Jennifer E. Manning
Information Research Specialist
Written for congressional staff, this report identifies and provides details on how to obtain official government sources of information on the legislative process and the rules and procedure of the House and Senate. References to selected CRS products are also provided, as well as a listing of selected titles for supplementary reading. Information is offered on the CRS legislative institutes.
Date of Report: July 27, 2011
Number of Pages: 10
Order Number: RS21363
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.
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA): Background and Policy Options for the 112thCongress
Wendy Ginsberg
Analyst in American National Government
The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA; 5 U.S.C. §552) enables any person to access—without explanation or justification—certain existing, identifiable, unpublished, executive branch agency records. Pursuant to FOIA, the public has presumptive access to requested agency records unless the material falls within any of FOIA’s nine categories of exemption from disclosure. Disputes over the accessibility of requested records can be appealed administratively or ultimately settled in court.
FOIA is a widely used tool of inquiry and information gathering for various sectors of American society—including the press, businesses, scholars, attorneys, consumers, and activists. Agency responses to FOIA requests may involve a few sheets of paper, several linear feet of records, or information in an electronic format. Assembling responses requires staff time, search time, and duplication efforts, among other resource commitments. Agency information management professionals are responsible for efficiently and economically responding to, or denying, FOIA requests.
FOIA was enacted in 1966, after 11 years of investigation and legislative development in the House, and nearly six years of consideration in the Senate. The perception that FOIA implementation at agencies was not being implemented properly has resulted in amendments in 1974, 1976, 1986, 1996, 2007, and 2010. Among the requirements in the OPEN Government Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-175), was the creation of an Office of Government Information Services (OGIS) within the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). The office was established to review FOIA design and implementation and recommend ways to improve the statute and offer mediation services between requesters and agencies as an alternative to litigation.
The Obama Administration issued a memorandum that requires agencies to reduce their backlog of FOIA requests by 10% per year. Additionally, the Department of Justice launched FOIA.gov, an online database that gives users access to interactive tools to examine agencies’ annual reports on FOIA implementation.
The 112th Congress has examined FOIA implementation at three hearings—two in the House and one in the Senate. Among the issues discussed at the hearings were concerns about a growing number of statutory exemptions to FOIA, the value of President Barack Obama’s decision to make public White House visitor logs, and concerns over whether political appointees were improperly vetting FOIA responses at a federal agency.
Companion bills, known as the Faster FOIA of 2011, have been introduced in the 112th Congress. The bills (H.R. 1564 and S. 627) seek to create a 12-member commission that would examine the implementation of FOIA and recommend ways to reduce processing delays and improve FOIA administration. The 112th Congress may choose to clarify whether photographs taken of Osama Bin Laden’s death should be exempted from public release or whether White House visitor logs should be released to the public. Moreover, the 112th Congress may decide to continue its oversight of agency implementation of FOIA, including whether each executive branch agency is responding properly to requests within appropriate amounts of time.
This report discusses FOIA’s history, examines its implementation, and provides potential policy approaches for Congress.
Date of Report: July 26, 2011
Number of Pages: 27
Order Number: R41933
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.
Analyst in American National Government
The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA; 5 U.S.C. §552) enables any person to access—without explanation or justification—certain existing, identifiable, unpublished, executive branch agency records. Pursuant to FOIA, the public has presumptive access to requested agency records unless the material falls within any of FOIA’s nine categories of exemption from disclosure. Disputes over the accessibility of requested records can be appealed administratively or ultimately settled in court.
FOIA is a widely used tool of inquiry and information gathering for various sectors of American society—including the press, businesses, scholars, attorneys, consumers, and activists. Agency responses to FOIA requests may involve a few sheets of paper, several linear feet of records, or information in an electronic format. Assembling responses requires staff time, search time, and duplication efforts, among other resource commitments. Agency information management professionals are responsible for efficiently and economically responding to, or denying, FOIA requests.
FOIA was enacted in 1966, after 11 years of investigation and legislative development in the House, and nearly six years of consideration in the Senate. The perception that FOIA implementation at agencies was not being implemented properly has resulted in amendments in 1974, 1976, 1986, 1996, 2007, and 2010. Among the requirements in the OPEN Government Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-175), was the creation of an Office of Government Information Services (OGIS) within the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). The office was established to review FOIA design and implementation and recommend ways to improve the statute and offer mediation services between requesters and agencies as an alternative to litigation.
The Obama Administration issued a memorandum that requires agencies to reduce their backlog of FOIA requests by 10% per year. Additionally, the Department of Justice launched FOIA.gov, an online database that gives users access to interactive tools to examine agencies’ annual reports on FOIA implementation.
The 112th Congress has examined FOIA implementation at three hearings—two in the House and one in the Senate. Among the issues discussed at the hearings were concerns about a growing number of statutory exemptions to FOIA, the value of President Barack Obama’s decision to make public White House visitor logs, and concerns over whether political appointees were improperly vetting FOIA responses at a federal agency.
Companion bills, known as the Faster FOIA of 2011, have been introduced in the 112th Congress. The bills (H.R. 1564 and S. 627) seek to create a 12-member commission that would examine the implementation of FOIA and recommend ways to reduce processing delays and improve FOIA administration. The 112th Congress may choose to clarify whether photographs taken of Osama Bin Laden’s death should be exempted from public release or whether White House visitor logs should be released to the public. Moreover, the 112th Congress may decide to continue its oversight of agency implementation of FOIA, including whether each executive branch agency is responding properly to requests within appropriate amounts of time.
This report discusses FOIA’s history, examines its implementation, and provides potential policy approaches for Congress.
Date of Report: July 26, 2011
Number of Pages: 27
Order Number: R41933
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.
Monday, August 1, 2011
Membership of the 112th Congress: A Profile
Jennifer E. Manning
Information Research Specialist
This report presents a profile of the membership of the 112th Congress (2011-2012). Statistical information is included on selected characteristics of Members, including data on party affiliation, average age, occupation, education, length of congressional service, religious affiliation, gender, ethnicity, foreign births, and military service.
Currently, in the House of Representatives there are 240 Republicans, 199 Democrats (including 5 Delegates and the Resident Commissioner), and 2 vacant seats. The Senate has 47 Republicans, 51 Democrats, and 2 Independents, who caucus with the Democrats.
The average age of Members of the House at the beginning of the 112th Congress was 56.7 years; and of Senators, 62.2 years. The overwhelming majority of Members have a college education. The dominant professions of Members are public service/politics, business, and law. Protestants collectively constitute the majority religious affiliation of Members. Roman Catholics account for the largest single religious denomination, and numerous other affiliations are represented.
The average length of service for Representatives at the beginning of the 112th Congress was 9.8 years (4.9 terms); for Senators, 11.4 years (1.9 terms).
Ninety-three women serve in the 112th Congress: 76 in the House, including 3 Delegates, and 17 in the Senate. There are 44 African American Members of the House (a record number) and none in the Senate. This House number includes two Delegates. There are 28 Hispanic or Latino Members serving: 26 in the House, including the Resident Commissioner, and 2 in the Senate. Thirteen Members (nine Representatives, two Delegates, and two Senators) are Asian or Native Hawaiian/other Pacific Islander. The only American Indian (Native American) serves in the House.
The portions of this report covering political party affiliation, gender, ethnicity, and vacant seats will be updated as events warrant. The remainder of the report will not be updated.
Date of Report: July 19, 2011
Number of Pages: 11
Order Number: R41647
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.
The State of Campaign Finance Policy: Recent Developments and Issues for Congress
R. Sam Garrett
Specialist in American National Government
For decades, Congress, regulatory agencies, and courts have emphasized the need to reduce potential corruption by providing public disclosure of information about campaign contributions and expenditures. Preventing corruption and enhancing transparency remain prominent themes in campaign finance policy, but what those goals mean and how they should be accomplished appears to be in flux.
Minor and major changes have occurred in campaign finance policy since 2002, when Congress substantially amended campaign finance law via the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA). More recently, the Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. FEC and a related lowercourt decision, SpeechNow.org v. FEC, arguably represent the most fundamental changes to campaign finance law in decades. During the 111th Congress, the House responded by enacting the DISCLOSE Act (H.R. 5175; S. 3295; S. 3628). The Senate declined to do so.
Campaign finance issues continue developing in Congress, at regulatory agencies, and in the courts. In January 2011, the House passed legislation (H.R. 359) that would repeal the presidential public financing program. The House and Senate have held hearings on two campaign finance issues. First, S. 750 (see also S. 749 and H.R. 1404) is the latest version of the Fair Elections Now Act (FENA), which would publicly finance Senate campaigns. The Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights held a hearing on the bill in April 2011. Second, amid reports of a possible Obama Administration executive order that would require additional disclosure of government contractors’ spending surrounding elections, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and Committee on Small Business held a joint hearing in May 2011. Amendments to unrelated bills (H.R. 1540; H.R. 2017; and H.R. 2354) that passed the House in May, June, and July 2011, respectively, contain provisions reportedly developed in response to the possible draft executive order. In addition, the Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on Elections, held an April 2011 hearing on H.R. 672. That measure proposes to eliminate the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) and transfer some functions to the Federal Election Commission (FEC). Finally, in June 2011, the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision in Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC et al. v. Bennett. The Court invalidated Arizona’s use of matching funds for publicly financed candidates. The opinion is most relevant for state public financing programs but may shape federal policy options.
Fundraising and spending in the 2010 election cycle suggest that previously prohibited sources and amounts of funds will continue to be a factor in federal elections. Activities by independentexpenditure- only political action committees (super PACs) and tax-exempt organizations that are typically not political committees (e.g., Internal Revenue Code 501(c) and 527 organizations) may be particularly prominent.
Despite recent changes, some aspects of campaign finance policy remain unchanged. Presidential public financing and the FEC may require congressional attention regardless of more recent developments. As Congress decides whether to revisit law surrounding political campaigns, it may be appropriate to take stock of the current landscape and to examine what has changed, what has not, and what policy options might be relevant. This report provides a starting point for doing so. It also provides comments on how those events might affect future policy considerations.
Date of Report: July 18, 2011
Number of Pages: 28
Order Number: R41542
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.
The Debate Over Selected Presidential Assistants and Advisors: Appointment, Accountability, and Congressional Oversight
Barbara L. Schwemle
Analyst in American National Government
Todd B. Tatelman
Legislative Attorney
Vivian S. Chu
Legislative Attorney
Henry B. Hogue
Analyst in American National Government
A number of the appointments made by President Barack Obama to his Administration or by Cabinet secretaries to their departments have been referred to, especially by the news media, as “czars.” For some, the term is being used to quickly convey an appointee’s title (e.g., climate “czar”) in shorthand. For others, it is being used to convey a sense that power is being centralized in the White House or certain entities. When used in the political-science literature, the term generally refers to White House policy coordination or an intense focus by the appointee on an issue of great magnitude. Congress has taken note of these appointments; several Members have introduced legislation or sent letters to President Obama to express their concerns. Legislation introduced in the 112th Congress includes H.R. 59, the Sunset All Czars Act, and H.Con.Res. 3, expressing the Sense of Congress on “czars.” Section 2262 of P.L. 112-10, the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011, enacted on April 15, 2011, prohibits the use of funds to pay the salaries and expenses for the Director of the White House Office of Health Reform; Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change; Senior Advisor to the Secretary of the Treasury assigned to the Presidential Task Force on the Auto Industry and Senior Counselor for Manufacturing Policy; and White House Director of Urban Affairs. On June 22, 2011, Senator David Vitter introduced an amendment (S.Amdt. 499) to S. 679, the Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act of 2011, that would have ended the appointments of presidential czars who have not been subject to the advice and consent of the Senate and prohibited the use of funds for any salaries and expenses for appointed czars. The amendment was not agreed to on a vote of 47-51 (Record No. 95) on June 23, 2011. Section 632 of H.R. 2434, the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2012, as reported by the House Committee on Appropriations on July 7, 2011, would prohibit the use of funds to pay the salaries and expenses for the White House Director of the Office of Health Reform, or any substantially similar position; Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change, or any substantially similar position; Senior Advisor to the Secretary of the Treasury assigned to the Presidential Task Force on the Auto Industry and Senior Counselor for Manufacturing Policy, or any substantially similar position; and White House Director of Urban Affairs, or any substantially similar position. The Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, and the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs conducted hearings on the “czar” issue in the 111th Congress on October 6, 2009, and October 22, 2009, respectively. A summary of the hearings is included in this report.
One issue of interest to Congress may be whether some of these appointments (particularly some of those to the White House Office), made outside of the advice and consent process of the Senate, circumvent the Constitution. A second issue of interest may be whether the activities of such appointees are subject to oversight by, and accountable to, Congress. This report provides brief background information and selected views on the role of some of these appointees and discusses selected appointments in the Obama Administration. Additionally, it discusses some of the constitutional concerns that have been raised about presidential advisors. These include, for example, the kinds of positions that qualify as the type that must be filled in accordance with the Appointments Clause, with a focus on examining a few existing positions established by statute, executive order, and regulation. The report also reviews certain congressional oversight processes and assesses the applicability of these processes to presidential advisors. Legislative and nonlegislative options for congressional consideration are presented. Table A-1 in the Appendix lists selected legislation introduced in the 111th and 112th Congresses that is related to the issues discussed in this report. This report will be updated as circumstances dictate.
Date of Report: July 19, 2011
Number of Pages: 87
Order Number: R40856
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.
Analyst in American National Government
Todd B. Tatelman
Legislative Attorney
Vivian S. Chu
Legislative Attorney
Henry B. Hogue
Analyst in American National Government
A number of the appointments made by President Barack Obama to his Administration or by Cabinet secretaries to their departments have been referred to, especially by the news media, as “czars.” For some, the term is being used to quickly convey an appointee’s title (e.g., climate “czar”) in shorthand. For others, it is being used to convey a sense that power is being centralized in the White House or certain entities. When used in the political-science literature, the term generally refers to White House policy coordination or an intense focus by the appointee on an issue of great magnitude. Congress has taken note of these appointments; several Members have introduced legislation or sent letters to President Obama to express their concerns. Legislation introduced in the 112th Congress includes H.R. 59, the Sunset All Czars Act, and H.Con.Res. 3, expressing the Sense of Congress on “czars.” Section 2262 of P.L. 112-10, the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011, enacted on April 15, 2011, prohibits the use of funds to pay the salaries and expenses for the Director of the White House Office of Health Reform; Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change; Senior Advisor to the Secretary of the Treasury assigned to the Presidential Task Force on the Auto Industry and Senior Counselor for Manufacturing Policy; and White House Director of Urban Affairs. On June 22, 2011, Senator David Vitter introduced an amendment (S.Amdt. 499) to S. 679, the Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act of 2011, that would have ended the appointments of presidential czars who have not been subject to the advice and consent of the Senate and prohibited the use of funds for any salaries and expenses for appointed czars. The amendment was not agreed to on a vote of 47-51 (Record No. 95) on June 23, 2011. Section 632 of H.R. 2434, the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2012, as reported by the House Committee on Appropriations on July 7, 2011, would prohibit the use of funds to pay the salaries and expenses for the White House Director of the Office of Health Reform, or any substantially similar position; Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change, or any substantially similar position; Senior Advisor to the Secretary of the Treasury assigned to the Presidential Task Force on the Auto Industry and Senior Counselor for Manufacturing Policy, or any substantially similar position; and White House Director of Urban Affairs, or any substantially similar position. The Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, and the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs conducted hearings on the “czar” issue in the 111th Congress on October 6, 2009, and October 22, 2009, respectively. A summary of the hearings is included in this report.
One issue of interest to Congress may be whether some of these appointments (particularly some of those to the White House Office), made outside of the advice and consent process of the Senate, circumvent the Constitution. A second issue of interest may be whether the activities of such appointees are subject to oversight by, and accountable to, Congress. This report provides brief background information and selected views on the role of some of these appointees and discusses selected appointments in the Obama Administration. Additionally, it discusses some of the constitutional concerns that have been raised about presidential advisors. These include, for example, the kinds of positions that qualify as the type that must be filled in accordance with the Appointments Clause, with a focus on examining a few existing positions established by statute, executive order, and regulation. The report also reviews certain congressional oversight processes and assesses the applicability of these processes to presidential advisors. Legislative and nonlegislative options for congressional consideration are presented. Table A-1 in the Appendix lists selected legislation introduced in the 111th and 112th Congresses that is related to the issues discussed in this report. This report will be updated as circumstances dictate.
Date of Report: July 19, 2011
Number of Pages: 87
Order Number: R40856
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
