Gerald
Mayer
Analyst in Labor Policy
The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) sets minimum standards for
hourly wages, overtime pay, and child labor. The FLSA requires employers
to pay covered employees at least $7.25 an hour and at least
one-and-a-half times their regular hourly wage for hours worked over 40 hours a week
at a given job. However, the FLSA includes a number of exemptions that exclude
certain employees from the minimum wage and overtime standards of the act.
Section 13(a)(1) of the FLSA exempts from both the minimum wage and overtime
pay standards of the act any person who is employed in a bona fide
executive, administrative, or professional occupation (the EAP exemption).
Before 1990, employees in computer-related occupations were exempt if they
met the requirements of the EAP exemption.
In 1990, Congress directed the Secretary of Labor to issue regulations that
would allow “computer systems analysts, computer programmers, software
engineers, and other similarly skilled professional workers” to qualify as
exempt executive, administrative, or professional employees under Section
13(a)(1) of the FLSA. The 1990 legislation also directed Congress to apply
the EAP exemption to employees in computer-related occupations if they were
paid on an hourly basis at a rate of at least six-and-a-half times the
basic federal minimum wage. At the time, the federal minimum wage was
$4.25 an hour. Thus, hourly computer employees were exempt if they met the
job duties test and were paid at least $27.63 an hour. In 1992, the U.S.
Department of Labor (DOL) published a final rule that implemented the 1990
legislation. The regulations treated computer employees as professional
employees under the EAP exemption.
In 1996, Congress amended the FLSA to add a specific exemption for computer
employees. The amendments fixed the minimum hourly wage for computer
professionals at $27.63 an hour and included in statute much of the
regulatory language from the 1992 regulations that defined the primary
duties of computer professionals.
In 2004, DOL issued new regulations that revised the salary and duties tests
for the EAP exemption. The regulations also simplified the duties test for
computer professionals to reflect the 1996 amendments to the FLSA. Under
the 2004 regulations, whether they are paid by the hour (at a minimum rate
of $27.63) or the week (at a minimum rate of $455), computer professionals are exempt
from the minimum wage and overtime standards of the FLSA if they meet the job
duties test provided in regulations.
Employees in certain computer-related occupations are not exempt and must be
paid at least the minimum wage and time-and-a-half for overtime. The
exemption for workers in computer occupations does not include employees
engaged in the manufacture or repair of computer hardware. Employees whose
work is highly dependent on the use of computers but who are not engaged
primarily in computer systems analysis, programming, or other similarly skilled computer
occupations are not exempt. Depending on their job duties, Information
Technology (IT) Support Specialists may not be exempt from the minimum
wage and overtime standards of the FLSA.
In recent Congresses, legislation has been introduced that would expand the
statutory exemption for computer employees to include workers whose job
duties include network or database analysis and workers who manage or
train employees who qualify for the exemption.
Date of Report: February 24, 2012
Number of Pages: 18
Order Number: R42141
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.
Patricia Moloney Figliola
Specialist in Internet and Telecommunications Policy
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent federal agency with its five members appointed by the President, subject to confirmation by the Senate. It was established by the Communications Act of 1934 (1934 Act) and is charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable. The mission of the FCC is to ensure that the American people have available—at reasonable cost and without discrimination—rapid, efficient, nation- and world-wide communication services, whether by radio, television, wire, satellite, or cable.
Although the FCC has restructured over the past few years to better reflect the industry, it is still required to adhere to the statutory requirements of its governing legislation, the Communications Act of 1934. The 1934 Act requires the FCC to regulate the various industry sectors differently. Some policymakers have been critical of the FCC and the manner in which it regulates various sectors of the telecommunications industry—telephone, cable television, radio and television broadcasting, and some aspects of the Internet. These policymakers, including some in Congress, have long called for varying degrees and types of reform to the FCC. Most proposals fall into two categories: (1) procedural changes made within the FCC or through congressional action that would affect the agency’s operations or (2) substantive policy changes requiring congressional action that would affect how the agency regulates different services and industry sectors. Nine bills have been introduced during the 112th Congress that would change the operation of the FCC.
Most of the FCC’s budget is derived from regulatory fees collected by the agency rather than through a direct appropriation. The fees, often referred to as “Section (9) fees,” are collected from license holders and certain other entities (e.g., cable television systems) and deposited into an FCC account. The law gives the FCC authority to review the regulatory fees and to adjust the fees to reflect changes in its appropriation from year to year. It may also add, delete, or reclassify services under certain circumstances.
The FY2012 budget is included in P.L. 112-74, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 (H.R. 2055), which was signed by President Obama on December 23, 2011. The budget provides $339,844,000 for agency salaries and expenses with no direct appropriation (all funding will be obtained through the collection of regulatory fees). This level is $16,790,000 less than the FY2011 budget.
Date of Report: February 21, 2012
Number of Pages: 15
Order Number: RL32589
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.
Angele A. Gilroy
Specialist in Telecommunications Policy
As congressional policymakers continue to debate telecommunications reform, a major point of contention is the question of whether action is needed to ensure unfettered access to the Internet. The move to place restrictions on the owners of the networks that compose and provide access to the Internet, to ensure equal access and non-discriminatory treatment, is referred to as “net neutrality.” While there is no single accepted definition of “net neutrality,” most agree that any such definition should include the general principles that owners of the networks that compose and provide access to the Internet should not control how consumers lawfully use that network, and they should not be able to discriminate against content provider access to that network.
A major focus in the debate is concern over whether it is necessary for policymakers to take steps to ensure access to the Internet for content, services, and applications providers, as well as consumers, and if so, what these steps should be. Some policymakers contend that more specific regulatory guidelines may be necessary to protect the marketplace from potential abuses which could threaten the net neutrality concept. Others contend that existing laws and policies are sufficient to deal with potential anti-competitive behavior and that additional regulations would have negative effects on the expansion and future development of the Internet. The December 21, 2010, adoption, and November 20, 2011, implementation, by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) of its Open Internet Order has focused attention on the issue. Although most concede that networks have always needed and will continue to need some management, the use of prioritization tools, such as deep packet inspection, as well as the initiation of metered/usagebased billing practices have further fueled the debate.
A consensus on the net neutrality issue has remained elusive and support for the FCC’s Open Internet Order has been mixed. While some Members of Congress support the action, and in some cases would have supported an even stronger approach, others feel that the FCC has overstepped its authority and that the regulation of the Internet is not only unnecessary, but harmful. Internet regulation and the FCC’s authority to implement such regulations has been a topic of legislation (H.R. 96, H.R. 166, S. 74, H.R. 2434, H.R. 1, H.R. 3630, H.J.Res. 37, and S.J.Res. 6 ) and hearings in the 112th Congress. The House, on April 8, 2011, passed (240-179) H.J.Res. 37, to state disapproval of and remove the force and effect of the FCC’s Open Internet Order. However, an identical resolution of disapproval (S.J.Res. 6) failed to pass the Senate on November 10, 2011, by a 52-46 vote. Attempts to prohibit implementation through the appropriations process, by the withholding of FCC funds for such purposes, have also been unsuccessful. It is anticipated that the issue of Internet access will be of continued interest to policymakers.
The net neutrality issue has also been narrowly addressed within the context of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA, P.L. 111-5). Provisions required the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), in consultation with the FCC, to establish “nondiscrimination and network interconnection obligations” as a requirement for grant participants in the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP). These obligations were released, July 1, 2009, in conjunction with the issuance of a notice of funds availability soliciting applications. Recipients of these awards have been selected and continued congressional oversight is expected.
The ARRA also required the FCC to submit a report, containing a national broadband plan, to both the House and Senate Commerce Committees; it was released on March 16, 2010.
Date of Report: February 21, 2012
Number of Pages: 21
Order Number: R40616
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.
Christine M. Matthews
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
The Arecibo Ionospheric Observatory is a radio and radar telescope located in Barrio Esperanza, Arecibo, Puerto Rico. The Arecibo Observatory is managed, operated, and maintained by SRI International, under contract with the National Science Foundation (NSF). In 2005-2006, NSF’s Division of Astronomical Sciences (AST) conducted a Senior Review of its portfolio of facilities. Among other things, the Senior Review was to identify potential reinvestment in the highest priority existing programs in AST and restructure the operational efficiency of the existing facilities. The Review reported that the scientific value of the Arecibo was modest when compared to other existing and proposed projects and recommended decreasing the telescope’s annual $12.0 million budget to $9.0 million in FY2009, and securing partnerships for the remaining necessary funding. If alternate funding sources or partnerships could not be obtained by 2011, the Review recommended dismantling the facility.
In February 2011, a report of the Senior Review estimated that closure of the Arecibo could approach $88.0 million, approximately eight times its current operating cost. The Review determined that AST should carefully examine the priorities of continuing to operate older facilities while simultaneously transitioning to newer facilities. The issue before the 112th Congress is whether the Arecibo is more cost-effective than replacing it with newer, available technology.
In June 2011, NSF announced that it awarded a $42.0 million, five-year contract to SRI international to manage, operate, and maintain the Arecibo. SRI International will partner with the Universities Research Association, the Universidad Metropolitana, San Juan, and the University of Puerto Rico. The Arecibo will, among other things, expand its research on the study of the ionosphere, the remains of imploded stars, and also search within and beyond the Milky Way for asteroids and pulsars.
The Administration’s FY2013 budget request for the Arecibo in the NSF totals $8.2 million, the FY2012 estimate is $8.7 million. Requested funding for the Arecibo Observatory in the FY2013 request includes $5.0 million from the AST, and $3.2 million from the Division of Atmospheric and Geospace Sciences (AGS).
Date of Report: February 23, 2012
Number of Pages: 13
Order Number: R40437
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.
Kristin M. Finklea
Specialist in Domestic Security
Savvy criminals constantly develop new techniques to target U.S. persons, businesses, and interests. Individual criminals as well as broad criminal networks exploit geographic borders, criminal turf, cyberspace, and law enforcement jurisdiction to dodge law enforcement countermeasures. Further, the interplay of these realities can potentially encumber policing measures. In light of these interwoven realities, policy makers may question how to best design policies to help law enforcement combat ever-evolving criminal threats.
Criminals routinely take advantage of geographic borders. They thrive on their ability to illicitly cross borders, subvert border security regimens, and provide illegal products or services. Many crimes—particularly those of a cyber nature—have become increasingly transnational. While criminals may operate across geographic borders and jurisdictional boundaries, law enforcement may not be able to do so with the same ease. Moreover, obstacles such as disparities between the legal regimens of nations (what is considered a crime in one country may not be in another) and differences in willingness to extradite suspected criminals can hamper prosecutions. The law enforcement community has, however, expanded its working relationships with both domestic and international agencies.
Globalization and technological innovation have fostered the expansion of both legitimate and criminal operations across physical borders as well as throughout cyberspace. Advanced, rapid communication systems have made it easier for criminals to carry out their operations remotely from their victims and members of their illicit networks. In the largely borderless cyber domain, criminals can rely on relative anonymity and a rather seamless environment to conduct illicit business. Further, in the rapidly evolving digital age, law enforcement may not have the technological capabilities to keep up with the pace of criminals.
Some criminal groups establish their own operational “borders” by defining and defending the “turf” or territories they control. Similarly, U.S. law enforcement often remains constrained by its own notions of “turf”—partly defined in terms of competing agency-level priorities and jurisdictions. While some crimes are worked under the jurisdiction of a proprietary agency, others are not investigated under such clear lines. These investigative overlaps and a lack of data and information sharing can hinder law enforcement anti-crime efforts.
U.S. law enforcement has, particularly since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, increasingly relied on intelligence-led policing, enhanced interagency cooperation, and technological implementation to confront 21st century crime. For instance, enforcement agencies have used formal and informal interagency agreements as well as fusion centers and task forces to assimilate information and coordinate operations. Nonetheless, there have been notable impediments in implementing effective information sharing systems and relying on up-to-date technology. Congress may question how it can leverage its legislative and oversight roles to bolster U.S. law enforcement’s abilities to confront modern-day crime. For instance, Congress may consider whether federal law enforcement has the existing authorities, technology, and resources—both monetary and manpower—to counter 21st century criminals (particularly cybercriminals, e.g., S. 2105). Congress may also examine whether federal law enforcement is utilizing existing mechanisms to effectively coordinate investigations and share information.
Date of Report: February 15, 2012
Number of Pages: 41
Order Number: R41927
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
