You limited your search to:

 Collection: Congressional Research Service Reports
Federal Tax Benefits for Families' K-12 Education Expenses in the Context of School Choice
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs2615/
Foreign Students in the United States: Policies and Legislation
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs4417/
Foreign Students in the United States: Policies and Legislation
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs2614/
Foreign Students in the United States: Policies and Legislation
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs2613/
K-12 Teacher Quality: Issues and Legislative Action
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs5863/
K-12 Teacher Quality: Issues and Legislative Action
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs4416/
K-12 Teacher Quality: Issues and Legislative Action
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs4415/
K-12 Teacher Quality: Issues and Legislative Action
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs2612/
K-12 Teacher Quality: Issues and Legislative Action
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs2611/
K-12 Teacher Quality: Issues and Legislative Action
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs2610/
Education Vouchers: Constitutional Issues and Cases
This report details the constitutional standards that currently apply to indirect school aid programs and summarizes all of the pertinent Supreme Court decisions, with particular attention to Zelman. It also summarizes the pending case of Davey v. Locke and other recent and ongoing state and lower federal court cases concerning vouchers. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs4414/
Education Vouchers: Constitutional Issues and Cases
This report details the constitutional standards that currently apply to indirect aid programs and summarizes all of the pertinent state and federal court decisions, including the Ohio case that will be heard by the Supreme Court. On September 25, 2001, the Supreme Court agreed to review a case raising the controversial issue of the constitutionality of education vouchers. In Zelman v. Simmons-Harris the Sixth Circuit held Ohio’s Pilot Scholarship Program, which provided up to $2500 to help low-income students in Cleveland’s public schools attend private schools in the city, to violate the establishment of religion clause of the First Amendment. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs4413/
Education Vouchers: Constitutional Issues and Cases
This report details the constitutional standards that currently apply to indirect aid programs and summarizes all of the pertinent state and federal court decisions, including the Ohio case that will be heard by the Supreme Court. On September 25, 2001, the Supreme Court agreed to review a case raising the controversial issue of the constitutionality of education vouchers. In Zelman v. Simmons-Harris the Sixth Circuit held Ohio’s Pilot Scholarship Program, which provided up to $2500 to help low-income students in Cleveland’s public schools attend private schools in the city, to violate the establishment of religion clause of the First Amendment. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs2609/
Education Vouchers: Constitutional Issues and Cases
This report details the constitutional standards that currently apply to indirect aid programs and summarizes all of the pertinent state and federal court decisions, including the Ohio case that will be heard by the Supreme Court. On September 25, 2001, the Supreme Court agreed to review a case raising the controversial issue of the constitutionality of education vouchers. In Zelman v. Simmons-Harris the Sixth Circuit held Ohio’s Pilot Scholarship Program, which provided up to $2500 to help low-income students in Cleveland’s public schools attend private schools in the city, to violate the establishment of religion clause of the First Amendment. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs2608/
Education Vouchers: Constitutional Issues and Cases
This report details the constitutional standards that currently apply to indirect aid programs and summarizes all of the pertinent state and federal court decisions, including the Ohio case that will be heard by the Supreme Court. On September 25, 2001, the Supreme Court agreed to review a case raising the controversial issue of the constitutionality of education vouchers. In Zelman v. Simmons-Harris the Sixth Circuit held Ohio’s Pilot Scholarship Program, which provided up to $2500 to help low-income students in Cleveland’s public schools attend private schools in the city, to violate the establishment of religion clause of the First Amendment. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs1645/
Education Vouchers: Constitutional Issues and Cases
This report details the constitutional standards that currently apply to indirect aid programs and summarizes all of the pertinent state and federal court decisions, including the Ohio case that will be heard by the Supreme Court. On September 25, 2001, the Supreme Court agreed to review a case raising the controversial issue of the constitutionality of education vouchers. In Zelman v. Simmons-Harris the Sixth Circuit held Ohio’s Pilot Scholarship Program, which provided up to $2500 to help low-income students in Cleveland’s public schools attend private schools in the city, to violate the establishment of religion clause of the First Amendment. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs1162/
School Choice: Current Legislation
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs4412/
School Choice: Current Legislation
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs4411/
School Choice: Current Legislation
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs4410/
School Choice: Current Legislation
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs4409/
School Choice: Current Legislation
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs4408/
School Choice: Current Legislation
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs4407/
School Choice: Current Legislation
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs4406/
School Choice: Current Legislation
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs4405/
School Choice: Current Legislation
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs2607/
School Choice: Current Legislation
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs2606/
School Choice: Current Legislation
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs2605/
School Choice: Current Legislation
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs2604/
School Choice: Current Legislation
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs2603/
Reading Instruction: New Federal Initiatives
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs637/
Overview of State Charter School Laws
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs635/
Charter Schools: State Developments and Federal Policy Options
Charter schools are public elementary or secondary schools which are released from a variety of state, local, and possibly federal regulations in return for new forms of accountability in terms of outcomes for pupils. Approximately one-half of the states authorize the establishment of charter schools, and a federal Public Charter Schools (PCS) program provides start-up funds for such schools. The House has passed (H.R. 2616), and the Senate is considering (S. 1380) legislation to modify and expand the PCS program. This report provides background information on charter schools and their characteristics, plus discussion and analysis of current legislation regarding the PCS program. Issues have also arisen regarding the participation of charter schools in other federal aid programs. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs634/
Education Vouchers: The Constitutional Standards
The Court’s decisions permit a limited degree of public aid to be provided directly and a broader range of assistance indirectly. This report sketches the constitutional standards that apply to public aid to sectarian schools and especially to programs of indirect assistance such as education vouchers. It also summarizes recent significant state court decisions involving vouchers. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs632/
Goals 2000: Educate America Act Implementation Status and Issues
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs630/
Legislative Prayer and School Prayer: The Constitutional Difference
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs109/
State Election Laws: Overview of Statutes Regarding Emergency Election Postponement Within the State
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs5862/
Campaign Finance: Brief Overview of
On May 2, 2003, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued its decision in McConnell v. FEC, striking down many key provisions of the law. This report provides a brief overview of the court’s decision and will be updated. The three-judge panel, which was split 2 to 1 on many issues, ordered that its ruling take effect immediately. Since the court has issued its opinion, several appeals have been filed. Under the BCRA expedited review provision, the court’s decision will be reviewed directly by the U.S. Supreme Court. On May 19 the U.S. district court issued a stay to its ruling, which leaves BCRA, as enacted, in effect until the Supreme Court issues a decision. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs4404/
Campaign Finance: Brief Overview of
On May 2, 2003, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued its decision in McConnell v. FEC, striking down many key provisions of the law. This report provides a brief overview of the court’s decision and will be updated. The three-judge panel, which was split 2 to 1 on many issues, ordered that its ruling take effect immediately. Since the court has issued its opinion, several appeals have been filed. Under the BCRA expedited review provision, the court’s decision will be reviewed directly by the U.S. Supreme Court. On May 19 the U.S. district court issued a stay to its ruling, which leaves BCRA, as enacted, in effect until the Supreme Court issues a decision digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs4403/
The Electoral College: Reform Proposals in the 108th Congress
American voters elect the President and Vice President of the United States under a complex arrangement of constitutional provisions, federal and state laws, and political party practices known as the electoral college system. Despite occasional close elections, this system has delivered uncontested results in 46 of 50 elections since adoption of the 12th Amendment, effective in 1804. Throughout this period, nevertheless, it has been the subject of persistent criticism and many reform proposals. Related measures fall into two basic categories: those that would eliminate the electoral college and substitute direct popular election of the President and Vice President, and those that would retain the existing system in some form and correct perceived defects. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs4402/
Campaign Finance Reform and Incentives to Voluntarily Limit Candidate Spending From Personal Funds: Constitutional Issues Raised by Public Subsidies and Variable Contribution Limits
The Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo ruled that spending limits, including the amount a candidate can spend on his or her own campaign from personal funds (also known as personal fund expenditure limits) are unconstitutional. The Court did, however, uphold a system of spending limits, on the condition that they are voluntarily accepted in exchange for some form of public financing. As a result of these Court rulings, the concept of various incentives toward voluntary compliance with a personal funds expenditure limit has been developed. This report discusses some constitutional issues raised by two such incentives: public subsidies and variable contribution limits. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs1641/
Campaign Finance Reform: Constitutional Issues Raised by Disclosure Requirements
Campaign finance reform legislation often contains provisions that would impose additional reporting and disclosure requirements under the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). For example, S. 27 (McCain/Feingold), would require disclosure of disbursements of expenditures over $10,000 for “electioneering communications,” which are defined to include broadcast ads that “refer” to federal office candidates, with identification of donors of $500 or more. S. 22 (Hagel/Landrieu) would increase and expedite current disclosure requirements under FECA. H.R. 380 (Shays/Meehan) would lower the current FECA threshold for contribution reporting from $200 to $50 and impose reporting requirements for soft money disbursements by persons other than political parties. This report will discuss some of the constitutional issues relating to these and other such disclosure requirements. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs1640/
Campaign Finance Bills in the 107th Congress: Comparison of H.R. 380 (Shays-Meehan) with S. 27 (McCain-Feingold)
As in the last two Congresses, campaign finance reform will be a major issue in the 107th Congress, with attention again centered on the Senate McCain-Feingold and House Shays-Meehan bills. S. 27 (Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2001), introduced on January 22, 2001, will be considered by the Senate in March 2001; H.R. 380 (Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2001) was introduced January 31. Both bills ban the raising of soft money by national parties and the spending of it by state and local parties on federal election-related activities (as defined). But on the other key provision–issue advocacy–they differ notably. H.R. 380 offers a broad new definition of express advocacy, subjecting activity meeting that standard to all aspects of federal election law regulation. S. 27 classifies some messages as electioneering communications, requiring their disclosure and banning their funding by unions or for-profit corporations. This report summarizes and compares these two measures, according to various categories. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs1639/
Campaign Finance Bills in the 107th Congress: Comparison of S. 22 (Hagel-Landrieu) with S. 27 (McCain-Feingold)
On March 19, 2001, the Senate began consideration of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill. The bill–S. 27 (Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2001)–was introduced on January 22, 2001 by Senators McCain, Feingold, Cochran et al. It features a ban on the raising of soft money by national parties, a ban on the spending of soft money by state and local parties on federal election-related activities (as defined), and a disclosure requirement for electioneering messages not regulated by federal election law, along with a ban on their funding from union or for-profit corporation treasuries. Another bill receiving considerable Senate attention is S. 22 (Open and Accountable Campaign Financing Act of 2001), introduced on January 22, 2001 by Senators Hagel, Landrieu et al. It features limits on soft money donations to national parties, increases in hard money contribution limits, and a requirement that broadcasters make information available on groups engaging in issue advocacy. This report provides a summary and comparison of these two measures, according to various categories. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs1638/
The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act: Background and Issues for the 107th Congress
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs2599/
The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act: Background and Issues
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs4399/
Campaign Finance Bills in the 106th Congress: Comparison of Shays-Meehan, as passed, with McCain-Feingold, as considered
On September 14, 1999, the House passed the Shays-Meehan bill--H.R. 417, the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 1999, as amended, by a vote of 252-177. Senate sponsors of the companion measure, S. 26 (McCain-Feingold), revised their proposal and, on September 16, introduced S. 1593, containing just four sections of H.R. 417 and S. 26. The Senate debated S. 1593 from October 13-20, culminating in unsuccessful cloture votes October 19 on two amendments: Daschle amendment 2298, substituting text nearly identical to the House-passed H.R. 417; and Reid amendment 2229 (a perfecting amendment to no. 2298), substituting text of S. 1593 as offered, plus McCain amendment 2294 (adopted October 14), which added certain disclosure requirements. This report compares provisions of the House-passed bill with the one considered by the Senate in October 1999. No further updates are planned. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs1160/
Campaign Finance Legislation in the 108th Congress
As of October 11, 2004, 29 bills have been introduced in the 108th Congress to change the nation’s campaign finance laws (primarily under Titles 2 and 26 of the U.S. Code). These bills — 20 in the House and nine in the Senate — seek to make improvements in the current system, including to tighten perceived loopholes. In the wake of enactment of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (P.L. 107- 155), there has been decidedly less legislative activity in this area than in recent Congresses, which typically saw well over 100 campaign finance-related bills introduced. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs5859/
Postponement and Rescheduling of Elections to Federal Office
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs5858/
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002: Summary and Comparison with Previous Law
The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 was enacted on March 27, 2002 as P.L. 107-155. It passed the House on February 14, 2002, as H.R. 2356 (Shays- Meehan), by a 240-189 vote. Its companion measure, on which it was largely based, had initially been passed by the Senate in 2001 as S. 27 (McCain-Feingold). On March 20, 2002, however, the Senate approved the House-passed H.R. 2356 by a 60- 40 vote, thus avoiding a conference to reconcile differences between S. 27 and H.R. 2356. The two primary features of P.L. 107-155 are restrictions on party soft money and issue advocacy. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs5854/
Campaign Finance Bills in the 107th Congress: Comparison of S. 27 (McCain-Feingold), H.R. 2356 (Shays-Meehan), H.R. 2630 (Ney-Wyn), and Current Law
S. 27 (McCain-Feingold), the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2001, was introduced January 22, 2001 in a form similar to prior versions of the last two Congresses. On April 2, after a two-week debate and adoption of 22 amendments, the Senate passed S. 27 by a vote of 59-41. That measure’s companion Shays-Meehan bill, the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2001, was initially introduced as H.R. 380 in a form similar to House-passed versions of the prior two Congresses; on June 28, the bill was modified and offered as H.R. 2356. H.R. 2360 (Ney-Wynn), the Campaign Finance Reform and Grassroots Citizen Participation Act of 2001, was introduced and ordered reported favorably by the House Administration Committee on June 28. (Shays-Meehan was ordered reported unfavorably at the same time.) The two primary features of the bills are restrictions on party soft money and issue advocacy. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs2597/