Congressional Research Service Reports - 434 Matching Results

Search Results

Results: 1 - 50 next
The Line Item Veto Act
The Line Item Veto Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-130, 110 Stat. 1200), gives the President expanded rescission authority by changing the burden of action and coverage. Under the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 332), the President must obtain the support of both Houses within a specified time period for a rescission to become permanent, while the new law puts the burden on Congress to disapprove presidential rescission proposals within a 30-day period. Along with rescission of discretionary appropriations, the new law subjects any new item of direct spending (entitlement) and certain limited tax benefits to cancellation as well.
The Line Item Veto Act: Procedural Issues
At various times, Congress has given the President statutory authority not to spend appropriated funds. That authority was elaborated and made more systematic with the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which permitted the President to delay the expenditure of funds (deferral authority) and to cancel funds (rescission authority). To rescind funds, the President needed the support of both houses within 45 days.
Line Item Vetoes in the 105th Congress, First Session: A Finding Aid
No Description Available.
Line Item Veto Act of 1996: Lessons from the States
The Line Item Veto Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-130) authorizes the President to cancel discretionary budget authority, new entitlements, and limited tax benefits. When this authority becomes available on January 1, 1997, it will change the dynamics among all three branches of government. In response to presidential decisions to cancel certain provisions, Congress may change the way it drafts bills and committee reports. Lawsuits will bring these presidential and congressional actions before federal courts, raising a number of constitutional and statutory questions.
Line Item Veto Act Unconstitutional:
No Description Available.
Item Veto and Expanded Impoundment Proposals
No Description Available.
Item Veto and Expanded Impoundment Proposals
This report discusses President's authority to call for an item veto, or possibly expanded impoundment authority, consideration of impoundment reform, to provide him with greater control over federal spending.
Item Veto and Expanded Impoundment Proposals
In recent years conflicting budget priorities and divided political control have accentuated the institutional tensions between the executive and legislative branches inherent in the federal budget process. President Clinton, like his two predecessors, called for an item veto, or possibly expanded impoundment authority, to provide him with greater control over federal spending. This report provides a brief history of impoundment and discusses the debate surrounding the line item veto.
Item Veto and Expanded Impoundment Proposals
In recent years conflicting budget priorities and divided political control have accentuated the institutional tensions between the executive and legislative branches inherent in the federal budget process. President Clinton, like his two predecessors, called for an item veto, or possibly expanded impoundment authority, to provide him with greater control over federal spending. This report provides a brief history of impoundment and discusses the debate surrounding the line item veto.
Item Veto and Expanded Impoundment Proposals
In recent years conflicting budget priorities and divided political control have accentuated the institutional tensions between the executive and legislative branches inherent in the federal budget process. President Clinton, like his two predecessors, called for an item veto, or possibly expanded impoundment authority, to provide him with greater control over federal spending. This report provides a brief history of impoundment and discusses the debate surrounding the line item veto.
Item Veto and Expanded Impoundment Proposals
In recent years conflicting budget priorities and divided political control have accentuated the institutional tensions between the executive and legislative branches inherent in the federal budget process. President Clinton, like his two predecessors, called for an item veto, or possibly expanded impoundment authority, to provide him with greater control over federal spending. This report provides a brief history of impoundment and discusses the debate surrounding the line item veto.
Item Veto and Expanded Impoundment Proposals
In recent years conflicting budget priorities and divided political control have accentuated the institutional tensions between the executive and legislative branches inherent in the federal budget process. President Clinton, like his two predecessors, called for an item veto, or possibly expanded impoundment authority, to provide him with greater control over federal spending. This report provides a brief history of impoundment and discusses the debate surrounding the line item veto.
Item Veto and Expanded Impoundment Proposals
In recent years conflicting budget priorities and divided political control have accentuated the institutional tensions between the executive and legislative branches inherent in the federal budget process. President Clinton, like his two predecessors, called for an item veto, or possibly expanded impoundment authority, to provide him with greater control over federal spending. This report provides a brief history of impoundment and discusses the debate surrounding the line item veto.
Item Veto and Expanded Impoundment Proposals
On February 3, 2003, President Bush transmitted his budget submission for FY2004, which again contained some proposals for reform of the budget process, including a reformulated line item veto for the President. This report discusses the history of the line item veto and examines the policy debate regarding the issue.
Item Veto and Expanded Impoundment Proposals
In recent years conflicting budget priorities and divided political control have accentuated the institutional tensions between the executive and legislative branches inherent in the federal budget process. President Clinton, like his two predecessors, called for an item veto, or possibly expanded impoundment authority, to provide him with greater control over federal spending. This report provides a brief history of impoundment and discusses the debate surrounding the line item veto.
Item Veto and Expanded Impoundment Proposals
In recent years conflicting budget priorities and divided political control have accentuated the institutional tensions between the executive and legislative branches inherent in the federal budget process. President Clinton, like his two predecessors, called for an item veto, or possibly expanded impoundment authority, to provide him with greater control over federal spending. This report provides a brief history of impoundment and discusses the debate surrounding the line item veto.
Item Veto and Expanded Impoundment Proposals
In recent years conflicting budget priorities and divided political control have accentuated the institutional tensions between the executive and legislative branches inherent in the federal budget process. President Clinton, like his two predecessors, called for an item veto, or possibly expanded impoundment authority, to provide him with greater control over federal spending. This report provides a brief history of impoundment and discusses the debate surrounding the line item veto.
The Role of the President in Budget Development
The Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 established the executive budget process, which requires the President to prepare and submit a comprehensive federal budget to Congress each year for the fiscal year that begins on October 1. The President sets out his national priorities and proposes policy initiatives in the federal budget submitted to Congress soon after Congress convenes in January. The President's budget submission provides him the opportunity to influence the agenda for the upcoming budget and policy debate in Congress.
The Role of the President in Budget Development
No Description Available.
National Monuments and the Antiquities Act
No Description Available.
National Monuments and the Antiquities Act: Recent Designations and Issues
No Description Available.
Congressional Liaison Offices of Selected Federal Agencies
This is a directory of approximately 150 government agencies designed to assist congressional staff in contacting agencies of the legislative branch, cabinet departments and other executive branch agencies and boards and commissions. This directory contains names of congressional liaison officers, addresses, telephone and fax numbers, and occasionally e-mail addresses. It is regularly updated each spring.
Censure of the President by the Congress
Exploring a possible compromise between an impeachment and taking no congressional action, certain Members of Congress and congressional commentators have suggested a congressional “censure” of the President to express the Congress’ disapproval of the President’s conduct which has been the subject of an ongoing independent counsel investigation. This report provides and overview and discussion of the legal basis and congressional precedents regarding a congressional “censure” of the President.
Shutdown of the Federal Government: Causes, Effects, and Process
No Description Available.
Shutdown of the Federal Government: Causes, Effects, and Process
No Description Available.
Shutdown of the Federal Government: Causes, Effects, and Process
No Description Available.
Shutdown of the Federal Government: Causes, Effects, and Process
No Description Available.
Foreign Policy Roles of the President and Congress
he United States Constitution divides foreign policy powers between the President and the Congress so that both share in the making of foreign policy. The executive and legislative branches each play important roles that are different but that often overlap. Both branches have continuing opportunities to initiate and change foreign policy, and the interaction between them continues indefinitely throughout the life of a policy. This report reviews and illustrates 12 basic ways that the United States can make foreign policy.
Evolution of the Senate's Role in the Nomination and Confirmation Process: A Brief History
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.
Cloture Attempts on Nominations
Cloture is the only means by which the Senate can vote to limit debate on a matter, and thereby overcome a possible filibuster. It would be erroneous, however, to assume that cases in which cloture is sought are the same as those in which a filibuster occurs. Cloture may be sought when no filibuster is taking place, and filibusters may occur without cloture being sought.
Legislative Procedure for Possible Disapproval of President's Imposition of Safeguard Measures on Imports of Steel
No Description Available.
Jonathan Pollard: Background and Considerations for Presidential Clemency
No Description Available.
Assassination Ban and E.O. 12333: A Brief Summary
This report offers a brief summary of the assassination ban contained in Executive Order (E.O.) 12333, Section 2.11. E.O. 12333 is the latest in a series of three executive orders which included assassination bans. The first, Executive Order 11905, Sec. 5(g),1 41 Fed. Reg. 7703, 7733 (President Gerald Ford, 2/19/76), was part of an executive order issued by President Ford in response to concerns raised in the 1970's with respect to alleged abuses by the U.S. intelligence community.
National Emergency Powers
No Description Available.
National Emergency Powers
No Description Available.
War Powers Resolution: Presidential Compliance
No Description Available.
War Powers Resolution: Presidential Compliance
No Description Available.
War Powers Resolution: Presidential Compliance
No Description Available.
War Powers Resolution: Presidential Compliance
No Description Available.
War Powers Resolution: Presidential Compliance
No Description Available.
War Powers Resolution: Presidential Compliance
No Description Available.
War Powers Resolution: Presidential Compliance
No Description Available.
War Powers Resolution: Presidential Compliance
No Description Available.
War Powers Resolution: Presidential Compliance
No Description Available.
War Powers Resolution: Presidential Compliance
No Description Available.
War Powers Resolution: Presidential Compliance
No Description Available.
War Powers Resolution: Presidential Compliance
No Description Available.
War Powers Resolution: Presidential Compliance
Two separate but closely related issues confront Congress each time the President introduces armed forces into a situation abroad that conceivably could lead to their involvement in hostilities. One issue concerns the division of war powers between the President and Congress, whether the use of armed forces falls within the purview of the congressional power to declare war and the War Powers Resolution. The other issue is whether Congress concurs in the wisdom of the action. This issue brief does not deal with the substantive merits of using armed forces in specific cases, but rather with the congressional authorization for the action and the application and effectiveness of the War Powers Resolution.
War Powers Resolution: Presidential Compliance
Two separate but closely related issues confront Congress each time the President introduces armed forces into a situation abroad that conceivably could lead to their involvement in hostilities. One issue concerns the division of war powers between the President and Congress, whether the use of armed forces falls within the purview of the congressional power to declare war and the War Powers Resolution. The other issue is whether Congress concurs in the wisdom of the action. This issue brief does not deal with the substantive merits of using armed forces in specific cases, but rather with the congressional authorization for the action and the application and effectiveness of the War Powers Resolution.
War Powers Resolution: Presidential Compliance
Two separate but closely related issues confront Congress each time the President introduces armed forces into a situation abroad that conceivably could lead to their involvement in hostilities. One issue concerns the division of war powers between the President and Congress, whether the use of armed forces falls within the purview of the congressional power to declare war and the War Powers Resolution. The other issue is whether Congress concurs in the wisdom of the action. This issue brief does not deal with the substantive merits of using armed forces in specific cases, but rather with the congressional authorization for the action and the application and effectiveness of the War Powers Resolution.
Back to Top of Screen