Economic Development Assistance for Communities Affected by Employment Changes Due to Military Base Closures (BRAC)

[Excerpt] This report is intended to discuss the geographic impact of base closures and realignments; provide an analysis of federal economic assistance programs for communities and individuals affected by military base closures and realignments (BRAC); and analyze possible policy issues for Congress. Unlike previous rounds, the 2005 BRAC round is focused on creating the infrastructure needed to support a transformed, expeditionary armed force—concentrated more on shifting forces and installation assets to promote the centralization of units in places from which they can be deployed rapidly. Thus, the 2005 BRAC round is characterized much more by realignment than closure. In 20 communities, an estimated increase of 170,000 workers is expected. In addition, estimated construction costs are anticipated to increase by 80% from $17 billion to$32 billion. These communities identified transportation, schools and affordable housing as their top infrastructure challenges. Some communities, however, will be affected by job losses, and job creation and unemployment were cited as key concerns. Economic development programs for communities affected by BRAC include the Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA); the Economic Development Administration (EDA); the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program; Historically Underutilized Business Zones (HUBZones) under the Small Business Administration (SBA); and programs such as the Homeowner’s Assistance Program (HAP), the Defense Access Road (DAR) program, Recovery Zone Economic Development Bonds, and Economic Development Conveyances (EDCs). Understanding the process to access funding under these programs is important for communities impacted by job losses and those affected by growth. EDA, for example, allocates funding to groups of counties organized as Economic Development Districts (EDDs), based on a plan known as a Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) and communities affected by BRAC must contact an EDA regional office and EDD to understand if competitive grant funding may be available. In contrast, CDBG allocates funding to one of over 1,100 entitlement communities based on a formula and on a plan known as the Consolidated Plan; BRAC funding is available primarily to help the homeless population near a base. The local communities must establish a Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA) to access assistance. The LRA serves as the primary link between the Department of Defense, the current installation, the local community, and the Federal and State agencies responsible for all BRAC matters. In the 111th Congress, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA, P.L. 111-5) provided $555 million for the Homeowner’s Assistance Fund under the Housing Improvement Program (HAP), for military personnel affected by the 2005 BRAC round. P.L. 111-117 provided an additional$323 million for the HAP program. ARRA also provided $10 billion for Recovery Zone Economic Development Bonds for areas designated as economically distressed under previous BRAC round closures. The 112th Congress may consider amendments to federal economic development programs to assist communities affected by the 2005 BRAC. This report will be updated as events warrant

An averaging principle for diffusions in foliated spaces

Consider an SDE on a foliated manifold whose trajectories lay on compact leaves. We investigate the effective behavior of a small transversal perturbation of order $\varepsilon$. An average principle is shown to hold such that the component transversal to the leaves converges to the solution of a deterministic ODE, according to the average of the perturbing vector field with respect to invariant measures on the leaves, as $\varepsilon$ goes to zero. An estimate of the rate of convergence is given. These results generalize the geometrical scope of previous approaches, including completely integrable stochastic Hamiltonian system.Comment: Published at http://dx.doi.org/10.1214/14-AOP982 in the Annals of Probability (http://www.imstat.org/aop/) by the Institute of Mathematical Statistics (http://www.imstat.org

In Search of Justice: An Examination of the Appointments of John G. Roberts and Samuel A. Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court and Their Impact on American Jurisprudence

During 2005, President George W. Bush appointed Federal Circuit Court Judges John G. Roberts and Samuel A. Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court. These appointments were the culmination of years of examination of the work, character, and temperament of both men commencing during the 2000 presidential transition. Our evaluation included face-to-face interviews; an analysis of judicial opinions, speeches, and writings; and conversation with friends, colleagues, and court experts. Based on this work, a select group of Bush Administration officials developed a set of predictors that formed the basis of our recommendation to President Bush that he elevate Circuit Court Judges Roberts and Alito to the Supreme Court. This Article explains how Judges Roberts and Alito were evaluated, and our assessment of how they would perform on the Court. The Article then examines whether the Bush Administration correctly predicted how these two men would decide cases before the Court by reviewing some of their most significant opinions to date. We begin with an explanation of the process used in developing our recommendation to the President followed by a thorough examination of the factors we weighed (such as political considerations and confirmation challenges). The Article includes a thorough, though certainly not exhaustive, review of the circuit court opinions of each man. This early body of work is then compared to their most recent work on the Supreme Court in certain key areas of the law. There is a remarkable, though not unexpected, consistency between Justices Roberts’s and Alito’s jurisprudence on the circuit courts and on the Supreme Court. Based on this comparison, the Article concludes that the Bush Administration successfully anticipated that Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito would decide cases using a consistent set of principles including judicial restraint, respect for precedent, and statutory interpretation based on plain language

Presidential Powers, Immunities, and Pardons

This Article intends to clarify some of the more difficult legal issues in our nation’s separation of powers jurisprudence. In order to afford the President the flexibility and discretion necessary to discharge presidential duties, the courts are almost certainly going to recognize total immunity from the criminal process for the President with respect to official conduct. The treatment of unofficial conduct is less predictable. Based on precedent and our nation’s founding principles of equal justice and fairness, the courts are likely to hold that a sitting President is not above the law and thus does not enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution for unofficial acts or conduct unrelated to his or her fitness to hold office. However, because of separation of powers considerations, the courts are likely to require deferral of any such prosecution until the President no longer holds office. Although not as clear, constitutional considerations would likely also require deferral of any investigation or indictment, at least those requiring the direct and material participation of the President. On the other hand, the President can be compelled to produce certain documentary evidence when doing so is necessary and would otherwise be unavailable in connection with a criminal investigation. The argument for presidential immunity with respect to production of evidence is stronger, though likely not absolute, with respect to oral testimony. Nonetheless, mindful of the President’s duties, the courts are likely to afford the President great latitude in the time, place, and manner of providing oral testimony. Finally, there is nothing in the Constitution that expressly prohibits or limits the President from issuing a self-pardon

Advising the President: The Growing Scope of Executive Power to Protect America

The scope of power that the executive branch has to act independently of the other government branches in the national security arena is one of the most difficult questions to answer in constitutional law. Congress has passed a number of statutes empowering the President to take actions necessary to protect our national security, but on relatively few occasions has Congress authorized the President to use force through declarations of war. As Counsel to the President, my job was to work with Attorney General John Ashcroft and other senior lawyers in the Bush Administration to advise the President on the limits of his power to protect America. When I became Attorney General in 2005, I assumed the primary role for that responsibility. In this article, I will explain how I approached this question then from an insider\u27s perspective, based on a straightforward framework of necessity balanced against accountability

An Immigration Crisis in a Nation of Immigrants: Why Amending the Fourteenth Amendment Won\u27t Solve Our Problems

The concerns over another terrorist attack, a sluggish economic recovery, high unemployment rates, and state and local budget deficits have propelled immigration policy to the forefront of political debate in the United States. America’s current approach to immigration is an abject failure, undermining the rule of law and our national security. This has prompted various legislative proposals relating to citizenship, including amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that children born in the United States to unauthorized immigrants are not entitled to birthright citizenship. The Article presents the reasons why these various state and federal level “solutions” are either ineffective in solving our immigration crisis or likely unconstitutional. Instead, the President and Congress should invest their time and energy to pass comprehensive immigration reform on the federal level