None

This report provides basic eligibility rules, recipient numbers, and FY2000-FY2002 expenditure data for 80 programs that have provided cash or non-cash benefits to low-income persons.

This report is a review of the Community Development Fund (CDF) account's funding history from FY2000 to FY2014, as well as current funding in FY2015. It includes a discussion of the three primary components of the CDF account: CDBG formula grants; CDBG-related set-asides and earmarks; and CDBG-linked supplemental and special appropriations.

This report is a research aid, which lists the DOD authorization bills (Table 1) and appropriations bills (Table 2). This report includes all the pertinent information on the passage of these bills through the legislative process: bill numbers, report numbers, dates reported and passed, recorded vote numbers and vote tallies, dates of passage of the conference reports with their numbers and votes, vetoes, substitutions, dates of final passage, and public law numbers. Table 3 shows real growth or decline in national defense funding for FY1940-FY2009. Table 4 gives a more detailed picture of both regular and supplemental defense appropriations from the 103rd Congress to the present (FY1993-FY2005). Table 5 shows the President’s DOD appropriations budget requests for FY1950-FY2005 vs. final amount enacted.

This report is a research aid, which lists the Department of Defense (DOD) authorization bills (Table 1) and appropriations bills (Table 2).

This report is a research aid that lists the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) authorization and appropriations bills for FY1961-FY2019 including: bill numbers, report numbers, dates reported and passed, recorded vote numbers and vote tallies, dates of passage of the conference reports with their numbers and votes, vetoes, substitutions, dates of final passage, and public law numbers. Significant definitions are also included.

This report is a research aid, which lists the DOD authorization bills (Table 1) and appropriations bills (Table 2). This report includes all the pertinent information on the passage of these bills through the legislative process: bill numbers, report numbers, dates reported and passed, recorded vote numbers and vote tallies, dates of passage of the conference reports with their numbers and votes, vetoes, substitutions, dates of final passage, and public law numbers. Table 3 shows real growth or decline in national defense funding for FY1940-FY2009. Table 4 gives a more detailed picture of both regular and supplemental defense appropriations from the 103rd Congress to the present (FY1993-FY2005). Table 5 shows the President’s DOD appropriations budget requests for FY1950-FY2005 vs. final amount enacted.

This report is a research aid, which lists the DOD authorization bills (Table 1) and appropriations bills (Table 2). This report includes all the pertinent information on the passage of these bills through the legislative process: bill numbers, report numbers, dates reported and passed, recorded vote numbers and vote tallies, dates of passage of the conference reports with their numbers and votes, vetoes, substitutions, dates of final passage, and public law numbers. Table 3 shows real growth or decline in national defense funding for FY1940-FY2009. Table 4 gives a more detailed picture of both regular and supplemental defense appropriations from the 103rd Congress to the present (FY1993-FY2005). Table 5 shows the President’s DOD appropriations budget requests for FY1950-FY2005 vs. final amount enacted.

This report is a research aid that lists the Department of Defense (DOD) authorization bills (Table 1) and appropriations bills (Table 2) for FY1970-FY2017. This report includes all the pertinent information on the passage of these bills through the legislative process: bill numbers, report numbers, dates reported and passed, recorded vote numbers and vote tallies, dates of passage of the conference reports with their numbers and votes, vetoes, substitutions, dates of final passage, and public law numbers.

This report is a research aid, which lists the DOD authorization bills (Table 1) and appropriations bills (Table 2). This report includes all the pertinent information on the passage of these bills through the legislative process: bill numbers, report numbers, dates reported and passed, recorded vote numbers and vote tallies, dates of passage of the conference reports with their numbers and votes, vetoes, substitutions, dates of final passage, and public law numbers. Table 3 shows real growth or decline in national defense funding for FY1940-FY2009. Table 4 gives a more detailed picture of both regular and supplemental defense appropriations from the 103rd Congress to the present (FY1993-FY2005). Table 5 shows the President’s DOD appropriations budget requests for FY1950-FY2005 vs. final amount enacted.

The purpose of this report is to help understand how the budget increases of the last ten years have been allocated.

This report discusses the foreign affairs appropriations passed within the last 21 years; nearly all of them were passed within omnibus, consolidated, or full-year continuing resolutions, and usually after the start of the new fiscal year. Many foreign policy experts contend that stand-alone appropriation legislation would allow for a more rigorous debate on specific foreign policy activities. They also believe that the practice of delayed appropriations has constrained ongoing program operating levels and the ability to introduce or fund new programs that did not exist in the previous year's budget.

From FY1989 through FY2006, 33 appropriations, authorization, or farm disaster acts added approximately $55.4 billion in supplemental funding for U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) programs. The two most recent supplemental appropriations were provided in response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in the Gulf of Mexico and in preparation for a possible U.S. outbreak of avian influenza. Some FY1989, the vast majority of the total supplemental funding has been paid directly to farmers, primarily through two mechanisms: "market loss payments" and crop disaster payments. This report includes the total annual funding additions in the 33 acts providing economic and farm disaster assistance through USDA programs since FY1989.

This report provides a table which lists supplemental appropriations for Agriculture. From FY1989 through FY2009, 39 appropriations, authorization, or farm disaster acts added approximately $68.7 billion in supplemental funding for U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) programs (excluding the Forest Service, which is funded annually under the Interior appropriations bill). Approximately $50.2 billion, or just under three-fourths of the total amount, was provided within the last 10 years.

The FY 2000-2004 Institutional Plan provides an overview of the Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab, the Laboratory) mission, strategic plan, initiatives, and the resources required to fulfill its role in support of national needs in fundamental science and technology, energy resources, and environmental quality. To advance the Department of Energy's ongoing efforts to define the Integrated Laboratory System, the Berkeley Lab Institutional Plan reflects the strategic elements of our planning efforts. The Institutional Plan is a management report that supports the Department of Energy's mission and programs and is an element of the Department of Energy's strategic management planning activities, developed through an annual planning process. The Plan supports the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 and complements the performance-based contract between the Department of Energy and the Regents of the University of California. It identifies technical and administrative directions in the context of the national energy policy and research needs and the Department of Energy's program planning initiatives. Preparation of the plan is coordinated by the Office of Planning and Communications from information contributed by Berkeley Lab's scientific and support divisions.

A series of studies by the Air Force, the National Reconnaissance Office and NASA have identified the critical role played by large optics in fulfilling many of the space related missions of these agencies. Whether it is the Next Generation Space Telescope for NASA, high resolution imaging systems for NRO, or beam weaponry for the Air Force, the diameter of the primary optic is central to achieving high resolution (imaging) or a small spot size on target (lethality). While the detailed requirements differ for each application (high resolution imaging over the visible and near-infrared for earth observation, high damage threshold but single-wavelength operation for directed energy), the challenges of a large, lightweight primary optic which is space compatible and operates with high efficiency are the same. The advantage of such large optics to national surveillance applications is that it permits these observations to be carried-out with much greater effectiveness than with smaller optics. For laser weapons, the advantage is that it permits more tightly focused beams which can be leveraged into either greater effective range, reduced laser power, and/or smaller on-target spot-sizes; weapon systems can be made either much more effective or much less expensive. This application requires only single-wavelength …

Report from the San Antonio-Bexar County Metropolitan Planning Organization outlining projects funded by the federal and state governments for fiscal years 2000-2003 that would affect San Antonio and the immediate region. It includes background on transportation in San Antonio, various issues, and a breakdown of the projects and funding.

This report contains the program plan and background information for the Heavy Vehicle Hybrid Propulsion R and D Program sponsored by the Department of Energy's Office of Heavy Vehicle Technologies. The program is a collaboration between industry and government established for the development of advanced hybrid-electric propulsion technology for urban cycle trucks and buses. It targets specific applications to enhance potential market success. Potential end-users are also involved.

In this first institutional plan prepared by Bechtel BWXT Idaho, LLC, for the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, the INEEL will focus its efforts on three strategic thrusts: (1) Environmental Management stewardship for DOE-EM, (2) Nuclear reactor technology for DOE-Nuclear Energy (NE), and (3) Energy R and D, demonstration, and deployment (initial focus on biofuels and chemicals from biomass). The first strategic thrust focuses on meeting DOE-EMs environmental cleanup and long-term stewardship needs in a manner that is safe, cost-effective, science-based, and approved by key stakeholders. The science base at the INEEL will be further used to address a grand challenge for the INEEL and the DOE complex--the development of a fundamental scientific understanding of the migration of subsurface contaminants. The second strategic thrust is directed at DOE-NEs needs for safe, economical, waste-minimized, and proliferation-resistant nuclear technologies. As NE lead laboratories, the INEEL and ANL will pursue specific priorities. The third strategic thrust focuses on DOE's needs for clean, efficient, and renewable energy technology. As an initial effort, the INEEL will enhance its capability in biofuels, bioprocessing, and biochemicals. The content of this institutional plan is designed to meet basic DOE requirements for content and structure and reflect the …

In this first Institutional Plan prepared by Bechtel BWXT Idaho, LLC, for the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, the INEEL will focus it's efforts on three strategic thrusts; (1) Environmental Management stewardship for DOE-EM, (2) Nuclear reactor technology for DOE-Nuclear Energy (NE), and (3) Energy R&D, demonstration, and deployment (initial focus on biofuels and chemical from biomass). The first strategic thrust focuses on meeting DOE-EM's environmental cleanup and long-term stewardship needs in a manner that is safe, cost-effective, science-based, and approved by key stakeholders. The science base at the INEEL will be further used to address a grand challenge for the INEEL and the DOE complex - the development of a fundamental scientific understanding of the migration of subsurface contaminants. The second strategic thrust is directed at DOE-NE's needs for safe, economical, waste-minimized, and proliferation-resistant nuclear technologies. As NE lead laboratories, the INEEL and ANL will pursue specific priorities. The third strategic thrust focuses on DOE's needs for clean, efficient, and renewable energy technology. As an initial effort, the INEEL will enhance its capability in biofuels, bioprocessing, and biochemicals. The content of this Institutional Plan is designed to meet basic DOE requirements for content and structure and reflect the …

This Institutional Plan describes what Argonne management regards as the optimal future development of Laboratory activities. The document outlines the development of both research programs and support operations in the context of the nation's R and D priorities, the missions of the Department of Energy (DOE) and Argonne, and expected resource constraints. The product of many discussions between DOE and Argonne program managers, the Draft Institutional Plan is provided to the Department before Argonne's On-Site Review. Issuance of the final Institutional Plan in the fall, after further comment and discussion, marks the culmination of the Laboratory's annual planning cycle. The final Plan also reflects programmatic priorities developed during Argonne's summer strategic planning process and the allocation of Laboratory Directed Research and Development funds.

This report outlines the trend in Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) obligations for both the national and state level for the period FY2000 through FY2013. It also includes individual profiles for each state and additional resources and key policy staff that can provide more information on the programs that are discussed.

This report provides information on the timing of submission of the mid-session review for FY1980-FY2009, a 30-year period that covers all or part of the administrations of five Presidents, applying to the last two years of the Carter Administration, and the full terms of the Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Clinton, and George W. Bush Administrations.

None