Advanced search Help
Searching for terms: EXACT: "Kosar, Kevin R." in: author
Clear all search criteria
Only 2/3! You are seeing results from the Public Collection, not the complete Full Collection. Sign in to search everything (see eligibility).
-
Federal Government Corporations: An Overview [June 8, 2011]
From the Summary: "To assist Congress in its oversight activities, this report provides an overview of the government corporation as an administrative model. As defined in this report, a government corporation is a government agency that is established by Congress to provide a market-oriented public service and to produce revenues that meet or approximate its expenditures. By this definition, currently there are 17 government corporations. […] Within the executive branch, no one agency is responsible for the oversight and supervision of government corporations. Neither the House nor the Senate have single committees with the responsibility to oversee all government corporations. Instead, each corporation is overseen by the committee(s) with jurisdiction over its policy area. Many government corporations, such as the Tennessee Valley Authority, have been established to exist in perpetuity. Other government corporations, such as the U.S. Enrichment Corporation, though, have been designed to serve as transition vehicles to transform from governmental entities into private firms. Congress at times has found the government corporation an attractive governance option. A well-designed and -operated government corporation does not require annual appropriations because it generates revenues from the provision of goods and services. Moreover, each government corporation may be endowed with the administrative flexibilities required to accomplish its goals while remaining responsive to Congress and the President. Finally, as noted above, the government corporation may be established to serve an enduring purpose or may serve as a vehicle for privatization. This report will be updated in the event of a significant development."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Kosar, Kevin R.
2011-06-08
-
Common Questions About Postage and Stamps [April 19, 2013]
"Constituents and interest groups often approach congressional offices with questions about postage and stamps. This report provides brief answers to commonly asked questions and provides sources where Members and congressional staff may learn more about these topics. The Senate usually has not had rules or policies regarding legislation to establish postage stamps. The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform long has had a rule against considering legislation that proposes the issuance of new semipostal and commemorative stamps."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Kosar, Kevin R.
2013-04-19
-
Congressional or Federal Charters: Overview and Enduring Issues [April 19, 2013]
"A congressional or federal charter is a federal statute that establishes a corporation. Congress has issued charters since 1791, although most charters were issued after the start of the 20th century. Congress has used charters to create a variety of corporate entities, such as banks, government-sponsored enterprises, commercial corporations, venture capital funds, and quasi governmental entities. Congressionally chartered corporations have raised diverse issues for Congress, including (1) Title 36 corporations' membership practices; (2) prohibitions on Title 36 corporations engaging in 'political activities'; (3) confusion over which corporations are governmental and which are private; and (4) federal management of these corporations. This report will be updated annually."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Kosar, Kevin R.
2013-04-19
-
Commemorations in Congress: Options for Honoring Individuals, Groups, and Events [May 9, 2014]
"Since its inception, Congress has used commemorative legislation to express public gratitude for distinguished contributions; dramatize the virtues of individuals, groups, and causes; and perpetuate the remembrance of significant events. During the past two centuries, commemoratives have become an integral part of the American political tradition. They have been used to authorize the minting of commemorative coins and Congressional Gold Medals; fund monuments and memorials; create federal holidays; establish commissions to celebrate important anniversaries; and name public works, scholarships, endowments, fellowships, and historic sites. Current congressional practice for commemoratives includes a House Rule (Rule XII, clause 5, initially adopted during the 104th Congress (1995-1996)) that precludes the introduction or consideration of legislation that commemorates 'any remembrance, celebration, or recognition for any purpose through the designation of a special period of time.' Such a rule does not exist in the Senate. This change to House Rules, together with the passage of more restrictive laws, rules, and procedures governing the enactment of several other types of commemoratives, has substantially reduced the time Congress spends considering and adopting such measures. This report summarizes the evolution of commemorative legislation as well as the laws, rules, and procedures that have been adopted to control the types of commemoratives considered and enacted."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Straus, Jacob R.; Elwell, Craig Kent, 1947-; Glassman, Matthew . . .
2014-05-09
-
U.S. Postal Service's Financial Condition: A Primer [September 22, 2014]
"Since 1971, the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) has been a self-supporting government agency that covers its operating costs with revenues generated through the sales of postage and related products and services. The USPS is experiencing significant financial challenges. […] Since FY2011, the USPS has defaulted on $16.7 billion in payments to its Retiree Health Benefits Fund (RHBF). The agency reached its $15 billion borrowing limit in FY2012 and did not reduce its total debt in FY2013. In October 2012, the USPS bolstered its liquidity by withdrawing all of the cash from its competitive products fund. This fund has not been replenished since that time. While the financial condition of the postal service slightly improved in FY2013, both revenues and expenses have increased through the first three quarters of FY2014. Compared with the same point in FY2013, expenses are $1.4 billion higher while revenues have increased by $1.0 billion. The USPS's recent financial difficulties are partially the product of reduced demand. The agency has experienced a 21.7% drop in mail volume during the past 10 years. Additionally, during the past decade the 'mail mix' has shifted. A growing portion of the mail is advertising mail, which yields low profits. Concurrently, the annual volume of first-class letters, which are highly profitable, has been dropping steadily, at least in part due to mailers shifting to electronic communications. As a result, the Postal Service's revenues in FY2013 were lower than they were in FY2004. Additionally, the Postal Service's liquidity has decreased and its debt has increased because of the statutorily mandated payments that must be made to the RHBF each year."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Richardson, Daniel J.; Kosar, Kevin R.
2014-09-22
-
Advertising by the Federal Government: An Overview [June 23, 2014]
"Government advertising can be controversial if it conflicts with citizens' views about the proper role of government. Yet some government advertising is accepted as a normal part of government information activities. It is difficult to calculate the amount of funds spent by the federal government on advertising each year. The reasons for this include (1) there is no government-wide definition of what constitutes advertising and (2) there is no central authority to which agencies are required to report advertising expenses. However, an estimate of the federal government's expenditures on contracts for advertising services can be derived from data in the Federal Procurement Data System. According to these data, federal agencies spent $892.5 million on advertising services in FY2013. Agencies' discretion to advertise is limited primarily by restrictions imposed by Congress in authorization and appropriations statutes and by the principles set forth in volume 1 of the Government Accountability Office's (GAO's) Principles of Federal Appropriations Law. Any oversight of government advertising expenditures rests with agencies' inspectors general, GAO, and Congress."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Kosar, Kevin R.
2014-06-23
-
U.S. Postal Service's Financial Condition: A Primer [July 24, 2013]
"Since 1971, the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) has been a self-supporting government agency that covers its operating costs with revenues generated through the sales of postage and related products and services. The USPS is experiencing significant financial challenges. After running modest profits from FY2003 through FY2006, the USPS lost $41.1 billion between FY2007 and FY2012. Since FY2011, the USPS has defaulted on $11.1 billion in payments to its Retiree Health Benefits Fund (RHBF). The agency has reached its $15 billion borrowing limit and is low on cash. In October 2012, the USPS bolstered its liquidity by withdrawing all of the cash from its competitive products fund. At the end of the first half of FY2013, the USPS's financial condition showed no appreciable signs of improvement. The agency's revenues and operating expenses were little changed relative to mid-FY2012. The USPS's recent financial difficulties are partially the product of falling revenues. The agency has experienced a 21.4% drop in mail volume during the past 10 years. Additionally, during the past decade the 'mail mix' has shifted. A growing portion of the mail is advertising mail, which yields low profits. Concurrently, the annual volume of first-class letters, which are highly profitable, has been dropping steadily, at least in part due to mailers shifting to electronic communications. As a result, the Postal Service's revenues in FY2012 were lower than they were in FY2003. Additionally, the Postal Service's liquidity has decreased and its debt has increased because of the statutorily mandated payments that must be made to the RHBF each year. This report discusses these issues in more detail, and it will be updated after the USPS releases its FY2013 third quarter financial results in early August 2013 and in the interim should there be any significant developments."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Kosar, Kevin R.
2013-07-24
-
Security Classification Policy and Procedure: E.O. 12958, as Amended [December 31, 2009]
"On May 27, 2009, President Barack Obama ordered a review of E.O. 12958. The assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (commonly known as the National Security Advisor) is required to submit to the President 'recommendations and proposed revisions' to E.O. 12958 within 90 days. President Obama signed an executive order on December 29, 2009, that revoked E.O. 12958 and 'prescribes a uniform system for classifying, safeguarding, and declassifying national security information.' The order made a number of significant changes to current information policies, such as (1) requiring the establishment of a National Declassification Center at the National Archives; (2) ending the E.O. 13292 policy of empowering the Director of Central Intelligence to block declassification actions; and (3) declaring that 'no information may remain classified indefinitely.' The President's accompanying memorandum to agency heads orders that a 'backlog' of 400 million pages of records be made available to the public by December 31, 2013."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Kosar, Kevin R.
2009-12-31
-
Security Classification Policy and Procedure: E.O. 12958, as Amended [Updated June 4, 2009]
"Largely prescribed in a series of successive presidential executive orders issued over the past 50 years, security classification policy and procedure provide the rationale and arrangements for designating information officially secret for reasons of national security, and for its declassification as well. President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued the first executive order (E.O. 8381) in 1940. […]On May 27, 2009, President Barack Obama ordered a review of E.O. 12958. The assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (commonly known as the National Security Advisor) is required to submit to the President "recommendations and proposed revisions" to E.O. 12958 within 90 days."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Kosar, Kevin R.
2009-06-04
-
Quasi Government: Hybrid Organizations with Both Government and Private Sector Legal Characteristics [June 22, 2011]
"To assist Congress in its oversight, this report provides an overview of federally related entities that possess legal characteristics of both the governmental and private sectors. These hybrid organizations (e.g., Fannie Mae, National Park Foundation, In-Q-Tel), collectively referred to in this report as the 'quasi government,' have grown in number, size, and importance in recent decades. A brief review of executive branch organizational history is followed by a description of entities with ties to the executive branch, although they are not 'agencies' of the United States as defined in Title 5 of the U.S. Code. Several categories of quasi governmental entities are defined and discussed: (1) quasi official agencies; (2) government-sponsored enterprises (GSE); (3) federally funded research and development corporations; (4) agency-related nonprofit organizations; (5) venture capital funds; (6) congressionally chartered nonprofit organizations; and (7) instrumentalities of indeterminate character. […] Critics of the quasi government, on the other hand, tend to view hybrid organizations as contributing to a weakened capacity of government to perform its fundamental constitutional duties, and to an erosion in political accountability, a crucial element in democratic governance. They tend to consider the governmental and private sectors as being legally distinct, with relatively little overlap in behavioral norms. There is nothing modest about the size, scope, and impact of the quasi government. Quasi governmental entities run the gamut, from not-for-profit organizations that raise funds for the upkeep of parks to venture capital entities that fund the development of new technologies of use by federal agencies. This report will be updated in the event of a significant development."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Kosar, Kevin R.
2011-06-22
-
Quasi Government: Hybrid Organizations with Both Government and Private Sector Legal Characteristics [Updated March 24, 2006]
"This report provides an overview of federally related entities that possess legal characteristics of both the governmental and private sectors. These hybrid organizations (e.g., Fannie Mae, National Park Foundation, In-Q-Tel), collectively referred to in this report as the 'quasi government,' have grown in number, size, and importance in recent decades. A brief review of executive branch organizational history is followed by a description of entities with ties to the executive branch, although they are not 'agencies' of the United States as defined in Title 5 of the U.S. Code. Several categories of quasi governmental entities are defined and discussed: (1) quasi official agencies; (2) government-sponsored enterprises (GSE); (3) federally funded research and development corporations; (4) agency-related nonprofit organizations; (5) venture capital funds; (6) congressionally chartered nonprofit organizations; and (7) instrumentalities of indeterminate character. The quasi government, not surprisingly, is a controversial subject. To supporters of this trend toward greater reliance upon hybrid organizations, the proper objective of governmental management is to maximize performance and results, however defined. In their view, the private and governmental sectors are alike in their essentials, and thus subject to the same economically derived behavioral norms. They tend to welcome this trend toward greater use of quasi governmental entities."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Kosar, Kevin R.; Moe, Ronald C.
2006-03-24
-
Quasi Government: Hybrid Organizations with Both Government and Private Sector Legal Characteristics [Updated February 13, 2007]
"This report provides an overview of federally related entities that possess legal characteristics of both the governmental and private sectors. These hybrid organizations (e.g., Fannie Mae, National Park Foundation, In-Q-Tel), collectively referred to in this report as the 'quasi government,' have grown in number, size, and importance in recent decades. A brief review of executive branch organizational history is followed by a description of entities with ties to the executive branch, although they are not 'agencies' of the United States as defined in Title 5 of the U.S. Code. Several categories of quasi governmental entities are defined and discussed: (1) quasi official agencies, (2) government-sponsored enterprises (GSE), (3) federally funded research and development corporations, (4) agency-related nonprofit organizations, (5) venture capital funds, (6) congressionally chartered nonprofit organizations, and (7) instrumentalities of indeterminate character. […] Congress is increasingly engaged with the quasi government. The issues run the gamut from enacting legislation to encourage the creation of nonprofit organizations to promote individual national parks, to proposals to strengthen regulation of government-sponsored enterprises such as Fannie Mae, to oversight hearings respecting national security issues at Los Alamos Laboratory. There is nothing modest about the size, scope, and impact of the quasi government. Time will tell whether the emergence of the quasi government is to be viewed as a symptom of decline in our democratic government, or a harbinger of a new, creative management era where the purportedly artificial barriers between the governmental and private sectors are breached as a matter of principle."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Kosar, Kevin R.
2007-02-13
-
Quasi Government: Hybrid Organizations with Both Government and Private Sector Legal Characteristics [Updated January 31, 2008]
"This report provides an overview of federally related entities that possess legal characteristics of both the governmental and private sectors. These hybrid organizations (e.g., Fannie Mae, National Park Foundation, In-Q-Tel), collectively referred to in this report as the 'quasi government,' have grown in number, size, and importance in recent decades. A brief review of executive branch organizational history is followed by a description of entities with ties to the executive branch, although they are not 'agencies' of the United States as defined in Title 5 of the U.S. Code. Several categories of quasi governmental entities are defined and discussed: (1) quasi official agencies, (2) government-sponsored enterprises (GSE), (3) federally funded research and development corporations, (4) agency-related nonprofit organizations, (5) venture capital funds, (6) congressionally chartered nonprofit organizations, and (7) instrumentalities of indeterminate character. The quasi government, not surprisingly, is a controversial subject. To supporters of this trend toward greater reliance upon hybrid organizations, the proper objective of governmental management is to maximize performance and results, however defined. In their view, the private and governmental sectors are alike in their essentials, and thus subject to the same economically derived behavioral norms. They tend to welcome this trend toward greater use of quasi governmental entities."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Kosar, Kevin R.
2008-01-31
-
Quasi-Government: Hybrid Organizations with Both Government and Private Sector Legal Characteristics [Updated May 18, 2005]
"This report provides an overview of federally related entities that possess legal
characteristics of both the governmental and private sectors. These hybrid organizations (e.g., Fannie Mae, National Park Foundation, In-Q-Tel), collectively
referred to in this report as the 'quasi government,' have grown in number, size, and importance in recent decades."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Kosar, Kevin R.; Moe, Ronald C.
2005-05-18
-
Quasi Government: Hybrid Organizsations with Both Government and Private Sector Legal Characteristics [March 24, 2006]
"This report provides an overview of federally related entities that possess legal characteristics of both the governmental and private sectors. These hybrid organizations (e.g., Fannie Mae, National Park Foundation, In-Q-Tel), collectively referred to in this report as the 'quasi government,' have grown in number, size, and importance in recent decades. A brief review of executive branch organizational history is followed by a description of entities with ties to the executive branch, although they are not 'agencies' of the United States as defined in Title 5 of the U.S. Code. Several categories of quasi governmental entities are defined and discussed: (1) quasi official agencies; (2) government-sponsored enterprises (GSE); (3) federally funded research and development corporations; (4) agency-related nonprofit organizations; (5) venture capital funds; (6) congressionally chartered nonprofit organizations; and (7) instrumentalities of indeterminate character. […] Time will tell whether the emergence of the quasi government is to be viewed as a symptom of decline in our democratic government, or a harbinger of a new, creative management era where the purported artificial barriers between the governmental and private sectors are breached as a matter of principle. This report will be updated annually."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Moe, Ronald C.; Kosar, Kevin R.
2006-03-24
-
Classified Information Policy and Executive Order 13526 [December 10, 2010]
"Recently, there have been multiple high-profile incidents involving the release of classified government information. Perhaps most prominent was Wikileaks.org's unauthorized publication of more than 600,000 classified Department of Defense documents. Such incidents have further heightened congressional, media, and public interest in classified information policy. President Barack H. Obama issued Executive Order 13526 on 'Classified National Security Information' on December 29, 2009, and Congress enacted P.L. 111-258, the Reducing Over- Classification Act, which President Obama signed into law on October 9, 2010. This report provides information on classified information policy, which also is called security classification policy and national security classification information policy. It discusses the history, costs, and agencies assigned roles in classified information policy. The report focuses on Executive Order 13526, which establishes much of the current policy, and the report identifies possible oversight issues for Congress. In broad terms, classified information policy aims to decrease the probability of persons or foreign nations accessing government-held information without authorization and using it to harm the national security of the United States. To this end, many authorities and policies limit access to information held by the federal government. Federal law defines 'classified information' as 'information or material designated and clearly marked or clearly represented, pursuant to the provisions of a statute or Executive order (or a regulation or order issued pursuant to a statute or Executive order), as requiring a specific degree of protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national security (50 U.S.C. 426(1)).' According to the Information Security Oversight Office, government security classification costs were $8.8 billion in FY2009, although this figure excludes intelligence agencies' expenditures. Congress has enacted statutes to set aspects of classified."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Kosar, Kevin R.
2010-12-10
-
Disaster Response and Appointment of a Recovery Czar: The Executive Branch's Response to the Flood of 1927 [October 25, 2005]
"In the wake of the destruction caused by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the press and policymakers have looked to the past for examples of federal responses to natural disasters that might serve as models for emulation today. Some Members of Congress have expressed an interest in creating a cabinet-level czar to administer Hurricane Katrina and Rita relief programs. Since the federal response to the flood of 1927 featured Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover as the director of the flood response and wielding immense executive powers, this episode in federal history may be of particular interest to Congress. This report describes the flood of 1927, and assesses the federal governments response thereto. In short, the federal response was an executive branch response. President Calvin Coolidge created a quasi-governmental commission that included members of his Cabinet and the American National Red Cross. This commission encouraged the public to donate funds to the relief effort. It also gave Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover near-absolute authority to organize and oversee its response. Hoover used this authority to weave together federal resources, American National Red Cross volunteers, and the private sector to carry out the relief and recovery program. The concentration of power and the blending of the governmental and private sectors in Hoovers hands enabled the relief effort to be carried out expeditiously and creatively. President Coolidge's empowerment of Hoover alone as director of the flood response clarified to federal, state, and local officials and the public who was in charge."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Kosar, Kevin R.
2005-10-25
-
U.S. Postal Service's Financial Condition: Overview and Issues for Congress [July 29, 2010]
"This report provides an overview of the U.S. Postal Service's (USPS's) financial condition, recent legislation to alleviate the USPS's financial challenges, and possible issues for the 111th Congress. It also addresses current legislation that aims to improve the USPS's financial condition--H.R. 22, S. 1507, and H.R. 5746. Since 1971, the USPS has been a self-supporting government agency that covers its operating costs with revenues generated through the sales of postage and related products and services. Recently, the USPS has experienced significant financial challenges. After running modest profits from FY2004 through FY2006, the USPS lost $5.3 billion in FY2007 and $2.8 billion in FY2008. In May 2009, the USPS warned that it might experience a cash shortage at the end of September 2009. Two months later, the Government Accountability Office added the USPS's financial condition 'to the list of high-risk areas needing attention by the Congress and the executive branch.' On September 30, 2009, Congress enacted H.R. 2918, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act [of] 2010. President Barack Obama signed the bill into law (P.L. 111-68) the next day. Section 164 of the law alleviated the USPS's cash shortage by reducing the USPS's statutorily required September 30, 2009, payment to the Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits Fund from $5.4 billion to $1.4 billion. (The USPS must repay the $4 billion deferred obligation after FY2016.)"
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Kosar, Kevin R.
2010-07-29
-
U.S. Postal Service's Use of Contractors to Deliver Mail: Background and Recent Developments
"Currently, the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) is collectively bargaining with the National Association of Letter Carriers (NALC) and National Rural Letter Carriers Association (NRLCA). One issue that may or may not be settled is the Postal Service's use of non-USPS employees (i.e., contractors) to deliver mail. If the parties cannot come to a satisfactory arrangement, Congress may be approached to consider the matter. Contractors have delivered mail to homes and businesses since 1900. Controversy over this practice arose in 2007 when the NALC alleged that the USPS had expanded the use of contractors into city areas at the expense of unionized membership. Congress held hearings on the matter, and legislation was introduced in both houses. The USPS and NALC came to a memorandum of understanding (MOU) in October 2008 to govern the practice, which appeared to quell the controversy. […] The USPS has increased its use of contractors in recent years, but USPS employees continue to serve 98% of all U.S. homes and businesses. This report will be updated as developments warrant."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Kosar, Kevin R.
2012-05-29
-
U.S. Postal Service's Financial Condition: Overview and Issues for Congress [January 27, 2012]
"This report provides an overview of the U.S. Postal Service's (USPS's) financial condition, legislation enacted to alleviate the USPS's financial challenges, and possible issues for the 112th Congress. It also includes a side-by-side comparison of two of the postal reform bills, H.R. 2309 and S. 1789. Since 1971, the USPS has been a self-supporting government agency that covers its operating costs with revenues generated through the sales of postage and related products and services. In recent years, the USPS has experienced significant financial challenges. After running modest profits from FY2004 through FY2006, the USPS lost $25.4 billion between FY2007 and FY2011. Were it not for congressional action, the USPS would have lost an additional $9.5 billion. A number of ideas have been advanced that would attempt to improve the USPS's financial condition in the short term so that it might continue as a self-funding government agency. All of these reforms would require Congress to amend current postal law. The ideas include (1) increasing the USPS's revenues by altering postage rates and increasing its offering of nonpostal rates and services; and (2) reducing the USPS's expenses by a number of means, such as recalculating the USPS's retiree health care and pension obligations and payments, closing postal facilities, and reducing mail delivery to less than six days per week. This report will be updated after the USPS releases its quarterly financial results in early February 2012, and in the interim should there be any significant developments."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Kosar, Kevin R.
2012-01-27
-
National Infrastructure Bank: Overview and Current Legislation [December 14, 2011]
"Conceptually, an infrastructure bank is a government-established entity that provides credit assistance to sponsors of infrastructure projects. An infrastructure bank can take many different forms, such as an independent federal agency, a federal corporation, a government-sponsored enterprise, a state government entity, or a private-sector, nonprofit corporation, but is distinguished from a commercial bank or private-sector infrastructure fund by being government established. Unlike government departments that mainly fund infrastructure through grants, an infrastructure bank would be expected mainly to provide credit assistance, typically loans, loan guarantees, and lines of credit. As with a traditional commercial bank, infrastructure bank borrowers would be expected to repay their loans with interest, and may have to pay other fees associated with the bank's credit instruments. But unlike a commercial bank, an infrastructure bank takes no deposits and conducts no other 'over-the-counter' transactions. Examples of existing infrastructure banks are the European Investment Bank (EIB) and, in the United States, state infrastructure banks, and possibly the Export-Import Bank."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Mallett, William; Maguire, Steven; Kosar, Kevin R.
2011-12-14
-
Advertising by the Federal Government: An Overview [April 6, 2012]
"Government advertising can be controversial if it conflicts with citizens' views about the proper role of government. Yet some government advertising is accepted as a normal part of government information activities. It is difficult to calculate the amount of funds spent by the federal government on advertising each year. The reasons for this include (1) there is no government-wide definition of what constitutes advertising and (2) there is no central authority to which agencies are required to report advertising expenses. However, an estimate of the federal government's expenditures on contracts for advertising services can be derived from data in the Federal Procurement Data System. According to these data, federal agencies spent $750.4 million on advertising services in FY2011. Agencies' discretion to advertise is limited primarily by restrictions imposed by Congress in authorization and appropriations statutes and by the principles set forth in volume 1 of the Government Accountability Office's (GAO's) Principles of Federal Appropriations Law. Any oversight of government advertising expenditures rests with agencies' inspectors general, GAO, and Congress."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Kosar, Kevin R.
2012-04-06
-
Privatization and the Federal Government: An Introduction
"During the past two decades, the privatization of federal agencies and activities has been much debated. That said, privatization - here defined as the use of the private sector in the provision of a good or service, the components of which include financing, operations (supplying, production, delivery), and quality control - is not a recent phenomenon. Since its founding in 1789, the federal government has used private firms to provide goods and services. Hence, privatization is of perennial interest to Congress. This report is an introduction to privatization in the federal governmental context. It discusses the emergence of privatization on the federal policy agenda in the late 1970s and early 1980s. To some, privatization appeared as an answer to the purported failures of 'big government.' Privatization attracted political support due to its rhetorically persuasive rationales, purported benefits, and political attractiveness. However, privatization also has been controversial. Critics have complained that privatization is a form of union busting and that privatization can have unforeseen and undesirable consequences. The report notes that, whenever policymakers consider privatizing a federal agency or activity, a fundamental issue arises - 'Which activities are essential to the state and should remain directly accountable to the elected representatives of the people and which may be carried out by the private sector?' This question is complex and value-laden; no definitive answer exists. Thus, the decision to privatize is inherently controversial."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Kosar, Kevin R.
2006-12-28
-
U.S. Postal Service: Background and Analysis of H.R. 2309 and S. 1789 in the 112th Congress [July 9, 2012]
"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. […] 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."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Kosar, Kevin R.
2012-07-09
-
Congressional Oversight of Agency Public Communications: Implications of Agency New Media Use [March 14, 2012]
"This report intends to assist Congress in its oversight of executive branch agencies' public communications. Here, 'public communications' refers to agency communications that are directed to the public. Many, and perhaps most, federal agencies routinely communicate with the public. Agencies do so for many purposes, including informing the public of its rights and entitlements, and informing the public of the agency's activities. Agencies spent more than $900 million on contracts for advertising services in FY2010, a figure that does not include all agency communications expenditures. [...] Many federal agencies have adopted new electronic communication technologies over the past two decades. These 'new media' technologies include e-mail, websites, weblogs (or blogs), text messaging, and social media such as Facebook and Twitter. Agencies' use of these new media has implications for congressional oversight of agency public communications. Most fundamentally, the ease of use of new media and the nature of digital communications further complicates congressional oversight and enforcement of the public communications restrictions."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Kosar, Kevin R.
2012-03-14
-
Regular Vetoes and Pocket Vetoes: An Overview [April 22, 2013]
"The veto power vested in the President by Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution has proven to be an effective tool for the chief executive in his dealings with Congress. Since the founding of the federal government in 1789, 37 of 44 Presidents have exercised their veto authority a total of 2,564 times. Congress has overridden these vetoes on 110 occasions (4.3%). Presidents have vetoed 83 appropriations bills, and Congress has overridden 12 (14.5%) of these vetoes. During the 111th Congress, President Barack H. Obama vetoed two bills, H.J.Res. 64, an FY2010 appropriations measure, and H.R. 3808, the Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act of 2010. He has not vetoed any legislation since then. This report will be updated as events warrant."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Kosar, Kevin R.
2013-04-22
-
Regular Vetoes and Pocket Vetoes: An Overview [Updated June 18, 2007]
"The veto power vested in the President by Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution has proven to be an effective tool for the chief executive in his dealings with Congress. Since the founding of the federal government in 1789, 36 of 43 Presidents have exercised their veto authority a total of 2,552 times. Congress has overridden these vetoes on 106 occasions (4.2%). Presidents have vetoed 81 appropriations bills, and Congress has overridden 12 (14.8%) of these vetoes. This report will be updated at the beginning of each new Congress or after a veto."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Kosar, Kevin R.
2007-06-18
-
Regular Vetoes and Pocket Vetoes: An Overview [June 18, 2014]
"The veto power vested in the President by Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution has proven to be an effective tool for the chief executive in his dealings with Congress. Since the founding of the federal government in 1789, 37 of 44 Presidents have exercised their veto authority a total of 2,564 times. Congress has overridden these vetoes on 110 occasions (4.3%). Presidents have vetoed 83 appropriations bills, and Congress has overridden 12 (14.5%) of these vetoes. President Barack H. Obama has vetoed two bills since taking office in 2009: H.J.Res. 64, an FY2010 appropriations measure, and H.R. 3808, the Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act of 2010. These vetoes occurred during the 111th Congress. President Obama has not vetoed any legislation since then. This report will be updated as events warrant."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Kosar, Kevin R.
2014-06-18
-
Public Relations and Propaganda: Restrictions on Executive Agency Activities [Updated May 24, 2005]
"Controversies recently have arisen over certain executive branch agencies' expenditures of appropriated funds on public relations activities, some of which have been characterized as propagandistic. Generally speaking, there are two legal restrictions on agency public relations activities and propaganda. 5 U.S.C. 3107 prohibits the use of appropriated funds to hire publicity experts. Appropriations law 'publicity and propaganda' clauses restrict the use of funds for puffery of an agency, purely partisan communications, and covert propaganda. No federal agency monitors federal public relations activities, but a Member or Committee of Congress may ask the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to examine an agency's expenditures on public relations activities with a view to their legality. Any effort to reform current statutory restrictions on agency public relations activities will face three challenges: tracking public relations activities by agencies, defining 'propaganda,' and enforcing laws against agency use of funds for publicity experts and propaganda."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Kosar, Kevin R.
2005-05-24
-
Public Relations and Propaganda: Restrictions on Executive Agency Activities [Updated March 21, 2005]
"Controversies recently have arisen over certain executive branch agencies expenditures of appropriated funds on public relations activities, some of which have been characterized as propagandistic. Generally speaking, there are two legal restrictions on agency public relations activities and propaganda. 5 U.S.C. 3107 prohibits the use of appropriated funds to hire publicity experts. Appropriations law 'publicity and propaganda' clauses restrict the use of funds for puffery of an agency, purely partisan communications, and covert propaganda. No federal agency monitors federal public relations activities, but a Member or Committee of Congress may ask the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to examine an agency's expenditures on public relations activities with a view to their legality. Any effort to reform current statutory restrictions on agency public relations activities will face three challenges: tracking public relations activities by agencies, defining 'propaganda,' and enforcing laws against agency use of funds for publicity experts and propaganda. On January 26, 2005, H.R. 373 was introduced in the House of Representatives. The bill would require a federal agency to notify the Congress no later than 30 days after entering into a public relations contract, codify the publicity and propaganda clause and provide penalties for violations of it, and require federal agencies to label their communications as having been paid for with appropriated funds."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Kosar, Kevin R.
2005-03-21
