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).

• Security Assistance Reform: 'Section 1206' Background and Issues for Congress [January 13, 2012]

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

  "Section 1206 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2006, as amended and regularly extended, provides the Secretary of Defense with authority to train and equip foreign military forces for two specified purposes--counterterrorism and stability operations--and foreign maritime security forces for counterterrorism operations. The Department of Defense (DOD) values this authority as an important tool to train and equip military partners. Funds may be obligated only with the concurrence of the Secretary of State. Thus far, the Department of Defense (DOD) has used Section 1206 authority primarily to provide counterterrorism (CT) support. In FY2010 and FY2011, Section 1206 funds were also used to provide significant assistance to train and equip foreign military forces for military and stability operations in which U.S. forces participate. This authority will expire in FY2013. [...] Some Members have been concerned with several issues related to Section 1206 authority, both narrow and broad. Specific current concerns include whether Section 1206 funds are being used appropriately and effectively, and whether the authority should be expanded to provide training not only military forces but also to a wide range of foreign security forces. (Currently, Section 1206 limits security force training to maritime security forces.) An overarching issue is whether Congress should place Section 1206 train and equip (T&E) authority under the State Department with other T&E authorities. (Members have thus far refrained from codifying Section 1206 in permanent law, as requested by DOD.) Finally, some Members may wish to examine the status of Section 1206 in the context of broader security assistance reform."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Serafino, Nina M.

  2012-01-13
• Homeland Defense: Continued Actions Needed to Improve Management of Air Sovereignty Alert Operations, Report to Congressional Requestors

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

  From the Highlights: "In the 11 years since September 11, 2001, the U.S. government has put forth extensive efforts to protect the nation's aviation sector and airspace. These efforts include air sovereignty alert (ASA) operations, for which the Air Force provides personnel and fully fueled, fully armed aircraft sitting on constant alert at 18 sites across the United States. In 2009, GAO [Government Accountability Office] found shortcomings in the Department of Defense's (DOD) management of ASA operations, leading to a number of GAO recommendations. For this report, GAO examined the extent to which (1) the Air Force has implemented GAO's 2009 recommendations, (2) DOD has implemented a risk-based management approach for ASA operations, and (3) the Air Force has accurately identified expenditures for ASA operations. To do so, GAO analyzed relevant strategies, planning documents, guidance, and expenditure data; and interviewed North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), Air Force, National Guard Bureau, and other DOD officials. Congress may wish to consider requiring the Air Force to fully implement GAO's 2009 recommendations. In addition, GAO recommends that DOD improve its risk management of ASA operations and improve the Air Force's ability to accurately identify ASA expenditures. DOD fully or partially agreed with all of GAO's recommendations."

  United States. Government Accountability Office

  2012-01
• Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority: Is There a Security Gap? Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Health Care, District of Columbia, Census and the National Archives of the Committee on Oversight and Governments Reform, House of Representatives, One Hundred Twelfth Congress, First Session, June 24, 2011

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

  From the opening statement of Danny K. Davis: "Transit security is especially challenging due primarily to the very nature of the business. It's open, accessible to the public, with predictable routes and fixed access points; and, more importantly, it's the transportation of choice for the masses in urban and metropolitan areas. Further, transit officials cannot employ many of the strategies used in aviation. Transit does not allow the conventional security methods of X-ray machines, metal detectors, and pre-screening of passengers. I do not envy the balancing act that must take place ensuring the safety, accessibility, and convenience of the transit system, while also maintaining the attractiveness and reliability of the system. But it must be done and done well. So when people choose public transit they should receive both a high degree of safety and security, as well as convenience, all at an affordable cost. Today's hearing will look at all of these issues but none more than security. The operation of a secure transit environment that spans multiple jurisdictions geographically and that must integrate the specialties of multiple law enforcement agency depends upon interagency and jurisdictional coordination and cooperation. That can be hard to do without practice, superior communication, and rigorous oversight. I am interested today in learning from these witnesses just how they have accomplished and improved these tasks." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Trey Gowdy, Richard Sarles, Michael Taborn, Cathy Lanier, Anthony Griffin, Gerald E. Connolly, Elijah E. Cummings, and Danny K. Davis.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2011
• Expedited Citizenship Through Military Service: Current Law, Policy and Issues [Updated February 11, 2008]

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

  "Since the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom in March 2003 there has been considerable interest in legislation to expand the citizenship benefits of aliens serving in the military. The reported deaths in action of noncitizen soldiers drew attention to provisions of the immigration laws that grant posthumous citizenship to those who die as a result of active-duty service during a period of hostilities and to the advantages of further expediting naturalization for noncitizens serving in the United States military. In the wake of September 11, 2001, and the war against terrorism, President George W. Bush officially designated the period beginning on September 11, 2001, as a 'period of hostilities,' which triggered immediate naturalization eligibility for active-duty U.S. military service members. […]. Title XVII of P.L. 108-136, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (November 24, 2003), entitled 'Naturalization and Other Immigration Benefits for Military Personnel and Families,' amended existing military naturalization statutes by reducing the period of service required for naturalization based on peacetime service from three years to one year; waiving fees for naturalization based on military service during peacetime or wartime; permitting naturalization processing overseas in U.S. embassies, consulates, and military bases; providing for priority consideration for military leave and transport to finalize naturalization; and by extending naturalization based on wartime service to members of the Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Wasem, Ruth Ellen; Lee, Margaret Mikyung

  2008-02-11
• Statement by the President on H.R. 1540, December 31, 2011

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

  This White House press release includes President Obama's statement on H.R. 1540, the "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012." President Obama highlights various sections of the bill that he finds very important, along with other sections that he disagrees with.

  United States. Office of the White House Press Secretary

  Obama, Barack

  2011-12-31
• Section 1206 of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2006: A Fact Sheet on Department of Defense Authority to Train and Equip Foreign Military Forces [June 3, 2008]

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

  "Section 1206 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2006 provides the Secretary of Defense with authority to train and equip foreign military forces. Thus far, the Department of Defense (DOD) has used Section 1206 authority primarily to provide counterterrorism support. Section 1206 obligations totaled some $100 million in FY2006 and $279 million in FY2007. Obligations for FY2008 total almost $25 million as of May 20, 2008. Funds may only be obligated with the concurrence of the Secretary of State. This authority expires at the end of FY2008."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Serafino, Nina M.

  2008-06-03
• Cover Blown: Did TSA Tip Off Airport Screeners about Covert Testing? Full Hearing of the Committee on Homeland Security, House of Representatives, One Hundred Tenth Congress, First Session, November 14, 2007

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

  From the opening statement of Bennie G. Thompson: "We are holding this hearing today, to ask TSA [Transportation Security Administration] to explain why on April 28, 2006 it used a systemwide communication system, NETHUB, to give more than 650 aviation security officials a heads-up about a possible security test. This e-mail was provided to the committee by a member of the media and verified by my staff, that email said that several airport authorities and airport police departments have recently received informal notice of security testing at airports around the Nation. [...] It is hard to overstate the importance of this type [covert] of testing. It is a critical part of a layered defense that protects our Nation's commercial aviation system. Covert testers are out there trying to expose gaps before a terrorist does, and if someone at TSA undermines this testing, they are undermining aviation security as a whole. This committee is tasked by Congress to conduct oversight of the Department of Homeland Security, its organization, and particularly transportation security programs. Today's hearing is just the first step in my committee's investigation into this issue." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Bennie G. Thompson, Peter T. King, Gus M. Bilirakis, Yvette D. Clarke, Peter A. DeFazio, Charles W. Dent, Norman D. Dicks, Bob Etheridge, Al Green, Sheila Jackson Lee, Nita M. Lowey, Daniel E. Lungren, Bill Pascrell, Jr., Ed Perlmutter, Clark Kent Erving, Edmond S. "Kip" Hawley, and Gregory Kutz.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2009
• DOD's National Security Personnel System: Provisions of Law and Implementation Plans [Updated February 16, 2005]

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

  From the Summary: "Title XI of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2004, P.L. 108-136, includes provisions on a National Security Personnel System (NSPS) for the Department of Defense (DOD) and provisions on personnel management that are applicable government-wide. The law was enacted on November 24, 2003. This report discusses each of the provisions in Title XI of P.L. 108-136 and plans to implement the law."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Schwemle, Barbara L.

  2005-02-16
• Security Assistance Reform: 'Section 1206' Background and Issues for Congress [February 11, 2011]

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

  "Section 1206 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2006, as amended and regularly extended, provides the Secretary of Defense with authority to train and equip foreign military and foreign maritime security forces for two specified purposes. The Department of Defense (DOD) values this authority as an important tool to train and equip military partners. Funds may be obligated only with the concurrence of the Secretary of State. Thus far, the Department of Defense (DOD) has used Section 1206 authority primarily to provide counterterrorism (CT) support. In FY2010, Section 1206 funds were also used to provide significant assistance to train and equip foreign military forces for military and stability operations in which U.S. forces participate. […] Some Members of Congress are concerned with several issues related to Section 1206 authority, both narrow and broad. Specific current concerns include whether Section 1206 funds are being used appropriately and effectively, and whether the authority should be expanded to provide training not only to military forces but also to a wide range of foreign security forces. (Currently, Section 1206 limits security force training to maritime security forces.) An overarching issue is whether Congress should place Section 1206 train and equip (T&E) authority under the State Department with other T&E authorities. (Members have thus far refrained from codifying Section 1206 in permanent law, as requested by DOD.) A related issue is whether Congress should grant the State Department its own security assistance contingency fund with purposes that overlap Section 1206, as provided in the House-passed FY2010-FY2011 Foreign Relations Authorization Act (H.R. 2410, Section 841)."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Serafino, Nina M.

  2011-02-11
• Defense: FY2006 Authorization and Appropriations [Updated June 17, 2005]

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

  From the Summary: "Congressional action on annual defense authorization and appropriations bills is now in full swing. On June 7, the House Appropriations Committee marked up its version (H.R. 2863) of the FY2006 defense appropriations bill. Floor action is expected on June 20. Earlier, on May 25, the full House passed its version of the FY2006 defense authorization (H.R. 1815), and on May 12, the Senate Armed Services Committee marked up its version of the bill (S. 1042), though floor action has not yet been scheduled. The House has also passed both the Military Quality of Life/Veterans Affairs appropriations bill (H.R. 2528) and the energy and water appropriations bill (H.R. 2419)."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Daggett, Stephen

  2005-06-17
• FY2008 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues [Updated December 11, 2007]

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

  "Military personnel issues typically generate significant interest from many Members of Congress and their staffs. Ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan in support of what the Bush Administration terms the Global War on Terror, along with the emerging operational role of the Reserve Components, have further heightened interest and support for a wide range of military personnel policies and issues. CRS selected a number of issues addressed by Congress as it considers the FY2008 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 1585/S. 1547). In each case, a brief synopsis is provided that includes background information, a comparison of the House-passed, Senate-passed, and conference report provisions, and a brief discussion of the issue. This update reflects the actions taken on the various House and Senate provisions in H. Rept 110-477, the conference report to accompany H.R. 1585, which was filed on December 6, 2007. Where appropriate, other CRS products are identified to provide more detailed background information and analysis of the issue. For each issue, a CRS analyst is identified and contact information is provided. Note: some issues were addressed in last year's National Defense Authorization Act and discussed in CRS Report RL33571, The FY2007 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues, concerning that legislation."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Best, Richard A.; Burrelli, David F., 1958-; Henning, Charles A.

  2007-12-11
• FY2008 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues [Updated October 26, 2007]

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

  "Military personnel issues typically generate significant interest from many Members of Congress and their staffs. Ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan in support of what the Bush Administration terms the Global War on Terror, along with the emerging operational role of the Reserve Components, further heightened interest and support for a wide range of military personnel policies and issues. CRS selected a number of issues considered by Congress as it considers the FY2008 National Defense Authorization Act. In each case, a brief synopsis is provided that includes background information, a comparison of the House-passed provisions and the provisions reported by the Senate Armed Services Committee, if any, and a brief discussion of the issue. Where appropriate, other CRS products are identified to provide more detailed background information and analysis of the issue. For each issue, a CRS analyst is identified and contact information is provided. Note: some issues were addressed in last year's National Defense Authorization Act and discussed in CRS Report RL33571, The FY2007 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues, concerning that legislation. Those issues that were previously considered in CRS Report RL33571 are designated with a '*' in the relevant section titles of this report. This report focuses exclusively on the annual defense authorization process. It does not include appropriations, veterans' affairs, tax implications of policy choices or any discussion of separately introduced legislation."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Best, Richard A.; Burrelli, David F., 1958-; Henning, Charles A.

  2007-10-26
• SAVER Summary: Ports at Night, Seeing with Hand-Held Intensifiers [March 2007]

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

  "Given the growth in demand and importance of night vision in the law enforcement community, the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center (SPAWARSYSCEN), Charleston assessed Image-Intensified (I2) Night Vision Devices (NVDs) with the assistance of the Texas A&M University Engineering Program Office. This assessment and validation project used the input and assistance of various emergency responders, law enforcement, and security organizations to examine hand-held products in a maritime port environment. The result of this assessment, intended for the emergency responder community, is equally applicable to other agencies and is built on extensive law enforcement experience and background on current hand-held I2 technologies, capabilities, and limitations. […] The Ports at Night, Seeing With Hand-Held Intensifiers Report presents findings from an assessment of four Gen-3 I2 hand-held intensifiers. The intensifiers were evaluated in field assessments in order to provide information to assist emergency responders interested in purchasing these devices. The overall assessment revealed the differences in hand-held intensifiers by comparing them using a set of functional and operational criteria."

  United States. Federal Emergency Management Agency; System Assessment and Validation for Emergency Responders (SAVER); United States. Department of Homeland Security

  2007-03
• Statement on H.R. 1588: Statement by the Deputy Press Secretary [November 24, 2003]

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

  The White House Deputy Press Secretary released this statement on President George W. Bush signing into law H.R. 1588, the "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004."

  United States. Office of the White House Press Secretary

  2003-11-24
• Ten Years After 9/11: Assessing Airport Security and Preventing a Future Terrorist Attack, Field Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations, and Management of the Committee on Homeland Security, House of Representatives, One Hundred Twelfth Congress, First Session, September 16, 2011

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

  From the opening statement of Michael T. McCaul: "The terrorists began this war by using our airports as launching pads. Over a period of 10 years, we've spent billions of dollars to mitigate such a threat. However, the 9/11 Commission's 10th anniversary report card concludes, 'We are still vulnerable to aviation security threats.' Specifically, the report states, 'We need to improve screening at airport checkpoints using biometrics and standardized identification documents to make it more difficult to circumvent security.' In addition, the attempted terrorist bombing of Northwest flight 253 on approach to Detroit on Christmas day 2009 provides a vivid reminder that commercial aviation remains an attractive terrorist target and underscores the need for effective airport security. Our major airports now have multiple layers of security screening. Today's hearing will examine two of those layers, airport perimeter security as well as new security measures being tested here at Logan International Airport. This airport has led the Nation in new techniques and innovative methods to prevent another 9/11 attack. Methods used by airports to control access vary because of differences in design and layout. But all access controls must meet minimum performance standards established by the TSA [Transportation Security Administration]. TSA requires airports to control access using methods such as pedestrian and vehicle gates, keypad access codes with personal identification numbers, magnetic stripe cards and readers, turnstiles, locks and keys, and security personnel." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Michael T. McCaul, William R. Keating, Stephen M. Lord, Chris McLaughlin, George Naccara, Edward C. Freni, and Michael P. Concannon.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2012
• Taxation of Capital and Labor Through the Self-Employment Tax

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

  From the Summary: "Since 1950, self-employed individuals have been covered by the Social Security system. In many regards, their obligation to pay Self-Employment Contributions Act (SECA) taxes into the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) and Hospital Insurance (HI) trust funds and their entitlement to Social Security and Medicare benefits parallel those of workers who are not self-employed and who thus are covered under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA). In both cases, the OASDI tax base is limited to income below a certain threshold, and the HI tax base is not constrained by any income ceiling. The two systems, however, diverge in an important way: The FICA tax is based solely on income from labor, but the SECA tax is based on net business income, which can also include income from capital. Such a difference in the tax code (say, among businesses providing the same goods and services) can prompt people to make choices that they would not otherwise make about self-employment or the organizational form of a business, thereby reducing the efficient allocation of resources."

  United States. Congressional Budget Office

  2012-09
• Security Assistance Reform: 'Section 1206' Background and Issues for Congress [June 29, 2010]

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

  "Section 1206 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2006 provides the Secretary of Defense with authority to train and equip foreign military and foreign maritime security forces. The Department of Defense (DOD) values this authority as an important tool to train and equip military partners. Funds may be obligated only with the concurrence of the Secretary of State. Thus far, the Department of Defense (DOD) has used Section 1206 authority primarily to provide counterterrorism (CT) support. These funds may also be used to train and equip foreign military forces for military and stability operations in which U.S. forces participate. As of June 21, 2010, Section 1206 allocations for FY2006-FY2009 and congressionally notified plans for FY2010 total about $1.2 billion. For FY 2010, Congress provided $345 million in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010, P.L. 111-118. (The amount is not specified in the act but is included under the total appropriated to the Defense Security Cooperation Agency.). Of this amount, about $238 million has been notified to and accepted by congressional oversight committees to date. Almost two-thirds of this funding ($155.3 million) is provided for CT support in Yemen. Some $18 million is provided for CT support in the Philippines and $64 million to assist 12 countries in greater Europe in preparing troops to participate in the NATO International Stabilization Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Serafino, Nina M.

  2010-06-29
• Security Assistance Reform: 'Section 1206' Background and Issues for Congress [April 19, 2013]

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

  "Section 1206 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2006, as amended and regularly extended, provides the Secretary of Defense with authority to train and equip foreign military forces for two specified purposes--counterterrorism and stability operations--and foreign maritime security forces for counterterrorism operations. The Department of Defense (DOD) values this authority as an important tool to train and equip military partners. Funds may be obligated only with the concurrence of the Secretary of State. Through 2009, DOD used Section 1206 authority primarily to provide counterterrorism (CT) support. Since FY2010, Section 1206 authority has also been used to provide significant assistance to train and equip foreign military forces for military and stability operations in which U.S. forces participate. Currently, there is a cap of $350 million on Section 1206 obligations per fiscal year. This authority will expire in FY2014, unless extended. Section 1206 allocations or notifications for the first seven years, FY2006-FY2012, have totaled nearly $1.8 billion. During this period, Section 1206 supported bilateral programs in 41 countries, 15 multilateral programs, and a global human rights program. […] Overarching issues include whether the authority should be expanded to provide training not only to military forces but also to a wide range of foreign security forces (currently, Section 1206 limits security force training to maritime security forces) and whether Congress should place Section 1206 train and equip (T&E) authority under the State Department with other T&E authorities. (Members have thus far refrained from codifying Section 1206 in permanent law, as requested by DOD.) Finally, some Members may wish to examine the status of Section 1206 in the context of broader security assistance reform."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Serafino, Nina M.

  2013-04-19
• Security Assistance Reform: 'Section 1206' Background and Issues for Congress [February 18, 2010]

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

  "Section 1206 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2006 provides the Secretary of Defense with authority to train and equip foreign military and foreign maritime security forces. The Department of Defense (DOD) values this authority as an important tool to train and equip military partners. Funds may be obligated only with the concurrence of the Secretary of State. Thus far, the Department of Defense (DOD) has used Section 1206 authority primarily to provide counterterrorism support. Because Section 1206 authority expires in FY2011, Congress may wish to examine the utility and suitability of this special DOD authority. In its FY2011 budget request, the Obama Administration indicates that it seeks about $490 million in Section 1206 funding for FY2011; this would require both an extension of Section 1206 authority and an increase in the current $350 million authorized level. As of October 13, 2009, Section 1206 allocations total a little under $1 billion for FY2006 through FY2009. Section 1206 allocations totaled some $100 million for FY2006, $274 million for FY2007, $272 million for FY2008, and $340 million for FY2009. (The amounts allocated are somewhat less than the amounts notified to Congress, which totaled over $1 billion for FY2006- FY2009.) For FY2010, Congress provided $345 million in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010, P.L. 111-118. (The amount is not specified in the act, but is included under the total appropriated to the Defense Security Cooperation Agency.) The FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) put in place a temporary limit of $75 million on the use of Section 1206 funds for each FY2010 and FY2011 to train military troops that would deploy to military or stability operations in which U.S. armed forces participate. The President signed the FY2010 NDAA into law on October 28, 2009 (P.L. 111-84)."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Serafino, Nina M.

  2011-02-18
• Security Assistance Reform: "Section 1206" Background and Issues for Congress [April 4, 2014]

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

  "Section 1206 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2006, as amended and regularly extended, provides the Secretary of Defense with authority to train and equip foreign military forces for two specified purposes--counterterrorism and stability operations--and foreign security forces for counterterrorism operations. Section 1206 authority now extends through FY2017. The FY2014 NDAA (P.L. 113-66) expanded the scope of Section 1206 authority considerably. Previously, assistance for counterterrorism (CT) purposes was limited to foreign military forces and non-military maritime security forces. The expanded scope for CT assistance includes all types of security forces. The Department of Defense (DOD) values this authority as an important tool to train and equip military partners. Funds may be obligated only with the concurrence of the Secretary of State. Through 2009, DOD used Section 1206 authority primarily to provide counterterrorism (CT) support. Since FY2010, Section 1206 authority has also been used to provide significant assistance to train and equip foreign military forces for military and stability operations in which U.S. forces participate. Currently, there is a cap of $350 million on Section 1206 obligations per fiscal year. Total funding thus far for Section 1206 programs since its inception in FY2006 is some $2.2 billion. During this period, Section 1206 funding supported bilateral programs in over 40 countries, several multilateral programs, and an associated global human rights program."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Serafino, Nina M.

  2014-04-04
• Jurisdiction over Challenges to 'Large' Orders Under Federal Contracts [October 12, 2011]

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

  From the Document: "This report provides an overview and discussion of two recent decisions by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims finding that they have jurisdiction over protests challenging the issuance of task and delivery orders of any size under civilian agency contracts, even if these orders do not increase the scope, period, or maximum value of the underlying contract. Prior to these decisions, executive branch agencies and many commentators had construed the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act (FASA) of 1994, as amended by the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY2008, as authorizing only protests concerning the issuance of orders under civilian agency contracts that (1) increase the scope, period, or maximum value of the underlying contract or (2) are valued in excess of $10 million, as well as granting GAO temporary exclusive jurisdiction over protests involving the latter. However, GAO and the court rejected this interpretation, finding that what expired on May 27, 2011, were limitations on their jurisdiction imposed by FASA, as amended by the NDAA for FY2008. Thus, they concluded that they and, potentially, procuring agencies have jurisdiction over protests of orders of any size issued under the contracts of civilian agencies, regardless of whether these orders increase the scope, period, or maximum value of the underlying contract. These decisions arguably will result in protests of orders under civilian agency contracts being treated differently from protests of similar orders under defense contracts, and also could increase the number of bid protests. In addition, the Federal Acquisition Regulation was amended on July 5, 2011, in a manner that could prompt questions, on the basis that it could be construed to mean that no protests of orders under civilian agency contracts are authorized after May 27, 2011."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Manuel, Kate; Lunder, Erika

  2011-10-12
• Section 1206 of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2006: A Fact Sheet on Department of Defense Authority to Train and Equip Foreign Military Forces [April 27, 2009]

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

  "Section 1206 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2006 provides the Secretary of Defense with authority to train and equip foreign military and foreign maritime security forces. DOD values this authority as an important tool to train and equip military partners. Funds may be obligated only with the concurrence of the Secretary of State. Thus far, the Department of Defense (DOD) has used Section 1206 authority primarily to provide counterterrorism support. This authority expires in FY2011. Section 1206 obligations totaled some $100 million in FY2006, $279 million in FY2007, and $293 million in FY2008. As of mid-April 2009, FY2009 project approvals are being finalized. As of the date of this report, of FY2009 funds, only $49.3 million has been approved and obligated for two programs in Lebanon."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Serafino, Nina M.

  2009-04-27
• Section 1206 of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2006: A Fact Sheet on Department of Defense Authority to Train and Equip Foreign Military Forces [November 25, 2008]

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

  "Section 1206 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2006 provides the Secretary of Defense with authority to train and equip foreign military and foreign maritime security forces. Funds may be obligated only with the concurrence of the Secretary of State. Thus far, the Department of Defense (DOD) has used Section 1206 authority primarily to provide counterterrorism support. Section 1206 obligations totaled some $100 million in FY2006, $279 million in FY2007, and $293 million in FY2008. DOD values this authority as an important tool to train and equip military partners. This authority expires in FY2011."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Serafino, Nina M.

  2008-11-25
• CBO Estimate of Pay-As-You Go Effects for S. 3525, the Sportsmen's Act of 2012, as Introduced on September 10, 2012

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

  From the Note: "S. 3525 would allow the Department of the Interior to raise the price charged for Federal Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamps (referred to as federal duck stamps). CBO [Congressional Budget Office] estimates that enacting this provision would increase revenues and associated direct spending by $132 million over the 2013-2022 period. The bill also would reauthorize the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act (FLTFA) to allow certain federal agencies to spend, without further appropriation, proceeds from the sale of land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to purchase inholdings (privately held land surrounded by federal land). Based on information provided by BLM, CBO estimates that enacting this provision would increase both the proceeds from sale of federal property and the spending of sale proceeds. On balance, CBO estimates that enacting this provision would yield a small net reduction in direct spending of $5 million over the 2013-2022 period--primarily because the spending of sale proceeds would lag behind such collections over the next 10 years. In total, CBO estimates that enacting S. 3525 would reduce the deficit by $5 million over the 2013-2022 period."

  United States. Congressional Budget Office

  2012-11-13
• Defense: FY2008 Authorization and Appropriations [Updated July 30, 2007]

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

  From the Summary: "The President's FY2008 federal budget request, released February 5, 2007, included $647.2 billion in new budget authority for national defense. In addition to $483.2 billion for the regular operations of the Department of Defense (DOD), the request includes $141.7 billion for continued military operations, primarily to fund the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, $17.4 billion for the nuclear weapons and other defense-related programs of the Department of Energy, and $5.2 billion for defense-related activities of other agencies. The $483.2 billion requested for DOD's 'base' budget-that is, the request for regular operations excluding the cost of ongoing combat activity-is $46.8 billion higher than the agency's base budget for FY2007, an increase of 11% in nominal terms and, by DOD's reckoning, an increase in real purchasing power of 8.0%, taking into account the cost of inflation. The House passed on May 17 its version of H.R. 1585, authorizing $1.2 billion more than the President's request. The bill would cut hundreds of millions of dollars from several technologically advanced weapons programs while increasing funds for improvements in U.S. forces' near-term combat capabilities. The Senate Armed Services Committee reported its counterpart bill, S. 1547, on June 5. The Senate substituted the text of that measure for the House-passed text of H.R. 1585 when it began debating the latter bill on July 9. After several days of debate dominated by Democratic-led efforts to force a withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq, the Majority Leader, Senator Reid, set the bill aside indefinitely on July 18."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Belasco, Amy; Daggett, Stephen; Towell, Pat

  2007-07-30
• Defense: FY2008 Authorization and Appropriations [Updated June 1, 2007]

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

  From the Summary: "The House passed its version of the FY2008 defense authorization bill, H.R. 1585, on May 17. The Senate Armed Services Committee finished drafting its counterpart bill, S. 567, on May 24. Senate action on the bill is expected in June. On February 5, 2007, the White House formally released to Congress its FY2008 federal budget request, which included $647.2 billion in new budget authority for national defense. In addition to $483.2 billion for the regular operations of the Department of Defense (DOD), the request includes $141.7 billion for continued military operations, primarily to fund the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, $17.4 billion for the nuclear weapons and other defense-related programs of the Department of Energy, and $5.2 billion for defense-related activities of other agencies. […] The House-passed and Senate committee-approved versions of the bill differ significantly over some major weapons programs. For instance, H.R. 1585 would add funds to the President's budget request to continue production of the C-17 cargo jet but would cut the funds requested for the Army's Future Combat Systems (FCS), while S. 567 would accept the Administration's plan to buy no additional C-17s and would add funds to the FCS request. However, both bills would authorize a 3.5 percent military pay raise, rather than the 3 percent raise included in the budget request. Moreover, both would grant civilian DOD employees some rights of collective bargaining and appeal that had been eliminated by a recently created personnel system for Pentagon civilians, a step that the Administration has said would result in a presidential veto. This report will be updated as events warrant."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Towell, Pat; Daggett, Stephen; Belasco, Amy

  2007-06-01
• Defense: FY2008 Authorization and Appropriations [May 11, 2007]

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

  From the Summary: "The House Armed Services Committee marked up its version of the FY2008 defense authorization bill, H.R. 1585, on Wednesday, May 9. Floor action on the bill is expected the week of May 14. The Senate Armed Services Committee plans to mark up its version of the FY2008 authorization, unnumbered as yet, on May 23. On February 5, 2007, the White House formally released to Congress its FY2008 federal budget request, which included $647.2 billion in new budget authority for national defense. In addition to $483.2 billion for the regular operations of the Department of Defense (DOD), the request includes $141.7 billion for continued military operations, primarily to fund the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, $17.4 billion for the nuclear weapons and other defense-related programs of the Department of Energy, and $5.2 billion for defense-related activities of other agencies. […] The budget request includes few new initiatives regarding major weapons, but the House Armed Services Committee has challenged many administration proposals regarding chronically contentious acquisition issues. For instance, the committee's bill would add to the request funds to continue production of the C-17 cargo plane and development of a second-engine to compete for installation in the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, programs the Administration proposed to end in FY2008, as it had done in FY2007, when it was overridden by Congress. In addition, reflecting longstanding congressional concern that the Navy's budgets have been too small, the House Armed Services Committee added $2.7 billion to the Administration's $13.7 billion shipbuilding request. This report will be updated as events warrant."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Towell, Pat; Daggett, Stephen; Belasco, Amy

  2007-05-11
• Walter Reed Army Medical Center (WRAMC) and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-76: Implications for the Future [Updated June 10, 2008]

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

  From the Summary: "This report examines the issues surrounding the Walter Reed public-private competition conducted under Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-76 and its potential impact on future Department of Defense (DOD) competitions. Circular A-76 is a policy and a process first initiated in 1966 that was designed to determine whether federal employees or private sector contractors are best to perform activities deemed commercial. A series of articles that first appeared in the 'Washington Post' chronicled the dilapidated conditions and the substandard medical treatment afforded to returning veterans. Media reports surrounding the competition have suggested that one possible contributing factor to the Walter Reed controversy was the decision to privatize base support services. […] P.L. [Public Law] 110-181, the FY2008 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), includes several provisions that affect A-76 competitions. H.R. 5658, the House-passed version of the FY2009 NDAA, contains Section 321, which would limit the conduct of A-76 competitions to 540 days (about 18 months); Section 322, which would require the analysis and development of a single government-wide definition for the term 'inherently governmental function'; and Section 325, which would temporarily suspend DOD A-76 competitions and prevent the conversion of civilian functions to performance by contractors. The Walter Reed A-76 competition was a case where a lot of things went wrong. Some assert that for some types of settings (like military medical facilities) conducting A-76 competitions may not be the most appropriate vehicle for achieving costs savings. Congress may want to act so that what happened at Walter Reed not happen elsewhere. This report will be updated as events warrant."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Grasso, Valerie Bailey

  2008-06-10
• Defense Contracting in Iraq: Issues and Options for Congress [Updated May 21, 2008]

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

  From the Summary: "This report examines logistical support contracts for troop support services in Iraq primarily administered through the U.S. Army's Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP). LOGCAP is an initiative designed to manage the use of civilian contractors that perform services during times of war and other military mobilizations. It provides for the awarding of contingency, or bridging contracts, as well as the inclusion of contingency clauses in peacetime contracts. In June 2007 the Army Sustainment Command (ASC) awarded LOGCAP IV contracts to three companies - DynCorp International LLC, Fort Worth, TX; Fluor Intercontinental, Inc, Greenville, SC; and KBR, Houston, TX, through a full and open competition. The losing companies filed protests with the Government Accountability Office (GAO). GAO sustained the protests on October 5, 2007 and as a result the Army reopened the competition. On April 18, 2008, DOD announced that the Army had settled the competition and re-awarded contracts to the original three companies. The LOGCAP IV contract calls for the three companies to compete for task orders; each company may be awarded up to $5 billion for troop support services per year, the Army could award a maximum annual value of $15 billion, and the maximum contract value was $150 billion. […] Additional legislative initiatives could if enacted impact defense contracting. [...] This report will be updated as warranted."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Grasso, Valerie Bailey

  2008-05-21
• FY2008 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues [Updated February 6, 2008]

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

  From the Summary: "Military personnel issues typically generate significant interest from many Members of Congress and their staffs. Ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan in support of what the Bush Administration terms the Global War on Terror, along with the emerging operational role of the Reserve Components, have further heightened interest and support for a wide range of military personnel policies and issues. CRS [Congressional Research Service] selected a number of issues addressed by Congress as it considered the FY2008 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 1585/S. 1547/H.R. 4986). In each case, a brief synopsis is provided that includes background information, a comparison of the House-passed, Senate-passed, and public law provisions, and a brief discussion of the issue. This update reflects the actions taken on the various House and Senate provisions in H.Rept 110-477, the conference report to accompany H.R. 1585, which was filed on December 6, 2007. Note: due to objections by the Administration to language that might have led to a freeze on Iraqi assets in U.S. banks contained in H.R. 1585, President Bush vetoed the bill. The bill was reconsidered by the House and Senate, and reissued (without the Iraqi language) as H.R. 4986. H.R. 4986 became P.L. [Public Law] 110-181. [...] This report focuses exclusively on the annual defense authorization process. It does not include appropriations, veterans' affairs, tax implications of policy choices or any discussion of separately introduced legislation."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Burrelli, David F., 1958-; Best, Richard A.; Henning, Charles A.

  2008-02-06