Wednesday, June 20, 2012
SBA Surety Bond Guarantee Program
Robert Jay Dilger
Senior Specialist in American National Government
The Small Business Administration’s (SBA’s) Surety Bond Guarantee Program is designed to increase small businesses’ access to federal, state, and local government contracting, as well as private sector contracts, by guaranteeing bid, performance, and payment bonds for individual contracts of $2 million or less for small businesses that cannot obtain surety bonds through regular commercial channels. The SBA’s guarantee ranges from 70% to 90% of the surety’s loss if a default occurs. In FY2011, the SBA guaranteed 8,638 bid and final surety bonds with a total contract value of about $3.6 billion.
A surety bond is a three-party instrument between a surety (someone who agrees to be responsible for the debt or obligation of another), a contractor, and a project owner. The agreement binds the contractor to comply with the terms and conditions of a contract. If the contractor is unable to successfully perform the contract, the surety assumes the contractor’s responsibilities and ensures that the project is completed. Surety bonds are viewed as a means to encourage project owners to contract with small businesses that may not have the credit history or prior experience of larger businesses and are considered to be at greater risk of failing to comply with the contract’s terms and conditions.
P.L. 111-5, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), temporarily increased, from February 17, 2009, through September 30, 2010, the program’s bond limit to $5 million, and up to $10 million if a federal contracting officer certifies in writing that a guarantee in excess of $5 million is necessary. There have been several efforts during the 112th Congress to increase the program’s $2 million bond limit.
S. 1334, the Expanding Opportunities for Main Street Act of 2011, and its companion bill in the House, H.R. 2424, would reinstate and make permanent ARRA’s higher limits. S. 1660, the American Jobs Act of 2011, and its companion bill in the House, H.R. 12, would provide $3 million to temporarily increase the program’s bond limit to $5 million from $2 million until the end of FY2012. H.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, which the House passed on May 18, 2012, would increase the program’s bond limit to $6.5 million, and up to $10 million if a federal contracting officer certifies that such a guarantee is necessary.
Advocates of raising the program’s bond limit argue that doing so would make it easier for small businesses to take advantage of contracting opportunities and bring the limit more in line with the limits of other small business programs, such as the 8(a) Minority Small Business and Capital Ownership Development Program and the Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) Program. Opponents argue that raising the limit could lead to higher amounts being guaranteed by the SBA and, as a result, an increase in the risk of program losses.
This report examines the SBA’s Surety Bond Guarantee Program’s origin and development, including the decision to supplement the original Prior Approval Program with the Preferred Surety Bond Guarantee Program that provides a lower guarantee rate (70%) than the Prior Approval Program (80% or 90%) in exchange for allowing the preferred sureties to issue SBAguaranteed surety bonds without the SBA’s prior approval. It also examines the program’s eligibility standards and requirements, provides several performance statistics, and concludes with a discussion of proposals to increase the program’s $2 million bond limit and to merge the Prior Approval Program and the Preferred Surety Bond Guarantee Program while retaining the Preferred Program’s more flexible operating requirements.
Date of Report: June 5, 2012
Number of Pages: 31
Order Number: R42037
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 U.S. Postal Service: Common Questions About Post Office Closures
Kevin R. Kosar
Analyst in American National Government
In recent years, the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) has announced initiatives to close up to 4,380 USPS retail facilities in rural, suburban, and urban areas. In May 2012, the agency may have changed course. The USPS issued a plan to “preserve” rural post offices, in great part by reducing their operating hours. In the same instance, the agency noted it was reviewing the status of 13,000 rural post offices, some of which might be closed. Thus, how many post offices may be closed remains unclear.
More than a dozen bills in the 112th Congress carry provisions that address post offices and the public’s access to retail postal services, including H.R. 2309, H.R. 2692, S. 1668, and S. 1789.
This report addresses common questions about the closure of post offices. Questions answered include (1) What is a post office? (2) How many post offices are there? (3) How many post offices might the USPS close? (4) What authority does the USPS have to close post offices? (5) What is the current post office closure process? (6) What is the role of the Postal Regulatory Commission in post office closures? (7) When might the post office closure process begin? (8) How many USPS employees may lose their jobs? and (9) What current legislation carries provisions related to post offices?
Colloquially, the term “post office” often is employed to refer to any place where stamps are sold and postal services are provided by USPS employees. However, the USPS differentiates among several categories of postal facilities, including post offices, post office branches and stations, community post offices, and contract postal units. At the end of FY2011, the USPS had 35,119 retail postal facilities.
Congress has given the USPS considerable discretion to decide how many post offices to erect and where to place them. Congress also requires the USPS to provide the public with access to retail postal services (e.g., sales of postage, parcel acceptance, etc.).
Both federal law and the USPS’s rules prescribe a post office closure process, which takes at least 120 days. The USPS must notify the affected public and hold a 60-day comment period prior to closing a post office. Should the USPS decide to close a post office, the public has 30 days to appeal the decision to the Postal Regulatory Commission. Sixty days after it has made a closure decision, the USPS may shut down a post office.
H.R. 2309, H.R. 2692, S. 1668, and S. 1789 are very different from one another. Among their other provisions, H.R. 2309 would reduce the number of post offices; H.R. 2692 would alter the post office closure process; S. 1668 would forbid any closure that would create more than 10 miles’ distance between any two post offices; and S. 1789 would alter the post office closure process and greatly reduce the USPS’s authority to close post offices.
Date of Report: June 13, 2012
Number of Pages: 15
Order Number: R41950
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.
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
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 242 Republicans, 197 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 43 African American Members of the House (a record number) and none in the Senate. This House number includes 2 Delegates. There are 31 Hispanic or Latino Members serving: 29 in the House, including 1 Delegate and the Resident Commissioner, and 2 in the Senate. Twelve Members (eight 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: June 14, 2012
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.
Congressional Oversight and Related Issues Concerning International Security Agreements Concluded by the United States
Michael John Garcia
Legislative Attorney
R. Chuck Mason
Legislative Attorney
The United States is a party to numerous security agreements with other nations. The topics covered, along with the significance of the obligations imposed upon agreement parties, may vary. Some international security agreements entered by the United States, such as those obliging parties to come to the defense of another in the event of an attack, involve substantial commitments and have traditionally been entered as treaties, ratified with the advice and consent of the Senate. Other agreements dealing with more technical matters, such as military basing rights or the application of a host country’s laws to U.S. forces stationed within, are entered more routinely and usually take a form other than treaty (i.e., as an executive agreement or a nonlegal political commitment).
Occasionally, the substance and form of a proposed security agreement may become a source of dispute between Congress and the executive branch. In late 2007, the Bush Administration announced its intention to negotiate a long-term security agreement with Iraq that would have committed the United States to provide security assurances to Iraq and maintain a long-term military presence in that country. This announcement became a source of congressional interest, in part because of statements by Administration officials that such an agreement would not be submitted to the legislative branch for approval. Congressional concern dissipated when U.S.-Iraq negotiations culminated in an agreement that did not contain a long-term security commitment by the United States, but instead called for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq by December 31, 2011.
On May 2, 2012, President Barack Obama and President Hamid Karzai signed the Enduring Strategic Partnership Agreement Between the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. Under the terms of the Agreement, the parties pledge to work cooperatively in a number of fields, including to promote shared democratic values, advance long-term security, reinforce regional security, advance social and economic development, and strengthen Afghan institutions and governance. Additionally, the Agreement provides that the United States and Afghanistan shall initiate negotiations on a Bilateral Security Agreement (with the goal of concluding such an agreement within a year), which is intended to replace the existing agreement relating to the status of military and civilian personnel currently in Afghanistan.
It is likely that future disputes will arise between the political branches regarding the entering or implementation of international security agreements. Regardless of the form a security arrangement may take, Congress has several tools to exercise oversight regarding the negotiation, form, conclusion, and implementation of the agreement by the United States. This report begins by providing a general background on the types of international agreements that are binding upon the United States, as well as considerations affecting whether they take the form of a treaty or an executive agreement. Next, the report discusses historical precedents as to the role that security agreements have taken, with specific attention paid to past agreements entered with Afghanistan, Germany, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, and Iraq. The report discusses the oversight role that Congress exercises with respect to entering and implementing international agreements involving the United States.
Date of Report: June 7, 2012
Number of Pages: 35
Order Number: R40614
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, June 11, 2012
Legislative Branch: FY2013 Appropriations
Ida A. Brudnick
Specialist on the Congress
The legislative branch appropriations bill provides funding for the Senate; House of Representatives; Joint Items; Capitol Police; Office of Compliance; Congressional Budget Office; Architect of the Capitol; Library of Congress, including the Congressional Research Service; Government Printing Office; Government Accountability Office; and Open World Leadership Center.
The legislative branch FY2013 budget request of $4.512 billion, which is submitted to the President by the legislative branch agencies and entities and included in the budget without change, was submitted to Congress on February 13, 2012. The request represents an increase of $205.5 million over the $4.307 billion in discretionary funding provided in Division G of the FY2012 Consolidated Appropriations Act (H.R. 2055, P.L. 112-74), which was enacted on December 23, 2011.
The Subcommittees on the Legislative Branch of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees both held hearings during which Members considered the FY2013 legislative branch requests. Among issues that were considered during hearings were the following:
- the tight budget environment, prioritization of budget resources, and further options for potential savings or efficiencies;
- state and district office security;
- preparations and funding for the January 2013 Presidential Inauguration;
- deferred maintenance around the Capitol Complex; and
- the future of government printing in the digital age.
The legislative branch budget has decreased the last two fiscal years. The FY2012 level represented a decrease of $236.9 million (-5.2%) from the FY2011 level, which represented a $125.1 million decrease (-2.7%) from FY2010. P.L. 112-10 (enacted on April 15, 2011) provided $4.543 billion for FY2011 legislative branch operations. P.L. 111-68 (enacted on October 1, 2009) provided $4.656 billion for FY2010. The FY2010 Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 111- 212) provided an additional $12.96 million for the Capitol Police. The FY2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-8, enacted on March 11, 2009) provided $4.402 billion. In FY2009, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5) provided an additional $25.0 million for the Government Accountability Office, and the FY2009 Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-32) provided $71.6 million for the Capitol Police and $2.0 million for the Congressional Budget Office.
Since FY1976, the legislative branch has represented approximately 0.4% of total discretionary budget authority.
Date of Report: June 6, 2012
Number of Pages: 30
Order Number: R42500
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
