Latin America: Terrorism Issues

[Excerpt] For most countries in Latin America and the Caribbean, threats emanating from terrorism are low. Terrorism in the region is largely perpetrated by groups in Colombia and by the remnants of radical leftist Andean groups. According to the Department of State, most governments in the region have good records of cooperation with the United States on anti-terrorism issues, although progress in the region on improving counterterrorism capabilities is limited by several factors, including corruption, weak governmental institutions, weak or non-existent legislation, and reluctance to allocate sufficient resources. Both Cuba and Venezuela are on the State Department’s list of countries determined to be not cooperating fully with U.S. antiterrorism efforts, and Cuba has remained on the State Department’s list of state sponsors of terrorism since 1982. U.S. officials and some Members of Congress have expressed concern over the past several years about Venezuela’s relations with Iran, with concerns centered on efforts by Iran to circumvent U.N. and U.S. sanctions and on Iran’s ties to Hezbollah, alleged to be linked to two bombings in Argentina in the 1990s. There is disagreement, however, over the extent and significance of Iran’s activities in Latin America. The State Department maintains that there are no known operational cells of either Al Qaeda or Hezbollah-related groups in the hemisphere, although it notes that ideological sympathizers continue to provide financial and moral support to these and other terrorist groups in the Middle East and South Asia

The U.S. Government's Global Health Policy Architecture: Structure, Programs and Funding

Provides an overview of the history, scope, and role of U.S. engagement in global health, including funding; statutes, authorities, and policies; agencies involved; major initiatives; and countries with U.S. bilateral programs and funding

The Fair Labor Standards Act: A Historical Sketch of the Overtime Pay Requirements of Section 13(a)(1)

CRS_May_2005_FLSA_Historical_Sketch.pdf: 5904 downloads, before Oct. 1, 2020

The U.S. Newspaper Industry in Transition

[Excerpt] The U.S. newspaper industry is suffering through what could be its worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Advertising revenues are plummeting due to the severe economic downturn, while readership habits are changing as consumers turn to the Internet for free news and information. Some major newspaper chains are burdened by heavy debt loads. In the past year, seven major newspaper chains have declared bankruptcy, several big city papers have shut down, and many have laid off reporters and editors, imposed pay reductions, cut the size of the physical newspaper, or turned to Web-only publication. As the problems intensify, there are growing concerns that the rapid decline of the newspaper industry will impact civic and social life. Already there are fewer newspaper reporters covering state capitols and city halls, while the number of states with newspapers covering Congress full-time has dwindled to 23 from the most recent peak of 35 in 1985. As old-style, print newspapers decline, new journalism startups are developing around the country, aided by low entry costs on the Internet. The emerging ventures hold promise but do not have the experience, resources, and reach of shrinking mainstream newspapers. Congress has begun debating whether the financial problems in the newspaper industry pose a public policy issue that warrants federal action. Whether a congressional response to the current turmoil is justified may depend on the current causes of the crisis. If the causes are related to significant technological shifts (the Internet, smart phones and electronic readers) or societal changes that are disruptive to established business models and means of news dissemination, the policy options may be quite limited, especially if new models of reporting (and, equally important, advertising) are beginning to emerge. Governmental policy actions to bolster existing businesses could stall or retard such a shift. In this case, policymakers might stand back and allow the market to realign news gathering and delivery, as it has many times in the past. If, on the other hand, the current crisis is related to the struggle of some major newspapers to survive the current recession, possible policy options to ensure the continuing availability of in-depth local and national news coverage by newspapers might include providing tax breaks, relaxing antitrust policy, tightening copyright law, providing general support for the practice of journalism by increasing funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) or similar public programs, or helping newspapers reorganize as nonprofit organizations. Policymakers may also determine that some set of measures could ease the combination of social and technological transition and the recession-related financial distress of the industry

Better Auditing for Better Contracting: Eight Recommendations to Reform the Defense Contract Audit Agency and Other Federal Government Audit

Examines why the DCAA's audits of government contractors sometimes fail. Proposes reforms to strengthen oversight, including giving auditors authority to subpoena contractor records and shifting from limited to risk-based audits and random checks

Federal Asbestos Legislation: The Winners Are ...

Under the guise of providing aid to victims of asbestos-related illnesses, a small group of companies has lobbied for and won relief from their liability worth tens of billions of dollars in the Senate's asbestos trust fund bill, according to this Public Citizen report.Their success in protecting their corporate interests, however, will sharply reduce the funds under the legislation that will be available to asbestos victims, the report finds. Meanwhile, some of the nation's largest financial investment firms have spent millions of dollars in lobbying and campaign contributions to position themselves to score big rewards should the legislation pass.The big winners in the legislation, S. 852, include a handful of Fortune 500 companies -- Dow Chemical, Ford, General Electric, General Motors, Honeywell, Pfizer and Viacom -- and at least 10 asbestos makers that have filed for bankruptcy.Public Citizen found an intense Capitol Hill lobbying campaign on behalf of the Fortune 500 companies to win the financial concession was spearheaded by a relatively unknown entity called the Asbestos Study Group (ASG), which refuses to make its full membership list public

The Fair Labor Standards Act: Overtime Pay Issues in the 108th Congress

CRS_February_2005_FLSA_Overtime_Pay_Issues_108th.pdf: 3640 downloads, before Oct. 1, 2020

Davis-Bacon Act Coverage and the State Revolving Fund Program Under the Clean Water Act

[Excerpt] The Davis-Bacon Act (DBA) requires, among other things, that not less than the locally prevailing wage be paid to workers employed, under contract, on federal construction work to which the United States or the District of Columbiais aparty. Congress has added DBA prevailing wage provisions to more than 50 separate program statutes. In 1961, a DBA prevailing wage requirement was added to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (P.L. 87-88), now known as the Clean Water Act (CWA), which assists in construction of municipal wastewater treatment works. In 1987, Congress moved from a program of federal grants for municipal pollution abatement facilities to a state revolving loan fund (SRF) arrangement in which states would be expected to contribute an amount equal to at 1 east 20% of SRF capital ization funding. The SRFs were expected to remain as a continuing and stable source of funds for construction of treatment facilities. And, Congress specified that certain administrative and policy requirements (including Davis-Bacon) were to be annexed from the core statute and would apply to treatment works constructed in whole or in part before fiscal year 1995 with SRF assistance. By October 1994, under the 1987 amendments, it was expected that federal appropriations for SRFs would end. After 1987, Congress variously reconsidered the CWA and the SRF program but made no further authorizations. It did, however, contrary to expectation when the 1987 legislation was adopted, continue to appropriate funds for SRF pollution abatement projects. Thus, a conflict arose. Did the administrative and policy requirements associated with federal funding (inter alia, the prevailing wage requirement) continue to apply? If so (or if not), upon what legal foundation? In 1995, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ruled that prevailing wage rates (Davis-Bacon) would no longer be required on SRF projects. The Building and Construction Trades Department (BCTD), AFL-CIO, protested. What happened after 1994 is not entirely clear: that is, whether prevailing rates were actually paid. In the spring of 2000, EPA reversed its position and came to conclude that Davis-Bacon did indeed apply. Following notice in the Federal Register (and review of submissions from interested parties), EPA entered into a settlement agreement with the BCTD. It would enforce DBA rates on CWA projects effective July 1, 2001. But then EPA moved the effective date back, to late summer — and, then, to October. Thereafter, it seems, EPA was silent. During recent years, Congress has increasingly considered funding mechanisms other than direct appropriations for public construction: e.g., joint federal and state revolving funds, loan guarantees, tax credits, etc. This report is a case study of the application of DBA requirements to one such mechanism, the CWA/SRFs. The question of DBA application to the SRFs continues in the 110th Congress

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act: History, Impact, and Issues

[Excerpt] The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) established requirements for enacting certain legislation and issuing certain regulations that would impose enforceable duties on state, local, or tribal governments or on the private sector. UMRA refers to obligations imposed by such legislation and regulations as “mandates” (either “intergovernmental” or “private sector,” depending on the entities affected). The direct cost to affected entities of meeting these obligations are referred to as “mandate costs,” and when the federal government does not provide funding to cover these costs, the mandate is termed “unfunded.” UMRA incorporates numerous definitions, exclusions, and exceptions that specify what forms and types of mandates are subject to its requirements, termed “covered mandates.” Covered mandates do not include many federal actions with potentially significant financial impacts on nonfederal entities. This report’s primary purpose is to describe the kinds of legislative and regulatory provisions that are subject to UMRA’s requirements, and, on this basis, to assess UMRA’s impact on federal mandates. The report also examines debates that occurred, both before and since UMRA’s enactment, concerning what kinds of provisions UMRA ought to cover, and considers the implications of experience under UMRA for possible future revisions of its scope of coverage. This report also describes the requirements UMRA imposes on congressional and agency actions to establish covered mandates. For most legislation and regulations covered by UMRA, these requirements are only informational. For reported legislation that would impose covered mandates on the intergovernmental or private sectors, UMRA requires the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to provide an estimate of mandate costs. Similarly, for regulations that would impose covered mandates on the intergovernmental or private sectors, UMRA requires that the issuing agency provide an estimate of mandate costs (although the specifics of the estimates required for legislation and for regulations differ somewhat). Also, solely for legislation that would impose covered intergovernmental mandates, UMRA establishes a point of order in each house of Congress through which the chamber can decline to consider the legislation. This report examines UMRA’s implementation, focusing on the respective requirements for mandate cost estimates on legislation and regulations, and on the point of order procedure for legislation proposing unfunded intergovernmental mandates

The Federal Employees’ Compensation Act (FECA): Workers’ Compensation for Federal Employees

[Excerpt] The Federal Employees’ Compensation Act (FECA) is the workers’ compensation program for federal employees. Like all workers’ compensation programs, FECA pays disability, survivors, and medical benefits, without fault, to employees who are injured or become ill in the course of their federal employment and the survivors of employees killed on the job. The FECA program is administered by the Department of Labor (DOL) and the costs of benefits are paid by each employee’s host agency. Employees of the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) currently comprise the largest group of FECA beneficiaries and are responsible for the largest share of FECA benefits. The modern FECA program can trace its roots to 1916 but has not been significantly amended since 1974. Today, the FECA program pays a basic disability benefit equal to two-thirds of an injured worker’s pre-disability wage, which rises to 75% of the pre-disability wage if the worker has any dependents. Benefits continue for the duration of disability or the life of the beneficiary and in cases of traumatic injuries, beneficiaries can receive a continuation of their full pay for the first 45 days. Persons with specific permanent partial disabilities, such as the loss of a limb, are entitled to disability benefits for a set number weeks provided by schedules set by statute and regulation. All medical costs associated with covered conditions are provided by the FECA program without any copayments, cost-sharing, or use of private insurance by the beneficiaries. The survivors of employees killed on the job are entitled to cash benefits based on the worker’s wages and a modest benefit for funeral costs. Beneficiaries are also entitled to vocational rehabilitation services to assist them in returning to work. In the 112th Congress, several committees have held hearings on the FECA program. These hearings have identified several key policy issues facing the program, including the disproportionate share of claims and program costs attributed to postal workers, the payment of FECA benefits after retirement age, the overall generosity of FECA disability benefits as compared with those offered by the states, and the administration of the FECA program. To address some of these policy issues, committees in the House and Senate passed legislation that would make changes to the FECA program. In the House, H.R. 2309 would set financial conditions under which the USPS would be required to create a new workers’ compensation system for its employees. Additional bills, H.R. 2465, passed by the House, and S. 1789, would make changes to the FECA program for all federal employees with the Senate legislation reducing benefit levels for beneficiaries over retirement age and eliminating augmented compensation for dependents. This report will be updated to reflect major legislative activity