Search Penny Hill Press

Thursday, October 31, 2013

Federal Mandatory Minimum Sentences: The Safety Valve and Substantial Assistance Exceptions


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

Wednesday, October 30, 2013

Senate Committee Expenditures Resolutions, 113th Congress, and Funding Authorizations Since 1999


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 106
th 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

The Help America Vote Act: Overview and Issues


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 112
th 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 113
th 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