightly more extensive criminal record.
Date of Report: October 21, 2013
Number of Pages: 14
Order Number: R41326
Price: $29.95
To Order:
R41326 .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
Matthew Eric Glassman
Analyst on the Congress
In the Senate a biennial funding process applies to all Senate committees
except Appropriations and Ethics, which have permanent authorizations for
their staff and operating expenses. The Senate Committee on Rules and
Administration has jurisdiction over committee funding resolutions and
issues regulations governing committee funding and staff.
On March 5, 2013, the Senate adopted by unanimous consent S.Res. 64,
authorizing expenditures by Senate committees for the period March 1,
2013, through September 30, 2013. On October 3, 2013, the Senate adopted
by unanimous consent S.Res. 253, authorizing expenditures by Senate committees
for the period October 1, 2013, through September 30, 2014, and for the period October
1, 2014, through February 28, 2015.
This report, which provides committee funding requests and authorizations for
Senate committees in the 106th through 113th Congresses, will be updated as warranted.
Date of Report: October 17, 2013
Number of Pages: 20
Order Number: R40424
Price: $29.95
To Order:
R40424 .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
Kevin Coleman
Analyst in Elections
Eric A. Fischer
Senior Specialist in Science and Technology
The deadlocked November 2000 presidential election focused national
attention on previously obscure details of election administration. Even
before the U.S. Supreme Court had resolved the election in December,
numerous bills to address the failings of the election system were introduced
in Congress and state legislatures. The response at the federal level was the
Help America Vote Act (HAVA; P.L. 107-252), enacted in 2002. HAVA created
the Election Assistance Commission (EAC), established a set of election
administration requirements, and provided federal funding, but did not
supplant state and local control over election administration. Several reform
issues have arisen or persisted in the years since HAVA was enacted. This
report provides background information about HAVA and its provisions, the EAC,
funding for the agency and for state programs to improve elections, and a
number of enduring election administration issues.
With respect to the newly created EAC, some observers have criticized it for
being too obtrusive, or for being slow, ineffectual, or even unnecessary.
Others believe that the agency is an important resource for improving the
administration of elections and has been hampered by budgetary constraints
and difficulties in the nomination process for commissioners. In terms of
election administration, HAVA promoted the use of electronic voting
systems to facilitate voting by persons with disabilities, which
subsequently raised concerns about security and reliability and led many
states to require voter-verifiable paper ballot records. Similarly, HAVA’s
voter identification provisions did not resolve the controversy over whether
more stringent requirements are needed to prevent voter fraud, or whether
such requirements are more likely to disenfranchise legitimate voters.
Finally, while HAVA’s voter-registration requirement may have improved
that process, some have argued for more automated systems in the years since
the requirement took effect.
Altogether, more than $3.5 billion of HAVA funds were appropriated through
FY2010: about $3.14 billion in election reform payments to states, $130
million for the EAC and its programs, and $130 million in accessibility
payments to states, administered by the Department of Health and Human
Services. Numerous bills to amend HAVA have been considered in Congress, but none
have been enacted. Two bills relevant to the EAC’s status were introduced in
the 112th Congress. H.R. 3463 was passed in the House in December 2011 and would
have eliminated the EAC, transferred its responsibilities to the Federal
Election Commission (FEC), and terminated the program that provides taxpayer
financing of presidential election campaigns. No further action occurred
on that bill. Another bill concerning the EAC, H.R. 1937, would have extended authorization
of the agency through FY2016, made adjustments to EAC programs and activities, and
required the Government Accountability Office to analyze ways to improve the
agency.
Thus far in the 113th Congress, two bills (H.R. 260 and H.R. 1994) have been introduced to eliminate
the EAC and two (H.R. 12 and H.R. 2017) have been introduced that would extend authorization
of the agency for five years.
Date of Report: October 21, 2013
Number of Pages: 17
Order Number: RS20898
Price: $29.95
To Order:
RS20898 .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
Posts
