Advanced search Help
Searching for terms: EXACT: "United States. Government Publishing Office" in: publisher
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).
-
National Security and Law Enforcement: Breaking the New Visa Waiver Law to Appease Iran, Hearing Before the Committee on Homeland Security, U.S. House of Representatives, One Hundred Fourteenth Congress, Second Session, February 10, 2016
This is the February 10, 2016 hearing on "National Security and Law Enforcement: Breaking the New Visa Waiver Law to Appease Iran," held before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Homeland Security. From the opening statement of Michael T. McCaul: "We are holding this hearing today because Congress is confronted with a dilemma, which has grave implications for our National security and for our democratic process. In December, the President signed important measures into law to improve counter-terrorism screening of foreign travelers coming into the United States. These enhancements were urgently needed in the wake of the Paris attacks and in light of the high terror threat environment. But now the President has decided that he is going to break this law. He plans to do so, in part, to accommodate the world's leading state sponsor of terror, Iran. I believe this decision could have serious consequences for our security and, perhaps, more importantly, far-reaching consequences for our democracy. This legislation at issue is H.R. 158, the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015. It was authorized by this committee's Vice Chair, Mrs. Miller, and it implements several major recommendations from the committee's bipartisan Task Force on Combating Terrorist and Foreign Fighter Travel. [...] Accordingly, the new law sends a clear message to Visa Waiver Program citizens. If you have recently visited Syria, Iraq, Iran, or Sudan, you must go through additional screening before coming to the United States. The President's moving forward with an illegal implementation of the law that he signed only weeks ago, breaching the trust between our 2 branches of Government and potentially putting our Nation's security at risk." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: R. Gil Kerlikowske and Hillary Batjer Johnson.
United States. Government Publishing Office
2016
-
International Antitrust Enforcement: China and Beyond, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law of the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives, One Hundred Fourteenth Congress, Second Session, June 7, 2016
This is the June 7, 2016 hearing on "International Antitrust Enforcement: China and Beyond," held before the House of Representatives Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial, and Antitrust Law of the Committee on the Judiciary. From the opening statement of Darrell E. Issa: "We convene today's hearing to examine the enforcement of competition laws across the globe but with a focus on how China is enforcing its laws. This focus is a result of troubling reports that China may be using its competition laws or, if you will, its anti-trust laws, to advance industrial policy at the expense of America and other foreign companies. We will also examine how the executive branch has responded to China's administration and its competitive laws. [...] As China's economy developed, so did its laws and regulations designed to foster future growth. In 2007, China enacted its competition laws called the 'Anti-Monopoly Law,' or 'AML.' Since the AML's enactment, there have been troubling reports of China deploying the law in a manner that violates international norms of due process with the result of prioritizing the advancement of China's industry policies over promoting competition. [...] We should ensure that U.S. companies are treated fairly, consistently, and objectively by international jurisdiction. Today's hearing will help inform the Committee regarding international competition law enforcement, particularly China, and whether other countries are influenced by China's use of the AML." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Maureen Ohlhausen, Mark A. Cohen, Sean Heather, and Thomas J. Horton.
United States. Government Publishing Office
2016
-
Examining the Community Development Block Grant-Disaster Recovery Program, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on Financial Services, U.S. House of Representatives, One Hundred Fifteenth Congress, First Session, November 1, 2017
This is the November 1, 2017 hearing on "Examining the Community Development Block Grant-Disaster Recovery Program," held before the U.S. House of Representatives on the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on Financial Services. From the opening statement of Ann Wager: "Today's hearing will focus on whether the Department of Housing and Urban Development's administration of the CDBG-DR [Community Development Block Grant-Disaster Recovery Program] program lives up to the ideals I mentioned a moment ago. It will also, I hope initiate a constructive dialog between Congress, HUD [Housing and Urban Development], and the HUD Office of Inspector General about how this CDBG-DR program can be reformed to increase oversight, to increase accountability, and ensure disaster relief dollars go directly and expeditiously to those who need them the most. As we will hear today from our witness, the Acting HUD Inspector General, Helen Albert, the HUD OIG [Office of Inspector General] has routinely identified serious systemic problems with the CDBG-Disaster Recovery Program. Money appropriated to this program often failed to reach those who need it most and instead was diverted to wasteful or inefficient uses." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Helen Albert.
United States. Government Publishing Office
2018
-
Department of Homeland Security Appropriations for 2018, Part 2: Hearings Before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Homeland Security, One Hundred Fifteenth Congress, First Session, May 18, May 24, June 13, 2017
This document details three hearings on 2018 appropriations before the Subcommittee on Homeland security of the Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, for the Coast Guard Requirements, Priorities, and Future Acquisition Plans; United States Department of Homeland Security; and, Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Protection. Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: John R. Carter, Paul F. Zukunft, John F. Kelly, Carla L. Provost, John P. Wagner, and Thomas D. Homan.
United States. Government Publishing Office
2017
-
State of Emergency: The Disaster of Cutting Preparedness Grants, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Communications of the Committee on Homeland Security, House of Representatives, One Hundred Fourteenth Congress, Second Session, March 15, 2016
This is the March 15, 2016 hearing on "State of Emergency: The Disaster of Cutting Preparedness Grants" held before the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Communications of the Committee on Homeland Security. The purpose of this hearing is to provide a counter argument against cutting preparedness grants for emergency situations. Emergency responders must be prepared, trained, and equipped for any scenario which cannot be done without the necessary grand funding. Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Bill De Blasio.
United States. Government Publishing Office
2016
-
Innovation at TSA: Examining Threat Mitigation Through Technology Acquisitions Reform, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Transportation and Protective Security of the Committee on Homeland Security, House of Representatives, One Hundred Fifteenth Congress, Second Session, January 18, 2018
This is the Janurary 18, 2018 hearing on Innovation at TSA: Examining Threat Mitigation Through Technology Acquisitions Reform, held before Subcommittee on Transportation and Protective Security of the Committee on Homeland Security of the United States House of Representatives. From the opening statement of Representative John Katko: "The subcommittee is meeting today to discuss how TSA [Transportation Security Administration] is working to mitigate threats to transportation security through reforming the agency's broken acquisitions system. In particular, the subcommittee will examine TSA's statutorily required 5-year investment plan that was recently submitted to Congress, as well as the agency's Innovation Task Force and overall procurement practices. [...] Unfortunately, TSA continues to be plagued by a reactive rather than proactive posture when it comes to technology development and deployment. While terrorists continue to develop better ways to try and defeat our security screening, TSA struggles to quickly and effectively deploy cutting-edge technology to the front lines." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: David P. Pekoske.
United States. Government Publishing Office
2018
-
Review of the President's Executive Actions on Immigration, Joint Hearing Before the Subcommittee on National Security and the Subcommittee on Health Care, Benefits and Administrative Rules of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, House of Representatives, One Hundred Fourteenth Congress, First Session, June 17, 2015
This is the June 17, 2015 hearing entitled "A Review of the President's Executive Actions on Immigration," held before the Subcommittee on National Security and the Subcommittee on Health Care, Benefits and Administrative Rules of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. From the opening statement of subcommittee chairman Ron DeSantis: "On November 20, 2014, just 2 weeks after the 2014 midterm elections, President Obama made far-reaching unilateral changes to our Nation's immigration policy, despite saying on over 22 different occasions that he did not have the authority to do so. In his address on that day, the President said that: We're a Nation of laws. Those who broke our immigration laws must be held accountable, especially those who are dangerous. That's why over the past 6 years, deportations of criminals are up 80 percent. And that's why we're going to keep focusing enforcement resources on actual threats to our security. We will prioritize, just like law enforcement does every day. The administration's actions, however, have not matched the President's rhetoric. According to documents provided to the House Judiciary Committee by DHS in April of this year, ICE arrests of criminal illegal aliens has declined 32 percent from the same period a year before, with 51,337 administrative arrests of criminal aliens in fiscal year 2015 compared to 75,171 arrests in the same period in fiscal year 2014. Those declines occurred across the board of criminal offenses. [...] Plainly, the President's assertion his administration will keep focusing enforcement resources on actual threats to our security is not--is contradicted by those facts. Simply put, the President's policy changes are not doing a good job of protecting the safety of the American people." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Sarah R. Saldana, Leon Rodriguez, and John Roth.
United States. Government Publishing Office
2015
-
Mass Migration in Europe: Assimilation, Integration, and Security, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives, One Hundred Fifteenth Congress, Second Session, April 26, 2018
This is the April 26, 2018 hearing on Mass Migration in Europe: Assimilation, Integration, and Security, held before the Before the Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, of the United States House of Representatives. From the opening statement of the Hon. Dana Rohrabacher: "The subcommittee's topic for this afternoon is mass migration in Europe, its history, the current reality, the consequences of migration and what those consequences mean to the transatlantic relationship. Let me say that from the start what this hearing is not and it is not and cannot simply be a discussion of recent Syrian refugees going, pouring into Europe. Yes, that is part of the discussion, but it is only one part of the discussion. This is a big topic, one with a history which stretches back decades and in terms of migration perhaps even centuries. We cannot do justice to the issue or the lives of all the people affected without being respectful of the history of what we are talking about today. [...] However, this hearing will shed some light on constructive ways that we can approach the challenges that we are talking about." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Robin Simcox, Marta Vrbetic, Victor Davis Hanson, and Wa'el Alzayat.
United States. Government Publishing Office
2018
-
Challenge to Europe: The Growing Refugee Crisis, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives, One Hundred Fourteenth Congress, First Session, November 4, 2015
This is the November 4, 2015 hearing on "Challenge to Europe: The Growing Refugee Crisis," held before the Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia and Emerging Threats of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives. From the opening statement of Dana Rohrabacher: "The topic of this afternoon's hearing is a massive and increasing tide of asylum seekers, economic vibrance, stateless persons, and displaced people who have been and continue to enter Europe as we have seen, all seen, in the videos and news reports. Migrants fleeing to Europe, they have been an issue of humanitarian concern for several years, but a wave of immigration erupted into a tsunami this summer, when the German Government announced it would ignore the Dublin rules and accept all Syrian refugees that made it to the German border. That announcement opened the gates for a flow of people to move from North Africa, the Middle East, and even Asia to transit through Greece, Turkey, the Balkans, and northward into Europe. With some notable exceptions, countries have simply facilitated the movement of migrants through their territory as quickly as possible, sometimes working to register the asylum seekers and sometimes not." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Gary Shiffman and V. Bradley Lewis.
United States. Government Publishing Office
2015
-
Hearing on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs, Before the Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, One Hundred Fifteenth Congress, Second Session, Subcommittee on Readiness Hearing on Marine Corps Readiness Posture, March 6, 2018
This is the March 6, 2018 hearing on "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs," held before the U.S. House Committee on Armed Services. From the opening statement of Joe Wilson: "Today, the subcommittee will hear from Marine Corps senior leaders regarding the Marine Corps fiscal year 2019 budget request and current state of Marine Corps readiness. Specifically, we want to explore the shortfalls, gaps, and critical challenges facing the Marine Corps readiness recovery plan and recognize the progress achieved thus far, and we want to gain a keen understanding of how the fiscal year 2019 budget request enables critical warfighting capabilities and life-cycle sustainment." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Brian D. Beaudreault, Michael G. Dana, and Rex C. McMillian.
United States. Government Publishing Office
2018
-
Shining Light on the Federal Regulatory Process, Hearing Before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, House of Representatives, One Hundred Fifteenth Congress, Second Session, March 14, 2018
This is the March 14, 2018 hearing on "Shining Light on the Federal Regulatory Process," held before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. From the opening statement of Mark Meadows: "The rulemaking process has changed over time and can get very technical, but what has not changed is only Congress can legislate and agencies cannot issue regulations unilaterally. Rules are supposed to be issued in accordance with several statutes and executive orders, but, as is the case with this hearing today, and it will show today, that this doesn't always happen. In fact, in 2016 alone, 18 regulations were issued for each law passed by Congress, not to mention the hundreds of pages of guidance that came along with those regulations." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Kris Nguyen, Paul Noe, Karen Harned, Nicholas Parrillo, and Amit Narang.
United States. Government Publishing Office
2018
-
Fiscal Year 2018 National Defense Authorization Budget Request from the Department of Defense, Hearing on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs Before the Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, One Hundred Fifteenth Congress, June 12, 2017
This is the June 12, 2017 hearing on "The Fiscal Year 2018 National Defense Authorization Budget Request from the Department of Defense," held before the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives. From the opening statement of William M. "Mac" Thornberry: "The question today, as it is each year for this hearing, is how well the administration's proposal meets the security needs of the Nation, factoring in both the external threats and the current state of our military. [...] But, of course, the issue is not about numbers. The issue is about what those numbers provide for the men and women who serve and what security the budget provides to the Nation. It is about whether we can defend the United States and our allies against North Korean missiles, for example." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Joseph F. Dunford, Jr., and James N. Mattis.
United States. Government Publishing Office
2018
-
Need for the Balanced Budget Amendment, Hearing Before the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, One Hundred Fifteenth Congress, First Session, July 27, 2017
This is the July 27, 2017 hearing on "The Need for the Balanced Budget Amendment," held before the U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary. From the opening statement of Jack Bergman:"On March 2, 1995, a pivotal day in the history of our country, the United States Senate failed by one vote to send a balanced budget constitutional amendment to the States for ratification. The amendment had passed the House by the required two-thirds majority, and the Senate vote was the last legislative hurdle before ratification by the States. If Congress had listened to the American people and sent that amendment to the States for ratification, we would not be facing the fiscal crisis we are today. Rather, balancing the Federal budget would have been the norm instead of the exception over the past 20 years, and we would have nothing like the annual deficits and skyrocketing debt we currently face." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: John Ratcliffe, Bobby Scott, Vern Buchanan, Steve Stivers, Justin Amash, Barry Loudermilk, Stephanie Murphy, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Alan S. Blinder, David M. Primo, and Nick Dranias.
United States. Government Publishing Office
2018
-
Sovereign Immunity and the Intellectual Property System, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, One Hundred Fifteenth Congress, First Session, November 7, 2017
This is the November 7, 2017 hearing titled "Sovereign Immunity and the Intellectual Property System," held before the House Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet of the Committee on the Judiciary. From the opening statement of Darrel Issa: "The IP [Intellectual Property] system only works if it strikes the right balance. We know that we want to, and this Committee is committed to, reward true innovators for their creative works. But the IP system must be protected from several types of wrongful behavior, and I want to make sure that today, because the subject will come up over and above sovereign immunity, that we understand those who have tried to use the PTAB [Patent Trial and Appeal Board] program and try to use it to short funds or essentially, as trolls to coerce money in lieu of a filing have, in fact, been gaming the system every bit as much as we may find today from others. It is important to understand that under the AIA [Leahy-Smith America Invents Act], the review of patents was intended to end, and in a small way has succeeded, in finding patents which claim claims that belong to someone else. The invalidity of claims overwhelmingly comes from a finding of prior art in which someone else has already owned that invention." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Karl Manheim, William Jay, Philip Johnson, and Christopher Mohr.
United States. Government Publishing Office
2018
-
Evaluating the Effectiveness of U.S. Sanctions Programs, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Monetary Policy and Trade of the Committee on Financial Services, U.S. House of Representatives, One Hundred Fifteenth Congress, First Session, November 30, 2017
This is the November 30, 2017 hearing titled "Evaluating the Effectiveness of U.S. Sanctions Programs" held before the House Subcommittee on Monetary Policy and Trade. From the opening statement of Andy Barr: "This hearing will examine major sanctions programs as we seek to evaluate their effectiveness. Let me highlight three points that may provide context for this discussion. First, sanctions are key to bringing about behavioral change abroad, and this committee has stressed that they should be designed accordingly. That means calibrating sanctions, and sanctions relief, based on specific and achievable actions we wish to see from a foreign actor. Tailoring sanctions in this way is especially important for secondary sanctions, given how banking restrictions tend to have broader and less predictable effects than primary measures. [...] The second point to underscore is the need for continuous engagement with Congress, when the Executive chooses to wield its sanctions' powers." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Marshall Billingslea and John E. Smith.
United States. Government Publishing Office
2018
-
Improving the Quality and Timeliness of GI Bill Processing for Student Veterans, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives, One Hundred Fifteenth Congress, First Session, June 8, 2017
This is the June 8, 2017 hearing titled "Improving the Quality and Timeliness of GI [Government Issue] Bill Processing for Student Veterans" before the House Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. From the opening statement of Jodey Arrington: "I want to welcome you all to the Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity's hearing today entitled, ''Improving the Quality and Timeliness of GI Bill Processing for Student Veterans.'' I know we can all agree that the Post-9/11 GI Bill is an extremely generous benefit, and for decades VA's [Department of Veterans Affairs] education and training programs have been credited with the successful transition and reacclimation of our returning servicemembers. [...] Recently there was an internal audit done by VA where it found that thousands of already processed claims needed to be reviewed again and needed additional information from DoD to verify that the veterans' Active Duty service time, which was used to process the claim, was accurate and their benefit level was correct. Unfortunately, this did result in some delays in individuals receiving their benefits, which causes a negative impact on the veteran, obviously, or their dependent who is waiting for these earned benefits." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Robert M. Worley II, Lloyd Thrower, Roberta ″Robbie″ Lowe, Lernes J. Hebert, and Mark Breckenridge.
United States. Government Publishing Office
2018
-
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Budget Request for Fiscal Year 2018, Hearing Before the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives, One Hundred Fifteenth Congress, First Session, May 24, 2017
This is the May 24, 2017 hearing on "Fiscal Year 2018 Department of Veterans Affairs Budget Request for the Veterans Health Administration," held before the U.S. House Committee on Veterans' Affairs. From the opening statement of Phil Roe: "The budget is not about numbers, it is about priorities. Yesterday afternoon the President proposed a $6.4 billion increase in the VA's [Veteran's Affairs] budget, which is reflective of the high priority that this administration places on serving our veterans. [...] In the coming weeks our Subcommittees will hold hearings to discuss different aspects of the budget in depth. However, during this morning's hearing I want to discuss several overarching issues that I believe are key to transforming the Department of Veterans Affairs into a nimble 21st century organization that our veterans can count on when they need it most." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: David J. Shulkin.
United States. Government Publishing Office
2018
-
Markup: H.R. 920, Venezuela Arms Restriction Act; H.R. 854, Humanitarian Assistance to the Venezuelan People Act of 2019; H.R. 1477, Russian-Venezuelan Threat Mitigation Act, H.R. 1616, European Energy Security and Diversification Act of 2019, Hearing Before the Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives, One Hundred Sixteenth Congress, First Session, March 14, 2019
This is the March 14, 2019 markup of H.R. 920, Venezuela Arms Restriction Act; H.R. 854, Humanitarian Assistance to the Venezuelan People Act of 2019; H.R. 1477, Russian-Venezuelan Threat Mitigation Act, H.R. 1616, European Energy Security and Diversification Act of 2019, held before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. From the opening statement of Eliot Engel: "[W]e intend to consider today's measures en bloc. The measures are H.R. 920, the Venezuela Arms Restriction Act, with the Engel Amendment in the nature of a substitute; H.R. 854, the Humanitarian Assistance to the Venezuelan People Act of 2019 with the Engel Amendment in the nature of a substitute and with the Levin Amendment; H.R. 1477, the Russian-Venezuelan Threat Mitigation Act with the Engel Amendment in the nature of a substitute; and H.R. 1616, the European Energy Security and Diversification Act of 2019 with the Keating Amendment in the nature of a substitute." This document does not contain statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record.
United States. Government Publishing Office
2019
-
Hong Kong: A Broken Promise? Hearing Before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, One Hundred Thirteenth Congress, Second Session, December 2, 2014
This is the December 2, 2014 hearing entitled, "Hong Kong: A Broken Promise?" before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific. From the opening statement of subcommittee chairman Steve Chabot: "For 2 months, the people of Hong Kong have come together to protest Beijing's decision to deny the city's 7.2 million people the right to directly elect their Chief Executive, putting the future of democracy in Hong Kong at great risk. The demise of the ''One Country, Two System'' framework of governance is a stark reminder that Beijing's promises can be revoked at the drop of a hat. What we see in Hong Kong today, however, is not an isolated event. It is the latest chapter in the story of an increasingly aggressive China that began 2 years ago when President Xi Jinping assumed power. Under Xi's leadership, a new brand of Chinese nationalism has emerged, and it is one where China takes the center stage in international affairs by asserting its hegemony in the region and directly challenging the United States. Domestically, the stifling of dissent has risen." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Dean Cheng, Sophie Richardson, and Kelley Currie.
United States. Government Publishing Office
2015
-
Disinformation in the Gray Zone: Opportunities, Limitations, and Challenges, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Intelligence and Special Operations of the Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, One Hundred Seventeenth Congress, First Session, March 16, 2021
This is the March 16, 2021 hearing on "Disinformation in the Gray Zone: Opportunities, Limitations, and Challenges," held before the U.S. House Subcommittee on Intelligence and Special Operations of the Committee on Armed Services. From the opening statement of Ruben Gallego: "We are seeing unprecedented threats to our democracy and a disturbing rise of authoritarian actors. Anti-democratic forces have capitalized on the rapidly evolving information environment to spread disinformation and misinformation, and exploit fissures in our society. The only way to reverse these trends is through a whole-of-society approach working with partners and allies who share our values." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Christopher Maier, James Sullivan, and Neill Tipton.
United States. Government Publishing Office
2021
-
Examining the Equifax Data Breach, Continuation, Hearing Before the Committee on Financial Services, U.S. House of Representatives. One Hundred Fifteenth Congress, First Session, October 25, 2017
This is the October 25, 2017 hearing titled "Examining the Equifax Data Breach, Continuation," held before the House Committee on Financial Services. From the opening statement of Ted Budd: "It is particularly troubling that since the massive breach, Equifax has yet to send an executive to testify before Congress who actually has the ability to examine all the issues with our broken credit reporting system. [...] Equifax has badly mishandled virtually every aspect of this breach. They failed to update a known software vulnerability for several weeks. They failed to properly notify law enforcement agencies, as required by many State data breach laws and regulations, and even in announcing to the public about the breach, failed to provide consumers with the tools they needed to safeguard against identity theft and other harm that could be caused by the unauthorized exposure of their sensitive financial and personally identifiable information for free." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Sara Cable, Mike Litt, Kathleen McGee, Laura M. Moy, and Chi Chi Wu.
United States. Government Publishing Office
2018
-
Chevron Doctrine: Constitutional and Statutory Questions in Judicial Deference to Agencies, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law of the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives, One Hundred Fourteenth Congress, Second Session, March 15, 2016
This is the March 15, 2016 hearing on "The Chevron Doctrine: Constitutional and Statutory Questions in Judicial Deference to Agencies," held before the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law of the Committee on the Judiciary. From the opening statement of Tom Marino: "Today's hearing on the 30-plus-year-old Chevron doctrine presents interesting questions on the current state of the separation of powers, and the role of today's administrative state. [...] In Chevron, the Supreme Court established a framework for how courts should review an agency's interpretation of a statute it administers. As a threshold matter, the court must determine whether the statute at hand clearly speaks to the question addressed by the agency action. If it does, then the court must conclude that the agency acted as Congress willed it. But if the statute is silent, or ambiguous, and congressional intent is not clear, then the court must consider whether or not the agency's interpretation is based on a permissible instruction of the statute. If it is, then the court defers to the agency's interpretation. [...] In short, rather than executing the will of Congress, as set forth clearly through statute, agencies now have the freedom to define the law as they see fit. Some may argue that even the use of Chevron could be avoided by clearer legislation. This is true, and should be a goal for all in Congress. But, as long as Chevron stands, it still will not eliminate the opportunity and incentives for unelected bureaucrats, removed from the effects of their actions to set policy for our entire Nation." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Jonathon Turley, John F. Duffy, George Shepherd, Richard J. Pierce, Emily Hammond, and Jack M. Beerman.
United States. Government Publishing Office
2016
-
Original Meaning of the Origination Clause, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, One Hundred Fourteenth Congress, Second Session, January 13, 2016
This is the January 13, 2016 hearing "The Original Meaning of the Origination Clause" held before the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice of the Committee on the Judiciary. From the opening statement of Chairman Trent Franks: "I have called today's hearing to examine the roots of the Origination Clause, its original meaning and purpose, and to see where the Origination Clause stands today after 225 years after the Great Compromise. I am concerned that over time the original meaning of the clause has been set aside, and the protections the clause affords to American taxpayers have been severely eroded. Instead of a robust check on the Federal Government over the people, I am troubled that the clause has become a mere formality in practice, a formality that may be dispensed with as easily as the Senate taking any bill that originated in the House and striking the entire text of the bill and replacing it with a 'bill for raising revenue no matter how nongermane the Senate's amendment is to the House original passed measure.'" Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Trent Franks, Steve Cohen, Bob Goodlatte, Todd F. Gaziano, Elizabeth B. Wydra, Paul D. Kamenar, and John Conyers, Jr.
United States. Government Publishing Office
2016
-
Examining Physical Security and Cybersecurity at Our Nation's Ports, Field Hearing Before the Committee on Homeland Security, House of Representatives, One Hundred Fifteenth Congress, First Session, October 30, 2017
This is October 30, 2017 field hearing on "Examining Physical Security and Cybersecurity at Our Nation's Ports," held before the Committee on Homeland Security. From the opening statement of Michael T. McCaul: "Today Members of our committee have gathered here to examine the physical and cybersecurity of our Nation's ports. I would like to thank everyone who has traveled a great distance to be here and to CBP [Customs and Border Protection] and the Coast Guard for the tour of Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach. I would also like to thank each of the witnesses and look forward to hearing your thoughts on how we can work together to strengthen the security of America's ports. America's port system is an industrial engine that drives much of our economic success. Currently, U.S. seaports support 23 million American jobs and 4.6 trillion in economic activity, or 26 percent of our economy. This year alone, the Port of Los Angeles has processed over 6 million containers. These ports will only continue to remain busy, as our trade volume is expected to quadruple by 2030. A safe and unrestricted flow of goods and services through our marine transportation system has allowed the United States to become a global economic superpower." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Todd A. Sokalzuk, Carlos C. Martel, Eugene D. Seroka, Mario Cordero, and Ray Familathe.
United States. Government Publishing Office
2018
-
Cyber-Securing the Vote: Ensuring the Integrity of the U.S. Election System, Hearing Before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, House of Representatives, One Hundred Fifteenth Congress, Second Session, July 24, 2018
This is the July 24, 2018 hearing on "Cyber-Securing the Vote: Ensuring the Integrity of the U.S. Election System," held before the House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. From the opening statement Trey Gowdy: "Our intelligence community, both past and present, concluded this, as did the House Intelligence Committee report, as I am quite certain will the Senate Intelligence Committee report, and, equally importantly, as did our fellow Americans who served on the two grand juries which returned true bills. Just 10 days ago, the current Deputy Attorney General announced Russians engaged in cyber operations to interfere in the 2016 Presidential election. They hacked into computer networks and installed malicious software that allowed them to spy on users, capture keystrokes, take screenshots, and exfiltrate and remove data from these computers. They also discussed the timing of the release in an attempt to enhance the impact on the election." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Christopher Krebs, Thomas Hicks, Maggie Toulouse Oliver, Ricky Hatch.
United States. Government Publishing Office
2018
-
Examining the Cryptocurrencies and ICO Markets, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Securities, and Investment of the Committee on Financial Services, U.S. House of Representatives, One Hundred Fifteenth Congress, Second Session, March 14, 2018
This is the March 14, 2018 hearing titled "Examining the Cryptocurrencies and ICO Markets," held before the House Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Securities, and Investment of the Committee on Financial Services. From the opening statement of Bill Huizenga: "The cryptocurrency and initial coin offering (ICO) markets have grown rapidly in recent years, and actually it is more like recent months. Specifically ICOs have been increasingly used by companies to raise capital for their business and products. To that end, people often equate them with a new type of initial public offering or an IPO; however, an ICO is not an IPO. ICOs, whether they represent offerings of securities or not, offer potential for entrepreneurs to raise more effective, transformative, and efficient funding for an innovative project as opposed to a traditional IPO. Although an ICO has the same characteristics of raising capital and accessing new sources of investment, it does not involve an investment in some amount of equity in a company, which is afforded under an IPO, nor does it offer the same amount of investor protections." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Chris Brummer, Mike Lempres, Robert Rosenblum, and Peter Van Valkenburgh.
United States. Government Publishing Office
2018
-
Connecting Veterans with PTSD with Service Dogs, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on National Security of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, House of Representatives, One Hundred Fourteenth Congress, Second Session, April 14, 2016
This is the April 14, 2016 hearing on "Connecting Veterans with PTSD [Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder] with Service Dogs" held before the House of Representatives Subcommittee on National Security of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. From the opening statement of Subcommittee Chairman Ron DeSantis: "Veteran suicides continue to be a national epidemic. Veterans are estimated to have a suicide rate that is 50 percent higher than those who did not serve in the military. A major driver of suicide rates is the incident of posttraumatic stress among our veterans. According to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), between 11 and 20 percent of those who served in Operation Iraqi Freedom and/or Enduring Freedom suffer from PTS. [...] One treatment that complements existing therapies is the connection of veterans with PTS with service dogs. These are not comfort dogs or therapy dogs, as useful as those might be. Service dogs perform valuable services for veterans, calming them during a panic attack, turning on lights in a dark home, waking them from nightmares. [...] Veterans cannot wait until 2018 for the VA to introduce the low-cost, low-risk, and high-reward treatment option. The problem of veteran suicide is too urgent. For this reason, I have introduced the Puppies Assisting Wounded Servicemembers Act of 2016, cosponsored by many of my fellow committee members, including members on both sides of the aisle." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Michael Fallon, Rory Diamond, Cole Lyle, and Steve Feldman.
United States. Government Publishing Office
2017
-
Unmanned Aerial System Threats: Exploring Security Implications and Mitigation Technologies, Hearing Before Subcommittee on Oversight and Management Efficiency of the Committee on Homeland Security, U.S. House of Representatives, One Hundred Fourteenth Congress, First Session, March 18, 2015
This is the March 18, 2015 hearing "Unmanned Aerial System Threats: Exploring Security Implications and Mitigation Technologies," held before the House Committee on Homeland Security. From the opening statement of Subcommittee Chairman Scott Perry: "Last month, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) released proposed rules to allow for operation of small UAS for non-recreational purposes into domestic airspace. The proposed rules would place numerous limitations on flying small UAS [unmanned aerial systems]: flights could take place only in daylight, the area of operations would be limited, and only visual-line-of-sight operations would be permitted. These proposed rules now are open for public comment. Our hearing today will focus on the security implications of opening our skies to small UAS and how agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), federal, state, and local law enforcement should prepare. Several recent security incidents are concerning. In January, a small quadcopter crashed on the White House lawn. Although the incident seemingly was accidental, it exposed the larger issue of how law enforcement should respond to UAS threats and, subsequently, the Secret Service quickly scheduled exercises in the D.C. area in response. Next, a September 2013 incident where a small UAS landed only inches away from German Chancellor Angela Merkel also exposed serious concerns and the challenge that protective services around the world now face. Last but not least, French police recently were confounded when several unidentified small UAS flew over key Paris landmarks, including the Eiffel Tower as well as nuclear power plants. French authorities are investigating, but again, this incident showcases the challenges for law enforcement to respond swiftly to this new technology." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Todd E. Humphreys, Frederick Roggero, Richard Beary, and Gregory S. McNeal.
United States. Government Publishing Office
2015
-
Dynamic Terrorism Landscape and What it Means for America, Hearing Before the Committee on Homeland Security, House of Representatives, One Hundred Seventeenth Congress, Second Session, February 2, 2022
This is the February 2, 2022 hearing on "Dynamic Terrorism Landscape and What it Means for America," held before the U.S. House Committee on Homeland Security. From the Opening Statement of Bennie G. Thompson: "Today the committee is meeting to examine the dynamic terrorism threat landscape and discuss why the threat is dominated by domestic violent extremists, including White supremacists. Almost 1 year ago, this committee held its first hearing of the 117th Congress, examining the threat of domestic terrorism in the wake of the January 6 Attack on the Capitol. Since that hearing, I have taken on a new role, Chairman of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol, where I am working across the aisle to get the bottom of that attack. Here, on the Homeland Security Committee, our mandate is to carry out broader oversight to better understand what DHS, the FBI, and other Federal agencies must do, together with their State and local and private-sector partners, to detect, prevent, and respond to terrorism. Too often our public spaces are subject to shootings or hostage-taking or other violent plots that see grocery stores, schools, houses of worship, or concerts become crime scenes.[...] Our job on this committee is to focus on security and keep our fellow Americans safe. We must prioritize helping people congregate in a manner that allow at-risk communities to live their religious tenets and show kindness to those in need. Today, we have an expert panel of witnesses that will outline the dynamic terrorism threat landscape we face and present their ideas about what we ought to do moving forward." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Jonathan Greenblatt, Cynthia Miller-Idriss, and, Bill Roggio.
United States. Government Publishing Office
2022
-
Nonprofit Security Grant Program and Protecting Houses of Worship: A View from the American Jewish Community, Joint Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Recovery and the Subcommittee on Intelligence and Counterterrorism of the Committee on Homeland Security, House of Representatives, One Hundred Seventeenth Congress, Second Session, February 8, 2022
This is the February 8, 2022 hearing on "Nonprofit Security Grant Program and Protecting Houses of Worship: A View from the American Jewish Community," held before the U.S. House Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Recovery and the Subcommittee on Intelligence and Counterterrorism of the Committee on Homeland Security. From the Opening Statement of Val Butler Demings: "As someone who spent nearly 3 decades in law enforcement, I was extremely troubled to see neo-Nazis shouting anti-Semitic slurs while parading through the streets of Central Florida. I am relieved that the individuals who viciously attacked a Jewish student have been charged with hate crime assault and grand theft. For one of the group's leaders this is the second time he has been charged with committing violent acts against innocent bystanders this year. These hateful and violent acts followed several incidents in which anti-Semitic flyers were left outside homes across Central Florida. [...] As the terrorism landscape has grown more complex and houses of worship are increasingly being targeted, the demand for this program has risen exponentially. To meet this demand, Congress has increased funding for Nonprofit Security Grant Program. Even with the recent increases, we still see a growing need for organizations to access this funding. With the risk of attacks against faith-based communities, we must continue to invest in their security." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Charlie Cytron-Walker, Yosef Konikov, Eric Fingerhut, and Michael Masters.
United States. Government Publishing Office
2022
