PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · May 16, 2016
(This measure has not been amended since it was reported to the House on May 13, 2006. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Department of Homeland Security Strategy for International Programs Act
(Sec. 2) This bill directs the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to submit a comprehensive three-year strategy for international programs in which DHS personnel and resources are deployed abroad for vetting and screening persons seeking to enter the United States.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
The strategy shall include:
specific risk-based goals for such programs;
a risk-based method for determining whether to establish new international programs in new locations, given resource constraints, or expand existing international programs;
alignment with the highest DHS-wide and government-wide strategic priorities of resource allocations on such programs; and
a common reporting framework for the submission of reliable, comparable cost data by DHS components on overseas expenditures attributable to such programs.
In developing the strategy, DHS shall consider:
information on existing operations of DHS programs that includes corresponding information for each location in which each such program operates,
analysis of the impact of each such international program on domestic activities of DHS components,
the number of DHS personnel deployed to each location at which such an international program is in operation during the current and preceding fiscal year, and
analysis of barriers to the expansion of such an international program.
People & committees
Rep. Thompson, Bennie G. [D-MS-2] · D–MS
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H2411-2412)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H2411-2412)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 4780.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H2411-2413)
Mr. Ratcliffe moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 439.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Homeland Security. H. Rept. 114-566.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Homeland Security. H. Rept. 114-566.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the House Committee on Homeland Security.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.4780 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.4780 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.4780 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.4780 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.