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).

• Oversight of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Hearing Before the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, One Hundred Fifteenth Congress, First Session, May 3, 2017

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

  This testimony compilation is from the May 3, 2017 hearing "Oversight of the Federal Bureau of Investigation" before the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary. From the opening statement of Chuck Grassley: "Director Comey, welcome and thank you for all the FBI does to keep Americans safe. There has been a lot of controversy surrounding the FBI since the last time you were here in 2015. In March, you publicly acknowledged that the FBI is investigating allegations of coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia's efforts to interfere in the 2016 election. Under President Obama's order, former DNI [Director of National Intelligence] Clapper had been in charge of the Intelligence Community's review of that interference. Mr. Clapper testified that President Obama asked the intelligence community to compile all available information. After he left office, Mr. Clapper said there was no evidence of collusion whatsoever. The New York Times also reported that American officials had found no proof of collusion. So, where is all this speculation about collusion coming from? In January, Buzzfeed published a dossier spinning wild conspiracy theories about the Trump campaign. Buzzfeed acknowledged that the claims were unverified, and some of the details were clearly wrong. It has since been sued for publishing them. Since then, much of the dossier has been proven wrong, and many of its outlandish claims have failed to gain traction. For example, no one's looking for moles or Russian agents embedded in the DNC [Democratic National Committee]. Yet some continue to quote parts of this document as if it were gospel. And according to press reports, the FBI has relied on it to justify its current investigation. There have even been reports that the FBI agreed to pay the author of the dossier--who paid his sources, who also paid their 'sub sources.' Where did the money come from and what motivated the people writing the checks?" Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: James B. Comey.

  United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary

  2017-05-03
• United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security [website]

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

  This is the website for the Senate Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security, the jurisdiction of which includes: "(1) Immigration, citizenship, and refugee laws; (2) Oversight of the immigration functions of the Department of Homeland Security, including U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and Ombudsman Citizenship and Immigration Services; (3) Oversight of the immigration-related functions of the Department of Justice, the Department of State, the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Refugee Resettlement, and the Department of Labor; (4) Oversight of international migration, internally displaced persons, and refugee laws and policy; and (5) Private immigration relief bills." The site includes information about the chairman and ranking member, as well as hearings and news.

  United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary
• S. Rept. 110-442: State Secrets Protection Act, Report together with Minority Views to Accompany s. 2533, August 1 2008

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

  This is a report on the State Secrets Protection Act submitted by the Committee on the Judiciary. "The 'state secrets privilege' is a common law rule of evidence that the Federal Government can invoke to prevent materials from being publicly disclosed in civil court proceedings, if the Government establishes that such disclosure would harm the Nation. In the early 1970s, Congress considered including a state secrets provision in the Federal Rules of Evidence, but it ultimately decided not to include any privileges. Although numerous laws govern the handling of classified documents and other information that may implicate state secrets in specific contexts, the state secrets privilege has never been codified in statute. […] The State Secrets Protection Act allows the United States to preserve its commitment to constitutional rights and the rule of law, without compromising its national defense or foreign policy objectives. Rather than invent new tools or procedures for Federal courts in reviewing claims of the state secrets privilege, the bill draws on existing practices to make judicial review more regular and more rigorous--and to protect all legitimate state secrets."

  United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary

  2008-08-01
• United States Senate: Committee on the Judiciary [website]

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

  One of the Senate's original standing committees, the Committee on the Judiciary was first authorized on December 10, 1816. The Committee has one of the broadest jurisdictions in the Senate, ranging from criminal justice to antitrust and intellectual property law.

  United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary
• Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act: Renewing the Commitment to Victims of Human Trafficking: Hearing Before the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary, One Hundred and Twelfth Congress, September 14, 2011

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

  This testimony compilation is from the September 14, 2011 hearing, "The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act: Renewing the Commitment to Victims of Human Trafficking," before the U.S. Senate on the Judiciary. From the opening statement of Patrick Leahy: "Today, this Committee considers the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2011, and how best to continue and improve our efforts to end once and for all human trafficking at home and abroad. Human trafficking is a modern-day form of slavery in which victims are forced into labor or sexual exploitation. Traffickers prey on the most vulnerable members of society, and no country is immune. It happens even here, in our own backyard. […] Today's hearing aims to highlight the important anti-human trafficking work that the Federal Government is doing as a result of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. We also hope to discover ways we can do this crucial work better and more efficiently in the future. Today we have witnesses from three Federal agencies that play key roles in Federal efforts to end human trafficking. The Departments of Justice, State, and Homeland Security investigate human trafficking crimes, use diplomatic tools to stop human trafficking in other countries, and ensure that trafficking victims receive crucial assistance and resources to assist law enforcement and begin to the long process of recovery." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Patrick Leahy, Mary Lou Leary, Luis CdeBaca, and Kelly Ryan.

  United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary

  2011-09-14
• Radical Islamic Terrorist Attacks and Plots in the United States Since 9/11

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

  This document, compiled by Senator Chuck Grassley for his statement during the "Remaining Vigilant Against Terrorist Attacks" hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, is a list of terrorist attacks and plots in the United States since 9/11. The document is divided into three parts: 1) Successful Attacks; 2) Unsuccessful Attacks and Plots; and 3) Criminal Cases Involving Individuals in the United States Attempting to Join ISIS (the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria). The full text and a video of Senator Grassley's statement is available at the following link: http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-floor-speech-terrorist-attacks-against-united-states.

  United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary

  Grassley, Charles

  2015-11-23
• War on Police: How the Federal Government Undermines State and Local Law Enforcement,

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

  This is a testimony compilation of the November 17, 2015 hearing on "War on Police: How the Federal Government Undermines State and Local Law Enforcement, " held before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Oversight, Agency Action, Federal Rights and Federal Courts. From the opening statement of John P. Walters: "United States law is unitary, but has role differentiation by agency, by jurisdiction, and by authority. Effective integration of programs, capacities, and activities across the various dimensions of federal, state, local, and tribal arenas is a critical responsibility in all circumstances, and can become imperative under certain circumstances, such as when the nation is confronted by threats that themselves contain multiple levels of operation. When properly structured and constrained under Constitutional guidance, the federal role in law enforcement can be a positive and even necessary adjunct for achieving justice and public safety. Below, I will review the challenges which make a federal role essential in coordinating the totality of our efforts, and provide examples where the proper functioning of federal programs has been important." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Vanita Gupta, Ronald L. Davis, Heather Mac Donald, Sherrilyn Ifill, John P. Walters, Cedric L. Alexander, Robert N. Driscoll, and Andrew C. McCarthy.

  United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary

  2015-11-17
• "Balancing Privacy and Security: The Privacy Implications of Government Data Mining Programs," Testimony of Leslie Harris, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, January 10, 2007

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

  This document contains the testimony of Ms. Leslie Harris, Executive Director at the Center for Democracy and Technology, on privacy implications regarding government data mining.

  United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary

  2007-01-10
• Terrorism and the EMP Threat to Homeland Security

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

  This hearing includes testimony on the electromagnetic pulse, which is an effect of the detonation of a nuclear device, and its potential impact as a tool of terrorism.

  United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary

  2005
• Two Years After 9/11: Keeping America Safe

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

  This report addresses a wide range of national security issues. Sections in the report have the following subjects: Wahhabism, Saudi Arabia, Radical Islamist Influence Over U.S. Military and Prison Chaplains, First Responders, Keeping Terrorists Out of the United States, Narco-Terrorism, Database Security, Document Security, Cyber Terrorism, "Lone Wolf" Fix to Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and Pretrial Detention of Terrorists.

  United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary

  2004-03
• Interim Report on FBI Oversight in the 107th Congress by the Senate Judiciary Committee: FISA Implementation Failures, Senator Patrick Leahy, Senator Charles Grassley, and Senator Arlen Specter, February 2003

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

  "Working in a bipartisan manner in the 107th Congress, the Senate Judiciary Committee conducted the first comprehensive oversight of the FBI in nearly two decades. That oversight was aimed not at tearing down the FBI but at identifying any problem areas as a necessary first step to finding constructive solutions and marshaling the attention and resources to implement improvements. The overarching goal of this oversight was to restore confidence in the FBI and make the FBI as strong and as great as it must be to fulfill this agency's multiple and critical missions of protecting the United States against crime, international terrorism, and foreign clandestine intelligence activity, within constitutional and statutory boundaries. Shortly after the Committee initiated oversight hearings and had confirmed the new Director of the FBI, the Nation suffered the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the most serious attacks on these shores since Pearl Harbor. While it is impossible to say what could have been done to stop these attacks from occurring, it is certainly possible in hindsight to say that the FBI, and therefore the Nation, would have benefitted [sic] from earlier close scrutiny by this Committee of the problems the agency faced, particularly as those problems affected the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ('FISA') process. Such oversight might have led to corrective actions, as that is an important purpose of oversight. In the immediate aftermath of the attacks, the Congress and, in particular, the Senate Judiciary Committee responded to demands by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the FBI for greater powers to meet the security challenges posed by international terrorism. We worked together to craft the USA PATRIOT Act to provide such powers. With those enhanced powers comes an increased potential for abuse and the necessity of enhanced congressional oversight. Our oversight has been multi-faceted. We have held public hearings, conducted informal briefings, convened closed hearings on matters of a classified nature, and posed written questions in letters in connection with hearings to the DOJ and FBI. Although our oversight has focused primarily on the FBI, the Attorney General and the DOJ have ultimate responsibility for the performance of the FBI. Without both accountability and support on the part of the Attorney General and senior officials of the DOJ, the FBI cannot make necessary improvements or garner the resources to implement reforms."

  United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary

  2003-02
• Committee on the Judiciary Questionnaire for Non-Judicial Nominees: Questionnaire for James B. Comey, Jr.

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

  This document is the completed questionnaire received by the U.S. Senate, Committee on the Judiciary from James B. Comey, Jr. and includes his personal and professional information as necessary and required by the questionnaire in his pursuit of the position as the director of the FBI.

  United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary

  2013-06-26
• Oversight of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Hearing Before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, One Hundred Thirteenth Congress, Second Session, June 11, 2014

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

  This testimony compilation is from the June 11, 2014 hearing on "Oversight of the Department of Homeland Security" held before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary. From the opening statement of Patrick Leahy: "I welcome Jeh Johnson today to the Judiciary Committee for his first oversight hearing as the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. For the past seven months, he has led an agency that plays a vital role in protecting our national security, providing disaster relief, and ensuring cybersecurity. The Department of Homeland Security also has primary responsibility for implementing and enforcing our Nation's immigration laws -- a system that Secretary Johnson himself acknowledges is broken. One year ago, this Committee came together after weeks of exhaustive deliberations to pass bipartisan legislation to fix that broken immigration system. That bill, which ultimately passed the Senate, will unite families, spur the economy, and help protect our borders. We knew last year that the cost of inaction was too great, and members of this Committee and the full Senate passed historic legislation that would create a system worthy of our American values." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of Jeh Johnson and Eleanor Acer.

  United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary

  2014-06-11
• Reforming the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, Hearing before the United States Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, One Hundred Fourteenth Congress, First Session, September 16, 2015

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

  This testimony compilation is from the September 16, 2015 hearing on "Reforming the Electronic Communications Privacy Act " held before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary. From the opening statement of Patrick Leahy: "Congress passed the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) twenty-nine years ago, when most Americans communicated on landlines, when call waiting was novel, and when few had heard of email. Yet Congress anticipated that the new world of electronic communications would need privacy protections. ECPA provided just that. Since 1986, technology companies have continued to create new ways of communicating. But the privacy rules governing this critical area are simply outdated. As the statute reads today, government agencies can obtain the contents of an email without a warrant if that email is more than 180 days old. But we do not expect our private letters or photos stored at home to lose Fourth Amendment protection simply because they are more than six months old. Neither should our emails, texts, or other documents we store in the cloud. If I send Senator Grassley a birthday note tomorrow, its long-term constitutional protection should not depend on whether I give him a card that he puts in his desk, or send him a text that is stored in the cloud." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Elana Tyrangiel, Andrew Ceresney, Daniel Salsburg, Richard Littlehale, Richard Salgado, Chris Calabrese, and Victoria A. Espinel.

  United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary

  2015-09-16
• Protecting the Constitutional Right to Counsel for Indigents Charged with Misdemeanors, Hearing Before the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, One Hundred Fourteenth Congress, First Session, May 13, 2015

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

  This is a testimony compilation of the May 13, 2015 hearing "Protecting the Constitutional Right to Counsel for Indigents Charged with Misdemeanors" held before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. From the opening statement of Chairman Chuck Grassley: "Today the Senate Judiciary Committee holds a hearing on indigent misdemeanor representation. According to the Sixth Amendment Center, and certainly in my memory, this is the first time the Senate Judiciary Committee has ever held a hearing on this subject. The Sixth Amendment provides criminal defendants with the assistance of counsel. For more than 50 years, following the Gideon decision, it has been clear that it is necessary to give people wi thout financial means accused of crimes the right to a lawyer to help them navigate the system, preserve their rights, and make sure innocent people don't go to jail. Clarence Gideon himself, when retried with a lawyer representing him, was acquitted. And that landmark ruling was extended in 1972 to misdemeanor defendants for good reason. The overwhelming majority of people who face criminal charges are prosecuted for misdemeanors. In Iowa, for example, 80% of all criminal prosecutions are for misdemeanors, among the highest rate in the country. Some states have adhered to the Constitution. In Iowa, t he county courts do an excellent job of providing counsel to misdemeanor defendants. I am pleased that Chief Justice Cady of Iowa is with us today. Last month, his court extended the right to counsel by not permitting uncounseled convictions to be used a s sentencing enhancements in subsequent crimes. Uncounseled convictions must exist in Iowa, however, or the decision wouldn't be necessary. But many states are not providing counsel as the Constitution requires. It is a widespread problem. In reality, the Supreme Court's Sixth Amendment decisions regarding misdemeanor defendants are violated thousands of times every day. No Supreme Court decisions in our history have been violated so widely, so frequently, and for so long." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Mark S. Cady, David A. Singleton, Neil Fulton, Robert C. Boruchowitz, and Erica J. Hashimoto.

  United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary

  2015-05-13
• Hearing on the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013: Hearing Before the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary, One Hundred Thirteenth Congress, First Session, February 27, 2013

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

  This testimony compilation is from the February 27, 2013 hearing, "Hearing on the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013," before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary. From the opening statement of John Walsh: "Senator Feinstein, and Members of the Judiciary Committee, it is a privilege to appear before you today on behalf of the Department of Justice. As the United States Attorney for the District of Colorado, I am pleased to speak with you about the Department of Justice's views on limiting gun violence and protecting the American public by restricting access to dangerous military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. These are common sense, constitutional measures that a majority of Americans have supported for years, and now, more than ever, want to see reinstituted. Although the Department of Justice does not yet have a position on any particular legislative proposal, we are confident that renewed restrictions can be implemented in a manner that enhances public safety without interfering with the constitutional rights of every law-abiding American citizen." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Dianne Feinstein, John Walsh, Edward Flynn, Neil Heslin, William Begg, Nicholas Johnson, David Hardy, Sandy Adams, and Michael Nutter.

  United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary

  2013-02-27
• Oversight of the Administration's Criminal Alien Removal Policies, Hearing Before the United States Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, One Hundred Fourteenth Congress, First Session, December 2, 2015

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

  This testimony is from the December 8, 2015 hearing, "Oversight of the Administration's Criminal Alien Removal Policies," held before the United States Senate, Committee on the Judiciary. From the statement of Chuck Grassley: "When first preparing for this hearing, several administration officials informed this committee that they were unable to testify because the hearing wasn't 'in response to a particular crisis.' Congressional oversight isn't contingent on a crisis. And when you listen to the testimony today, keep in mind that there are 179,027 undocumented criminals with final orders of removal at large in the United States today, thousands of victims, and many of the agency's own officers who are unable to do the job they signed up to do." Statements, letters, and other materials submitted for the record include the following: Chuck Grassley, Sarah Saldana, Jessica Vaughan, Jonathan F. Thompson, Marc R. Rosenblum.

  United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary

  2015-12-02
• Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act, S.744: Hearing Before the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary, One Hundred Thirteenth Congress, First Session, April 22, 2013

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

  This testimony compilation is from the April 22, 2013 hearing, "Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act, S.744," before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary. From the opening statement of Patrick Leahy: "Today's hearing is our fifth immigration hearing this year. It will add to the more than 40 hearings Senator Schumer, Senator Durbin, Senator Coons, Senator Hirono and I have chaired during the last few Congresses on these matters. On Friday, we received testimony about the economic impact of the bill. Today we will hear about how the bill will impact our farming, construction, service, and technology industries. We will hear the views of those who have long fought for immigration reform and those who oppose the proposal. We will hear from the religious community and the business community. We will hear from scholars, law enforcement, and advocates. We will also hear from witnesses who believe that equality for all under our immigration system is not only right, but in our Nation's interest." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Patrick Leahy, Arturo Rodriguez, Charles Conner, Alyson Eastman, Megan Smith, Jim Kolbe, Tamar Jacoby, Rick Judson, Brad Smith, Ron Hira, Neeraj Gupta, Fred Benjamin, Gaby Pacheco, Janet Murguia, David Fleming, Mark Krikorian, Laura L. Lichter, Kris Kobach, Mark Shurtleff, Bill Vidal, Janice L. Kephart, Chris Crane, Steven Camarota, and Grover Norquist.

  United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary

  2013-04-22
• How Comprehensive Immigration Reform Should Address the Needs of Women and Families: Hearing Before the United States Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, One Hundred Thirteenth Congress, First Session, March 18, 2013

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

  This testimony compilation is from the March 18, 2013 hearing, "How Comprehensive Immigration Reform Should Address the Needs of Women and Families," before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary. From the opening statement of Patrick Leahy: "Today the Committee will examine ways comprehensive immigration reform can address the needs of women and families. For years, long visa backlogs in our immigration system have prevented families from being together. An estimated 4 million close family members of U.S. citizens and green card holders are waiting to join their relatives in America. Some of these families, predominantly from Mexico and the Philippines, have waited more than 20 years to be reunited. This is simply unacceptable. While preserving family unity is a core tenet of our immigration policy, our broken immigration system is instead hurting families. This has devastating consequences, especially for the women and children who bear the brunt of the unsettled environment our immigration system causes. New immigrants often face the reality of spending prolonged periods of time without their loved ones because the broken immigration system has little to no flexibility. Beyond that, it is punitive to families seeking to lawfully enter the United States because lawful permanent residents must wait over two years to be reunited with their spouse or children. Newly naturalized citizens must wait over seven years to be reunited with their adult children and over ten years for their siblings. I believe that families should be protected. Our immigration system must honor the love that binds spouses and children. It should come as no surprise when spouses, desperate to reunite with their loved ones, overstay a tourist visa or cross the border without authorization." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Mazie Hirono, Patrick Leahy, Ai-jen Poo, Karen Panetta, Mee Moua, Susan Martin, and Jennifer Ng'andu.

  United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary

  2013-03-18
• Oversight of the Administration's Misdirected Immigration Enforcement Policies: Examining the Impact on Public Safety and Honoring the Victims, Hearing before the United States Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, One Hundred Fourteenth Congress, First Session, July 21, 2015

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

  This testimony compilation is from the July 21, 2015 hearing on "Oversight of the Administration's Misdirected Immigration Enforcement Policies: Examining the Impact on Public Safety and Honoring the Victims" held before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary. From the opening statement of Chuck Grassley: "This committee continues to honor its pledge to conduct oversight over the implementation of the laws Congress has passed as well as the policies and practices of the Executive Branch. Today, we will focus on how this administration's immigration policies and practices are hurting American families. The Committee will hear powerful testimony from a number of relatives who have lost loved ones as a direct result of the administration's failure to deport criminals or its tolerance of sanctuary policies. Let me begin by extending a special welcome to our witnesses, especially family members of victims. I hope you will accept our deepest sympathies for the losses you have each suffered. Thank you very much for your willingness to share your stories, and for paying tribute to those who, though no longer with us in body, are surely with us in spirit in this room." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Susan Oliver, Grace Huang, Michael Ronnebeck, Gabriel Salguero, Jim Steinle, J. Thomas Manger, Brian McCann, Laura Wilkerson, Rodriguez, and Sarah Saldaña.

  United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary

  2015-07-21
• Economic Espionage and Trade Secret Theft: Are Our Laws Adequate for Today's Threats? Hearing Before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism, One Hundred Thirteenth Congress, Second Session, May 13, 2014

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

  This testimony compilation is from the May 13, 2014 hearing, "Economic Espionage and Trade Secret Theft: Are Our Laws Adequate for Today's Threats?" before the Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. From the opening statement of Patrick Leahy: "Today, American businesses face increasing threats both domestically and abroad from competitors that seek an advantage not through hard work, but through theft and deception. The theft of trade secrets has also been linked to foreign governments in recent years, with countries seeking to undermine our national security and economy through theft of critical commercial information. While on a recent trip to China, I met with government officials to emphasize the need for strong global protection of trade secrets. I also met with Americans doing business in China and they stressed that theft of their trade secrets was a real threat to their livelihoods. As we continue to explore opportunities to work with other nations, we must emphasize this issue as a priority for American businesses and an area of ongoing focus for the United States." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Patrick Leahy, Sheldon Whitehouse, Randall C. Coleman, Peter L. Hoffman, Pamela Passman, Drew Greenblatt, and Douglas K. Norman.

  United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary

  2014-05-13
• Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program: Supporting Law Enforcement Officers When it Matters Most, Hearing Before the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, One Hundred Thirteenth Congress, Second Session, May 14, 2014

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

  This testimony is from the May 14, 2014 hearing, "The Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program: Supporting Law Enforcement Officers When it Matters Most" before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. From the opening statement of Patrick Leahy: "For over 15 years, the Bulletproof Vest Partnership program has been saving lives by helping to provide over one million vests to over 13,000 local law enforcement agencies. It is a critical program that I know every single law enforcement officer in the room today supports, and I greatly appreciate their presence for this important hearing. [...] The law enforcement community has spoken with a single voice on this issue. [...] However, we have learned that a few Republican Senators believe that the Federal government has no role to play in assisting local law enforcement; that somehow it is a mere luxury. I could not disagree more. We in Congress have long supported local law enforcement because we have a duty to keep our communities safe." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Patrick Leahy, Ann M. Carrizales and Yousry A. Zakhary,

  United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary

  2014-05-14
• Building America's Trust Through Border Security: Progress on the Southern Border, Hearing Before the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, One Hundred Fifteenth Congress, First Session, May 23, 2017

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

  This is the May 23, 2017 hearing on "Building America's Trust Through Border Security: Progress on the Southern Border," held before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary. From the opening statement of Chuck Grassley: "Effectively securing our Southern Border has been a concern for years, and it is one of the most persistent challenges facing the federal government. Amid transnational drug trafficking, unauthorized immigration, and international terror threats, securing our border remains a major security challenge."

  United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary

  2017-05-23
• Eroding the Law and Diverting Taxpayer Resources: An Examination of the Administration's Central American Minors Refugee/Parole Program, Hearing before the United States Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, One Hundred Fourteenth Congress, First Session, April 23, 2015

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

  This testimony compilation is from the April 23, 2015 hearing on "Eroding the Law and Diverting Taxpayer Resources: An Examination of the Administration's Central American Minors Refugee/Parole Program" held before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary. From the opening statement of Chuck Grassley: "The CAM [Central American Minors] Program is a new in-country refugee and parole processing program in El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala that provides certain minors from those countries a safe, legal, and orderly alternative to the dangerous journey across the Southwest border to reach the United States. Before turning to the CAM Program, however, I would like to provide an overview of USCIS's [U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services] role in refugee resettlement. USCIS works in close partnership with other components within DHS and with colleagues at the Department of State's Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM) and at the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) to meet the USRAP's [U.S. Refugee Admissions Program] mission of offering resettlement opportunities to eligible refugees while safeguarding the integrity of the program and our national security. As you know, the United States has a proud, long-standing tradition of offering protection, freedom, and opportunity to refugees from around the world who live in fear of persecution and are often left to languish in refugee camps and other difficult situations overseas. USCIS remains dedicated to fulfilling this mission, in partnership with PRM and ORR, and continuing the United States' leadership role in humanitarian protection. An integral part of this mission is to ensure that refugee resettlement opportunities are provided to those who are eligible for such protection and do not present a risk to the safety and security of our country. We are committed to deterring and detecting fraud among those seeking to resettle in the United States, and we continue to employ the highest security measures to protect our national security." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Joseph E. Langlois, Simon Henshaw, Jan C. Ting, Doris Meissner, Igor Timofeyev, Anastasia Brown, and Jessica Vaughan.

  United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary

  2015-04-23
• Oversight of the Administration's FY 2016 Refugee Resettlement Program: Fiscal and Security Implications, Hearing Before the United States Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest, One Hundred Fourteenth Congress, First Session, October 1, 2015

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

  This testimony compilation is from the October 1, 2015 hearing on "Oversight of the Administration's FY 2016 Refugee Resettlement Program: Fiscal and Security Implications" held before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest. From the opening statement of Chuck Grassley: "I appreciate the Chairman of this subcommittee for holding a hearing on this very important topic. The Immigration and Nationality Act requires that the President report to Congress regarding the 'foreseeable number of refugees who will be in need of resettlement during the fiscal year.' Secretary Kerry consulted with members of this committee and provided some background on the President's request. This hearing helps fulfill our statutory responsibility to review the President's proposal. The United States welcomes more refugees than the rest of the world's countries combined . There's no question that we will continue to play a critical role in helping those around the world who are suffering or are persecuted. Nevertheless, the American people are very concerned about the role this country will play in solving the problems in the Middle East. The President's refugee proposal includes a plan to accept more than 10,000 refugees who are fleeing from Syria." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Larry Bartlett, Barbara Strack, Matthew Emrich, and Robert Carey.

  United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary

  2015-10-01
• Continued Oversight of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, Hearing Before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, One Hundred Thirteenth Congress, First Session, October 2, 2013

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

  This testimony compilation is from the October 2, 2013 hearing on "Continuing Oversight of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act" before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary. From the opening statement of Patrick Leahy: "Today, the Judiciary Committee meets to conduct further oversight of the intelligence community's use of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA. […] This summer, many Americans learned for the first time that Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act has for years been secretly interpreted to authorize the collection of Americans' phone records on an unprecedented scale. The American public also learned more about the government's collection of internet content data through the use of Section 702 of FISA. […] They have learned that the NSA [National Security Advisory] has engaged in repeated, substantial legal violations in its implementation of both Section 215 and Section 702 of FISA. […] Our bipartisan, bicameral legislation will address Section 215 and Section 702, and a range of surveillance authorities that raise similar concerns. Our legislation would end Section 215 bulk collection. It also would ensure that the FISA pen register statute and National Security Letters (NSLs) could not be used to authorize bulk collection." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Patrick Leahy, James R. Clapper, Keith B. Alexander, Laura K. Donahue, Edward W. Felten, and Carrie F. Cordero.

  United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary

  2013-10-02
• Why Is the Biometric Exit Tracking System Still Not in Place? Hearing before the United States Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest, One Hundred Fourteenth Congress, First Session, January 20, 2016

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

  "This testimony compilation is from the January 20, 2016 hearing on 'Biometric Exit Tracking System' held before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest. From the opening statement of Chuck Grassley: 'Congress has been abundantly clear. Yet, the most we have received from the Executive Branch is an insufficient report on overstays for certain travelers who enter the U.S. for business or tourism using biographical data. Late last night, the Department of Homeland Security provided a report to Congress on overstay rates for B visa holders [...] The report issued by the Department of Homeland Security is completely unsatisfactory. It fails to provide data to Congress on all visa classifications, including foreign students, those on employment based visas, fiancé visas, or those who participate in cultural exchange programs. While I appreciate the information the department provided, it only tells part of the story.' Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: John Wagner, Anh Duong, Craig C. Healy, and Rebecca Gambler."

  United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary

  2016-01-20
• Why is the Biometric Exit Tracking System Still Not in Place, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Immigration and National Interest of the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, One Hundred Fourteenth Congress, Second Session, January 20, 2016

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

  This testimony compilation is from the January 20, 2016 hearing "Why is the Biometric Exit Tracking System Still Not in Place?" before the Subcommittee on Immigration and National Interest. From the statement of Subcommittee Chairman Chuck Grassley: "Twenty years ago, Congress passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. A vital part of this law was the establishment of a comprehensive entry and exit control system that would collect a record of departure for every person departing the United States. Today, there is still no comprehensive exit system at our land, air, or sea ports of entry. [...] An exit program that uses biometrics rather than just biographics is a vital component of national security, ensuring that persons of interest have not falsified their exit record or stolen a person's identity to enter the country. Congress understands that developing a biometric exit program is a daunting and expensive task. Congress has already appropriated millions of dollars for the cause. [...] It is my hope that this administration will have a plan in place for implementing a biometric exit system. It's time to build on pilot programs, and it's time for airlines to work hand in hand with the government to make the system a reality." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: John Wagner, Anh Duong, Craig C. Healy, and Rebecca Gambler.

  United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary

  2016-01-20
• Oversight of the Federal Bureau of Investigation: Hearing Before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, One Hundred Fourteenth Congress, First Session, December 9, 2015

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

  This testimony compilation is from the December 9, 2015 hearing, "Oversight of the Federal Bureau of Investigation," before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary. From the opening statement of Chuck Grassley: "The FBI's mission is to protect us from the most dangerous threats facing our nation. The deadly attacks in Paris last month, and in California last week, confirmed that radical Islamic terrorism continues to be such a threat, regardless of whether that's politically correct or convenient for President Obama. ISIS [Islamic State of Iraq and Syria] is a determined enemy executing a plan to gain and hold territory, enrich itself, inspire followers worldwide, and launch deadly attacks against the West. And the American people are worried. Not just about terrorism. But about the President's inability or unwillingness to rally the country, lead our international partners, develop a credible strategy to destroy ISIS, and execute it. We are now paying the price for that weakness. At almost every turn, events have proven the President wrong about ISIS. In August 2012, he drew a 'red line,' warning the Assad's regime not to use chemical weapons in Syria. But the President backed down after Assad gassed his own people, and ISIS blossomed in the chaos that followed. In January 2014, the President referred to ISIS as the 'j.v.,' or junior varsity. It promptly spent the next six months conquering territory across Syria and Iraq. In August of that same year, the President conceded that he didn't have a strategy to defeat ISIS. A year and a half later, he remains without a coherent one. Even former Secretary Clinton admitted the other day that we're not winning this fight." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: James B. Comey, Jr..

  United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary

  2015-12-09
• Oversight of the U.S. Department of Justice, Hearing Before the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, One Hundred Eleventh Congress, First Session, November 18, 2009

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

  From the opening statement of Patrick J. Leahy: "Attorney General Holder, welcome. Glad to have you here. I commend the Attorney General for moving forward last week with plans to proceed on several cases against those who seek to terrorize the United States. He is using the full range of authorities and capabilities available to us. Just as President Obama is using our military, diplomatic, legal, law enforcement, and moral force to make America safer and more secure, the Attorney General is exercising his responsibilities in consultation with the Secretary of Defense to determine where and how best to seek justice against those who have attacked Americans here at home and around the world. And after nearly 8 years of delay, we may finally be moving forward to bring to justice the perpetrators and murderers from the September 11 attacks. I have great confidence in our Attorney General, the capability of our prosecutors, our judges, our juries, and in the American people in this regard. I support the Attorney General's decision to pursue justice against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four others accused of plotting the September 11 attacks and to go after them in our Federal criminal court in New York. They committed murder here in the United States, and we will seek justice here in the United States. They committed crimes of murder in our country, and we will prosecute them in our country." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Patrick J. Leahy, Jeff Sessions, Eric H. Holder, Tim Sumner, Joseph G. Leavey, Debra Burlingame, Russell D. Feingold, Al Franken, John F. Kerry, Benjamin L. Cardin, John B. Bellinger II, Ron Wyden, and Richard Durbin.

  United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary

  2011