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 Cause, Response, and Impacts of the EPA's Gold King Mine Spill, Hearing Before the Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate, One Hundred Fourteenth Congress, First Session, September 16, 2015

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

  This is the September 16, 2015 hearing "Oversight of the Cause, Response, and Impacts of the EPA's Gold King Mine Spill," held before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. From the opening statement of Cory Gardner: "From the outset of the spill, it was crucial that the EPA's full focus be on mitigation and slowing the flow of contaminants in the Animas River. Water testing shows that the surface water of the river has returned to pre-incident levels. But many uncertainties remain regarding long-term remediation and future monitoring for heightened contamination in the river during spring runoff. If anybody has seen the pictures of recent days when you can go in and disturb and disrupt the river bed bottom, the bottom, the sediment, you can see material still being kicked up. Once the national press disappears from the area, there are still serious concerns that exist for Coloradans and communities downstream that the EPA must address. Although the EPA has acknowledged the magnitude of this crisis, its initial lack of communication and coordination in events leading up to and following the spill are suitable for congressional oversight. Affected communities and stakeholders deserve transparency and accountability in the events surrounding the spill, particularly in understanding where EPA was during the first hours and days following the spill." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Gina McCarthy.

  United States. Government Publishing Office

  2016
• Military Space Programs, Hearing Before the Committee on Armed Services, Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, United States Senate, One Hundred Fourteenth Congress, First Session, April 29, 2015

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

  This is a testimony compilation of the April 29, 2015 hearing "Military Space Programs" held before the Senate Committee on Armed Services. From the testimony of Deborah Lee James: "Space-based capabilities and effects are vital to U.S. warfighting, homeland security, and our way of life. For example, space provides us with position, navigation, and timing through our Global Positioning System; communications used in international banking and global commerce; and remote sensing to deter against nuclear war, forecast weather, and manage our critical natural resources. But more importantly, space is integral to every aspect of our nation's defense. Space isn't just an enabler for the other domains; it directly impacts the calculus of national security. " Statements, letters, and other materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Deborah L. James, John E. Hyten, and Cristina T. Chaplain.

  United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Armed Services

  2015-04-29
• Natural Gas Drilling: Public Health and Environmental Impacts: Joint Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife and the Committee on Environment and Public Works, United States Senate, One Hundred Twelfth Congress, First Session, April 12, 2011

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

  This is the April 12, 2011 joint hearing, "Natural Gas Drilling: Public Health and Environmental Impacts," before the Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife and the Committee on Environment and Public Works. From the opening statement of Benjamin L. Cardin: "Let me start by saying the United States has as much natural gas as Saudi Arabia has oil. According to Penn State, the Marcellus Shale which runs from Central New York State to West Virginia may be the second largest natural gas field in the world. We have enormous reserves that can help America meet its energy needs and do so in a way that produces far less pollution than coal, help the United States on its path to energy independence, and improve our national security. High volume horizontal hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is now being used to extract natural gas from shale formations in thousands of new wells. In Pennsylvania, more than 2,700 Marcellus wells were drilled from 2006 to March 10 of this year. A study last year estimated that Marcellus drilling would create or support more than 100,000 jobs in 2011 plus billions of dollars in economic value for the State. The natural gas industry is booming, but it may be in jeopardy. New York has imposed a moratorium on fracking operations. New Jersey is considering a ban on the practice. The city of Pittsburgh has enacted a ban on fracking operations within the city limits. Tiny Mountain Lake Park, MD adopted an ordinance making the drilling of natural gas illegal within the town limits." Statement, letters, and material submitted for the record include those of the following: Benjamin L. Cardin, James M. Inhofe, Barbara Boxer, John Barrasso, John Cornyn, Robert P. Casey, John Boozman, Frank R. Lautenberg, Dan Boren, Robert Perciasepe, Robert Summers, Conrad Daniel Volz, Jack Ubinger, Jeff Cloud, and David Neslin.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2014
• Oversight Hearing on the Tennessee Valley Authority and the Recent Major Coal Ash Spill, Hearing Before the Committee on Environment and Public Works, United States Senate, One Hundred Eleventh Congress, FIrst Session, January 8, 2009

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

  This is the January 8, 2009 hearing, "Oversight Hearing on the Tennessee Valley Authority and the Recent Major Coal Ash Spill," before the Committee on Environment and Public Works, United States Senate. From the opening statement of Barbara Boxer, "Let me for a moment describe what happened at 1 a.m. on Monday, December 22nd, 2008 near the Kingston TVA [Tennessee Valley Authority] coal-fired power plant. An earthen wall failed on a 40-acre surface impoundment holding coal ash. More than one billion gallons of waste rushed down the valley like a wave, covering more than 300 acres. The volume of ash and water was nearly 100 times greater than the amount of oil spilled in the Exxon Valdez disaster. Let me mention that again. The volume of ash and water was nearly 100 times greater than the amount of oil spilled in the Exxon Valdez disaster. We have an image to show you the scale of this enormous coal ash spill. It looks like a giant mudslide. You can just get the sense of the power of that mud. I would like to show you a few examples of the devastation left behind in the wake of this disaster, what happened to some of the homes. The flow of toxic ash and water impacted 42 parcels of property, destroyed 3 homes, damaged 9 others, covered roads and railroads, harmed fish, and polluted the Emory River. Thankfully, no serious injuries were reported. This disaster happened while the community slept. And yesterday in my meeting, Senators, the good people from the community said that this is what they said, they shudder to think of what could have happened if this wall had failed on a summer's day, when parents and children were playing on the shore, swimming, and fishing in boats. Because the coves that are the main attraction to the community, where the kids play and they fish, were instantly covered in this horrible polluted mess." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Tom Kilgore, Shephen A. Smith, and William Rose.

  United States. Government Publishing Office

  2015
• NRC's Implementation of the Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendations and Other Actions to Enhance and Maintain Nuclear Safety, Hearing Before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, One Hundred Thirteenth Congress, Second Session, December 3, 2014

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

  This testimony compilation is from the December 3, 2014 hearing, "NRC's Implementation of the Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendations and Other Actions to Enhance and Maintain Nuclear Safety," before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. For the purpose of this testimony, NRC refers to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Allison Macfarlane, Kristine Svinicki, William C. Ostendorff, Jeff Baran, Stephen G. Burns, Sam Blakeslee, Daniel Hirsch, and Anthony Peitrangelo.

  United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Environment and Public Works

  2014-12-03
• Impacts of Vessel Discharge Regulations on our Shipping and Fishing Industries, Hearing Before the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard, One Hundred Fourteenth Congress, First Session, February 4, 2015

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

  This is the February 4, 2015 hearing on "Impacts of Vessel Discharge Regulations on our Shipping and Fishing Industries" before the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard. From the statement of Claudia Copeland: "Today there is wide agreement on the need for strong measures to control vessel discharges, especially ballast water discharges, but there are differing views on how to do that. Vessel discharge requirements in the United States are a result of U.S. Coast Guard regulations, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) permits, and individual state rules, limitations, and requirements. Vessels also are subject to a number of international agreements, in particular to Conventions adopted by the International Maritime Organization (IMO),0F which apply to vessels operating under flags of countries that are Parties to the Conventions. It is the combination of regulations and standards that is at issue today." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: James Farley, James Weakley, Claudia Copeland, and Robert Zales.

  United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

  2015-02-04
• Deepwater Drilling Moratorium: A Review of the Obama Administration's Economic Impact Analysis on U.S. Small Businesses, Hearing Before the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, United States Senate, One Hundred Thirteenth Congress, Second Session, September 16, 2010

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

  This is the September 16, 2010 hearing on "The Deepwater Drilling Moratorium" held before the U.S. Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship. From the opening statement of Mary L. Landrieu: "I thank you all for joining us this morning as this Committee holds its third in a series of hearings on the current deepwater drilling moratorium and the impact on its effects to the Gulf Coast economy. Today's hearing is quite possibly the most important. Today, the Administration will present its analysis of the moratorium. We have had two previous hearings on this subject where we heard from dozens of small business owners, the Chamber of Commerce, Dun and Bradstreet, LSU economic analysts, and others along the Gulf Coast to try to point out the impact to the economy along the Gulf Coast based on this decision. Some 150 days ago the Deepwater Horizon explosion took the lives of 11 men and sent an estimated five million barrels of oil spewing into the Gulf, onto our shores, and into our marshes. This accident has injured our environment, our economy, and our way of life. The Macondo well may be capped but the crippling economic impacts caused by this disaster and ensuing moratorium continue to impact communities in Louisiana and many communities throughout the Gulf Coast." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Rebecca M. Blank and John Fernandez.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2014
• Long-Range Bombers: Background and Issues for Congress [August 19, 2003]

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

  From the Document: "The Air Force's long-range bombers were designed during the Cold War to deliver nuclear strikes against the Soviet Union. Although they can be vulnerable to enemy defenses if detected, they combine the ability to fly extended distances, much farther than most other combat aircraft, with the ability to carry weapons payloads many times larger than that of fighters. Over the past decade, the Air Force has taken advantage of these characteristics by migrating its bomber fleet from a nuclear to a conventional role. Today, the Air Force maintains three bombers: the B-1B, the B-2, and the B-52, and each has been outfitted with a variety of precision and 'dumb' weapons for conventional strikes. In recent conflicts in Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003), bombers have played prominent roles. […] Decisions in Congress and the Department of Defense regarding bombers may have important long-term implications. Each of the three bombers is in need of expensive upgrades, and decisions about the funding of these upgrades may affect the continued utility of these aircraft. Second, a debate has arisen over whether to expand or contract the bomber fleet. Third, military observers and policymakers disagree about when to begin a next-generation bomber program; some push to begin a new program immediately, while others advocate waiting a decade or more before initiating development of a new bomber. This report discusses the background, status, and current issues surrounding the Air Force's long-range bomber fleet. Before addressing each of the three bombers individually, this report analyzes issues affecting the entire fleet."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Jones, Benjamin; Bolkcom, Christopher C.

  2003-08-19
• Solving the Problem of Polluted Transportation Infrastructure Stormwater Runoff, Hearing Before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife, One Hundred Thirteenth Congress, Second Session, May 13, 2014

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

  This testimony is from the May 13, 2014 hearing, "Solving the Problem of Polluted Transportation Infrastructure Stormwater Runoff" before the Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Testimony brings light to the issues of stormwater runoff environmental concerns, borrowing insight from Oregon, Kentucky, the Chesapeake Bay, and Virginia. Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Paul Mather, James P. Gibson, Jr., Kim Coble, Daniel E. Medina, Ken Cuccinelli, Gregory M. Cohen, and J.G. Andre Monette.

  United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Environment and Public Works

  2014-05-13
• Examining the Impact of Exposure to Toxic Chemicals on Veterans and the VA's Response, Hearing Before the Committee on Veterans' Affairs United States Senate, One Hundred Fourteenth Congress, First Session, September 29, 2015

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

  This is the September 29, 2015 hearing on " Examining the Impact of Exposure to Toxic Chemicals on Veterans and the VA's Response," held before the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs. From the opening statement of Johnny Isakson: "This is an important hearing today for a lot of reasons, most importantly because we want to determine the presumptive nature of certain exposures to our veterans that could cause debilitating and deadly diseases. We want to hear testimony from the Veterans Administration. We are going to hear testimony from toxic experts and we are going to hear testimony from three members of the U.S. Senate." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Richard Burr, Kirsten Gillibrand, Steve Daines, David R. McLenachen, Kenneth Ramos, John Wells, John Rowan, and Jerome Ensmiger.

  United States. Government Publishing Office

  2015-09-29
• COVID-19 Local Response Initiative: Insights and Guidance from 11 Sessions on Crisis Leadership

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

  From the Introduction: "The COVID-19 [coronavirus disease 2019] crisis presented city leaders with the challenge to act under conditions of high uncertainty and high pressure. The lives and livelihoods of residents were at stake, and there was no complete, accurate information available, no playbook with the right answers, and no guidance on how to navigate the situation in the context of each particular city. City leaders had to learn in real time how to respond to the crisis. The Bloomberg Harvard City Leadership Initiative facilitated this process of fast learning by offering 11 weekly sessions and information services tailored to their needs. [...] Each week, faculty and staff at the Bloomberg Harvard City Leadership Initiative worked with professors from the Harvard Kennedy School and the Harvard Business School to plan a lesson focusing on a particular aspect of crisis leadership: from problem-solving processes and communications to collaboration, fiscal management, and supporting mental health. After each session, a summary of key takeaways went out via email to participants. These documents are compiled here for easy reference."

  Bloomberg Harvard City Leadership Initiative

  2020
• COVID-19 Local Response Initiative: Answers to Mayors' Top Questions

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

  From the Document: "At the start of the COVID-19 [coronavirus disease 2019] Local Response Initiative, there were fewer than 10,000 confirmed cases of the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) in the US. The first priority of the initiative was to help mayors orient themselves and their cities in the timeline of the crisis, set up an agile crisis response process, and help them 'flatten the curve' [hyperlink] to avoid overwhelming their local healthcare system. The economically and politically painful steps they took by and large achieved this last goal and saved many lives, but as political pressure mounted and testing remained in short supply, many mayors had to ease restrictions with incomplete information about the level of risk in their communities. The question for many remained: Where exactly are we in this crisis and what should we be doing right now to protect the public? [E]xperts respond to mayors' questions about how to get oriented and organized for effective action in a prolonged, multi-phase crisis. Because the COVID-19 crisis changes frequently, dates at the end of each question indicate when the expert provided an answer."

  Bloomberg Harvard City Leadership Initiative

  2020-08-03
• Keeping America's Families Safe: Reforming the Food Safety System, Hearing of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, United States Senate, One Hundred Eleventh Congress, First Session, on Examining Keeping America's Families Safe, Focusing on Reforming the Food Safety System, October 22, 2009

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

  From the opening statement of Tom Harkin: "We meet today to discuss an issue of basic importance to all Americans: the safety of our Nation's food supply. There is perhaps no issue that affects Americans as universally as food safety. Part of our daily lives, and, for many in my State and elsewhere, the production, preparation, and sale of food is a source of livelihood. Now, on the whole, Americans enjoy safe and wholesome food. But, to be honest about it, our food can be safer and it must be safer. Recent food outbreaks linked to spinach, peppers, peanut products, cookie dough dramatizes two important truths. First, our current regulatory system does not adequately protect Americans from serious, widespread food-borne illnesses. And second, the dangers associated with food-borne outbreaks are profound. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that food-borne diseases cause approximately 76 million illnesses each year, including approximately 325,000 hospitalizations and 5,000 deaths in the United States, each year. These are staggering numbers and totally intolerable. That's why, as we focus on a national healthcare reform, we can't afford to ignore food safety. Unsafe food is yet another strain on our healthcare system and it's a problem that we can and must address now." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Tom Harkin, Michael B. Enzi, Judd Gregg, Sherrod Brown, Johnny Isakson, Robert P. Casey Jr., Al Franken, Richard B. Durbin, Christopher J. Dodd, Jeff Merkely, Bob Bauer, Kraig R. Naasz,, Richard Burr, Jeanne Ireland, Harry Reed, Jeff Bingaman, Margaret Hamburg, Caroline Smith DeWaal, Michael Roberson, Daniel L. Ragan and Thomas Stenzel.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2011
• Wildfires and Forest Management: Prevention is Preservation, Hearing Before the U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Relations, One Hundred Thirteenth Congress, Second Session, May 14, 2014

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

  This is the May 14, 2014 oversight hearing, "Wildfires and Forest Management: Prevention is Preservation" before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. From the Opening Statement of Chairman Jon Tester: "This Committee is holding an oversight hearing on Wildfires and Forest Management, with a particular focus on the relationship between Federal and tribal forest management. The 2014 fire season is just beginning and thousands of families across the country, particularly western communities, are bracing for another season of devastating forest fires. Already this year, there are at least 17 large fires burning across the southern United States. The latest fires are part of an ominous trend toward bigger, hotter and longer fire seasons. Since 1960, there have been 235 million acres plus burned. To put that in perspective, that amount would cover the entire area of Montana and New Mexico combined. Federal agencies responsible for protecting our communities are working to develop and apply smarter fire fighting strategies and focus on fighting fires and cleaning up the mess afterwards is like trying to live off a high interest credit card. We keep paying more by picking up the pieces at the end as risk for wildfire continues to escalate the cost of damages." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Kevin Washburn, James Hubbard, Danny Breuninger Sr., Philip Rigdon, Jonathan Brooks, and Adrian Leighton.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2014
• Evaluating Current U.S. Global Food Security Efforts and Determining Future U.S. Leadership Opportunities, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on International Development and Foreign Assistance, Economic Affairs, and International Environmental Protection of the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, One Hundred Twelfth Congress, Second Session, November 28, 2012

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

  This is the November 28, 2012 hearing "Evaluating Current U.S. Global Food Security Efforts and Determining Future U.S. Leadership Opportunities" held before the Subcommittee on International Development and Foreign Assistance, Economic Affairs, and International Environmental Protection of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. From the opening statement of Benjamin L. Cardin: "In 2009, Secretary Clinton said we have the resources to give every person in the world the tools they need to feed themselves and their children. So the question is not whether we can end hunger, it is whether we will end it. Ending global hunger and poverty is a monumental task. Addressing the challenges posed by global food insecurity requires a multifaceted approach. It requires strengthening the strategic coordination to align the efforts of the private sector, civil society, aid recipient governments, and multilateral institutions. It requires investments in cutting-edge agricultural and sustainability technologies. It requires policy changes by developing country governments to correct land tenure and natural resource management, especially water resources. And it requires a commitment to gender integration and the development of programs to support women farmers. The more I look at this issue, the more I start to appreciate that this is solvable, but we have to deal with the land reforms. We have to deal with gender issues. We have to deal with water management. Those matters are critically important in the developing world." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Benjamin L. Cardin, Richard G. Lugar, Tjada McKenna, Paul O'Brien, Jonathan Shrier, Connie A. Veillette, and Conor Walsh.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2013
• Need for Privacy Protections: Perspectives from the Administration and the Federal Trade Commission, Hearing Before the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, United States Senate, One Hundred Twelfth Congress, Second Session, May 9, 2012

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

  This is the May 9, 2012 hearing "The Need for Privacy Protections" held before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. From the opening statement of John D. Rockefeller, IV: "Every day, tens of millions of Americans go online to search for information. They want to shop. They want to pay their bills, or they're accessing social networking. To state the obvious, the Internet has fundamentally transformed every aspect of our lives. What is less obvious is the level of information that is collected about us each time we visit a website or watch a video or send an e-mail or make a purchase. Now consumers have had no choice but to place an enormous amount of trust in the online world, trust that their information is safe, that it will be secure, and it will be used appropriately, whatever that means. But the incentive to misuse consumers' information is very great. A consumer's personal information is the currency, in fact, of the web." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: John D. Rockefeller, IV, John D. Leibowitz, Cameron F. Kerry, and Maureen K. Ohlhausen.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2013
• Risk Management and Commodities in the 2012 Farm Bill: Hearing Before the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, United States Senate, One Hundred Twelfth Congress, Second Session, March 15, 2012

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

  From the opening statement of Debbie Stabenow: "Nearly a year ago, we kicked off our farm bill work exploring the challenges for feeding the world's growing population. Today, in our final hearing on the 2012 farm bill, we will hear from American farmers about the tools they need to continue producing the world's safest, most abundant supply of food, fuel, and fiber. Every planting season, America's farmers take a huge gamble that their investment will pay off, that the sun, the rain, the markets will come together in just the right combination so they can make a living and support their families. We have been lucky these past few years that commodity prices have been strong and many farm balance sheets are healthy. Yet in the same year that USDA [United States Department of Agriculture] estimates America's farmers will take home a record $100 billion in net income, crop insurance paid out over $10 billion in indemnities for losses. We cannot forget that high commodity prices are of absolutely no use to a farmer whose crop was lost in a drought or flood. One storm can wipe out an entire crop and jeopardize a farm in a matter of minutes, whether the crop is Michigan cherries or blueberries or Kansas wheat." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Debbie Stabenow, Pat Roberts, Michael Scuse, Bob Carden, Jarvis Garetson, Hope Hills, Steve Rutledge, Chuck Coley, Jimbo Grissom, Pam Johnson, Travis Henry Satterfield, Steve Wellman, Erik Younggren, Ryan Best, Roger Johnson, Bob Stallman, Richard G. Lugar, John Thune, Ruth Gerdes, Pam Johnson, Michael Scuse, Mike Johanns, Benjamin E. Nelson, Amy Klobuchar, and Kirsten Gillibrand.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2013
• Oversight of the Federal Bureau of Investigation: Hearing Before the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, One Hundred Thirteenth Congress, Second Session, June 19, 2013

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

  This is the June 19, 2013 hearing on "Oversight of the Federal Bureau of Investigation," before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary. From the opening statement of Patrick Leahy: "Today, the Judiciary Committee welcomes Robert Mueller for what is likely to be his final appearance before this panel as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). […] As the FBI now prepares for its first change in leadership since the 9/11 attacks, we must continue to review closely the broad intelligence-gathering powers that Congress granted to the FBI in order to combat terrorist threats. The FBI has faced daunting national security challenges, but we must also ensure that they do not violate the privacy rights and civil liberties of law-abiding Americans. I have long said that protecting national security and protecting Americans' fundamental rights are not mutually exclusive. We can and must do both. The recent public revelations about two classified data collection programs illustrate the need for close scrutiny by Congress of the Government's surveillance activities. For years, I have been troubled by the expansive nature of the USA PATRIOT Act. These powerful law enforcement tools, including Section 215 orders, require careful monitoring and close oversight. That is why I authored legislation in 2009 that would have improved and reformed the PATRIOT Act, while increasing public accountability and transparency. My bill was reported by this Committee on a bipartisan basis in 2009 and 2011, and would help protect the privacy rights of innocent Americans, and strengthen oversight by the courts and Congress. I intend to re-introduce that bill tomorrow, and hope that Senators from both parties will join me in this effort to improve the PATRIOT Act and further protect the civil liberties of everyday citizens. The American people deserve to know how broad investigative laws like the PATRIOT Act are being interpreted and used to conduct electronic surveillance, particularly when it involves the collection of data on innocent Americans. The American people also deserve to know whether these programs have proven sufficiently effective to justify their breadth. Right now, I remain skeptical." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Robert S. Mueller.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2014
• Hearing on Closing Guantanamo: The National Security, Fiscal and Human Rights Implications: U.S. Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights, One Hundred Thirteenth Congress, First Session, July 24, 2013 [webcast]

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

  This testimony webcast is from the July 23, 2013 hearing, "Location Change: Closing Guantanamo: The National Security, Fiscal, and Human Rights Implications" before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights. This webcast discusses the potential closing of Guantanamo and the ramifications of its closure, including financial challenges, human rights implications, and national security. Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Paul D. Eaton, Joshua M. Fryday, Frank Gaffney, Elisa Massimino, Adam Smith, and Mike Pompeo.

  United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary

  2013-07-24
• Compilation of Hearings on Islamist Radicalization - Volume II: Joint Hearing Before the Committee on Homeland Security, House of Representatives, and the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, United States Senate, One Hundred Twelfth Congress, First Session, December 7, 2011

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

  This is the December 7, 2011 hearing on "Homegrown Terrorism: The Threat to Military Communities Inside the United States" held before the U.S. House Committee on Homeland Security. From the opening statement of Peter T. King: "This is the fourth hearing in a series the House committee has held this year on the serious threat of violent Islamist radicalization within the United States. Our committee has previously investigated radicalization within the Muslim-American community generally, radicalization in U.S. prisons, and probed the recruiting and radicalization carried out inside the United States by the al-Qaeda-affiliated al-Shabaab group in Somalia. This joint investigative hearing will seriously examine the emerging and growing danger to our men and women serving in uniform. I believe it is particularly appropriate that we do this on Pearl Harbor Day, when so many troops were killed in a surprise attack 70 years ago." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Peter T. King, Joseph L. Lieberman, Bennie G. Thompson, Susan M. Collins, Paul N. Stockton, Reid L. Sawyer, Abdul-Rasheed Muhammad, Michael L. Weinstein, Laura W. Murphy, Islamic Society of North America, S. Floyd Mori, Shoulder-to-shoulder: Standing with American Muslims; Upholding American Values, and Daris Long.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2012
• To Consider the Reauthorization of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Hearing Before the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, United States Senate, One Hundred Ninth Congress, First Session, March 8 & 10, 2005

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

  From the opening statement of Hon. Saxby Chambliss, U.S. Senator from Georgia, Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry: "The authorization of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Federal agency responsible for overseeing the trading of commodity futures contracts, will expire on September 30, 2005. Commodity futures contracts are traded on agricultural, energy, and metal commodities and increasingly on financial instruments, such as instrument rates and foreign currencies. Reauthorizing the CFTC is an important task before the committee this year. The Commodity Exchange Act is the basic law that empowers CFTC to oversee commodity futures markets. In 2000, as part of the last CFTC reauthorization, the Congress made what most experts agree were landmark reforms in the Commodity Exchange Act by passing the Commodities Futures Modernization Act. The CFMA provided legal certainty for the over-the-counter swaps market and also streamlined the regulatory process for exchange traded futures markets. The CFMA shifted the CFTC away from a prescriptive, rules-based regulatory approach to a more flexible market- oriented approach based on broad core principles. Since the passage of the CFMA, the industry has seen tremendous growth in trading volume on both the exchange traded futures markets and over-the-counter derivatives markets. This year, as part of the reauthorization process, the committee will review the Commodity Exchange Act, as amended by CFMA, to determine whether additional changes in the law are needed to help CFTC continue to foster open, competitive, and financially sound commodity futures markets and to protect the market users and the public from fraud and manipulation." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Saxby Chambliss, Tom Harkin, Kent Conrad, Patrick Leahy, Richard G. Lugar, Ken Salazar, Sharon Brown-Hruska, Charles P. Carey, John M. Damgard, Terrence A. Duffy, Satish Nandapurkar, James Newsome, Federick W. Schoenhut, Oliver I. Ireland, Robert G. Pickel, Jeffrey C. Sprecher, John G. Gaine, Micah S. Green, Daniel J. Roth.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2005
• America after 9/11: Freedom Preserved or Freedom Lost? Hearing Before the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, One Hundred Eighth Congress, First Session, November 18, 2003

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

  From the opening statement of Orrin G. Hatch: "Today's hearing focuses on the issue of our civil liberties in the aftermath of the horrific September 11 attacks against our people. The unprovoked and unjustified attacks on 9/11 require us all to take every appropriate step to make sure that our citizens are safe. This is the first responsibility of Government... While we all share this common commitment to security and freedom, the question we are examining today is how best to do so in an environment where terrorists like the 9/11 attackers are able to operate within our borders, using the very freedoms that we so dearly cherish, to carry out their deadly plots against our country... This hearing will examine our Government's efforts to promote our freedoms, not just the freedom to live in a safe and security society, but the freedoms that our country was founded on and the freedoms that each of us enjoy each and every day and, of course, the freedoms that are the lifeblood of our very society. I am especially interested in hearing from today's witnesses about the details of any specific abuses that have occurred under our current laws. We have invited five critics to ensure that interested parties have ample opportunity to express their concerns. I am very interested in listening to them." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Larry E. Craig; Orrin G. Hatch; Edward M. Kennedy; Patrick J. Leahy; Bob Barr; Muzaffar Chishti; Robert J. Cleary; James X. Dempsey; Viet D. Dinh; Nadine Strossen; James J. Zogby; Russell D. Feingold; Joseph R. Biden, Jr.; Mary Rose Oakar; Carla Hayden; Stephen Richard; Robert J. Cleary; Glenn A. Fine; Katherine Cullition; Elisa Massimino; Clifford Krauss; Nadine Strossen; Timothy H. Edgar; DeNeen L. Brown; and Philip Allen Lacovar.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2004
• Oversight on Communications Privacy, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Patents, Copyrights and Trademarks of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Ninety-Eighth Congress, Second Session on Privacy in Electronic Communications, September 12, 1984

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

  From the prepared statement of Senator Mathias: "Our subject today is the privacy of electronic communications. Although no specific legislative proposal is on our agenda, we will explore whether existing law adequately protects the privacy of Americans who, in increasing numbers, are using new forms of electronic communications to talk with one another [....] Some of the messages that these new media carry are highly sensitive. A translation of the digital blips racing by wire, microwave, fibre optics and other paths could reveal proprietary corporate data, or personal medical or financial information. The users of these new networks--and that means all of us--expect legal protection against unwarranted interceptions of this communications stream, whether by overzealous law enforcement officers or private snoops. But the law as it now stands may not provide that protection. Under the 1968 wiretap law, the privacy of Americans may turn on technical questions--whether or not the communication is carried by wire, whether it is in analog or digital form--that are simply irrelevant to the legitimate expectations of those who transmit and receive information in today's communication networks." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Patrick J. Leahy, Charles McC. Mathias, Jr., H.W. William Caming, John C. Keeney, Ronald L. Plesser, Stephen Schachman, Marvin S. Cohen, and Roy P. Weber.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  1985
• What Facial Recognition Technology Means for Privacy and Civil Liberties: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology and the Law of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, One Hundred Twelfth Congress, Second Session, July 18, 2012

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

  This is the July 18, 2012 hearing on "What Facial Recognition Technology Means for Privacy and Civil Liberties," held before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology and the Law. From the statement of Al Franken: "Today's hearing will examine the use of facial recognition technology by the government and the private sector -- and what that means for our privacy and civil liberties. […] But facial recognition creates acute privacy concerns that fingerprints do not. Once someone has your fingerprint, they can dust your house or your surroundings to figure out what you've touched. Once someone has your faceprint, they can get your name, they can find your social networking account and they can find and track you in the street, in the stores you visit, the government buildings you enter, and the photos your friends post online. Your face is a conduit to an incredible amount of information about you. And facial recognition technology can allow others to access all of that information from a distance, without your knowledge and in about as much time as it takes to snap a photo. People think of facial recognition as something out of a science fiction movie. In reality, facial recognition technology is in broad use today. If you have a drivers' license, if you have a passport, if you are a member of a social network, chances are good that you are part of a facial recognition database. There are countless uses of this technology, and many of them are innovative and quite useful. The State Department uses facial recognition technology to identify and stop passport fraud--preventing people from getting multiple passports under different names. Using facial recognition technology, Sheriff Larry Amerson of Alabama, who is with us here today, can make sure that a prisoner being released from the Calhoun County jail is actually the same prisoner that is supposed to be released. Similarly, some of the latest smartphones can be unlocked by the owner by just looking at the phone and blinking." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Alessandro Acquisti, Larry Amerson, Nita Farahany, Jennifer Lynch, Brian Martin, Maneesha Mithal, Jerome Pender and Rob Sherman.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2012
• Building an Immigration System Worthy of American Values, Hearing Before the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, One Hundred Thirteenth Congress, First Session, March 20, 2013

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

  This is the March 20, 2013 hearing, "Building an Immigration System Worthy of American Values" before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary. From the opening statement of Cristopher A. Coons: "America earned its place in the world because of the immigrants who have come before us, bringing their culture, bringing their passion, bringing their ideas to our shores. […] Long-time legal permanent residents with a U.S. family, a history of steady employment, those even who have served honorably in our armed forces can be, and in some cases have been, deported for any of a litany of relatively minor offenses that qualify only under the immigration code as aggravated felonies. […] The list of crimes and activities leading to mandatory deportation was expanded and given retroactive effect [after the 1996 revisions of the law]. As a result, the law now requires mandatory deportation even for decades-old, non-violent offenses, such as petty theft, simple drug possession, or failures to appear in court, all of which were not grounds of deportation before 1996. […] Our system exacts a high cost on families, on human dignity, and on civil liberties. This cost, in my view, is unnecessary, unwarranted, and unfair." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Christopher A. Coons, Chuck Grassley, Patrick J. Leahy, Ahilan T. Arulanantham, Michael W. Cutler, Paul Grussendorf, Pamela A. Stampp, Jan C. Ting, Wade Henderson, Margaret Huang, Mary Meg McCarthy, and Rachel B. Tiven.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2013
• Deepening Political and Economic Crisis in Venezuela: Implications for U.S. Interests and the Western Hemisphere, Hearing Before the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere, Transnational Crime, Civilian Security, Democracy, Human Rights, and Global Women's Issues, United States Senate, One Hundred Fourteenth Congress, First Session, March 17, 2015

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

  This is a testimony compilation of the March 17, 2015 hearing "Deepening Political and Economic Crisis in Venezuela: Implications for U.S. Interests and the Western Hemisphere," held before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. From the opening statement of Chairman Marco Rubio: "With vast oil reserves, Venezuela is one of the richest countries in Latin America. The Venezuelan people are intelligent, well-educated and hardworking people. The evidence of this can be found in my home state, in Miami, and Doral and Weston, Florida where a vibrant Venezuelan community has helped build quality and vibrant communities. And Venezuela is also the cradle of democracy in South America. And that is why it is so tragic that Venezuela has turned into a social, political, and economic disaster. The reason for this is simple, because today that nation is increasingly in the iron grip of corrupt and incompetent leaders. A rich country, suffering from a massive and growing shortage of food, medicine, and basic goods. To the point where Maduro has had to order supermarkets to install fingerprint scanners to enforce food rations. […] The people of Venezuela deserve better than this. And while the direction of their future belongs to them, we will be a strong voice in firm support of their aspirations for a better country and a better life. And we will not allow those who are violating their rights and denying them this better future the chance to come to Doral or Weston, or to Miami or CocoPlum, and enjoy life with the money they have stolen from their own people." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Alex Lee, John Smith, Douglas Farah, Santiago Canton, and Christopher Sabatini.

  United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Foreign Relations

  2015-03-17
• Strengthening Privacy Rights and National Security: Oversight of FISA Surveillance Programs: Hearing Before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, One Hundred Thirteenth Congress, First Session, July 31, 2013

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

  This is the July 31, 2013 hearing on "Strengthening Privacy Rights and National Security: Oversight of FISA Surveillance Programs" before the Senate Judiciary Committee. From Senator Patrick J. Leahy's opening statement: "Today, the Judiciary Committee will scrutinize Government surveillance programs conducted under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA. In the years since September 11th, Congress has repeatedly expanded the scope of FISA and has given the Government sweeping new powers to collect information on law-abiding Americans, and we must carefully consider now whether those laws may have gone too far. Last month, many Americans learned for the first time that one of these authorities--Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT [Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism] Act--has for years been secretly interpreted--secretly interpreted--to authorize the collection of Americans' phone records on an unprecedented scale. Information was also leaked about Section 702 of FISA, which authorizes the NSA to collect the communications of foreigners overseas. […] In the wake of these leaks, the President said that this is an opportunity to have an open and thoughtful debate about these issues. And I welcome that statement because this is a debate that several of us on this Committee in both parties have been trying to have for years. Like so many others, I will get the classified briefings, but then, of course, you cannot talk about them. There are a lot of these things that should be and can be discussed. And 2 if we are going to have the debate that the President called for, the executive branch has to be a full partner. We need straightforward answers, and I am concerned that we are not getting them." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: James M. Cole, John C. Inglis, James G. Carr, Jameel Jaffer, and Stewart A. Baker.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2014
• Combating Forced Labor and Modern-Day Slavery in East Asia and the Pacific: Hearing Before the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs, of the Committee on Foreign Relations, One Hundred Thirteenth Congress, Second Session, July 8, 2014

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

  This is the July 8, 2014 hearing on "Combating Forced Labor and Modern-Day Slavery in East Asia And The Pacific," held before the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. From the opening statement of Senator Cardin: "Slavery still exists. It exists around the world today, and it is something that we cannot allow to continue. Trafficking is the modern-day slavery. We understand that. And, thanks to the U.S. leadership, we have taken action not only in the United States, but we have been a global leader in combating modern-day slavery and trafficking. I am proud of the role that the U.S. Helsinki Commission has played. I had the honor this year to chair the U.S. Helsinki Commission. It rotates between the House and the Senate. My cochairman, Chris Smith, has been one of the leaders on trafficking issues. But, going back many years ago, the Helsinki Commission raised the issue of trafficking as a human rights issue and discussed the matter in which the United States could play a major role. As a result of the hearings in our Commission, the OSCE [Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe] took major steps to help all 57 states in the OSCE deal with trafficking issues. But, it also led to the passage of the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act in 2000, and we now have what is known as the Trafficking in Persons Report that we receive every year. This report, to me, is extremely valuable. And whenever an Ambassador from another country or a leader from another country is in my office, I look at this report, and it becomes part of the conversation as to what they are doing in regards to addressing trafficking." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Luis de Baca, Jesse eaves, Scot Marciel and Neha Misra.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2014
• Surveillance Transparency Act of 2013, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology and the Law of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, First Session, November 13, 2013

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

  This is from the November 13, 2013 hearing on "The Surveillance Transparency Act of 2013," held before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary. From the opening statement of Al Franken: "For months now, there has been a steady stream of news stories about the NSA's [National Security Agency] surveillance programs. And yet right now, by law, Americans cannot get really the most basic information about what is going on with these programs. Consider this: It has been months since the PRISM [Procurement Information System for Management] program and the telephone call records program were revealed to the public. And yet to this day, Americans do not know the actual number of people whose information has been collected under those programs; they do not know how many of those people are American; and they have no way of knowing how many of these Americans have had their information actually seen by government officials--as opposed to just being held in a database. The administration has taken good steps in good faith to address this problem. […] I have written a bipartisan bill to address this. It will require that the NSA disclose to the public how many people are having their data collected under each key foreign intelligence authority. It would make the NSA estimate how many of those people are American citizens or green card holders and how many of those Americans have had their information actually looked at by government agents." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Dean Heller, Robert S. Litt, Kevin S. Bankston, Paul Rosenzweig, Richard Salgado, and Keith B. Alexander.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2014
• Drug Enforcement and the Rule of Law: Mexico and Colombia, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, One Hundred Eleventh Congress, Second Session, May 18, 2010

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

  This is the May 18, 2010 hearing on "Drug Enforcement and the Rule of Law: Mexico and Colombia," held before the Senate Jusdiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law. From the opening statement of Richard J. Durbin: "Human rights protections from law enforcement abuses are embedded in our Constitution and Bill of Rights. For years, our Government has sought to export those principles to other countries. Though hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on these efforts, there has been precious little Congressional oversight. In fact, this is the first Congressional hearing to focus specifically on U.S. rule of law assistance to foreign drug enforcement efforts. It is logical to begin our oversight with Mexico and Colombia, which have received the bulk of U.S. rule of law assistance and which are the source of most illegal drugs in the United States." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Lanny A. Breuer, David T. Johnson, Gary K. King, Maria Elena Morera, Jose Miguel Vivanco and Lawrence G. Wasden.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2012