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).

• DOD's Implementation of Justifications for 8(a) Sole-Source Contracts

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

  From the Document: "The conference report accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012 directed GAO [Government Accountability Office] to assess the Department of Defense's (DOD) implementation of a new requirement for written justifications of sole-source contracts over $20 million awarded under the Small Business Administration's 8(a) program. The 8(a) program is one of the federal government's primary means for developing small businesses owned by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals. Contract awards under this program may be competed among eligible 8(a) firms or awarded on a sole-source basis to 8(a) firms in certain instances. For example, DOD may award 8(a) sole source contracts to firms owned by Alaska Native Corporations and Indian tribes. […] In summary, we found that DOD awarded 51 sole source 8(a) contracts over $20 million between October 2009 and September 2012. As we reported in our December 2012 government-wide review, DOD awarded eight sole-source 8(a) contracts worth over $20 million from March 16, 2011, when the requirement was implemented in the FAR [Federal Acquisition Regulation], through March 31, 2012, the most recent data available at the time of our review. Of the eight, six contracts did not meet the new justification requirement because contracting officials were not aware of the requirement or because they were confused about the type of justification to complete."

  United States. Government Accountability Office

  2013-02-08
• House Document 107-32: Continued U.S. Contributions in Support of Peacekeeping Efforts in the Former Yugoslavia:Communication from the President of the United States Transmitting a Supplemental Report Consistent with the War Powers Resolution on Continued U.S. Contributions in Support of Peacekeeping Efforts in the Former Yugoslavia

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

  This report was sent by President George W. Bush to the Speaker of the House of Representatives J. Dennis Hastert to summarize the U.S. contributions to the peacekeeping efforts in the former Yugoslavia as of January 25, 2001, in accordance with the War Powers Resolution. From the document: "In a report to the Congress of July 25, 2000, the previous Administration provided information on the deployment of combat-equipped U.S. Armed Forces to Bosnia and Herzegovina and other states in the region in order to participate in and support the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)-led Stabilization Force (SFOR). The SFOR began its mission and assumed authority from the NATO-led implementation force on December 20, 1996. I am providing this supplemental report, consistent with the War Powers Resolution, to help ensure that the Congress is kept fully informed on continued U.S. contributions in support of peacekeeping efforts in the former Yugoslavia."

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2001
• Why Should Americans Have to Comply with the Laws of Foreign Nations? Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs of the Committee on Natural Resources, House of Representatives, One Hundred Thirteenth Congress, First Session, July 17, 2013

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

  This testimony compilation is from the July 17, 2013 hearing "Why Should Americans Have to Comply with the Laws of Foreign Nations?" held before the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs of the U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources. From the opening statement of John Fleming: "While I am not a constitutional expert, I find nothing in that landmark document that allows the Congress to delegate law making authority to foreign countries. However, that is essentially what the Congress did in 1935 when the Lacey Act was amended to prohibit the importation of all wildlife taken contrary to a foreign law. If I had been a member of the 74th Congress, I would have voted against that provision because it is simply wrong to force American citizens to comply with the laws of other nations. Regrettably, the 2008 Amendments have significantly compounded this problem. Instead of having to comply with a limited number of foreign laws, by expanding coverage to include plant and plant products this has triggered literally tens of thousands of foreign laws." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: John Fleming, Kristina Alexander, Alexander von Bismarck, Marcus A. Asner, Reed D. Rubinstein, Paul J. Larkin, Jr., and Paul D. Kamenar.

  United States. Congress. House. Committee on Natural Resources

  2013-07-17
• Report on Iraq to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Hearing Before the Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives, One Hundred Tenth Congress, Second Session, April 9, 2008

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

  From the opening statement of Howard L. Berman: "The committee has great respect, Mr. Ambassador, General Petraeus, for your accomplishments and deeply appreciate your service. We are also keenly aware of the sacrifices being made by the United States military and our dedicated diplomatic corps in Iraq, along with their families. But our respect and appreciation for you and the people you lead does not mean that we should yield in our oversight responsibilities. Quite the opposite. We have to make a tough-minded assessment that is fact-based and not ideologically driven. It is right and appropriate to question the reports of progress that the Executive Branch offers to Congress. Congress and the people who sent us to Washington want to see the years of effort in Iraq end with a positive meaningful and lasting result, a stable, cohesive Iraqi Government, democratic in nature, an Iraq that does not threatened its neighbors, and is able to resist domination by them, a country living under the rule of law with protection for individual and minority rights. This would be good for Iraq, of course, but more importantly, it would be good for American interests. But are we there yet?" Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Howard L. Berman, Ryan C. Crocker, David H. Petraeus, Lynn C. Woolsey, Ron Paul, Gene Green, Mike Pence, and Sheila Jackson Lee.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2008
• Modernizing the Nuclear Security Enterprise: Observations on DOE's and NNSA's Efforts to Enhance Oversight of Security, Safety, and Project and Contract Management, Statement of David C. Trimble, Director, Natural Resources and Environment, Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives

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

  From the Government Accountability Office (GAO) Highlights: "DOE [Department of Energy] and NNSA [National Nuclear Security Administration] are responsible for managing nuclear weapon- and nonproliferation-related national security activities in national laboratories and other sites and facilities, collectively known as the nuclear security enterprise. Major portions of NNSA's mission are largely carried out by contractors at each site. GAO [Government Accountability Office] has designated contract management of major projects (i.e., those $750 million or more) at DOE and NNSA as a high risk area. Progress has been made, but GAO continues to identify security and safety problems at DOE and NNSA sites as well as project and contract management problems related to cost and schedule overruns on major projects. This testimony addresses DOE's and NNSA's oversight of (1) security performance, (2) safety performance, and (3) project and contract management in the nuclear security enterprise. It is based on prior GAO reports issued from August 2000 to December 2012. DOE and NNSA continue to act on the numerous recommendations GAO has made to improve management of the nuclear security enterprise. GAO will continue to monitor DOE's and NNSA's implementation of these recommendations."

  United States. Government Accountability Office

  Trimble, David

  2013-03-13
• Terrorism: Victims' Access to Terrorist Assets: Hearing Before the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, One Hundred Sixth Congress, First Session on Examining Proposals to Further Amend the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) and Related Terrorism Issues, Focusing on Efforts to Help Families of International Terrorism Receive Compensation, October 27, 1999

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

  From the opening statement of Jon Kyl: "We will today examine an issue of great importance to victims of terrorism and their families. I am concerned that the President has exercised what was intended to be a narrow waiver too broadly, and as a consequence, those who have suffered from acts of terror resulting in the death of American citizens will not be adequately compensated and the acts of terror will go unpunished. This runs contrary to the intent of the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. It runs contrary to the intent of this Congress when it passed section 117 of the fiscal year 1999 Treasury Appropriations Act, and I believe it runs contrary to the concept of justice for the victims of terrorism. This year, in response to the concerns of the administration, Senators Mack and Lautenberg and I proposed a modification of the waiver, allowing the President to prevent the attachment of diplomatic property as part of a judgment. I believe that this modification would have been a prudent step toward ensuring the protection of American diplomatic property abroad while still allowing victims of terrorism to attain the justice that U.S. courts have said that they deserve. Unfortunately, the President opposed this modification, insisting on the maintenance of the current broad wavier, thereby blocking the Flatow family and the families of the Brothers to the Rescue from receiving justice. I am pleased that today's hearing will allow this committee to hear testimony from the perspective of the victims, as well as the administration." Statements, letters, and material submitted for the record include those of the following: Jon Kyl, Connie Mack, Frank R. Lautenberg, Dianne Feinstein, Patrick Clawson, Stuart E. Eizenstat, Stephen Flatow, Leonard Garment, Allan Gerson, Alejandre Khuly, Orrin G. Hatch, Ronald W. Kleinman, Andreas F. Lowenfeld, and Roberto Martinez.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2001
• Regional Overview on the Middle East, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives, One Hundred Eleventh Congress, First Session, October 28, 2009

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

  From the opening statement of Gary L. Ackerman: "While this hearing is meant to cover the range of issues facing the United States and the region stretching from Egypt to the Persian Gulf, in my opening remarks I would like to focus on Iran. [...] So in thinking about our Iran policy today, what strikes me is how thin it seems to be. We seem to be depending on just one or two policy elements, when, in fact, many more are possible. President Obama's support for direct engagement with Iran, as with the Reagan-Gorbachev summitry that I have described has already helped to heal a variety of political woes, but by itself diplomatic engagement still leaves too much initiative in Iranian hands. [...] My concern is that we are dealing with the Iranians piecemeal and, thus, giving them too much opportunity to shape events to their liking. And I am not calling for linkage, where success in one area depends on one or more of the others, but I do think that we need a comprehensive approach. Like Gorbachev's team, the regime in Tehran is facing an unprecedented challenge from within. Why is it then we seem incapable of taking advantage of this fact and bemoaning for years the insufficiency of our leverage? We don't need to make threats, and we certainly shouldn't allow ourselves to get sucked into yet another conflict. But I can't help but wonder, why can't we squeeze with five fingers instead of just one or two?" Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Jeffrey D. Feltman, Gary L. Ackerman, Dan Burton, Robert Wexler, and Gerald E. Connolly.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2010
• EU Data Protection Directive: Implications for the U.S. Privacy Debate, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, One Hundred Seventh Congress, First Session, March 8, 2001

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

  From the statement of Mike Doyle: "During last week's hearing, I voiced my concerns that in the past, over-zealous federal regulations sometimes created unnecessary burdens on business. I firmly believe that it is the responsibility of the federal government to find the most appropriate balance that ensures we do not unintentionally choke out our emerging high technology e-commerce sector while at the same time providing floor requirements relating to basic privacy protections for consumers and industry alike." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: David L. Aaron, Denis E. Henry, Barbara Lawler, Joel R. Reidenberg, Stefano Rodota, David Smith, and Jonathan M. Winter.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2001
• U.S. Policy Toward Iran, Hearing Before the Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives, One Hundred Tenth Congress, Second Session, July 9, 2008

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

  From the opening statement of Howard L. Berman: "If Iran were to acquire nuclear arms, the world would be forever changed. The most active state sponsor of terrorism could, and possibly would, wield the most terrifying weapon of all. Iran's mere possession of a nuclear capability would be transformative in the Middle East and beyond. As a member of the nuclear club, Tehran's destructive leverage in international diplomacy would increase immensely, even vis-a`-vis the United States and the West. Sunni Arab states would be intimidated and more likely to follow Iran's lead. Achieving nuclear status would exponentially increase Iran's influence and the appeal of fundamentalism throughout the Islamic world." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Howard L. Berman, William J. Burns, Gene Green, and Ron Klein.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2008
• Implementation of Iran Sanctions, Hearing Before the Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives, One Hundred Eleventh Congress, Second Session, July 29, 2010

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

  From the opening statement of Edolphus Towns: "The United States has banned nearly all trade with Iran. We have done so for good reason: the extremists who currently rule Iran are a major threat to the safety and security of their own people and to the rest of the world. It is vitally important to the national security of the United States and its allies to persuade the Iranian regime to end its quest for nuclear weapons and to end its support for terrorism. Since 1995, our nation has attempted to do that, by banning U.S. companies from doing any business in Iran. In 1996, the Iran Sanctions Act provided for sanctions against foreign firms that invest in Iran's energy sector. It was revealed earlier this year that the Federal Government has awarded more than $100 billion in contract payments, grants, and other benefits over the past 10 years to foreign and multi-national American companies while they were doing business in Iran. So, not only are some companies doing business in Iran, but they are also getting Government contracts at the same time. Obviously, Federal agencies all need to get onto the same page. Earlier this month, Congress acted to strengthen economic sanctions against Iran. Recognizing that banking is the life blood of international trade, the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act imposes tough new restrictions on banks and insurance companies. It also requires Federal contractors to certify that they are not doing business with Iran. However, for U.S. sanctions to be successful, they must be fully implemented and enforced, and I am looking forward to hearing from our witnesses about how they intend to do that." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Robert J. Einhorn, Joseph A. Christoff, Daniel Glaser, Joseph A. Neurauter, Avi Jorisch, Gerald E. Connolly, Mark Dubowitz, Darrell E. Issa, Carolyn B. Maloney, Mike Quigley, and Edolphus Towns.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2011
• Russia, Iraq, and Other Potential Sources of Anthrax, Smallpox and Other Bioterrorist Weapons, Hearing Before the Committee on International Relations, House of Representatives, One Hundred Seventh Congress, First Session, December 5, 2001

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

  From the statement of Richard O. Spertzel: "Although Iraq denied that they had attained any higher than about 10 to the 10th or 10 billion, Iraq also had the capability of drying anthrax. They denied having done it, but their contacts with foreign companies revealed that they looked into obtaining the kind of materials that would be necessary in that process, such as the kind of silica and other types of material that would give those special properties that makes it really airborne. Now, we know from actual evidence in 1994 of a related agent, bacillus thuringiensis, a biopesticide, that they demonstrated their capability of producing a small particle using a spray dryer without milling. In that case, they used Bentonite as the additive." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Kenneth Alibek, Elisa D. Harris, Donald M. Payne, and Earl Blumenauer.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2001
• Turkey's New Foreign Policy Direction: Implications for U.S.-Turkish Relations, Hearing Before the Committee on Foreign Affiars, House of Representatives, One Hundred Eleventh Congress, Second Session, July 28, 2010

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

  From the opening statement of Howard L. Berman: "The purpose of this hearing is to gain insight into the changes in the foreign-policy direction of our long-time ally Turkey. Now the sixteenth-largest economy in the world, Turkey is a complex country, endowed by geography with circumstances that connect it to developments in at least a half-dozen regions and sub-regions. Turkish foreign policy is also complex. Turkey is an important ally to the United States in NATO and now particularly so in Afghanistan, where it has 1,700 troops, heads the Kabul Regional Command, and makes other important contributions. Turkey is also a critical transit point for provisions for our troops in Iraq. But it is Turkey's recent and worrisome policy turns regarding Iran, Israel, and the Palestinians, and the larger implications of those policies, that are likely to form the basis for much of today's discussion. One State Department official recently put it this way: ''There is a lot of questioning going on about Turkey's orientation and its ongoing commitment to strategic partnership with the United States.'' I am among those that have such concerns, and that is why we are holding the first full committee hearing devoted exclusively to Turkey within my memory. For some people, concerns about Turkey's direction first came to the fore almost immediately in November 2002, when the religiously- oriented AK Party won a powerful parliamentary majority. For others it was in March 2003, when the Turkish Parliament voted down the U.S. request to allow the U.S. Fourth Infantry Division to cross Turkish territory as part of the Iraq war." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Ross Wilson, Michael Rubin, Soner Cagaptay, Howard L. Berman, Ross Wilson, Ian Lesser, Mike Pence, Eni F.H. Faleomavaega and Gerald E. Connolly.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2010
• Syria: Weighing the Obama Administration's Response, Hearing Before the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Foreign Affairs, One Hundred Thirteenth Congress, First Session, September 4, 2013

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

  This is the September 4, 2013 hearing on "Syria: Weighing the Obama Administration's Response," held before the U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs. From the opening statement of Ed Royce: "Today, we meet to weigh the Obama Administration's proposed military response to the Syrian regime's odious use of chemical weapons. […] The president's decision this past weekend to seek an authorization of military force from Congress was not anticipated, but it was welcomed. This committee has no greater responsibility than overseeing the deployment and use of the United States Armed Forces. Since the administration of President John Adams, Congress has acted several times to authorize the use of military force by the president. One thing different here is that the administration's proposal supports a U.S. military response against a country in civil war. Needless to say, this complicates the consideration. I think we're all troubled by the unfortunate lack of international support. Although the proposed action aims to uphold an international norm, there is no United Nations resolution of support, nor NATO backing. As we'll hear today, the president views striking the Syrian regime as a way to strengthen deterrence against the future use of chemical weapons by Assad and by others. That is an important consideration." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Ed Royce, John F. Kerry, Chuck Hagel, and Martin E. Dempsey.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2014
• Nigeria at a Crossroads: Elections, Legitimacy and a Way Forward, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives, One Hundred Tenth Congress, First Session, June 7, 2007

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

  From the opening statement of Donald M. Payne: "Thank you all for joining us for this very important hearing regarding Nigeria's recent elections. Since Nigeria achieved independence in 1960, there has been successive conflict and military rule as the country struggled to establish a democratic government. Since the death of General Sani Abacha in 1998, Nigerians have made enormous progress in transitioning to civilian rule. Prior to this year's election, there have been two Presidential elections in Nigeria, as all of you here know. They were not conducted perfectly. There were well-founded allegations of fraud and other irregularities. However, compared to Nigeria's recent past, the conduct of those elections demonstrated a commitment to engage in legitimate, democratic processes. The conduct of this year's elections, however, was extremely troubling. Though I am heartened by the fact that these elections mark the first peaceful transfer of power between civilian governments in Nigeria's history, allegations of vote rigging, fraud, and ballot stuffing made by international and domestic observers are cause for serious concern." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Donald M. Payne, Jendayi Frazer, Kenneth Wollack, Wole Soyinka, and Lorne W. Craner.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2007
• Crisis in Syria: Implications for Homeland Security, Hearing Before the Committee on Homeland Security, House of Representatives, One Hundred Thirteenth Congress, First Session, September 10, 2013

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

  This is the September 10, 2013 hearing on the "Crisis in Syria" held before the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Homeland Security. From the opening statement of Michael McCaul: "For two years, Americans have known that a brutal war is being waged in Syria. The atrocities witnessed almost a month ago shocked the world -- and have demanded tough choices from the United States. However, horrific acts should not spur unwise reactions, and we must thoroughly examine the realities of military intervention in this civil war. Today we gather to examine both the Assad regime and the opposition forces that are caught in a bloody civil war. Specifically, we will look at what role America might play in this deadly conflict and what a military strike against Syria could mean for our national and homeland security." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Michael McCaul, Christopher Shays, Robert H. Scales, Jr., Thomas Joscelyn, and Stephen Biddle.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2014
• Holding Honduras Hostage: Revoked Visas and U.S. Policy Hearing Before the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere of The, Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives, One Hundred Twelfth Congress, First Session, June 14, 2011

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

  From the statement of Ileana Ros-Lehtinen: "I wanted to take just a minute to join you this afternoon to underscore my deep disappointment at the Obama administration's overall ongoing punitive policy toward the people of Honduras who opposed Manuel Zelaya's attacks on their country's Constitution and the rule of law and to express my grave concern that the Department of State appears to have actively stood in the way of having Mr. Micheletti and others participate in today's hearing. We faced similar stonewalling when the State Department initially refused to provide requested information to the Government Accountability Office in response to an investigation that it was carrying out at the request of several Members of Congress, including me. The GAO investigation, which will be released in the next few months, was to focus on the State Department's involvement and particularly on U.S. Ambassador Llorens' role in promoting a specific pro-Zelaya political outcome for Honduras. Also, with respect to today's hearing, it is deeply troubling that the Department of State would take steps to thwart at every turn the prerogative of Congress and this committee in their oversight of U.S. policy toward Honduras, especially as I believe this policy has undermined U.S. national security and foreign policy objectives." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Roberto Micheletti Baín, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Cresencio S. Arcos, Connie Mack, and Donald M. Payne.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2011
• Libya at a Crossroads: A Faltering Transition, Hearing Before the U.S. House Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, One Hundred Thirteenth Congress, Second Session, June 25, 2014

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

  This is the June 25, 2014 hearing on "Libya at a Crossroads" held before the U.S. House Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. From the opening statement of Chairman Ros-Lehtinen: "The Arab Spring uprising in the Middle East and North Africa of 2011 brought with them a period of brief hope for the future of democracy in the region. Millions across many nations demanded changes to the way their countries were being run and in many cases run by dictators who held a stranglehold on power for decades, unrelenting and unyielding. In some countries, the people managed to usher out the ruling party and for a moment, it appeared as though we were ready to see democracy rule the day. However, the lack of infrastructure, the lack of democratic institutions in these countries, as well the lack of political will have all but dashed those hopes and Libya, unfortunately, is one of the prime examples of this. Once Gaddafi was removed from power, those seeking to reform the government quickly proved that they were not up to the task and the country fell into a further state of disunity as armed militias battled for supremacy and control over Libya's future." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of Anne W. Patterson and Derek Chollet.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2014
• H. Doc. 107-38: Periodic Report on the National Emergency Caused by the Lapse of the Export Administration Act of 1979 for August 19, 2000 to November 13, 2000

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

  This document is the President's periodic report on the national emergency caused by the lapse of the Export Administration Act of 1979. It is the final report of President George Bush to Congress "on the national emergency declared by Executive Order 12924 of August 19, 1994, to deal with the threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States caused by the lapse of the Export Administration Act of 1979."

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2001
• COVID States Project: A 50-State COVID-19 Survey Report #45: COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy and Resistance Among Parents

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

  From the Document: "Are parents more skeptical of coronavirus vaccines than other adults? A 2017 study [hyperlink] by the Pew Research Center found that parents--especially those with younger children--are generally more vaccine hesitant than non-parents. Moreover, in recent years, increasing numbers of parents have either delayed or forgone entirely [hyperlink] having their children vaccinated against preventable diseases. The question thus arises as to whether this pattern applies to the COVID-19 [coronavirus disease 2019] vaccine. In a December 2020 report [hyperlink], we found that substantial majorities of parents supported prohibiting in-person teaching in K-12 [kindergarten through twelfth grade] schools, and requiring that children be vaccinated before returning to in-person classes. But does this translate into an intention among parents to vaccinate themselves? In a subsequent report [hyperlink] (February 2021), we found stark divides in vaccine hesitancy by education, race, income, party, and other demographic factors. This raises the question of whether parents from all backgrounds are more skeptical than non-parents, or if vaccine skepticism among parents varies with party, race, or economic class. To address these questions, this report compares rates of vaccine hesitancy and resistance among respondents with or without children under age 18."

  Northeastern University (Boston, Mass.); Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics, and Public Policy; Harvard Medical School . . .

  Simonson, Matthew; Baum, Matthew A., 1965-; Lazer, David . . .

  2021-03-19
• House Document 107-128: Requests to Make Available by Transfer Previously Appropriated Funds: Communication from the President of the United States Transmitting His Authorization to Transfer from the Emergency Response Fund for Emergency and National Security Activities

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

  This report was sent by President George W. Bush to notify the United States Congress that on September 28, 2001, he authorized "transfers from the Emergency Response Fund totaling $1.8 billion for emergency and national security activities," in accordance with the "2001 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Recovery from and Response to Terrorist Attacks on the United States." Also included with the report is a letter from the Deputy Director of the Office of Management and budget which details the emergency and national security activities for which the funds will be used.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2001
• Prioritizing International Religious Freedom in U.S. Foreign Policy, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, and Human Rights of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives, One Hundred Twelfth Congress, First Session, June 3, 2011

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

  From the opening statement of Christopher H. Smith: "The subcommittee will be examining the role of international religious freedom in the U.S. foreign policy, particularly in light of the International Religious Freedom Act and the amendments being proposed to that act, H.R. 1856, the International Religious Freedom Act Amendments of 2011. I had the privilege of chairing the committee hearings in the 1990s that prepared the passage of the 1998 International Religious Freedom Act. The act provided our administration with the tools necessary to make international religious freedom an integral component of the highest priority in U.S. foreign policy. Contrary to assertions that singling out religious freedom would somehow make it seem more important or separated from other fundamental human rights--and I would note parenthetically, the Clinton administration asserted that its strong opposition to the act at the time was based on its belief that the act would result in a 'hierarchy of human rights.' […] Unfortunately, the urgent call within IRFA [Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance] to vigorously monitor and defend religious freedom as part of U.S. foreign policy has not been fully heeded. Religious freedom is threatened around the world, and the situation is getting demonstrably worse." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Leornard Leo, Thomas Farr, Joseph Grieboski, Brian Grim, Thomas Farr, Christopher H. Smith, and Howard L. Berman.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2011
• Digital Divide: Bridging the Technology Gap: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Empowerment of the Committee on Small Business, House of Representatives One Hundred Sixth Congress, First Session, July 27, 1999

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

  The term "digital divide" refers to the difference between groups to whom computer and Internet electronic technology is available and groups lacking such access. A recently released study by the Commerce Department's National Telecommunication and Information Administration finds evidence of a widening digital divide. Data from the study shows demographic differences between those groups with access to telephones, personal computers, and the Internet, and those without such access. As we move from a paper-based society to an electronic one, personal computers and Internet access are becoming increasingly valuable. Interactive computer networks have the potential to enhance many aspects of our lives, including our education and career prospects. Indeed, the rapid infusion of electronic resources into our society has rendered computers and the Internet indispensable tools in some homes, offices and schools. This hearing discusses the digital divide in hopes of developing ways to bring innovative technology to communities with a demonstrated need for it. The digital divide is strictly one that is real in the urban communities and, yes, in the rural communities. Witnesses to this hearing include: Larry Irving, Maureen Lewis, Harris N. Miller, Keith B. Fulton, Timothy Robinson, Jack Krumholtz, and Thomas M. Coleman

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2001
• Pain in the Nation 2022: The Epidemics of Alcohol, Drug, and Suicide Deaths

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

  From the Introduction: "COVID-19 [coronavirus disease 2019] has intensified the nation's troubling long-term trends for alcohol, drug, and suicide deaths. [...] Five years ago, Trust for America's Health and Well Being Trust started the Pain in the Nation report series to examine the alcohol, drug, and suicide crises in the United States and called for a comprehensive National Resilience Strategy. [...] The first Pain in the Nation report projected that, if mortality trends held steady, drug-induced deaths would reach 28.4 deaths per 100,000 people in 2025. In reality, that projection was low and was reached by 2020--within half the time expected. Despite the various federal and state programs and policies implemented, they have not slowed the trends, and likely were insufficient--especially considering that the worldwide pandemic further exacerbated existing problems. The latest provisional data show fatal overdoses exceeding 100,000 Americans annually, driven by a significant rise in synthetic opioid and psychostimulant overdoses. Policymakers, health officials, and all Americans must recognize the shortcomings of existing policy efforts to address the ever-changing and escalating drug overdose crisis and also consider how to make progress in the years ahead. This brief includes three sections: (1) a look back at the past two decades of the drug overdose crisis and a reconsideration of policy priorities; (2) a review of the latest mortality trends from alcohol, drugs, and suicide; and (3) an outline of key policy solutions and recommendations to stem and reverse these trends."

  Trust for America's Health; Well Being Trust

  Warren, Molly

  2022-05
• Lebanon on the Brink, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives, One Hundred Tenth Congress, First Session, November 8, 2007

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

  From the opening statement of Gary L. Ackerman: "Some 5 years ago, the President announced a dramatic new foreign assistance program called the Millennium Challenge Account designed to change the way the United States provides aid to developing nations. There can be no doubt the approach has made some great strides, but we are here today to ensure those strides are accurately predicted, measured and assessed for future policies." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: C. David Welch, Gary L. Ackerman, Mike Pence and Sheila Jackson Lee.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2008
• Central Asia: An Overview, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific, and the Global Environment of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives, One Hundred Tenth Congress, Second Session, April 8, 2008

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

  From the opening statement of Eni F.H. Faleomavaega: "Central Asia is emerging as a source of oil and gas for world markets. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, the region's natural gas reserves are comparable to those of the United States, and its oil reserves are comparable to Qatar on the low end and to Libya on the high end, between 10 billion to 42 billion barrels of oil. The Republic of Kazakhstan possesses the region's largest oil reserves at 9 billion to 40 billion barrels and exports at about 1.3 million barrels per day. While the administration has suggested that it considers Central Asia to be significant to the diversification of suppliers of energy to Europe and to the United States, the position of Special Advisor for Caspian Energy Diplomacy was abolished in 2004, and the State Department has yet to appoint a coordinator for International Energy Affairs, which the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 calls for the administration to do." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Richard A. Boucher, Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, Zamira Sydykova, Marina Ivanova, and Jeff Goldstein.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2008
• 47 CFR Part 216: National Communications System Issuance System

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

  In accordance with 202.3(c)(12)(v)of Title 47, the National Communications System (NCS), has developed a system of official documents of a referential nature. The documents include NCS Directives, which establish and implement organizational responsibilities, authorities, policies and procedures of a continuing nature. The Directives are issued by the Executive Office of the President after approval and/or consideration by the NCS Committee of Principals, the Executive Agent for the NCS and the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2001
• 47 CFR Part 64: Appendix A: Telecommunications Service Priority (TSP) System for National Security Emergency Preparedness (NSEP)

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

  "This appendix establishes policies and procedures and assigns responsibilities for the National Security Emergency Preparedness (NSEP) Telecommunications Service Priority (TSP) System. The NSEP TSP System authorizes priority treatment to certain domestic telecommunications services (including portions of U.S. international telecommunication services provided by U.S. service vendors) for which provisioning or restoration priority (RP) levels are requested, assigned, and approved in accordance with this appendix."

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2001
• 47 CFR Part 64: Appendix B: Priority Access Service (PAS) for National Security and Emergency Preparedness (NSEP)

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

  "This appendix is issued pursuant to various sections of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Under these sections, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) may permit the assignment and approval of priorities for access to commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) networks. Under section 706 of the Communications Act, this authority may be superseded by the war emergency powers of the President of the United States. This appendix provides the Commission's Order to CMRS providers and users to comply with policies and procedures establishing the Priority Access Service (PAS)."

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2001
• 47 CFR Part 212: Procedures for Obtaining International Telecommunication Service for Use During a Wartime Emergencies

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

  Chapter II, part 212 of the Code of Federal Regulation Title 47 on Telecommunication, provides specific guidance to government and private entities who may have requirements for international telecommunication service during wartime emergencies.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2001
• House Document 107-120: An Emergency Budget Request: Communication from the President of the United States Transmitting His Budget Request to Designate the Entire Amount Provided in the 2001 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Recovery From and Response to Terrorist Attacks on the United States as an Emergency Requirement, Pursuant to Section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985

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

  This request was sent from President George W. Bush to Speaker of the House of Representatives J. Dennis Hastert on September 18, 2001, to "allow the United States to respond swiftly and surely to the evil and despicable acts of terror that were perpetrated against our fellow citizens." From the document: "This important legislation provides $40 billion to provide assistance to the victims of the September 11th attacks and to deal with the consequences of the attacks. The Act was crafted and enacted with strong bipartisan cooperation, and I intend to continue our work with such a bipartisan spirit in the coming days and months, including consulting with the Congress on the allocation of the funds as required by the Act."

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2001