Congressional Research Service Reports - 322 Matching Results
Search Results
- Property Rights: House Judiciary Committee Reports H.R. 2372
- On March 9, 2000, the House Committee on the Judiciary reported favorably H.R. 2372. The bill, titled "Private Property Rights Implementation Act of 2000," is aimed principally at lowering the threshold barriers of ripeness and abstention encountered when land owners file in federal court challenging local government actions as "takings." (1) Under the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause (which applies to state and local, not only federal, actions), private property may not be "taken" for public use without just compensation.
- Medical Records Privacy: Questions and Answers on the HIPAA Final Rule
- This report discusses the issue facing Congress on whether to continue to support the executive branch’s prosecution of medical marijuana patients and their providers, in accordance with marijuana’s status as a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act, or whether to relax federal marijuana prohibition enough to permit the medical use of botanical cannabis products by seriously ill persons, especially in states that have created medical marijuana programs under state law.
- Medical Records Privacy: Questions and Answers on the HIPAA Final Rule
- This report discusses the issue facing Congress on whether to continue to support the executive branch’s prosecution of medical marijuana patients and their providers, in accordance with marijuana’s status as a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act, or whether to relax federal marijuana prohibition enough to permit the medical use of botanical cannabis products by seriously ill persons, especially in states that have created medical marijuana programs under state law.
- Medical Records Privacy: Questions and Answers on the HIPAA Final Rule
- This report discusses the issue facing Congress on whether to continue to support the executive branch’s prosecution of medical marijuana patients and their providers, in accordance with marijuana’s status as a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act, or whether to relax federal marijuana prohibition enough to permit the medical use of botanical cannabis products by seriously ill persons, especially in states that have created medical marijuana programs under state law.
- Medical Records Privacy: Questions and Answers on the HIPAA Final Rule
- This report discusses the issue facing Congress on whether to continue to support the executive branch’s prosecution of medical marijuana patients and their providers, in accordance with marijuana’s status as a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act, or whether to relax federal marijuana prohibition enough to permit the medical use of botanical cannabis products by seriously ill persons, especially in states that have created medical marijuana programs under state law.
- Medical Records Privacy: Questions and Answers on the HIPAA Final Rule
- This report discusses the issue facing Congress on whether to continue to support the executive branch’s prosecution of medical marijuana patients and their providers, in accordance with marijuana’s status as a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act, or whether to relax federal marijuana prohibition enough to permit the medical use of botanical cannabis products by seriously ill persons, especially in states that have created medical marijuana programs under state law.
- Privacy Protection: Mandating New Arrangements to Implement and Assess Federal Privacy Policy and Practice
- No Description Available.
- Detention of U.S. Citizens
- In 1971, Congress passed legislation to repeal the Emergency Detention Act of 1950 and to enact the following language: “No citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress.” The new language, codified at 18 U.S.C. §4001(a), is called the Non-Detention Act. This statutory provision received attention after the 9/11 terrorist attacks when the Administration designated certain U.S. citizens as “enemy combatants” and claimed the right to detain them indefinitely without charging them, bringing them to trial, or giving them access to counsel. In litigation over Yaser Esam Hamdi and Jose Padilla, both designated enemy combatants, the Administration has argued that the Non-Detention Act restricts only imprisonments and detentions by the Attorney General, not by the President or military authorities.
- Obscenity, Child Pornography, and Indecency: Recent Developments and Pending Issues
- No Description Available.
- Obscenity, Child Pornography, and Indecency: Recent Developments and Pending Issues
- No Description Available.
- Obscenity, Child Pornography, and Indecency: Recent Developments and Pending Issues
- No Description Available.
- Obscenity, Child Pornography, and Indecency: Recent Developments and Pending Issues
- No Description Available.
- Obscenity, Child Pornography, and Indecency: Recent Developments and Pending Issues
- No Description Available.
- Obscenity, Child Pornography, and Indecency: Recent Developments and Pending Issues
- No Description Available.
- Obscenity, Child Pornography, and Indecency: Recent Developments and Pending Issues
- No Description Available.
- Obscenity, Child Pornography, and Indecency: Recent Developments and Pending Issues
- No Description Available.
- Campaign Finance Regulation Under the First Amendment:
- This Report first discusses the critical holdings enunciated by the Supreme Court in Buckley, including those: upholding reasonable contribution limits, striking down expenditure limits, upholding disclosure reporting requirements, and upholding the system of voluntary presidential election expenditure limitations linked with public financing. It then examines the Court’s extension of Buckley in fourteen subsequent cases, evaluating them in three regulatory contexts: contribution limits (California Medical Association v. FEC; Citizens Against Rent Control v. Berkeley; Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC), expenditure limits (First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti; FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life; Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce; FEC v. National Right to Work; Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. FEC; FEC v. Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee; FEC v. National Conservative Political Action Committee), and disclosure requirements (Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation; Brown v. Socialist Workers ‘74 Campaign Committee; FEC v. Akins; McIntrye v. Ohio Elections Commission).
- Campaign Finance Regulation Under the First Amendment: Buckley v. Valeo and its Supreme Court Progeny
- This report first discusses the critical holdings enunciated bythe SupremeCourt in Buckley, including those: upholding reasonable contribution limits, striking down expenditure limits, upholding disclosure reporting requirements, and upholding the system of voluntary presidential election expenditure limitations linked with public financing. It then examines the Court’s extension of Buckley in fifteen subsequent cases, evaluating them in three regulatory contexts: contribution limits (California Medical Association v. FEC; Citizens Against Rent Control v. Berkeley; Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC; FEC v. Beaumont), expenditure limits (First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti; FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life; Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce; FEC v. National Right to Work; Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee (Colorado I) v. FEC; FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee (Colorado II); FEC v. Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee; FEC v. National Conservative Political Action Committee), and disclosure requirements (Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation; Brown v. Socialist Workers ‘74 Campaign Committee; FEC v. Akins; McIntrye v. Ohio Elections Commission).
- Campaign Finance Regulation Under the First Amendment: Buckley v. Valeo and its Supreme Court Progeny
- This report first discusses the critical holdings enunciated bythe SupremeCourt in Buckley, including those: upholding reasonable contribution limits, striking down expenditure limits, upholding disclosure reporting requirements, and upholding the system of voluntary presidential election expenditure limitations linked with public financing. It then examines the Court’s extension of Buckley in fifteen subsequent cases, evaluating them in three regulatory contexts: contribution limits (California Medical Association v. FEC; Citizens Against Rent Control v. Berkeley; Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC; FEC v. Beaumont), expenditure limits (First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti; FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life; Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce; FEC v. National Right to Work; Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee (Colorado I) v. FEC; FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee (Colorado II); FEC v. Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee; FEC v. National Conservative Political Action Committee), and disclosure requirements (Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation; Brown v. Socialist Workers ‘74 Campaign Committee; FEC v. Akins; McIntrye v. Ohio Elections Commission).
- Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board: 109th Congress Proposed Refinements
- No Description Available.
- Encryption Technology: Congressional Issues
- This report discusses primarily, the controversy over encryption concerns what access the government should have to encrypted stored computer data or electronic communications (voice and data, wired and wireless) for law enforcement purposes.
- The U.N. Convention Against Torture: Overview of U.S. Implementation Policy Concerning the Removal of Aliens
- No Description Available.
- A Brief Summary of the HIPAA Medical Privacy Rule
- This report provides a brief overview of the modified HIPAA Privacy rule, “Standards for the Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information” (“privacy rule”) published on August 14, 2002 by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
- A Brief Summary of the Medical Privacy Rule
- On March 27, 2002 the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) published its proposed changes to the medical privacy regulations issued by the Clinton Administration under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”). HHS is accepting comments on the proposed changes until April 26, 2002. This report provides an overview of the final rule for “Standards for the Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information” ( “privacy rule”) that went into effect on April 14, 2001, and an overview of the Bush Administration’s proposed changes to the privacy regulation.
- A Brief Summary of the Medical Privacy Rule
- This report provides a brief overview of the recently modified medical privacy rule, “Standards for the Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information”(“privacy rule”) published on August 14, 2002 by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The privacy rule went into effect April 14, 2001, with compliance required by April 2003 for most entities. The regulation creates a new federal floor of privacy protections while leaving in place more protective state rules or practices. The rule establishes a set of basic consumer protections and a series of regulatory permissions for uses and disclosures of protected health information.
- A Brief Summary of the Medical Privacy Rule
- This report provides a brief overview of the modified medical privacy rule, “Standards for the Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information”(“privacy rule”) published on August 14, 2002 by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The privacy regulation creates a new federal floor of privacy protections while leaving in place more protective state rules or practices. The rule establishes a set of basic consumer protections and a series of regulatory permissions for uses and disclosures of protected health information.
- Compliance with the HIPAA Medical Privacy Rule
- As of April 14, 2003, most health care providers (including doctors and hospitals) and health plans are required to comply with the new Privacy Rule mandated by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”), and must comply with national standards to protect individually identifiable health information. The HIPAA Privacy Rule creates a federal floor of privacy protections for individually identifiable health information; establishes a set of basic consumer protections; institutes a series of regulatory permissions for uses and disclosures of protected health information; permits any person to file an administrative complaint for violations; and authorizes the imposition of civil or criminal penalties.
- Russia's Religion Law: Assessments and Implications
- This short report provides an overview and assessment of Russian religion law. On September 26, 1997, Russian President Boris Yeltsin signed the religion bill into law, and implementing regulations were promulgated in early 1998. The Administration and Congress have raised concerns that the law may restrict religion and have urged Russia to uphold its international commitments to religious freedom. The FY1998 Foreign Aid Appropriations Act (P.L. 105-118) prohibits the Freedom Support Act aid to Russia unless the President determines and certifies that the Russian government has not discriminated against religious groups in violation of its international commitments. The determination was released on May 26, 1998, finding that Russia has not violated such commitments, but that U.S. officials would continue to monitor the situation.
- Restrictions on Minors' Access to Material on the Internet
- No Description Available.
- Internet Privacy: Overview and Pending Legislation
- No Description Available.
- Internet Privacy: Overview and Pending Legislation
- No Description Available.
- Internet Privacy: Overview and Pending Legislation
- No Description Available.
- Internet Privacy: Overview and Pending Legislation
- No Description Available.
- Internet Privacy: Overview and Pending Legislation
- No Description Available.
- Internet Privacy: Overview and Pending Legislation
- No Description Available.
- Internet Privacy: Overview and Pending Legislation
- No Description Available.
- Internet Privacy: Overview and Pending Legislation
- No Description Available.
- Internet Privacy: Overview and Pending Legislation
- No Description Available.
- Internet Privacy: Overview and Pending Legislation
- No Description Available.
- Internet Privacy: Overview and Pending Legislation
- No Description Available.
- Internet Privacy: Overview and Pending Legislation
- No Description Available.
- Internet Privacy: Overview and Pending Legislation
- No Description Available.
- Internet Privacy: Overview and Pending Legislation
- No Description Available.
- Internet Privacy: Overview and Pending Legislation
- No Description Available.
- Internet Privacy: Overview and Pending Legislation
- No Description Available.
- Internet Privacy: Overview and Pending Legislation
- No Description Available.
- Internet Privacy - Protecting Personal Information: Overview and Pending Legislation
- The privacy of information collected by operators of World Wide Web sites is a growing issue of concern. Many in Congress and the Clinton Administration prefer to rely on industry self regulation to protect consumer privacy, but frustration at industry's slow pace led to the 1998 passage of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act in 1998 (P.L. 105-277). This report provides a very abbreviated overview of Internet privacy issues and tracks pending legislation.
- Wetlands Regulation and the Law of Property Rights "Takings"
- When a wetland owner is denied permission to develop, or offered a permit with very burdensome conditions, the property's value may drop substantially. Wetlands programs also may impose costly development delays. For these reasons, federal and state wetlands regulation continues to generate "takings" lawsuits by land owners. Such suits allege that by narrowing or eliminating the economic uses to which a wetland can be put, the government has "taken" (permanently or temporarily) the wetland under the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause.
- Internet Privacy: Overview and Pending Legislation
- No Description Available.
- Internet Privacy: Overview and Pending Legislation
- No Description Available.