You limited your search to:
Collection:
Congressional Research Service Reports
Evolution of the Senate's Role in the Nomination and Confirmation Process: A Brief History
Date: June 5, 2003
Creator: Palmer, Betsy
Description: Over time, the Senate has developed a series of procedures to deal with the concerns of its Members on nominations. First is the custom of senatorial courtesy, whereby Senators from the same party as the President might influence a nomination or kill it by objecting to it. This tradition has not always been absolute, but it has allowed Senators to play a fairly large role, particularly in the selection of nominees within a Senator’s home state, such as for district court judgeships.
Contributing Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department
Permallink:digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs7052/
Executive Branch Power to Postpone Elections
Date: July 14, 2004
Creator: Thomas, Kenneth R
Description: Because of the continuing threat of terrorism, concerns have been raised about the potential for terrorist events to occur close to or during the voting process for the November 2004 elections. For instance, the question has been raised as to whether a sufficiently calamitous event could result in the postponement of the election, and what mechanisms are in place to deal with such an event. This report focuses on who has the constitutional authority to postpone elections, to whom such power could be delegated, and what legal limitations exist to such a postponement.
Contributing Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department
Permallink:digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs5856/
Executive Order 12919: Emergency Powers of the President
Date: October 23, 2000
Creator: Burdette, Robert B
Description: Executive Order 12919 concerns industrial preparedness during times of war and national emergency. This brief report uses simple language to describe what Executive Order 12919 does. It is intended to clarify common misunderstandings about the Order’s purpose and scope.
Contributing Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department
Permallink:digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs6974/
Export Administration Act of 1979 Reauthorization
Date: August 29, 2001
Creator: Fergusson, Ian F
Description: The Export Administration Act of 2001 was introduced on January 23, 2001. Hearings were held by the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, and the bill was reported for consideration by the full Senate by a vote of 19-1 to March 22, 2001. A companion version in the House, H.R. 2581, was introduced by Rep. Gilmanon July 20, 2001. The House International Relations Committee reported the measure with 35 amendments on August 1. The Export Administration Act of 1979 expired on August 20, 2001, however the President extended export control authority and the Export Administration Regulations by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. During the 106th Congress, both houses held hearings on export control legislation and the Senate Banking Committee voted to adopt the Export Administration Act of 1999 (S. 1712, reported on October 8, 1999, S.Rept. 106-180).
Contributing Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department
Permallink:digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs1999/
Export Administration Act of 1979 Reauthorization
Date: January 2, 2003
Creator: Fergusson, Ian F
Description: The Export Administration Act of 2001 was introduced on January 23, 2001. Hearings were held by the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, and the bill was reported for consideration by the full Senate by a vote of 19-1 to March 22, 2001. A companion version in the House, H.R. 2581, was introduced by Rep. Gilmanon July 20, 2001. The House International Relations Committee reported the measure with 35 amendments on August 1. The Export Administration Act of 1979 expired on August 20, 2001, however the President extended export control authority and the Export Administration Regulations by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. During the 106th Congress, both houses held hearings on export control legislation and the Senate Banking Committee voted to adopt the Export Administration Act of 1999 (S. 1712, reported on October 8, 1999, S.Rept. 106-180).
Contributing Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department
Permallink:digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs5572/
Export Administration Act of 1979 Reauthorization
Date: March 11, 2002
Creator: Fergusson, Ian F
Description: The Export Administration Act of 2001 was introduced on January 23, 2001. Hearings were held by the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, and the bill was reported for consideration by the full Senate by a vote of 19-1 to March 22, 2001. A companion version in the House, H.R. 2581, was introduced by Rep. Gilmanon July 20, 2001. The House International Relations Committee reported the measure with 35 amendments on August 1. The Export Administration Act of 1979 expired on August 20, 2001, however the President extended export control authority and the Export Administration Regulations by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. During the 106th Congress, both houses held hearings on export control legislation and the Senate Banking Committee voted to adopt the Export Administration Act of 1999 (S. 1712, reported on October 8, 1999, S.Rept. 106-180).
Contributing Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department
Permallink:digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs3531/
Federal Funding Gaps: A Brief Overview
Date: February 24, 2011
Creator: Tollestrup, Jessica
Description: The interval during the fiscal year when agency appropriations are not enacted into law, either in the form of a regular appropriations act or a continuing resolution, is referred to as a funding gap. When a funding gap occurs, the federal government begins a shutdown of the affected agencies, entailing the prompt furlough of non-emergency personnel and curtailment of agency activities. This report discusses the funding gaps that occurred between FY1977-FY2010, as well as the events surrounding them and related legislation.
Contributing Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department
Permallink:digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc33082/
Federal Funding Gaps: A Brief Overview
Date: April 20, 2011
Creator: Tollestrup, Jessica
Description: The interval during the fiscal year when agency appropriations are not enacted into law, either in the form of a regular appropriations act or a continuing resolution, is referred to as a funding gap. When a funding gap occurs, the federal government begins a shutdown of the affected agencies, entailing the prompt furlough of non-emergency personnel and curtailment of agency activities. This report discusses the funding gaps that occurred between FY1977-FY2010, as well as the events surrounding them and related legislation.
Contributing Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department
Permallink:digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc40244/
Federal Funding Gaps: A Brief Overview
Date: September 24, 2008
Creator: Keith, Robert
Description: The interval during the fiscal year when agency appropriations are not enacted into law, either in the form of a regular appropriations act or a continuing resolution, is referred to as a funding gap. When a funding gap occurs, the federal government begins a shutdown of the affected agencies, entailing the prompt furlough of non-emergency personnel and curtailment of agency activities. This report discusses the funding gaps that occurred between FY1977-FY2008, as well as the events surrounding them and related legislation.
Contributing Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department
Permallink:digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs10550/
Federal Funding of Presidential Nominating Conventions: Overview and Policy Options
Date: January 28, 2011
Creator: Garrett, R. Sam
Description: This report provides an overview and analysis of two recurring questions surrounding the federal government's role in financing presidential nominating conventions. First, how much public funding supports presidential nominating conventions? Second, what options exist for changing that amount if Congress chooses to do so? Both issues have generated controversy in the past and continue to be the subject of debate.
Contributing Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department
Permallink:digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc31486/