Advanced search    Help

Clear all search criteria

Only 2/3! You are seeing results from the Public Collection, not the complete Full Collection. Sign in to search everything (see eligibility).

• Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate: H.R. 1640, Department of Homeland Security Headquarters Consolidation Accountability Act of 2015

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  This is the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Cost Estimate as ordered reported by the House Committee on Homeland Security on May 20, 2015. From the Document: "H.R. 1640 would require the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to prepare a report to the Congress on the DHS headquarters consolidation project within the national capital region, including updated timelines and cost estimates. The bill also would require the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to review the DHS estimates of project costs and schedules and report its findings to the Congress. Based on the cost of similar activities, CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 1640 would cost less than $500,000, assuming the availability of appropriated funds. Much of the information needed for the DHS and GAO reports has already been compiled. Because enacting the legislation would not affect direct spending or revenues, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply. H.R. 1640 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments."

  United States. Congressional Budget Office

  2015-06-03
• Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate: H.R. 1626, DHS IT Duplication Reduction Act of 2015

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  This is the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Cost Estimate as ordered reported by the House Committee on Homeland Security on May 20, 2015. From the Document: "H.R. 1626 would require the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), within 90 days of the bill's enactment, to prepare a report for the Congress on duplicative information technology [IT] systems in the department. DHS is currently carrying out activities similar to those required by the bill. Thus, CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 1626 would not significantly affect spending by the department. Enacting H.R. 1626 would not affect direct spending or revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply. H.R. 1626 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments."

  United States. Congressional Budget Office

  2015-06-03
• Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate: H.R. 1735, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  This is the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Cost Estimate as reported by the House Committee on Armed Services on May 5, 2015. From the Summary: "H.R. 1735 would authorize appropriations totaling an estimated $605.3 billion for fiscal year 2016 for the military functions of the Department of Defense (DoD), for certain activities of the Department of Energy (DOE), and for other purposes. In addition, H.R. 1735 would prescribe personnel strengths for each active-duty and selected-reserve component of the U.S. armed forces. If appropriated, $515.6 billion of the authorized amounts would count against the defense caps set in the Budget Control Act (BCA), as amended. Another $0.4 billion would count against the nondefense caps. An additional $89.2 billion would be authorized for overseas contingency operations (OCO), and if appropriated would not count against the caps; of that amount, $50.9 billion would be for war-related activities, while the remaining$38.3 billion would be used for 'Overseas Contingency Operations for Base Budget Requirements' that in recent years have counted against the defense caps. CBO estimates that appropriation of the authorized amounts would result in outlays of $590.3 billion over the 2016-2020 period."

  United States. Congressional Budget Office

  2015-05-11
• Role of Intelligence in the Department of Defense, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Intelligence, Emerging Threats and Capabilities of the Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, One Hundred Thirteenth Congress, First Session, February 27, 2013

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  This is the February 27, 2013 hearing, "Role of Intelligence in the Department of Defense," before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Armed Services, Subcommittee on Intelligence, Emerging Threats and Capabilities. From the opening statement of Mac Thornberry: "Today we want to look at the role intelligence plays in the Department of Defense. A primary focus for us will always be whether and how DOD intelligence is meeting the needs of the warfighters, wherever they are and whatever they may be asked to do. We also want to examine DOD's current intelligence requirements, including gaps in our knowledge and capabilities, integration of intelligence with military planning, organization and personnel issues, as well as DOD support to and from the broader Intelligence Community. We all, on both sides of the river, have our hands full. As the witnesses note in their written statement, intelligence budgets are declining even before the across-the-board cuts known as sequestration begin on Friday. But the world is not getting any safer. It is not getting any less complex. We have limited resources, but unlimited problems. That is part of what makes intelligence so crucial. More than ever, I think it is essential that the administration and those in uniform work together with us in Congress to use our resources as efficiently and as effectively as possible. And I look forward to working with both of our distinguished witnesses toward that goal." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: James R. Langevin, Mac Thornberry, Michael T. Flynn, and Michael G. Vickers.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2013
• Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate: H.R. 2353, The Highway and Transportation Funding Act of 2015

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  This is the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Cost Estimate as requested by the U.S. House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. From the Document: "H.R. 2353 would extend from May 31, 2015 until July 31, 2015, the authority to expend funds from the Highway Trust Fund, and extend the authorization to obligate funds for programs administered by the Federal-Aid Highway Administration, the Federal Transit Administration, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. The bill also would extend the authority to expend funds from the Sport Fish Restoration and Boating Trust Fund, and the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund until July 31, 2015. Certain expenditures by the Pipelines and Hazardous Materials Administration also would be authorized until July 31, 2015. CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 2353 would not affect direct spending because the annualized level of spending for the authorized programs is assumed to continue through fiscal year 2015 in CBO's baseline. Enacting the bill would not affect revenues. Therefore pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply. CBO estimates that H.R. 2353 would not affect spending that is subject to future appropriation. In addition, based on information from the Department of Transportation (DOT), CBO estimates that implementing the provisions of H.R. 2353 would not cause the balances in the Highway Trust Fund to fall below the minimum cash balances needed by DOT to meet obligations presented to the trust fund in a timely manner through the end of July, 2015."

  United States. Congressional Budget Office

  2015-05-18
• Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate: H.R. 2295, National Energy Security Corridors Act

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  This is the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Cost Estimate as ordered reported by the House Committee on Natural Resources on June 11, 2015. From the Document: "Based on information provided by the Department of the Interior (DOI), CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 2295 would have no significant effect on the federal budget. Because enacting the legislation would not affect direct spending or revenues, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply. The bill would require the Secretary of the Interior to identify parcels of federal land that could be used to build natural gas pipelines and designate those parcels as national energy security corridors. The bill also would authorize the National Park Service (NPS) to allow natural gas pipelines to be constructed on lands administered by the agency. Under current law, DOI has the authority to designate corridors on federal lands for constructing oil and gas pipelines and for electricity transmission and distribution facilities. In 2009, DOI and the Forest Service designated approximately 6,000 miles of such corridors crossing federal lands in 11 western states. H.R. 2295 would require the Secretary to designate at least 10 similar corridors across any of the other 39 states within two years of enactment of the bill. Because current law already requires DOI to designate energy corridors on federal lands, CBO estimates that a requirement to establish additional corridors would have a minimal effect on DOI's workload and the agency's budget."

  United States. Congressional Budget Office

  2015-06-24
• Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate: S. 1090, Emergency Information Improvement Act of 2015

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  This is the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Cost Estimate as ordered reported by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs on June 24, 2015. From the Document: "S. 1090 would codify an existing policy allowing broadcasting facilities to be eligible for certain government assistance following a disaster. Under current law, private nonprofit facilities are eligible to receive grants from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for damages resulting from a disaster if the facility provides critical public services or is ineligible for a Small Business Administration loan. According to information provided by FEMA, nonprofit broadcasting facilities are eligible for such assistance under current agency policy. S. 1090 would explicitly list in statute that those facilities are eligible providers. Because the bill would not affect eligibility for FEMA grants, CBO estimates that implementing S. 1090 would have no federal cost. Enacting S. 1090 would not affect direct spending or revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply. S. 1090 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments."

  United States. Congressional Budget Office

  2015-07-07
• Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate: H.R. 2786, Cross-Border Rail Security Act of 2015

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  This is the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Cost Estimate as ordered reported by the House Committee on Homeland Security on June 25, 2015. From the Document: "H.R. 2786 would require Customs and Border Protection (CBP), within 180 days of the bill's enactment, to submit a report to the Congress on the inspection of goods entering the United States by rail. The legislation also would direct the Government Accountability Office to periodically audit CBP inspection operations at rail crossings along the northern and southern U.S. borders. Based on the costs of similar reports and audits, CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 2786 would cost about $1 million in 2016 and less than $500,000 annually thereafter, assuming appropriation of the necessary funds. Enacting the legislation would not affect direct spending or revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply. H.R. 2786 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments."

  United States. Congressional Budget Office

  2015-07-10
• Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate: H.R. 2390, Homeland Security University-based Centers Review Act

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  This is the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Cost Estimate as ordered reported by the House Committee on Homeland Security on May 20, 2015. From the Document: "H.R. 2390 would require the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to prepare annual reports that describe the work of DHS's program for university-based centers for homeland security. Under the bill the Government Accountability Office also would assess those centers, which research multidisciplinary approaches to homeland security problems. Based on the cost of similar activities, CBO estimates that preparing the reports required by H.R. 2390 would cost less than $500,000 in 2016 and over the 2016-2020 period, assuming availability of appropriated funds. Enacting the legislation would not affect direct spending or revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply. H.R. 2390 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act."

  United States. Congressional Budget Office

  2015-05-28
• National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs, Hearing Before the Committee on Armed Services, U.S. House of Representatives, One Hundred Thirteenth Congress, Second Session, March 5, 2014

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  This is the March 5, 2014 hearing on "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs," held before the U.S. House Committee on Armed Services. From the opening statement of Chairman McKeon: "The committee meets today to receive testimony on the fiscal year 2015 National Defense Authorization budget request for the U.S. Pacific Command, U.S. Central Command, U.S. Africa Command. […] The scope of this hearing is immense and it is doubtful that we will address all of the important issues we have here today, so I encourage members to submit questions for the record. However, I do think the composite views of these three commanders provides an interesting and interactive opportunity to discuss the changing strategic environment, the global demand for forces, the implications of budget cuts and force reductions and risk among the commands. Today's hearing is a study in contrast. The crisis unfolding in Ukraine is a sobering reminder that military strength, presence, and staying power in the world still matter." Statements, letters and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Howard McKeon, Lloyd Austin, Samuel Locklear, and David Rodriguez.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2014
• United States Security Policy and Defense Posture in the Middle East, Hearing Before the Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, One Hundred Thirteenth Congress, Second Session, February 11, 2014

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  This is the February 11, 2014 hearing on "United States Security Policy and Defense Posture in the Middle East," held before the U.S. House Committee on Armed Services. From the opening statement of Howard P. ''Buck'' McKeon: "The committee has conducted several classified briefings and open hearings with outside experts on this topic area. However, today is an opportunity to build upon that knowledge in an open forum with senior policy and military leaders in our government. The Middle East is in the midst of a particularly tumultuous period, from the Arab Awakening to the evolution of Al Qaeda, to the deadly conflict in Syria, to Iran's continued pursuit of nuclear weapons. We are witnessing a level of volatility in the Middle East that poses a serious threat to U.S. security and to our interests in the region. While our allies and partners seek strong U.S. leadership and engagement in the region, they instead see signs of disengagement. Our withdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan, the administration's rebalance to other regions and its dealmaking with Iran help shape this view. There is widespread uncertainty about U.S. commitment in the Middle East. As noted by former U.N. [United Nations] Ambassador to Iraq James Jeffrey in a recent op-ed, and I quote, 'As often happens in this region, the administration is sounding an uncertain tone. The result has been an extraordinary collapse of U.S. credibility in the region, despite many commendable administration steps,' end quote. These comments illustrate a lack of certainty about U.S. policy in the region. Equally important is our military posture in the region, how we combat evolving threats, deter Iran, degrade Al Qaeda, and assure our allies and partners. We also must ensure our military posture and its associated capabilities are not traded for interim deals with regimes that have a history of noncompliance." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Frank C. Pandolfe, Anne W. Patterson, and Elissa Slotkin.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2014
• H.R. 113-446: Howard P. 'Buck' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal year 2015, Report of the Committee on Armed Services, U. S. House of Representatives, One Hundred Thirteenth Congress, Second Session, May 13, 2014

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  This is the May 13, 2014 report titled, "Howard P. 'Buck' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015" of the Committee on Armed Services, U.S. House of Representatives. From the opening paragraph of Mr. McKeon's report: "The Committee on Armed Services, to whom was referred the bill (H.R. 4435) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2015 for military activities of the Department of Defense and for military construction, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon with amendments and recommends that the bill as amended do pass. The amendments are as follows: The amendment strikes all after the enacting clause of the bill and inserts a new text which appears in italic type in the reported bill. The title of the bill is amended to reflect the amendment to the text of the bill." Howard P. "Buck" McKeon is the primary author of this report which is meant to accompany H.R. 4435. The Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate for H.R. 4435 can be found at: https://www.hsdl.org/?abstract&did=753482.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2014
• Department of Defense and the Fiscal Year 2013 Budget, Hearing Before the Committee on the Budget, House of Representatives, One Hundred Twelfth Congress, Second Session, Hearing Held in Washington, DC, February 29, 2012

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  From the opening statement of Paul Ryan: "I want to welcome everybody to today's hearing to examine the president's budget request for the Department of Defense, and to explore how the federal government can meet its highest priority, providing for the common defense and strengthening our national security. […] Relative to last year's request, the president's budget calls for a $487 billion reduction in base defense spending over the next decade. This comes on top of already planned spending reduction for the global war on terrorism. The United States remains a nation at war, and our troops remain engaged in a fierce enemy overseas. It is difficult to square this reality with the president's steep reductions in both troop levels and funding levels. The timing of these cuts raises serious concerns that decisions are being driven by budgetary concerns as opposed to strategic priorities." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Paul Ryan, Chris Van Hollen, Leon E. Panetta, Todd Rokita, Michael M. Honda, Martin E. Dempsey, and Allyson Y. Schwartz.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2012
• Defeating the Improvised Explosive Device (IED) and Other Asymmetric Threats: Reviewing the Performance and Oversight of the Joint IED Defeat Organization (JIEDDO), Hearing Before the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of the Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, One Hundred Eleventh Congress, First Session, October 29, 2009

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  From the opening statement of Vic Snyder: "This is the second hearing that this subcommittee has had in the last couple years on the performance and oversight of the Joint Improvised Explosive Device (IED) Defeat Organization, known as JIEDDO. This hearing follows last year's hearing, which I believe was in September of last year, and will explore the question: Is current oversight of JIEDDO within the Department of Defense (DOD) sufficient for an organization receiving funding of such considerable size, flexibility, and importance? IEDs remain the number one cause of casualties to coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Although IEDs are not a new threat, they have been used with unprecedented frequency in Iraq and Afghanistan. While the decrease in successful attacks in Iraq is encouraging, that success has not been replicated in Afghanistan, which has seen an increase in the success and lethality of attacks with our increase in forces there. Since former U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) Commander General Abizaid called for a Manhattan Project-like effort 5 years ago to defeat IEDs, Congress has provided nearly $17 billion to DOD's efforts. This effort has grown from a 12-man Army task force to the Joint IED Defeat Organization, or JIEDDO, which currently employs a staff of about 3,600 dedicated government, military, and contract personnel." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Vic Snyder, Rob Wittman, Thomas F. Metz, James A. Schear, and William M. Solis.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2010
• President Obama's New Plan for Missile Defenses in Europe and the Implications for International Security, Hearing Before the Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, One Hundred Eleventh Congress, First Session, October 01, 2009

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  From the opening statement of Chairman Howard P. McKeon: "Two weeks ago, the President announced that he had accepted the unanimous recommendations of Defense Secretary Gates and the Joint Chiefs of Staff to restructure the plan for missile defense in Europe. He said, 'Our new missile defense architecture in Europe will provide stronger, smarter, and swifter defenses of American forces and American allies.'' And I must say, the new plan sounds familiar. It sounds like very much it came from the bipartisan direction provided by Congress. In 2006, our bill established the policy of the United States to accord priority to developing, testing, fielding the near-term effective missile defense systems, including Aegis, Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD), and Standard Missile-3 (SM--3) interceptor Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), and Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC--3) system. In our bill two years ago, we made it the policy of the United States to develop, test, and deploy effective missile defenses for our forward-based forces, our allies, and our homeland against the threat of Iran's existing and potential ballistic missiles." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Howard P. McKeon, Ike Skelton, James E. Cartwright, Michele A. Flournoy, Patrick J. O'Reilly, and Ellen O. Tauscher.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2009-10-01
• National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs, Hearing Before the Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, One Hundred Twelfth Congress, First Session; Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, Hearing on Budget Request for Missile Defense Programs, March 31, 2011

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  From the opening statement of Michael Turner: "First, I am deeply concerned about the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense system in Alaska and California, GMD. The back-to-back flight test failures this past year raise doubts about the reliability and effectiveness of this capability. […] While I understand there are some changes to the program this year, I have also observed the funding for GMD plummet over the past few years. In fiscal year 2010, the President's budget request slashed it by $445 million. Last year we saw a restoration of some funds, but then again this year the program was cut by $185 million. Furthermore, the out-year spending profile for GMD is $1 billion less than was projected a year ago. [...] I worry that these test failures maybe a harbinger of further setbacks if we don't make GMD a priority and devote the resources necessary to make it right. After all, what is at stake: GMD is currently the only missile defense system that protects the United States homeland from long-range ballistic attacks, and we have to get it right. […] This year, the budget request is less than last year's, which only heightens my concern that MDA [Missile Defense Agency] and the scientists and engineers it leverages lack the resources to make major advancements in this technology area." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Michael Turner, Loretta Sanchez, David G. Ahern, Michael Gilmore, Patrick J. O'Reilly, and Bradley H. Roberts.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2011
• Significant Force Realignment of the Department of Defense, Including Beddown, Support, and Other Costs and Requirements Related to Those Alignments, Hearing Before the Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, One Hundred Ninth Congress, Second Session, June 26, 2006

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  This is the June 26, 2006 hearing "Significant Force Realignment of the Department of Defense, Including Beddown, Support, and Other Costs and Requirements Related to Those Alignments" held before the U.S. House Committee on Armed Services. From the opening statement of Curt Weldon: "Over the past few years, the committee has conducted several hearings and received additional briefings on three of the most significant components of the department's force realignment efforts: the global defense posture review, base realignment and closure, and the Army's transformation to a modular force. Considering that each component of this realignment would be a significant effort in its own right, the Department of Defense has a daunting task ahead in attempting to implement all three parts over the same short period of time. Today's hearing is an opportunity for the committee to review the department's force realignment plans and to assess whether it is prepared to address the many resulting requirements of those plans." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Curt Weldon, Duncan Hunter, Ike Skelton, Philip W. Grone, Ryan Henry, and William D. Sullivan.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2007
• Addressing U.S. Strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan: Balancing Interests and Resources, Hearing Before the Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, One Hundred Eleventh Congress, First Session, February 12, 2009

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  From the opening statement of Ike Skelton: "The new Administration has made it clear that they are renewing the focus on America's other war in Afghanistan. Of course, I think it is about time. For too long our country has not paid sufficient attention to the war in Afghanistan, and it doesn't appear we are winning there. Casualties are on the rise. The Taliban is conducting more widespread attacks, including those this week on government buildings in Kabul, which cost at least 20 lives. A new strategy was clearly articulated, and achievable goals are desperately needed. And I am pleased the Administration is undertaking that review. At the same time, Iraq, which has been our major focus for the last five years, seems to be trending in the right direction. Violence is down significantly, and provincial elections have been conducted. This, of course, is a welcome change. But our commanders there tell us we are not over the hurdles yet, and the situation in Iraq remains potentially unstable and dangerous." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: John M. McHugh, Ike Skelton, Stephen Biddle, Anthony Cordesman, Arleigh A. Burke, John M. Keane, and Janet St. Laurent.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2010
• Afghanistan and Iraq: Perspectives on U.S. Strategy, Part 2, Hearing Before the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Of the Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, One Hundred Eleventh Congress, First Session, November 5, 2009

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  From the opening statement of Paul D. Eaton: "...I support this Administration's prudent review of our options in Afghanistan. Now, I am not going to read the entire statement submitted, but I will highlight a few points. Andrew Bacevich, a retired Army colonel, now professor of international relations at Boston University and author of The Limits of Power, wrote for 'Harper's' magazine this month, 'Among Democrats and Republicans alike, with few exceptions, Afghanistan's importance is simply assumed, much in the way 50 years ago otherwise intelligent people simply assumed that the United States had a vital interest in ensuring the survival of South Vietnam. Today, as then, the assumption does not stand up to even casual scrutiny.'" Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Vic Snyder, Rob Wittman, Paul D. Eaton, Christine C. Fair, Muqtedar Khan, and Marin Strmecki.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2010
• Testimony from Members on Their National Defense Priorities for the Fiscal Year 2012 National Defense Authorization Bill, Committee on Armed Services, United States House of Representatives, One Hundred Twelfth Congress, First Session, Hearing Held April 14, 2011

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  From the opening statement of Howard P. McKeon: "The House Armed Services Committee meets today to receive testimony from Members of Congress on their national defense priorities for the fiscal year 2012 National Defense Authorization Act. As we begin the process of crafting our legislation, it is essential that this committee seek input from all Members of the House to better enable us to fill Congress' Article 1, Section 8 constitutional mandate to provide for the common defense. We all share the responsibility to provide the best possible resources for our warfighters, and we look forward to hearing from this group of our fellow Members of Congress on their proposals for how best to carry out our mandate." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Rick Berg, John Carter, André Carson, Eric A. Crawford, Jeff Duncan, Jack Kingston, Adam Kinzinger, Howard P. McKeon, James P. Moran, Randy Neugebauer, Stevan Pearce, Mike Pompeo, Adam Smith, Heath Shuler, Peter Welch, Timothy H. Bishop, Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Steve Cohen, Gerald E. Connolly, Donna F. Edwards, Richard Hanna, Barbara Lee, Blaine Luetkemeyer, Chellie Pingree, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and Todd Young.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2011
• Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate: H.R. 1540, Report Act

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  This is the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Cost Estimate as ordered reported by the House Committee on Homeland Security on March 2, 2022. From the Document: "H.R. 1540 would require any federal agency that investigates an act of terrorism committed in the United States to report to the Congress within one year of completing an investigation, identifying weaknesses, and recommending measures to improve national security. The bill would direct the investigating agency to collaborate with the Department of Homeland Security and other federal agencies as appropriate. Using information about similar investigations, CBO expects that few reports would be necessary each year and estimates that preparing all reports would cost less than $500,000 annually; such spending would be subject to the availability of appropriated funds."

  United States. Congressional Budget Office

  2022-03-23
• Fiscal Year 2010 Budget for the National Protection and Programs Directorate and the Transportation Security Administration, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Transportation Security and Infrastructure Protection of the Committee on Homeland Security, House of Representatives, One Hundred Eleventh Congress, First Session, June 10, 2009

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  From the opening statement of Sheila Jackson Lee: "The subcommittee is meeting today to receive testimony on the fiscal year 2010 budget for the National Protection and Programs Directorate and the Transportation Security Administration. Our witnesses today will testify about the budget request of their respective components for fiscal year 2010." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Sheila Jackson Lee, Charles W. Dent, Philip R. Reitinger, and Gale D. Rossides.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2011
• National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform: The Moment of Truth

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  From the Document: "Throughout our nation's history, Americans have found the courage to do right by our children's future. Deep down, every American knows we face a moment of truth once again. We cannot play games or put off hard choices any longer. Without regard to party, we have a patriotic duty to keep the promise of America to give our children and grandchildren a better life. Our challenge is clear and inescapable: America cannot be great if we go broke. Our businesses will not be able to grow and create jobs, and our workers will not be able to compete successfully for the jobs of the future without a plan to get this crushing debt burden off our backs. Ever since the economic downturn, families across the country have huddled around kitchen tables, making tough choices about what they hold most dear and what they can learn to live without. They expect and deserve their leaders to do the same. The American people are counting on us to put politics aside, pull together not pull apart, and agree on a plan to live within our means and make America strong for the long haul. As members of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, we spent the past eight months studying the same cold, hard facts. Together, we have reached these unavoidable conclusions: The problem is real. The solution will be painful. There is no easy way out. Everything must be on the table. And Washington must lead."

  United States. White House Office

  2010-12
• Biden Administrations Policy Priorities for Latin America and the Caribbean, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere, Civilian Security, Migration and International Economic Policy of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives, One Hundred Seventeenth Congress, First Session, November 16, 2021

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  This is the November 16, 2021 hearing on "Biden Administrations Policy Priorities for Latin America and the Caribbean," held before the U.S. House Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere, Civilian Security, Migration and International Economic Policy of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. From the opening statement of Albio Sires: "In my view, the Biden Administration came into office with the right approach, to elevate Central America as a strategic priority and renew our focus on addressing the root causes of migrations. Unfortunately, we have seen in the last 10 months that there are limitations to what we can achieve when we lack reliable government partners. For this reason, the newly announced effort of the Administration to focus on assistance and supporting local organizations in Central America is a positive and important step." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Brian Nichols.

  United States. Government Publishing Office

  2022
• Statement by the President on H.R. 5631, the 'Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2007' [September 29, 2006]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  This document contains President Bush's statement on H.R. 5631 that appropriates funds needed for the war on terror.

  United States. Office of the White House Press Secretary

  Bush, George W. (George Walker), 1946-

  2006-09-29
• Remarks by the President on the Status of Efforts to Find a Balanced Approach to Deficit Reduction [July 05, 2011]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  In his July 05, 2011 remarks, President Barack Obama discusses his meeting with congressional leaders regarding deficit negotiations. Obama states that to fix the deficit problem we need to review spending trends for domestic, defense, and entitlement programs. Obama also stresses the importance of compromise between both political parties in order to reach a deal that effectively reduces the deficit.

  United States. Office of the White House Press Secretary

  Obama, Barack

  2011-07-05
• Text of a Letter from the President [November 20, 2002]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  From the Document: "In accordance with provisions of Public Law 107-42, the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act, 2001, I hereby request the subsidy budget authority necessary to support a $168 million Federal credit instrument for American Trans Air, Inc."

  United States. Office of the White House Press Secretary

  Bush, George W. (George Walker), 1946-

  2002-11-20
• Building a 21st Century Infrastructure for America: Revitalizing American Communities Through the Brownsfields Program, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of Representatives, One Hundred Fifteenth Congress, First Session, March 28, 2017

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  This is a testimony compilation for the March 28, 2017 hearing, "Building a 21st Century Infrastructure for America: Revitalizing American Communities Through the Brownsfields Program," before the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. From the testimony of Amanda W. LeFevre: "Brownfield Redevelopment plays an important role in addressing our country's ailing infrastructure. Redevelopment of brownfields reuses existing roads, bridges, water treatment plants and other infrastructure elements resulting in savings in development costs and the need to build new infrastructure that also requires maintenance. Funding, expertise and resources at the State, federal and local levels of government allow those redeveloping brownfields to layer funding and assistance to encourage redevelopment of Brownfields. The variety of tools allows entities to select the incentives and resources that will make their particular project work. [...] Brownfields and the associated voluntary cleanup programs are necessary to assist with cleanup and to allow property sales, redevelopments and financing to move forward. Sudden and significant cuts to the money coming to the States can and would cripple States programs, and if State programs cannot remain responsive, they will wither and collapse." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: J. Christian Bollwage, Deborah Robertson, Matt Zone, John Dailey, Amanda W. LeFevre, and Jonathan Philips.

  United States. Congress. House. Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

  2017-03-28
• Alignment of Infrastructure Investment and Risk and Defense Strategic Requirements, Hearing before the U.S. House Committee on Armed Services, One Hundred Fourteenth Congress, First Session, March 3, 2015

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  This is the testimony compilation from the March 3, 2015 hearing, "Alignment of Infrastructure Investment and Risk and Defense Strategic Requirements," before the U.S. House Committee on Armed Services. This hearing focuses on environmental, installation and energy aspects of the Fiscal Year 2016 budget request. The importance of infrastructure is emphasized. Statements, letters and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: John Conger, Katherine Hammack, Dennis McGinn and Miranda Ballentine.

  United States. Congress. House. Committee on Armed Services

  2015-03-03
• Beyond the Border Implementation Report [December 2012]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  From the Document: "The United States and Canada are staunch allies, vital economic partners, and steadfast friends. We share common values, links among our citizens, and deeply rooted ties. We enjoy the largest bilateral trading relationship in the world; some $1.6 billion worth of goods and over 300,000 people cross our shared border each day for business, pleasure, or to maintain family ties. The secure and efficient flows of legitimate goods and people are vital to our economic competitiveness and mutual prosperity. To preserve and extend the benefits our close relationship has helped bring to Americans and Canadians alike, President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced the 'Beyond the Border Declaration' and the 'Canada-United States Regulatory Cooperation Council' on February 4, 2011. Both initiatives seek to deepen our partnership and enhance our security, prosperity and economic competitiveness while respecting each other's sovereignty. The 'Beyond the Border Declaration' articulates a perimeter approach to security in which both countries work together to address threats at the earliest point possible -- within, at, and away from our borders -- while facilitating the lawful movement of people, goods, and services into our countries and across our shared border. The 'Beyond the Border Action Plan', released by the President and by the Prime Minister in December 2011, outlines specific initiatives in support of this transformational vision. It also calls for Canada and the United States to generate a joint 'Beyond the Border' implementation report annually for a three year period, with the expectation of continuation. The enclosed report covers 'Beyond the Border' activities for 2012."

  United States. White House Office

  2012-12