Jared T. Brown
Analyst in Emergency
Management and Homeland Security Policy
The core purpose of
the Community Disaster Loan (CDL) program is to provide financial assistance
to local governments that are having difficulty providing government services
because of a loss in tax or other revenue following a disaster. The
program assists local governments by offering federal loans to compensate
for this temporary or permanent loss in local revenue. The CDL program is
managed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). First authorized
in the Disaster Relief Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-288), the Community Disaster Loan program
is currently codified in Section 417 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. §5184, as amended). The program is funded through the Disaster
Assistance Direct Loan Program account, rather than the Disaster Relief Fund
(DRF) that funds the majority of other Stafford Act programs. In sum, 249
loans were issued to 200 local governments under 26 different disaster
declarations from 1974 to 2010. An approximate total of $1,615 million in
principal was offered to these governments in loans, of which roughly $1,326 million
was borrowed by the governments. Through the program, FEMA may also cancel the repayment
of the loans if certain financial conditions prevailed after the three fiscal
years following the disaster. Through its cancellation authority, FEMA has
forgiven approximately $879 million of the $1,326 million in principal
advanced to local governments since program inception.
This report compares and analyzes three different categories of loans issued in
different time periods in the program’s history: “traditional” loans
issued between 1974-2005, in 2007, and between 2009-2011 (TCDLs); “special”
(SCDLs) loans issued in 2005-2006 following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita;
and loans issued under unique provisions in 2008 (2008 CDLs). As authorized
by Congress and administered by FEMA, the SCDL and 2008 loan categories had different
provisions than traditional loans to guide the eligibility of local governments
and dollar size of the loans. SCDLs also had unique provisions that
slightly altered the purpose of the loans, lowered the interest rate
charged on the loans, and clarified the cancellation procedures for the loans.
In the original legislation authorizing and appropriating the SCDLs, the loans
were not allowed to be cancelled. However, Congress later amended the law
to allow cancellation for SCDLs. Some controversy has arisen over FEMA’s
administration of the cancellation authority for these special loans. Table
8 and Table 9 provide several measures for comparing the
cancellation rates of TCDLs to SCDLs. In summary, TCDLs had a lower
percentage of loans fully cancelled or with some level of cancellation
than SCDLs (32.7 % and 45.5% versus 44.2% and 59.7%, respectively). On
average, TCDLs also had lower dollar amounts of principal forgiven per loan than
SCDLs (37.8% versus 52.4%). However, as a function of total dollar amount of
principal cancelled in each loan category, TCDLs had a much higher
cancellation rate than SCDLs (97.2% versus 67.3%).
Congress may consider changes to the CDL program in the future. Options could
include altering future authorization and appropriations for the program
in favor of more tailored disaster assistance programs, or converting the
loan assistance into a grant program. There are also options for amending
the program less significantly, including changing the way loan funds may be
used by local governments, changing the total dollar size of the loans, and
altering how the cancellation authority can be applied by FEMA.
Date of Report: May 10, 2012
Number of Pages: 47
Order Number: R42527
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.
Alexandra Hegji
Presidential
Management Fellow
Since 1926, Congress
has enacted three major laws that govern labor-management relations for private
sector and federal employees. An issue for Congress is the effect of these laws
on employers, workers, and the nation’s economy. The Bureau of Labor
Statistics estimates that, nationwide, 9.2 million employees are
represented by unions. In the 112th Congress alone, more than 30 bills
have been introduced to amend federal labor relations statutes. The proposals
range from making union recognition without a secret ballot election
illegal to further modifying runoff election procedures. This legislative
activity, and the significant number of employees affected by federal
labor relations laws, illustrate the current relevance of labor relations
issues to legislators and their constituents.
The three major labor relations statutes in the United States are the Railway
Labor Act, the National Labor Relations Act, and the Federal Service
Labor-Management Relations Statute. Each law governs a distinct population
of the U.S. workforce.
The Railway Labor Act (RLA) was enacted in 1926, and its coverage extends to
railway and airline carriers, unions, and employees of the carriers. The
RLA guarantees employees the right to organize and collectively bargain
with their employers over conditions of work and protects them against
unfair employer and union practices. It lays out specific procedures for
selecting employee representatives and provides a dispute resolution
system that aims to efficiently resolve labor disputes between parties,
with an emphasis on mediation and arbitration. The RLA provides multiple
processes for dispute resolution, depending on whether the dispute is based on
a collective bargaining issue or the application of an existing collective
bargaining agreement.
The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) was enacted in 1933. The NLRA’s
coverage extends to most other private sector businesses that are not
covered by the RLA. Like the RLA, the NLRA guarantees employees the right
to organize and collectively bargain over conditions of employment and
protects them against unfair employer and union activities. However, its
dispute resolution system differs from the RLA’s in that it is arguably
more adversarial in nature; many disputes are resolved through
adjudication, rather than through mediation and arbitration.
The Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (FSLMRS) was enacted in
1978, and its coverage extends to most federal employees. The basic
framework of the FSLMRS is similar to that of the NLRA; however, employee
rights are more restricted under the FSLMRS, given the unique nature of
their employer, the federal government. Federal employees have the right to organize
and collectively bargain, but they cannot bargain over wages or strike.
Additionally, the President has the power to unilaterally exclude an
agency or subdivision from coverage under the FSLMRS if he determines that
its primary work concerns national security.
This report provides a brief history and overview of the aims of each of these
statutes. It also discusses key statutory provisions for each statute.
Date of Report: May 11, 2012
Number of Pages: 51
Order Number: R42526
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.
Karen E. Lynch
Specialist in Social
Policy
The Social Services
Block Grant (SSBG) is a flexible source of funds that states use to support a wide
variety of social services activities. States have broad discretion over the
use of these funds. In FY2009, the most recent year for which expenditure
data are available, the largest expenditures for services under the SSBG
were for child care, foster care, and special services for the disabled.
The FY2012 Consolidated Appropriations Act (H.R. 2055, P.L. 112-74) provided
$1.7 billion for the SSBG in FY2012, the same level of funding as had been
requested in the FY2012 President’s Budget. This is also the same level of
annually appropriated funding that the SSBG has received in every year
since FY2002. Since FY2001, annual appropriations for the SSBG have included a provision
stipulating that states may transfer up to 10% of their Temporary Assistance
for Needy Families (TANF) block grants to the SSBG. In addition to funding
from annual appropriations, the SSBG received supplemental appropriations
in FY2006 and FY2009 for necessary expenses resulting from natural
disasters.
In February 2012, the Obama Administration released its FY2013 budget, which
proposed to maintain annual SSBG funding at $1.7 billion in FY2013. By
contrast, the committee report (H.Rept. 112-421) accompanying the
House-passed concurrent resolution on the FY2013 budget (H.Con.Res. 112)
has recommended eliminating the SSBG in FY2013. In its critique of the SSBG,
the committee report calls the SSBG a “duplicative” funding stream with “no
evidence” of effectiveness. Critics of the proposal to eliminate the SSBG,
such as the National Conference of State Legislatures, have argued that
the block grant’s flexibility allows states to address the needs of
vulnerable populations and respond to local concerns.
On April 18, 2012, the House Committee on Ways and Means marked up legislation
to comply with a reconciliation directive included in Section 201 of the
House-passed budget resolution for FY2013 (H.Con.Res. 112). The
legislation includes a proposal, which was passed (22-14) by the committee,
to repeal the SSBG. The legislation was transmitted to the House Committee on
the Budget for inclusion in a larger reconciliation bill. On May 7, 2012,
the House Committee on the Budget voted (21-9) to approve the Sequester
Replacement Reconciliation Act of 2012, which is the reconciliation
package that includes the proposal to repeal the SSBG.
Under current law, the SSBG is permanently authorized in Title XX of the Social
Security Act (SSA). The 111th Congress amended Title XX of the SSA in the
health care reform legislation signed into law by President Obama on March
23, 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA; P.L.
111-148). This law inserted a new subtitle on elder justice into Title XX, which
was itself re-titled as Block Grants to States for Social Services and Elder
Justice. The health reform law also amended Title XX by establishing
two demonstration projects to address the workforce needs of health care professionals
and a new competitive grant program to support the early detection of
medical conditions related to environmental health hazards. The purpose of this
report is to provide background and funding information about the SSBG; the
report does not provide detailed information on other programs authorized
within Title XX of the SSA.
Date of Report: May 8, 2012
Number of Pages: 28
Order Number: 94-953
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.
Posts
