Homeland Security Digital Library

Homeland Security Digital Library

SEARCH THE HSDL

Advanced search Help

Searching for terms: EXACT: "Else, Daniel H." in: author

Set an Alert to get future results

Results 1 - 30 (of 55) sorted by relevance sort by date

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).

Military Construction: Authorities, Process, and Frequently Asked Questions [Updated November 26, 2019]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
From the Introduction: "The military missions of Department of Defense (DOD) and Military Department (MILDEP) units, offices, and other organizations drive requirements for facilities and supporting infrastructure at any given military installation. As missions change, or as organizations move to or away from an installation, new facilities and supporting infrastructure may need to be built or disposed of to match mission requirements. Similarly, as buildings age or become obsolete, facilities and supporting infrastructure may need to be replaced, reconfigured, or otherwise modernized to meet mission needs. [...] This report describes and explains the end-to-end MILCON [military construction] process by which DOD and the Congress act together to build military facilities, beginning with the requirement for a facility, and ending with a completed structure. Additionally, this report provides answers to Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about the MILCON process and other associated programs and processes. Examples of relevant MILCON documentation are contained within."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Herrera, G. James; Else, Daniel H.; Williams, Lynn M.

2019-11-26
Naval Station Guantanamo Bay: History and Legal Issues Regarding Its Lease Agreements [August 4, 2015]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"This report briefly outlines the history of the establishment of the U.S. naval station at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, during the first decade of the twentieth century, its changing relationship to the community around it, and its heightened importance with the onset of military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. It also explains in detail the legal status of the lease of the land on which the naval station stands, the statutory and treaty authorities granted to the President with regard to any potential closure of the naval station, and the second-order effects on such a closure that current Cuba sanctions laws might have. A short list of additional readings ends the report. At the end of the Spanish-American War in 1898, the Spanish colonies of Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines transitioned to administration by the United States. Of these four territories, only Cuba quickly became in independent republic. As a condition of relinquishing administration, though, the Cuban government agreed to lease three parcels of land to the United States for use as naval or coaling stations. Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, was the sole installation established under that agreement. The two subsequent lease agreements, one signed in 1903 and a second in 1934, acknowledged Cuban sovereignty, but granted to the United States 'complete jurisdiction and control over' the property so long as it remained occupied."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Elsea, Jennifer; Else, Daniel H.

2015-08-04
FY2010 Supplemental for Wars, Disaster Assistance, Haiti Relief, and Other Programs [July 23, 2010]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
From the Summary: "Much of the debate about this year's supplemental focused on the effect on the deficit of additional spending. Under budget rules, Congress does not offset spending that is designated as emergency. So much of the debate has focused on what types of spending are appropriately emergency spending, and offsetting non-emergency spending. Offsets can come from either rescissions, which cancel prior year budget authority (BA), and then apply that BA to new spending, reducing the amount of new budget authority required, or mandatory program savings. On March 23, 2010, the House passed H.R. 4899, the Disaster Relief and Summer Jobs Act with $5.1 billion to replenish FEMA's Disaster Assistance Fund, $600 million for a Labor Department summer jobs program, offset by $600 million in rescissions so that the bill required $5.1 billion in new budget authority (BA). On May 26, 2010, the House Appropriations Committee (HAC) scheduled a markup of a draft bill with $84.8 billion in new BA, but that markup was cancelled. [...] On July 1, 2010, the House passed its amended version of the bill with $81.8 billion including funds for disaster assistance, wars, Haiti relief, preventing teacher layoffs, agricultural and energy loans, and Pell Grants in discretionary spending as well as mandatory funding for new VA benefits and the two court cases. With $12.2 billion in rescissions and ten-year savings of $4.5 billion in mandatory savings over ten years from lower government drug prices, that bill would require $65.1 billion in new BA."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Belasco, Amy; Else, Daniel H.; Lindsay, Bruce R.

2010-07-23
Naval Station Guantanamo Bay: History and Legal Issues Regarding Its Lease Agreements [November 17, 2016]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"This report briefly outlines the history of the establishment of the U.S. naval station at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, during the first decade of the twentieth century, its changing relationship to the community around it, and its heightened importance with military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. It also explains in detail the legal status of the lease of the land on which the naval station stands, the statutory and treaty authorities granted to the President with regard to any potential closure of the naval station, and the second-order effects on such a closure that Cuba sanctions laws might have. A short list of additional readings ends the report."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Elsea, Jennifer; Else, Daniel H.

2016-11-17
Military Construction: Process and Outcomes [December 14, 2016]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"Military installations often provide the most tangible evidence of the economic impact of the Department of Defense (DOD) on local communities. and demonstrate American commitment to foreign countries. Congress provides DOD with a military construction appropriation of several billion dollars annually and authorizes the Secretary of Defense and the military departments of the Army, Air Force, and Navy to plan, program, design, and build the runways, piers, warehouses, barracks, schools, hospitals, child development centers, and other facilities needed to support U.S. military forces at home and overseas. This military base footprint, from the largest base to the smallest reserve center, reflects both a federal investment in local communities and a local investment in national defense. This report outlines the end-to-end military construction process by which DOD and Congress act together to build that footprint, beginning with the realization of the need for a facility and ending with its dedication and the opening of its doors for occupancy."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Else, Daniel H.

2016-12-14
Defense Production Act of 1950: History, Authorities, and Reauthorization [June 14, 2013]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
From the Document: "The Defense Production Act (DPA) of 1950 (P.L. 81-774, 50 U.S.C. Appx § 2061 et seq.), as amended, confers upon the President a broad set of authorities to influence domestic industry in the interest of national defense. The authorities can be used across the federal government to shape the domestic industrial base so that, when called upon, it is capable of providing essential materials and goods needed for the national defense. Though initially passed in response to the Korean War, the DPA is historically based on the War Powers Acts of World War II. Gradually, Congress has expanded the term 'national defense', as defined in the DPA, so that it now includes activities related to homeland security and domestic emergency management. The scope of DPA authorities extends beyond shaping U.S. military preparedness and capabilities, as the authorities may also be used to enhance and support domestic preparedness, response, and recovery from natural hazards, terrorist attacks, and other national emergencies."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Brown, Jared T.; Else, Daniel H.

2013-06-14
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations [May 17, 2013]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"President Obama requested $613.9 billion in discretionary budget authority for the Department of Defense in Fiscal Year 2013, which is $31.8 billion less than had been appropriated for the agency in FY2012. The end of U.S. combat in Iraq and the declining tempo of operations in Afghanistan accounted for the bulk of the overall reduction: The budget request for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO)--DOD activities in those two countries--was $88.5 billion, which is $26.6 billion less than was provided for those operations in FY2012. However, the Administration's $525.4 billion request for DOD's so-called 'base budget'--funds for all DOD activities other than OCO--was $5.2 billion less than was provided for FY2012 and $45.3 billion less than the FY2013 base budget the Administration had projected a year earlier, in February of 2011. The proposed reduction in the base budget--and planned reductions of more than $50 billion per year through FY2021, compared with the FY2011 projection--reflected the Administration's effort to reduce federal spending as required by the Budget Control Act (BCA) of 2011, enacted on August 2, 2011 (P.L. 112-25). All told, the Obama Administration's February 2012 projection would reduce DOD budgets by $486.9 billion over a 10-year period (FY2012- FY2021), compared with its February 2011 plan. (See 'FY2013 Defense Budget Overview.')"

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Towell, Pat; Else, Daniel H.

2013-05-17
Defense Production Act of 1950: History, Authorities, and Reauthorization [July 30, 2014]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
From the Document: "The Defense Production Act (DPA) of 1950 (P.L. 81-774, 50 U.S.C. Appx §2061 et seq.), as amended, confers upon the President a broad set of authorities to influence domestic industry in the interest of national defense. The authorities can be used across the federal government to shape the domestic industrial base so that, when called upon, it is capable of providing essential materials and goods needed for the national defense. Though initially passed in response to the Korean War, the DPA is historically based on the War Powers Acts of World War II. Gradually, Congress has expanded the term 'national defense', as defined in the DPA, so that it now includes activities related to homeland security and domestic emergency management. The scope of DPA authorities extends beyond shaping U.S. military preparedness and capabilities, as the authorities may also be used to enhance and support domestic preparedness, response, and recovery from natural hazards, terrorist attacks, and other national emergencies."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Brown, Jared T.; Else, Daniel H.

2014-07-30
Defense Production Act of 1950: History, Authorities, and Reauthorization [June 19, 2014]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"The Defense Production Act (DPA) of 1950 (P.L. 81-774, 50 U.S.C. Appx §2061 et seq.), as amended, confers upon the President a broad set of authorities to influence domestic industry in the interest of national defense. The authorities can be used across the federal government to shape the domestic industrial base so that, when called upon, it is capable of providing essential materials and goods needed for the national defense. Though initially passed in response to the Korean War, the DPA is historically based on the War Powers Acts of World War II. Gradually, Congress has expanded the term national defense, as defined in the DPA, so that it now includes activities related to homeland security and domestic emergency management. The scope of DPA authorities extends beyond shaping U.S. military preparedness and capabilities, as the authorities may also be used to enhance and support domestic preparedness, response, and recovery from natural hazards, terrorist attacks, and other national emergencies."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Brown, Jared T.; Else, Daniel H.

2014-06-19
'1033 Program,' Department of Defense Support to Law Enforcement [August 28, 2014]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"The United States has traditionally kept military action and civil law enforcement apart, codifying that separation in the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. On the other hand, Congress has occasionally authorized the Department of Defense (DOD) to undertake actions specifically intended to enhance the effectiveness of domestic law enforcement through direct or material support. One such effort is the so-called '1033 Program,' named for the section of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 1997 that granted permanent authority to the Secretary of Defense to transfer defense material to federal and state agencies for use in law enforcement, particularly those associated with counter-drug and counter-terrorism activities. [...] The 1033 Program is administered by the Law Enforcement Support Office (LESO) of the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA). Under it, local and state law enforcement agencies may apply to DLA to participate. DLA requires the governor of the state to execute a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) and appoint a state 1033 Program coordinator, who is responsible for ensuring that the program is properly administered within the state and that appropriate property records are maintained. Approved agencies may request material from DLA through their state coordinators. The LESO retains final approval authority over the types and quantities of material transferred from DOD excess stocks to the agencies. Any material requiring demilitarization before being released to the public must be returned to DLA when no longer needed by the receiving law enforcement agency. LESO states that 11,000 agencies nationwide are currently registered and that 8,000 of them use material provided through the 1033 Program."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Else, Daniel H.

2014-08-28
'Militarization' of Law Enforcement and the Department of Defense's '1033 Program' [August 20, 2014]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"Recent clashes between police and protesters in Ferguson, MO, have raised questions about the 'militarization' of law enforcement. Such concerns have focused almost exclusively on the expanding role ofSpecial Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) teams. Congress has also turned its attention to the Department of Defense's (DOD) '1033 Program' and what role it might play in the militarization of law enforcement."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

James, Nathan; Else, Daniel H.

2014-08-20
Defense Production Act of 1950: History, Authorities, and Considerations for Congress [October 23, 2014]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
From the Document: "The Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (DPA), provides the President a broad set of authorities to ensure that domestic industry can meet national defense requirements. In the DPA, Congress has found that 'the security of the United States is dependent on the ability of the domestic industrial base to supply materials and services for the national defense and to prepare for and respond to military conflicts, natural or man-caused disasters, or acts of terrorism within the United States.' [...] This report examines some of the extensive history of the DPA, focusing primarily on its creation and most recent legislative reauthorization. This report also discusses the foremost active authorities of the DPA. Nevertheless, this report is not intended to evaluate all authorities of the DPA comprehensively. In discussing the major authorities of the DPA, this report explains how those authorities may have changed as a result of the most recent reauthorization of the law (P.L. 113-172, To reauthorize the Defense Production Act, to improve the Defense Production Act Committee, and for other purposes). This report also identifies relevant delegations of the President's DPA authorities made in Executive Order (E.O.) 13603, 'National Defense Resources Preparedness.' Finally, this report provides a brief overview of issues Congress may wish to consider in its oversight of executive branch use of DPA authorities, as well as the implementation of changes made in the most recent reauthorization. The report also discusses congressional considerations for expanding, restricting, or otherwise modifying the authorities provided by the DPA through new legislation."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Else, Daniel H.; Brown, Jared T.

2014-10-23
Overview of Federal Real Property Disposal Requirements and Procedures [December 10, 2014]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"The federal government holds thousands of properties that agencies no longer need to accomplish their missions. When the government disposes of unneeded properties--through transfer, donation, or sale--it generates savings by eliminating maintenance costs. In addition, when state or local governments, nonprofits, or businesses acquire unneeded federal properties, they may be used to provide services to the public, such as temporary housing, or contribute to economic development. The General Services Administration (GSA) plays a central role in disposing of unneeded property at most federal agencies. The Federal Real Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (Property Act) gives GSA the authority to dispose of real property at all federal agencies unless they have independent statutory authority to dispose of their own properties themselves. A number of agencies have independent disposal authority--ranging from limited to broad in scope--including two of the largest federal landholders, the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) and the Department of Defense."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Hatch, Garrett; Else, Daniel H.; Luther, Linda G. . . .

2014-12-10
Defense Production Act of 1950: History, Authorities, and Reauthorization [February 11, 2014]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
From the Document: "The Defense Production Act (DPA) of 1950 (P.L. 81-774, 50 U.S.C. Appx §2061 et seq.), as amended, confers upon the President a broad set of authorities to influence domestic industry in the interest of national defense. The authorities can be used across the federal government to shape the domestic industrial base so that, when called upon, it is capable of providing essential materials and goods needed for the national defense. Though initially passed in response to the Korean War, the DPA is historically based on the War Powers Acts of World War II. Gradually, Congress has expanded the term national defense, as defined in the DPA, so that it now includes activities related to homeland security and domestic emergency management. The scope of DPA authorities extends beyond shaping U.S. military preparedness and capabilities, as the authorities may also be used to enhance and support domestic preparedness, response, and recovery from natural hazards, terrorist attacks, and other national emergencies."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Brown, Jared T.; Else, Daniel H.

2014-02-11
Military Base Closures: Frequently Asked Questions [March 19, 2014]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"These FAQs examine the provisions in the Constitution and in permanent statute that define and limit federal authority to disestablish or diminish employment at defense sites. They do not discuss the special, temporary BRAC (Base Realignment and Closure) process that Congress has periodically authorized for the reduction of defense infrastructure."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Else, Daniel H.

2014-03-19
'Militarization' of Law Enforcement and the Department of Defense's '1033 Program' [December 2, 2014]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"August 2014 clashes between police and protesters in Ferguson, MO, sparked a national conversation about the 'militarization' of law enforcement and the expanding role of Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) teams. Both the House and the Senate held hearings on what role the Department of Defense's (DOD) '1033 Program' might play in the militarization of law enforcement. […] Two scholars argue that the 'war on drugs' and the 'war on terror' have given rise to the militarization of police by providing a crisis in which law enforcement could expand its size, scope, and power; increasing demands from the public for the government to 'do something' about the crisis; and facilitating interactions between the military and law enforcement as they conducted joint operations in the 'wars.' Technological improvements have lowered the cost for law enforcement to adopt military technology. Technology that was once exclusively used by the military―such as facial recognition systems, thermal imaging, and satellite monitoring―can now be used by law enforcement. […] The '1033 Program' was created by Congress in the National Defense Authorization Act for 1997 (P.L. 104-201) and is codified in 10 U.S.C. §2576a. It authorizes the Secretary of Defense to provide material support to authorized federal and state law enforcement agencies by transferring articles suitable for counter-drug and counter-terrorism activities. These are drawn from Department of Defense (DOD) stocks deemed excess to military needs."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Else, Daniel H.

2014-12-02
DOD's Rotation to the Philippines [May 31, 2016]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
From the CRS (Congressional Research Service) Insight: "The United States has long maintained a significant military presence in the Pacific, with permanent garrisons and regular deployments by ground, naval, and air forces and routine exercises with their local counterparts. In 2011-2012, the Department of Defense (DOD) announced its intention to 'rebalance' by focusing more of its attention and activity on Asia. One goal is to influence the development of regional norms and rules, particularly as China exerts greater influence. On March 18, 2016, the United States and the Republic of the Philippines announced the selection of five military sites that will host a rotation of U.S. military units. This marks the first time that U.S. units will be welcomed by the Republic on regularly scheduled visits since the last permanent garrisons were withdrawn in 1992 (see CRS In Focus IF10250, 'The Philippines'). The announcement identified five Philippine installations that would be configured to host U.S. units. Figure 1 locates these sites relative to the nation's capital, Manila, and the former U.S. installations of Clark Air Base and Naval Station Subic Bay. The Government of the Philippines plans to modernize these and other installations, and U.S. infrastructure investment plans for those selected are now being developed."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Else, Daniel H.

2016-05-31
Fact Sheet: Selected Highlights of the FY2017 Military Construction Appropriations Bills [August 18, 2016]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"This fact sheet highlights selected provisions found in the military construction portions of proposed appropriations bills for FY2017. These include H.R. 4974, introduced to the House on April 15, 2016; S. 2806, introduced to the Senate on April 18; and H.R. 2577, originally introduced to the House on May 27, 2015, as the Transportation and Housing and Urban Development and Related Agencies (T-HUD) Appropriations Act for FY2016. As reported by the conference committee (H.Rept. 114-640), Division A of H.R. 2577 would be referred to as the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (MILCON/VA), 2017. This fact sheet addresses only those portions of the various bills that concern military construction. CRS products devoted to Department of Defense (DOD) and Veterans Affairs appropriations, the Zika virus, and T-HUD are listed in the 'Additional Resources' section at the end of this report."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Else, Daniel H.

2016-08-18
FY2016 Changes to DOD's 1033 Program [February 16, 2016]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"Congress authorized the Department of Defense (DOD) to provide material support to federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies (LEAs) through the sale or donation of excess personal property (Section 2576a of Title 10, United States Code). The immediate impetus for the creation of the original, temporary iteration of this program in the late 1980s was to reinforce local law enforcement agencies in their efforts to contain the spread of drug cartels. The permanent authority was enacted in the mid-1990s and expanded the intent to bolster both counterdrug and counterterrorism law enforcement activities. The process that implements these property transfers is known as the '1033 Program.' Sections 1051 and 1052 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (P.L. 114-92) amended the authorizing statute. Section 1051 requires the Secretary of Defense to create a public website on which to post information on 'controlled property' transferred to law enforcement and adds conditions on the transfer of such property. Section 1052 expands the range of law enforcement activities for which LEAs may receive property via transfer under this program."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Else, Daniel H.

2016-02-16
FY2016 Military Construction Appropriations: President's Request and House Markup Compared [April 24, 2015]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"The Secretary of Defense and the Secretaries of the military departments (Army, Navy, and Air Force) are empowered by statute (10 U.S.C. §2802) to carry out military construction projects, land acquisitions, and defense access road projects (as described under 23 U.S.C. §210) as are authorized by law. Such authorization is usually given in the annual National Defense Authorization Act. Military construction projects are defined in statute as including 'surveys and site preparation; acquisition, conversion, rehabilitation, and installation of facilities; acquisition and installation of equipment and appurtenances integral to the project; acquisition and installation of supporting facilities (including utilities) and appurtenances incident to the project; and the planning, supervision, administration, and overhead incident to the project.'"

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Else, Daniel H.

2015-04-24
Defense Primer: U.S. Defense Industrial Base [December 14, 2016]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
From the Document: "The working legal definition for the U.S. defense industrial base is found in armed forces law. Title 10 U.S.C. §2500(1) defines the 'national technology and industrial base' as 'persons and organizations that are engaged in research, development, production, integration, services, or information technology activities conducted within the United States and Canada.' This includes commercial firms across different sectors of the U.S. economy. Commercial firms that contract with DOD include manufacturing, service, and advanced technology firms from every U.S. state. In a highly open economy, the defense industry can incorporate both domestically owned firms and foreign owned firms that engage in direct investment, hire U.S. workers, and abide by U.S. laws."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Else, Daniel H.

2016-12-14
FY2010 Supplemental for Wars, Disaster Assistance, Haiti Relief, and Other Programs [August 6, 2010]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"The administration requested $64.3 billion in FY2010 supplemental appropriations: 1) $5.1 billion to replenish the U.S. Disaster Relief Fund by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2) $33 billion for the Department of Defense (DOD) primarily for deploying 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan; $4.5 billion in war-related foreign aid; and $2.8 billion for Haiti earthquake-related relief and reconstruction aid. […] On July 29, 2010, the President signed the final version of H.R. 4899, P.L. 111-212, which was passed by the House on July 27 and by the Senate on May 27, 2010. The enacted version of the bill includes $59.2 billion in spending for war costs, U.S. disaster assistance, Haiti relief and reconstruction, and new benefits for Vietnam veterans."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Lindsay, Bruce R.; Else, Daniel H.; Belasco, Amy

2010-08-06
FY2010 Supplemental for Wars, Disaster Assistance, Haiti Relief, and Other Programs [June 30, 2010]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"On March 23, 2010, the House passed H.R. 4899, the Disaster Relief and Summer Jobs Act with $5.1 billion to replenish FEMA's Disaster Assistance Fund, and $600 million for a Labor Department summer jobs program. Including $600 million in rescissions, this bill required $5.1 billion in new appropriations. (Rescissions cancel previously appropriated budget authority which then offsets the amount of new budget authority--BA --that needs to be appropriated.) On May 26, 2010, the House Appropriations Committee (HAC) Democratic majority proposed a draft bill with $85.7 billion in funding, including $31 billion in additional domestic spending primarily to prevent layoffs of teachers, law enforcement personnel and firefighters and add more funds for Pell grants. Reflecting $900 million in rescissions, this bill would have required $84.8 billion in new BA. The May 27 markup of that bill was cancelled. On May 27, the Senate passed its version of H.R. 4899 by a vote of 67-28, with $59.6 billion in funding for disaster assistance, war funding, Haiti relief, and VA benefits, but with no additional domestic spending, and without the $4 billion for the two court cases, which were in H.R. 4213, the American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act of 2010. With rescissions, the Senate version required $59.4 billion in new budget authority. On June 30, 2010, the House Democratic majority leadership posted another draft with $75.3 billion in spending for disaster assistance, war funding, Haiti relief, VA benefits, and $14 billion in additional domestic spending, primarily to prevent teacher layoffs and provide more Pell Grants. With $11.7 billion in rescissions, that bill would require $63.7 billion in new BA."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Belasco, Amy; Else, Daniel H.; Lindsay, Bruce R.

2010-06-30
FY2010 Supplemental for Wars, Disaster Assistance, Haiti Relief, and Other Programs [July 27, 2010]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
This report discusses the U.S. budget. From the text: "Much of the debate about this year's supplemental focused on the effect on the deficit of additional spending. Under budget rules, Congress does not offset spending that is designated as emergency. So much of the debate has focused on what types of spending are appropriately emergency spending, and offsetting non-emergency spending. Offsets can come from either rescissions, which cancel prior year budget authority (BA), and then apply that BA to new spending, reducing the amount of new budget authority required, or mandatory program savings. On March 23, 2010, the House passed H.R. 4899, the Disaster Relief and Summer Jobs Act with $5.1 billion to replenish FEMA's [Federal Emergency Management Agency] Disaster Assistance Fund, $600 million for a Labor Department summer jobs program, offset by $600 million in rescissions so that the bill required $5.1 billion in new budget authority (BA). On May 26, 2010, the House Appropriations Committee (HAC) scheduled a markup of a draft bill with $84.8 billion in new BA, but that markup was cancelled."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Belasco, Amy; Else, Daniel H.; Lindsay, Bruce R.

2010-07-27
Joint Strike Fighter (JSF): Potential National Security Questions Pertaining to a Single Production Line [April 10, 2002]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
From the Document: "The Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program is intended to develop and build a family of new-generation tactical combat aircraft for the U.S. Air Force, the Marine Corps, the Navy, and Britain's Royal Navy. As now projected, the JSF will become the U.S. Defense Department's (DoD) largest ever acquisition program in terms of future cost and number of aircraft to be produced. A controversial aspect of the JSF program has been the 'winner-take-all' approach that DoD used to award the development and demonstration contract. On October 26, 2001, senior DoD officials announced that a team led by Lockheed Martin (and composed of Northrop Grumman, and BAE Systems) had beaten a team led by the Boeing Company, winning the exclusive rights to enter the JSF program's system development and demonstration (SDD) phase, and to build all 2,912 JSF aircraft. Some observers contend that DoD's 'winner-take-all' approach to JSF production could have negative implications for the defense industrial base and U.S. national security. […] Observers tend to agree that maintaining combat aircraft design capabilities is more critical and more difficult than maintaining production capabilities. Yet, there is disagreement about whether design capabilities can be maintained in the absence of continued work. Also, many argue that other platforms, such as unmanned aerial vehicles, could supplant manned combat aircraft in the post-JSF future. Other observers disagree, and argue that it is likely that DoD will require a manned combat aircraft after JSF, if only for niche missions."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Bolkcom, Christopher C.; Else, Daniel H.

2002-04-10
Air Force Air Refueling: The KC-X Aircraft Acquisition Program [June 23, 2008]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"KC-X is the first of three planned programs intended to recapitalize the Air Force's air refueling fleet. Eventually, the KC-X program is expected to acquire 179 new, commercial off-the-shelf airliners modified to accomplish air refueling. The program is expected to cost approximately $35 billion. Both Boeing and a consortium consisting of Northrop Grumman and European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS) -- the parent company of Airbus -- were in competition for KC-X. Boeing offered a variant of the 767-200, while Northrop Grumman submitted a version of the Airbus 330-200. On February 29, 2008, the Air Force awarded the KC-X contract to Northrop Grumman. The initial $12.1 billion KC-X contract covers purchase the first 68 KC-45s of the anticipated 179 aircraft. Boeing protested the Air Force's decision to the Government Accountability Office (GAO). GAO announced its sustainment of the Boeing protest on June 18, 2008. Air Force in-flight aerial refueling aircraft, often referred to as 'tankers,' provide both persistence and range to Department of Defense (DOD) fighters, bombers, airlift and surveillance aircraft. As such, the Air Force's tanker fleet greatly multiplies the effectiveness of DOD air power across the continuum of military operations. Today, the KC-135, which makes up the preponderance of the Air Force's tanker […] This report will be updated as conditions warrant."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Else, Daniel H.; Bolkcom, Christopher C.; Knight, William

2008-06-23
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations [September 5, 2012]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"President Obama's $613.9 billion FY2013 budget request for the Department of Defense (DOD) is $31.8 billion less than was appropriated for the agency in FY2012. The end of U.S. combat in Iraq and the declining tempo of operations in Afghanistan account for the bulk of the overall reduction: The budget request for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO)--DOD activities in those two countries--is $88.5 billion, which is $26.6 billion less than was provided for those operations in FY2012. However, the Administration's $525.4 billion request for DOD's so-called 'base budget'--funds for all DOD activities other than OCO--is $5.2 billion less than was provided for FY2012 and $45.3 billion less than the FY2013 base budget the Administration had projected a year earlier, in February of 2011. The proposed reduction in the base budget--and planned reductions of more than $50 billion per year through FY2021, compared with the FY2011 projection--reflects the Administration's effort to reduce federal spending as required by the Budget Control Act (BCA) of 2011, enacted on August 2, 2011 (P.L. 112-25). All told, the Obama Administration's current projection would reduce DOD budgets by $486.9 billion over a 10-year period (FY2012- FY2021), compared with its February 2011 plan."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Towell, Pat; Else, Daniel H.

2012-09-05
Arsenal Act: Context and Legislative History [October 28, 2011]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"The Arsenal Act (10 U.S.C. §4532) requires the Secretary of the Army to have all supplies needed by the Army to be made in government-owned factories or arsenals if this can be accomplished 'on an economical basis.' It also grants the Secretary the authority to 'abolish any United States arsenal that he considers unnecessary.' This broad mandate, and even broader authority, has lead some observers to question whether the Department of the Army is abiding by either the spirit or the letter of the law in awarding development and procurement contracts. Others have expressed concern that the seeming unilateral authority to abolish arsenals could place them at a disadvantage should the Department of Defense (DOD) seek to close military installations. […] It also requires the Commanding General of Army Materiel Command (AMC) and the individual Program Executive Officers (PEOs) and Program Managers (PMs) to provide the Assistant Secretary with the analyses needed to make that decision. This report describes the roles of the federal manufacturing arsenals during the years surrounding the enactment of the two sections of the Arsenal Act, one as part of the Army Appropriations Act for 1854, and the other within the Defense Act of 1920, also known as the Army Reorganization Act of 1920, and provides historical context. The report also shows the change in language between the sections' original enactment and today, and it provides details on the Army's policy in implementing the manufacturing sourcing portion of the statute."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Else, Daniel H.

2011-10-28
Defense Production Act: Purpose and Scope [Updated June 23, 2008]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"The Defense Production Act (DPA) was created at the outset of the Korean War to ensure the availability of the nation's industrial resources to meet the national security needs of the United States by granting the President powers to ensure the supply and timely delivery of products, materials, and services to military and civilian agencies. The DPA codifies a robust legal authority given the president to force industry to give priority to national security production and is the statutory underpinning of governmental review of foreign investment in U.S. companies. Since its enactment in 1950, the DPA has been time-limited, undergoing periodic amendment and reauthorization. In 2003, Congress reauthorized the DPA through September 30, 2008."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Else, Daniel H.

2008-06-23
Military Construction, Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs: FY2007 Appropriations [May 17, 2006]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"The structure of the Committees on Appropriations underwent significant change with the beginning of the 109th Congress. As a result, jurisdictions over the appropriations covered in this report, including military construction, military housing allowances, military installation maintenance and operation, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and other veteran-related agencies, rest in the House Committee on Appropriations with the new Subcommittee on Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs. In the Senate Committee on Appropriations, jurisdiction for military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and other veteran-related agencies lies with the Subcommittee on Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, while military housing allowances and military installation maintenance and operation are the responsibility of the Subcommittee on Defense. Authorization jurisdictions lie with the two Committees on the Armed Services and Committees on Veterans Affairs."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Else, Daniel H.; Graney, Paul J.; Panangala, Sidath Viranga

2006-05-17

1 2