You limited your search to:

 Collection: Congressional Research Service Reports
Adult Education and Literacy: Overview and Reauthorization Proposals of the 109th Congress

Adult Education and Literacy: Overview and Reauthorization Proposals of the 109th Congress

Date: May 19, 2005
Creator: Irwin, Paul M.
Description: The 109th Congress is considering the reauthorization of federal adult education and literacy programs. The Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA) authorized these programs through FY2003. The primary AEFLA activity is a state grant program that supports education and literacy services for educationally disadvantaged adults. The AEFLA also authorizes national leadership activities in adult education and literacy, and the National Institute for Literacy. The FY2005 AEFLA appropriation is $585 million; the FY2006 budget request would reduce funding to $216 million. The AEFLA was enacted as Title II of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA), P.L. 105-220, on August 7, 1998.
Contributing Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department
Advance Appropriations, Forward Funding, and Advance Funding

Advance Appropriations, Forward Funding, and Advance Funding

Date: November 22, 2010
Creator: Streeter, Sandy
Description: pppropriations acts generally make budget authority (or BA) available for use (or obligation) at the start of the fiscal year covered by the act. Sometimes appropriations bills provide a different date for specified budget authority within the act to become first available so that the funding cycle does not coincide with the fiscal year generally covered by the act. There are three types of this kind of budget authority: advance appropriations, forward funding, and advance funding.
Contributing Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department
Advance Appropriations, Forward Funding, and Advance Funding: Concepts, Practice, and Budget Process Considerations

Advance Appropriations, Forward Funding, and Advance Funding: Concepts, Practice, and Budget Process Considerations

Date: April 16, 2014
Creator: Tollestrup, Jessica
Description: This report discusses the federal programs that are funded through the annual appropriations process in regular appropriations acts, which may typically obligate those funds during a period that starts at the beginning of that fiscal year.
Contributing Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department
Advance Appropriations, Forward Funding, and Advance Funding: Concepts, Practice, and Budget Process Considerations

Advance Appropriations, Forward Funding, and Advance Funding: Concepts, Practice, and Budget Process Considerations

Date: October 8, 2015
Creator: Tollestrup, Jessica
Description: This report examines concepts, practices, and procedural implications associated with particular delayed periods of availability.
Contributing Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department
The Advanced Technology Program

The Advanced Technology Program

Date: January 7, 2008
Creator: Schacht, Wendy H.
Description: President Bush's FY2008 budget request did not include financing for ATP. The FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act, P.L. 110-161, replaces ATP with the Technology Innovation Program (TIP) and provides $65.2 million (with an additional $5 million in ATP FY2007 unobligated balances), 17.6% less than the previous fiscal year. P.L. 110- 69, the America COMPETES Act, authorized the creation of TIP.
Contributing Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department
Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the Appropriations Process: FAQs Regarding Potential Legislative Changes and Effects of a Government Shutdown

Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the Appropriations Process: FAQs Regarding Potential Legislative Changes and Effects of a Government Shutdown

Date: October 2, 2013
Creator: Redhead, C. S.; Tollestrup, Jessica; Liu, Edward C. & Brass, Clinton T.
Description: This report provides background information on the Affordable Care Act (ACA). It discusses the ACA and the annual appropriations process and the potential impact of a shutdown on ACA implementation.
Contributing Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department
Agricultural Issues in the 109th Congress

Agricultural Issues in the 109th Congress

Date: July 20, 2006
Creator: Chite, Ralph M.
Description: This report discusses a number of issues affecting U.S. agriculture have been or are being addressed by the 109th Congress. The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-171), enacted in February 2006, included a net reduction in spending on U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) mandatory programs of $2.7 billion over five years, and the reauthorization of a dairy income support program. Other issues of importance to agriculture during the second session of the 109th Congress include the consideration of emergency farm disaster assistance; multilateral and bilateral trade negotiations; concerns about agroterrorism, food safety, and animal and plant diseases (e.g., “mad cow” disease and avian flu); high energy costs; environmental issues; agricultural marketing matters; the reauthorization of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission; and farm labor issues.
Contributing Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department
Agricultural Marketing Assistance Loans and Loan Deficiency Payments

Agricultural Marketing Assistance Loans and Loan Deficiency Payments

Date: December 13, 2000
Creator: Womach, Jasper
Description: Marketing assistance loans for the major crops were designed to facilitate orderly marketing by providing short-term financing so that farmers could pay their bills right after harvest and spread their sales over the entire marketing year. However, the persistence of very low commodity prices transformed the loan program into a major vehicle of farm income support. Marketing loan program benefits (primarily loan deficiency payments, LDPs) to farmers amounted to about $5.9 billion in 1999, and will exceed $6.5 billion in 2000. Such levels of use and high costs have revealed several administrative problems and given rise to several policy issues. Some policy makers have favored broadening the scope and enhancing the benefits of the program to achieve greater farm income support. Anticipated adverse market impacts have discouraged adoption of these proposals to date. A persistent policy issue is the payment limitation on marketing loan gains.
Contributing Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department
Agricultural Marketing Assistance Loans and Loan Deficiency Payments

Agricultural Marketing Assistance Loans and Loan Deficiency Payments

Date: September 15, 2000
Creator: Womach, Jasper
Description: Marketing assistance loans for the major crops were designed to facilitate orderly marketing by providing short-term financing so that farmers could pay their bills right after harvest and spread their sales over the entire marketing year. However, the persistence of very low commodity prices transformed the loan program into a major vehicle of farm income support. Marketing loan program benefits (primarily loan deficiency payments, LDPs) to farmers amounted to about $5.9 billion in 1999, and will exceed $6.5 billion in 2000. Such levels of use and high costs have revealed several administrative problems and given rise to several policy issues. Some policy makers have favored broadening the scope and enhancing the benefits of the program to achieve greater farm income support. Anticipated adverse market impacts have discouraged adoption of these proposals to date. A persistent policy issue is the payment limitation on marketing loan gains.
Contributing Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department
Agriculture and FY2006 Budget Reconciliation

Agriculture and FY2006 Budget Reconciliation

Date: May 4, 2005
Creator: Chite, Ralph M
Description: On April 29, 2005, Congress completed action on the FY2006 budget resolution (H.Con.Res. 95, H.Rept. 109-62). This measure contains reconciliation instructions that require authorizing committees to report legislation to reduce spending on mandatory programs within each committee’s jurisdiction. To reduce spending in mandatory U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) programs, conferees instructed the House and Senate Agriculture Committees to reduce mandatory spending by $173 million in FY2006 and $3.0 billion over five years (FY2006-FY2010). The Bush Administration earlier proposed changes to several mandatory USDA programs, which it said would save $5.7 billion over five years (and which the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) subsequently scored at $9.4 billion in reductions). The agriculture committees must determine how to divide the cuts among the various programs under their jurisdiction by September 16, 2005.
Contributing Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department