Executive Orders: Issuance, Modification, and Revocation (CRS Report for Congress)
Premium Purchase PDF for $24.95 (13 pages)
add to cart or
subscribe for unlimited access
Pro Premium subscribers have free access to our full library of CRS reports.
Subscribe today, or
request a demo to learn more.
| Release Date |
Revised April 16, 2014 |
| Report Number |
RS20846 |
| Report Type |
Report |
| Authors |
Vivian S. Chu, Legislative Attorney; Todd Garvey, Legislative Attorney |
| Source Agency |
Congressional Research Service |
| Older Revisions |
-
Premium Revised Dec. 13, 2011 (18 pages, $24.95)
add
-
Premium Revised March 25, 2010 (11 pages, $24.95)
add
-
Premium March 19, 2001 (6 pages, $24.95)
add
|
Summary:
The 112th Congress has introduced several bills and resolutions that would require presidentialaction under existing executive orders. For example, H.R. 3537 and S. 1932 would require thePresident, acting through the Secretary of State, to grant a permit under Executive Order 13337for the Keystone XL pipeline project application, but this requirement would be subject to severalexceptions. Similarly, H.R. 1938 and H.R. 3400 would require the President to issue a final ordergranting or denying the presidential permit for the Keystone XL pipeline within 30 days of theissuance of the final environmental impact statement.Other bills, such as H.R. 2987 and S. 1116, would require the President to issue executive orderson particular topics. Legislative proposals also would require the President to initiate aninvestigation into the imposition of sanctions under specified existing executive orders upon thereceipt of a particular report (H.R. 740, H.R. 1905, S. 366, and S. 1048). In other cases, such asH.R. 142, bills would make particular actions contingent upon the President's issuance of anexecutive order. Other legislative proposals would add new conditions to, or are based upon,existing executive orders (H.R. 2175, H.R. 2954).Additionally, the 112th Congress has introduced legislation that would supersede (H.R. 686, H.R.3345), nullify (H.R. 1307), or otherwise affect the implementation of existing executive orders(H.R. 968, H.R. 2434, S. 1599). For example, in October 2011, the House passed H.R. 686, whichwould partially supersede Executive Order No. 1922 of April 24, 1914, as amended by the CampW.G. Williams Land Exchange Act of 1989, "only insofar as it affects" certain lands identified forconveyance to the state of Utah. Other proposed bills and resolutions merely cite executive ordersor are prescriptive: H.R. 740, H.Res. 99, H.Res. 134/S.Res. 80.Finally, the 112th Congress has held and planned hearings and introduced legislation in responseto a draft executive order that would require entities submitting offers for federal contracts todisclose certain political "contributions" and "expenditures." For more on executive ordersimposing conditions on federal contractors as terms of their contracts, and related legislation(H.R. 1906, H.R. 1540, H.R. 2017, and S. 1867), see CRS Report R41866, Presidential Authorityto Impose Requirements on Federal Contractors, by Vanessa K. Burrows and Kate M. Manuel.Bills: H.R. 3537, H.R. 1938, H.R. 3400, H.R. 2987, H.R. 740, H.R. 1905, H.R. 142, H.R. 2175, H.R. 2954, H.R. 686, H.R. 3345, H.R. 1307, H.R. 968, H.R. 2434, H.R. 1906, H.R. 1540, H.R. 2017, S. 1932, S. 1116, S. 366, S. 1048, S. 1599, H.Res. 99, H.Res. 134, S.Res. 80, S. 1867
