U.S. Postal Service: Background and Analysis of H.R. 2309 and S. 1789 in the 112th Congress

Kevin R. Kosar
Analyst in American National Government

Since FY2007, the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) has lost more than $25 billion. Were it not for congressional action to reduce and defer statutorily required retiree health benefits, the USPS would have lost an additional $9.5 billion. As the USPS’s finances have deteriorated, its ability to absorb operating losses has been diminished. The USPS’s current debt is $13 billion, $2 billion below its maximum statutory borrowing authority. The agency owes $11.1 billion in payments to the Retiree Health Benefits Fund by September 20, 2012, and it currently has less than $1 billion in cash. These deficits are particularly problematic since Congress designed the Postal Service to be self-supporting in 1970 and enacted significant postal reforms in 2006.

To help stem its losses, the USPS has taken a number of steps. Foremost, the Postal Service has downsized its workforce through attrition. Since FY2006, the number of career postal workers has shrunk 21.9%, to about 544,000 from 696,138. However, the USPS has said it is unable to return to solvency through its own actions, and it has asked Congress to enact major reforms.

Numerous postal reform bills have been introduced in the 112th Congress; House and Senate appropriators and President Barack H. Obama also have advanced postal proposals. Among postal authorizing legislation, H.R. 2309 and S. 1789 have progressed the furthest toward enactment. The Senate passed S. 1789, the 21st Century Postal Service Act, on April 27, 2012. The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform reported H.R. 2309, the Postal Reform Act of 2011, on January 17, 2012, and the House Rules Committee reported H.R. 2309 on March 29, 2012. Both bills include major reforms, such as reductions in service, expansion of the USPS’s authority to provide products and services, and alterations to the postal employees pension and healthcare plans.

At present, the USPS appears to be suffering from both a short-term liquidity crisis (i.e., dwindling cash and borrowing authority) and a long-term structural deficit (i.e., stagnating revenues and rising overhead costs). To address both of these financial challenges, the USPS would have to (1) improve its liquidity immediately; (2) fortify its long-term revenues; and (3) control the growth of its long-term costs, all while (4) continuing to provide universal postal service to the public.

Both H.R. 2309 and S. 1789 contain provisions to make progress toward achieving each of these goals, albeit in different ways and to different degrees. H.R. 2309 would aim to reduce the USPS’s costs through reducing the number of delivery and postal facilities and enacting a variety of USPS compensation reforms. S. 1789 would largely preserve present-day postal services and enact a number of incremental cost-cutting policies, such as reducing the USPS workers’ compensation outlays.


Date of Report: July 9, 2012
Number of Pages: 16
Order Number: R42590
Price: $29.95

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

To Order:

R42590.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

The Article V Convention to Propose Constitutional Amendments: Contemporary Issues for Congress

Thomas H. Neale
Specialist in American National Government

Article V of the U.S. Constitution provides two methods of proposing amendments. First, Congress, with the approval of two-thirds of both houses, may propose amendments to the states for ratification, a procedure used to propose all 27 current amendments to the Constitution. Second, if the legislatures of two-thirds of the states (34 at present) apply, Congress shall call a convention for considering and proposing amendments. This alternative, known as an Article V Convention, has not been implemented to date. This report examines the Article V Convention method, focusing on contemporary issues for Congress. A companion report, CRS Report R42592, The Article V Convention for Proposing Constitutional Amendments: Historical Perspectives for Congress, examines this procedure’s constitutional origins; reviews the history of 20th century campaigns to call a convention; and provides an analysis of state procedures in the Article V Convention process.

After three decades of inactivity, various contemporary developments could contribute to a renewal of congressional interest in the Article V Convention alternative. The emergence of Internet and social media-driven public policy and issue campaigns has combined with renewed interest in specific constitutional amendments, and the Article V Convention procedure in general, as a means of bypassing perceived policy deadlock at the federal level. The Tea Party Movement, MoveOn.org, and Occupy Wall Street are cited as technology-driven issue advocacy groups that could provide a model for convention advocates. The Article V Convention concept enjoys support from several advocacy groups, and has been the subject of a recent academic conference and a range of “op-ed” articles publicizing the once-obscure alternative.

The Constitution provides only a brief description of the Article V Convention process, leaving many details that would need to be considered if a convention were to become a serious prospect. In the event an Article V Convention movement generated applications approaching the 34-state threshold, Congress would face a range of issues and questions in anticipation of a potential convention summons. Among these would be the following. Is Congress required to call a convention? What constitutes a legitimate convention summons from the states, and what authority does Congress have to decide this question? What sort of convention would it be: “general,” open to consider any issue, or “limited,” confined to a specific issue? Could a “runaway” convention propose amendments outside its mandate? Is Congress required to submit to the states any amendment proposed by an Article V Convention? Does Congress have the authority to establish procedures in anticipation of a convention; how has it addressed this issue in the past? What procedures does Congress follow when it receives states’ applications for a convention? How many delegates should a convention contain? How should the states vote? How long a term should the convention have? Could Senators and Representatives serve on an Article V Convention? Would a simple majority suffice to propose amendments, or is a super-majority appropriate? What would be the role of the District of Columbia, U.S. territories, and other associated jurisdictions? Would the President have any role in the convention?

Notwithstanding the scope of these questions, if it were called on to summon a convention, Congress could consult a wide range of information resources in fashioning its response. These include the original intent of the founders as preserved in the constitutional record; the broad range of scholarly works cited in this report and elsewhere; historical examples and precedents; and the work and products of two decades of serious congressional examination, from the 1970s through the 1990s, of the question of an Article V Convention.


Date of Report: July 9, 2012
Number of Pages: 36
Order Number: R42589
Price: $29.95

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

To Order:

R42589.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

The Definition of “Supervisor” Under the National Labor Relations Act

Gerald Mayer
Analyst in Labor Policy

Jon O. Shimabukuro
Legislative Attorney

The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) establishes certain protections for private sector employees who want to form or join a labor union. These protections do not extend to supervisors. Historically, Congress has debated where to draw the line between employees who have different levels of management responsibility. It is generally agreed that employees who have significant supervisory duties, such as hiring and firing, are supervisors. However, disagreement occurs with respect to employees who have minor supervisory duties.

In 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the test administered by the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or the “Board”) to determine whether an employee is a supervisor was inconsistent with the NLRA. In response to NLRB v. Kentucky River Community Care, Inc., the Board issued a September 2006 decision in Oakwood Healthcare, Inc. in which it established new definitions for three key terms that are used to identify supervisors for purposes of the NLRA: to “assign” and “responsibly to direct” employees and to exercise “independent judgment.”

Applying the new definitions, the NLRB concluded that 12 permanent charge nurses employed by Oakwood Healthcare were supervisors. The Board found that the nurses exercised independent judgment in assigning employees to patients and assigning overall tasks to other employees. However, the Board found that none of the charge nurses at Oakwood Healthcare responsibly directed other employees.

In the 112th Congress, Senator Richard Blumenthal introduced the Re-Empowerment of Skilled and Professional Employees and Construction Tradesworkers (RESPECT) Act (S. 2168). The legislation was also introduced in the 110th Congress by Representative Robert Andrews and Senator Chris Dodd (H.R. 1644/S. 969).

The RESPECT Act would narrow the definition of the term “supervisor” in the NLRA. The legislation would eliminate “assign” and “responsibly to direct” from the current definition of supervisor in the NLRA. In addition, the act would add a limiting phrase to the definition of supervisor. Under the act, employees would be classified as supervisors if they are engaged in supervisory activities more than 50% of the time. Currently, an employee may be classified as a supervisor if the employee acts as a supervisor for at least 10%-15% of the employee’s worktime. This change would reduce the number of employees who are classified as supervisors and, therefore, increase the number of employees protected by the NLRA

The RESPECT Act, if it were enacted, may have a significant impact on foremen. In 1947, the Supreme Court upheld the position that the Board followed at the time that supervisors were included in the definition of employee. In response, Congress amended the NLRA to exclude supervisors from the definition of employee. The new definition was included in the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (P.L. 80-101). Because the RESPECT Act would eliminate “responsibly to direct” as a supervisory function, foremen and employees with similar duties may no longer be classified as supervisors. They could, therefore, receive the same protections as other employees under the NLRA.


Date of Report: July 5, 2012
Number of Pages: 12
Order Number: RL34350
Price: $29.95

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

To Order:

RL34350.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

Federal Funding of Presidential Nominating Conventions: Overview and Policy Options

R. Sam Garrett
Specialist in American National Government

Shawn Reese
Analyst in Emergency Management and Homeland Security Policy

This report provides an overview and analysis of two recurring questions surrounding the federal government’s role in financing presidential nominating conventions. First, how much public funding supports presidential nominating conventions? Second, what options exist for changing that amount if Congress chooses to do so? In the 112th Congress, both chambers have passed separate bills to eliminate non-security funding.

In the Senate, an amendment (containing text from S. 3257) to the 2012 Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act, S. 3240, would eliminate the convention funding portion of the presidential public financing program, which funds various convention activities but typically not security. The legislation passed the Senate on June 21, 2012. Separately, S. 194 proposes to eliminate the entire public financing program. Another Senate bill, S. 3312, would reform the public financing program partially by eliminating convention funding.

Two measures that would eliminate convention funding have passed the House. The chamber passed H.R. 359 in January 2011. In December 2011, the House passed H.R. 3463. Both would eliminate the entire public financing program. H.R. 5912 would eliminate only convention financing. H.R. 414 would reform the public financing system but eliminate convention financing. These measures do not appear to affect separate security funding discussed in this report.

The 112th Congress enacted one law (P.L. 112-55) in FY2012 that affected convention security funding with the appropriation of $100 million for the Democratic and Republican nominating conventions (each was allocated $50 million). This security funding was not provided to party convention committees but to the state and local law enforcement entities assisting in securing the convention sites.

The 2012 Democratic and Republican convention committees each have received grants, financed with public funds, of approximately $18.2 million (for a total of approximately $36.5 million, as rounded). These funds will go toward political activities at the conventions rather than security. A total of approximately $133.6 million in federal funds supported the 2008 Democratic and Republican conventions. Such funding was provided through separate federal programs that support public financing of presidential campaigns and convention security.

Some Members of Congress and others have objected to federal convention funding and have argued that the events should be entirely self-supporting. Others, however, contend that public funding is necessary to avoid real or apparent corruption in this aspect of the presidential nominating process. If Congress decides to revisit convention financing, a variety of policy options discussed in this report might present alternatives to current funding arrangements.

Additional discussion of public financing of presidential campaigns appears in CRS Report RL34534, Public Financing of Presidential Campaigns: Overview and Analysis, by R. Sam Garrett and CRS Report R41604, Proposals to Eliminate Public Financing of Presidential Campaigns, by R. Sam Garrett. For additional information on National Special Security Events, which include presidential nominating conventions, see CRS Report RS22754, National Special Security Events, by Shawn Reese. This report will be updated in the event of additional legislative activity concerning convention financing.


Date of Report: June 28, 2012
Number of Pages: 16
Order Number: RL34630
Price: $29.95
 
Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.

To Order:

RL34630.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

Section 811 and Other HUD Housing Programs for Persons with Disabilities

Libby Perl
Specialist in Housing Policy

The ability of persons with disabilities to live independently in affordable, accessible housing became a prominent issue starting in 1999 as the result of a Supreme Court decision, Olmstead v. L.C. The court held that institutionalization of persons with mental disabilities in lieu of community-based care may constitute discrimination. Shortly after the Olmstead decision, on February 1, 2001, the President announced the New Freedom Initiative, an effort through multiple federal agencies to ensure full participation in society of persons with disabilities. Part of the New Freedom Initiative was Executive Order 13217, which implemented the Olmstead decision by ensuring (among other things) that all people with disabilities, not just those with mental illness, benefit from community-based treatment.

In order to ensure that persons with disabilities may live in community settings rather than in institutions, affordable and accessible housing is necessary. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) operates a number of programs that provide housing for persons with disabilities in various ways. The Section 811 Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities program provides capital grants and project rental assistance to nonprofit developers of housing targeted specifically to persons with disabilities. Prior to creation of Section 811, persons with disabilities lived together with elderly residents (defined by HUD as households with one or more adults age 62 or older) in developments funded through the Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly program.

The project-based Section 8 and Public Housing programs give project owners the option of dedicating facilities to elderly residents, residents with disabilities, or both populations together. Both the Section 811 and Section 8 programs set aside housing vouchers for persons with disabilities. And two HUD block grant programs—HOME and the Community Development Block Grant—may be used by states and communities to construct or rehabilitate housing for persons with disabilities. In addition to these HUD programs, the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC), administered by the Internal Revenue Service, may be used by states to target housing to special needs populations, including persons with disabilities. The LIHTC may be used in conjunction with HUD grants, including capital grants through the Section 811 program.

In FY2012, Section 811 rental assistance funds were made available to be used in conjunction with capital funding from other sources (such as LIHTCs and HOME funds). This new use of rental assistance was authorized as part of the Frank Melville Supportive Housing Investment Act (P.L. 111-374), and is referred to by HUD as the Rental Assistance Demonstration. HUD released a Notice of Funding Availability for the rental assistance in May 2012. P.L. 111-374 instituted other changes to the Section 811 program: authorizing that the source of funding for Section 811 tenant-based rental assistance be converted to the Section 8 program; decreasing the concentration of housing units for persons with disabilities by limiting the units in multifamily housing dedicated to persons with disabilities to 25% of the total; and delegating the processing of mixed finance developments to state housing finance agencies.


Date of Report: June 26, 2012
Number of Pages: 39
Order Number: RL34728
Price: $29.95

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

To Order:

RL34728.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