Former Presidents: Pensions, Office Allowances, and Other Federal Benefits

[Excerpt] The Former Presidents Act (FPA; 3 U.S.C. § 102 note) charges the General Services Administration (GSA) with providing former Presidents a pension, support staff, office support, travel funds, and mailing privileges. The FPA was enacted to “maintain the dignity” of the Office of the President by giving a former President — and his or her spouse — certain benefits so that he would not have to enter unsuitable occupations after leaving office. Former Presidents currently receive a pension that is equal to pay for the head of an executive department (Executive Level I), which was $191,300 as of January 1, 2008. The FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act allocated$2,478,000 for pensions and GSA assistance to former Presidents. The President’s FY2009 budget requested $2,934,000 for expenditures for former Presidents. Pending House and Senate appropriations legislation recommends the requested amount. Prior to 1958, former Presidents leaving office received no pension or federal assistance. After leaving office, some former Presidents — including Ulysses S. Grant and Harry S Truman — struggled financially. In 1912, industrialist and philanthropist Andrew Carnegie unveiled a plan to pay$25,000 pensions to all future former Presidents and their widows. The pensions were to be funded by the Carnegie Foundation of New York. Some Members of Congress and the public suggested it was inappropriate for a private company to pay pensions to former Presidents. Legislation was introduced that year to grant public pensions to former Presidents, but none of the bills were reported from committee. William Howard Taft, the only former President who was then eligible for Carnegie’s offer, refused the pension. Since 1962, the U.S. Secret Service has provided protection to former Presidents because of their status as “visible national symbol[s].” Protection has subsequently been expanded to cover a former President’s wife until death or remarriage. Minor children of former Presidents who are under 16 years of age also receive protection. In 1994, the law was amended to limit U.S. Secret Service coverage to 10 years for any President, and his spouse, who left office after January 1, 1997. President George W. Bush will be the first former President affected by this statutory change. In the 110th Congress, Representative John Conyers introduced a bill (H.R. 5938) that would extend U.S. Secret Service Protection to a Vice President, his or her spouse, and family for up to six months after leaving office. Currently, Secret Service protection for a Vice President and his or her family is provided on an ad hoc basis. This report describes the benefits Presidents receive upon leaving office, details the history of the FPA, and analyzes some legislative options for the 110th Congress related to former Presidents

Former Presidents: Pensions, Office Allowances, and Other Federal Benefits

[Excerpt] This report provides a legislative and cultural history of the Former Presidents Act. It details the benefits provided to former Presidents and their costs. Congress has the authority to reduce, increase, or maintain the pension and benefits provided to former Presidents of the United States. This report considers the potential effects of maintaining the FPA or amending the FPA in ways that might reduce or otherwise modify a former President’s benefits

Former Presidents: Pensions, Office Allowances, and Other Federal Benefits

[Excerpt] The Former Presidents Act (FPA; 3 U.S.C. §102 note) charges the General Services Administration (GSA) with providing former Presidents a pension, support staff, office support, travel funds, and mailing privileges. The FPA was enacted to “maintain the dignity” of the Office of the President. The act provides the former President—and his or her spouse—certain benefits to help him respond to post-presidency mail and speaking requests, among other informal public duties often required of a former President. Prior to enactment of the FPA in 1958, former Presidents leaving office received no pension or other federal assistance. This report provides a legislative and cultural history of the Former Presidents Act. It details the benefits provided to former Presidents and their costs. Congress has the authority to reduce, increase, or maintain the pension and benefits provided to former Presidents of the United States. This report considers the potential effects of maintaining the FPA or amending the FPA in ways that might reduce or otherwise modify a former President’s benefits

All Balls and No Strikes: The Roberts Court’s Anti-Worker Activism

For decades, legislatures and courts have created and preserved rights and remedies for vulnerable groups—consumers, employees, victims of mass torts, investors, and the like. Both branches have extolled the virtues of these substantive rights and the private enforcement mechanisms required to effectuate them. However, despite statements like that of Justice Roberts and others that the judiciary is not a lawmaking body—indeed, that the judicial institution should take care to exercise restraint—the Roberts Court has engaged in sweeping reform that tends to extinguish these substantive rights. In 2012, I traced how the Roberts Court paid scant attention to the integral role private enforcement plays in various regulatory frameworks in which given substantive laws operate. By reducing or eliminating mechanisms of private enforcement, I argued, entire swaths of substantive law would go woefully under-enforced. Since that time, the Roberts Court’s civil justice and procedural jurisprudence—jurisprudence that has brought about systematic retrenchment of substantive rights—reveals that the Roberts Court is not so much inattentive to the exigencies of various regulatory frameworks. Instead, the Roberts Court jurisprudence tends to reveal an affirmative deregulatory aim. Far from merely calling balls and strikes, and in opinions involving questions as varied as ones about class-action rule interpretation, the permissibility of collective action waivers in arbitration agreements, the ability to opt out of collective bargaining dues on First Amendment grounds, standing, and others, the Roberts Court has achieved sweeping deregulation in the past decade. As has been traced in the literature, these deregulatory effects have been particularly pronounced in the area of consumer law. Moreover, the deregulatory effects for the underlying substantive regimes have often been achieved through somewhat indirect, procedural decision-making, but those effects have been almost as significant as if the Court had simply re-written the particular rights-bearing statutes. During October Term 2017, the Court moved beyond consumer law and ramped up its efforts to effectuate deregulation of employment law. Whatever protections workers have enjoyed throughout our nation’s history have been secured in large part through private enforcement. And to be sure, on their faces, critical workplace protection laws like Title VII and the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”)—both of which rely almost exclusively on private litigation for their effectuation—remain completely intact. However, in three critical (but less-blockbuster-than-Masterpiece Cakeshop) cases—Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Epic Systems v. Lewis, and Encino Motorcars—the Court in back-to-back 5-4 rulings stripped workers of mechanisms to pursue their rights against employers who commit wrongs in the workplace. Both history and present experience teach us that the Court’s recent opinions will help eliminate the regulatory apparatus for workplace injury, and private employers will enjoy increased ability to essentially rewrite their obligations under substantive law through procedural vehicles. This essay proceeds as follows: Part A traces the Court’s employment law jurisprudence from October Term 2017. Part B discusses the regulatory consequences of these opinions and argues that the Court’s opinions this past term reflect political commitments that favor and disfavor certain types of claims and claimants

Luminescence tuning of MOFs via ligand to metal and metal to metal energy transfer by co-doping of 2∞[Gd2Cl6(bipy)3]*2bipy with europium and terbium

The series of anhydrous lanthanide chlorides LnCl3, Ln=Pr–Tb, and 4,4'-bipyridine (bipy) constitute isotypic MOFs of the formula 2∞[Ln2Cl6(bipy)3]*2bipy. The europium and terbium containing compounds both exhibit luminescence of the referring trivalent lanthanide ions, giving a red luminescence for Eu3+ and a green luminescence for Tb3+ triggered by an efficient antenna effect of the 4,4'-bipyridine linkers. Mixing of different lanthanides in one MOF structure was undertaken to investigate the potential of this MOF system for colour tuning of the luminescence. Based on the gadolinium containing compound, co-doping with different amounts of europium and terbium proves successful and yields solid solutions of the formula 2∞[Gd2-x-yEuxTbyCl6(bipy)3]*2bipy (1–8), 0≤x, y≤0.5. The series of MOFs exhibits the opportunity of tuning the emission colour in-between green and red. Depending on the atomic ratio Gd:Eu:Tb, the yellow region was covered for the first time for an oxygen/carboxylate-free MOF system. In addition to a ligand to metal energy transfer (LMET) from the lowest ligand-centered triplet state of 4,4'-bipyridine, a metal to metal energy transfer (MMET) between 4f-levels from Tb3+ to Eu3+ is as well vital for the emission colour. However, no involvement of Gd3+ in energy transfers is observed rendering it a suitable host lattice ion and connectivity centre for diluting the other two rare earth ions in the solid state. The materials retain their luminescence during activation of the MOFs for microporosity

Silicon production process evaluations

Chemical engineering analysis of the HSC process (Hemlock Semiconductor Corporation) for producing silicon from dichlorosilane in a 1,000 MT/yr plant was continued. Progress and status for the chemical engineering analysis of the HSC process are reported for the primary process design engineering activities: base case conditions (85%), reaction chemistry (85%), process flow diagram (60%), material balance (60%), energy balance (30%), property data (30%), equipment design (20%) and major equipment list (10%). Engineering design of the initial distillation column (D-01, stripper column) in the process was initiated. The function of the distillation column is to remove volatile gases (such as hydrogen and nitrogen) which are dissolved in liquid chlorosilanes. Initial specifications and results for the distillation column design are reported including the variation of tray requirements (equilibrium stages) with reflux ratio for the distillation

Structure and chemistry of Orion S

We present interferometric observations of the SiO J = 2-1, H^(13)CO^+ J = 1-0, HC_3N J = 11-10, CH_3OH J_K = 2_0-1_0, and SO_2 J(K_pK_0) = 8_(17)-8_(08) transitions along with the λ = 3.1 mm continuum toward the young stellar object Orion S. The HC_3N and H^(13)CO^+ emission trace similar spatial and velocity distributions which are extended and follow the Orion molecular ridge. The SiO emission is more spatially confined, peaking to the west of the λ = 3.1 mm continuum source, while the CH_3OH emission peaks to the southwest. Weak SO_2 emission was detected southeast of the continuum source position. Column densities and fractional abundances are derived for each species at different positions in the region. In general, the molecular abundances near the continuum source are similar to those in the quiescent material near IRc 2, but the abundances decrease toward the continuum source position indicating localized depletions of at least a factor of three. The presence of strong SiO emission with much weaker SO_2 emission is interpreted as resulting from high-velocity shock interactions between the outflow from Orion S and the surrounding cloud. The apparent molecular depletions directly toward Orion S, and the similarity of abundances between the Orion S region and quiescent ridge material, suggest that Orion S is at an early stage of chemical evolution, prior to when substantial chemical differentiation occurs