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).

• U.S. Policy Toward Burma: Its Impact and Effectiveness, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs of the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, One Hundred Eleventh Congress, First Session, September 30, 2009

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

  From the opening statement of Jim Webb: "This afternoon the East Asian and Pacific Affairs Subcommittee will examine American policy toward Burma, with particular reference to that country's strategic importance; the economic impacts of sanctions and other policies; and the potential effectiveness of the administration's recent decision to adjust policies toward the Burmese Government. [...] We are holding this hearing at a critical time. As I said to Burma's top leaders when I met with them in August, the world views the regime in terms of how it treats Aung San Suu Kyi. In order for the elections that are planned for 2010 to be perceived by the international community as credible, she and her party should be offered the opportunity to participate fully and openly in the process. Obviously, this could only be done if Aung San Suu Kyi is released from house arrest. [...] If the military government's announced intentions to hold elections in 2010 do indeed go forward, this could be a major and decisive step in the future of that country. I believe the United States should watch for signs of progress, that we should reserve hasty judgment, that we should do all in our power to encourage this election process to be free, fair, and transparent. We and the international community must also be prepared to offer advice, counsel, and hopefully support in the interest of meaningful and stable long-term change. To discuss these and other issues before the subcommittee we have two panels of distinguished witnesses today." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: JimWebb, Kurt Campbell, Thant Myint-U, David Steinberg, Jim Webb, David C. Williams, James M. Inhofe, Barbara Boxer, Richard G. Lugar, Mark E. Souder, International Burmese Monks Organization, All Burma Monks' Alliance, Nai Sunthorn Sripanngern, Frederick C. Gilbert, Monland Restoration Council, Min Zaw Oo, International Crisis Group, Nongovernmental Organizations, Thet Win, Chris Beyrer, USA ENGAGE, National Bureau of Asian Research, US-ASEAN Business Council, Refugees International, Kyi May Kaung, Lawrence Sein Myint, and U Khin Maung Htay.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2010
• New Afghanistan Strategy: The View from the Ground, Hearing Before the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, One Hundred Eleventh Congress, First Session, December 9, 2009

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

  From the opening statement of Richard G. Lugar: "This hearing provides an opportunity to build on the hearing we held last week with Secretaries Clinton and Gates and Admiral Mullen. We explored with them, not only the prospects for success of the civil-military campaign in Afghanistan, but also how the President's plan fits into our broader strategic objectives of preventing terrorist attacks and stabilizing the Middle East and South Asia. Much of the debate in Congress has focused on the President's stated intention to begin withdrawing some U.S. troops by July 2011. Some members have voiced the concern that such a date undercuts impressions of U.S. resolve, gives the Taliban and al-Qaeda a target beyond which they can wait us out. Other members, with a very different view of the war, worry that July 2011 date is so flexible it offers no assurance that troops will be withdrawn. This is a legitimate item for debate, but I'm doubtful that success or failure hinges on this point nearly as much as it does on the counterinsurgency strategy employed by allied troops, the viability of the Afghan security forces, and, most importantly, how the United States engages with Pakistan." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Karl Eikenberry, John F. Kerry, Richard G. Lugar, Barbara Boxer, Kirsten Gillibrand, Jacob J. Lew, Richard G. Lugar, David H. Petraeus, and Christopher J. Dodd.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2010
• United States Policy toward Afghanistan and Pakistan, Hearing Before the Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate, One Hundred Eleventh Congress, First Session, April 7, 2009

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

  From the opening statement of Carl Levin: "This committee has heard from witnesses over the last few weeks that the expansion of the Afghan army has been slowed by a lack of training teams to work with Afghan units and delays in getting the basic equipment that Afghan units need to train and to fight. The President's decision to deploy an additional brigade of 4,000 soldiers with the almost exclusive mission of training the Afghan security forces is a major step in the right direction to moving more quickly to building up the Afghan army. [...] I hope our witnesses will comment on the Afghan National Solidarity Program. The National Solidarity Program has funded thousands of small development projects in nearly every corner of Afghanistan by providing modest grants of money directly to locally elected community development councils which plan, implement, and oversee development projects that they decide are the most beneficial for their local communities. [...] Pakistani leaders at all levels should need no convincing from us that extremist groups pose the greatest threat to Pakistan's survival. If Pakistan's goals are attacking militants and extremists for the sake of their own stability and the benefit of the Pakistani people, then we can and should support their goals. But we can't buy Pakistan's support for our goals, rather than supporting their goals. If we are perceived as trying to do that, it will send the wrong message to the Pakistani people and to the extremists, who will use it against the Pakistan leadership and against our interests. [...] The road ahead is going to be long and costly. I believe we now have the right strategy. We all look forward to hearing from our witnesses about the challenges that lie ahead in implementing the administration's new approach." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Carl Levin, Michele A. Flournoy, David H. Petraeus, and Eric T. Olson.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2010
• Afghanistan: Assessing The Road Ahead, Hearing Before the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, One Hundred Eleventh Congress, First Session, December 3, 2009

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

  This hearing discusses the future of U.S. action in Afghanistan. From the opening statement of John F. Kerry: "I returned from Afghanistan and Pakistan in October with serious concerns that even if additional troops are able to clear the enemy and hold an area, even in the limited areas where we will operate, unless we are able to build and transfer leadership to local Afghans, unless the governance and development pieces are in place, we risk squandering the gains, time and time again. And right now, our military will tell us that, in many places, that tripartite capacity is not there. There are three principal conditions that I still believe must guide the tasking of additional troops. First, are there enough reliable Afghan National Army and Police forces to partner with American troops and eventually take over responsibility for security? The President has recognized the critical importance of speeding up training and mentoring. And to date, we've struggled to do so on the scale required, and I look forward to hearing your plans today to increase that training capacity and to quickly move Afghan security forces into the center of the fight. Second, are there local Afghan leaders with whom we can partner? We have to be able to identify and cooperate with tribal, district, and provincial leaders who command the authority to help deliver services and restore Afghans' faith in their own government. Third, is the civilian side ready to follow swiftly with development aid that brings tangible benefits to the local population? The President has outlined a surge in civilian personnel which will be crucial to locking in any of our military gains and bringing stability to Afghanistan. And I know, Secretary Clinton, that you've been working on that task, and we look forward to exploring it with you today." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Hillary Rodham Clinton, Richard G. Lugar, Barbara Boxer, Robert P. Casey, Jr., Bob Corker, Robert Gates, John F. Kerry, Michael Mullen, and Christopher J. Dodd.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2010
• Protective Forces at the Department of Energy, Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate, One Hundred Eleventh Congress, Second Session, March 3, 2010

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

  From the opening statement of E. Benjamin Nelson: "The Department of Energy (DOE) is responsible for the security of nuclear weapons on DOE sites, tons of weapons-grade materials, mostly highly-enriched uranium and plutonium, and various weapons parts at various locations across the country. Even a small amount of this material, in the hands of a terrorist, could lead to a horrific result. After the tragedy of September 11, 2001, the DOE reviewed the security of these sites, and their vulnerability to a terrorist attack, and came to the conclusion that the security needed to be increased. As a result, DOE adopted a new approach for the protective forces, shifting many of them to tactical response forces akin to a SWAT [Special Weapons And Tactics] team. These new teams were trained in offensive combat tactics to move, train, communicate, and fight as a team. This was a major shift from the previous defensive posture that was taken at the sites. With this new focus came new rigorous training and other requirements which were not uniformly implemented at the various sites and, where implemented, became an issue for the protective forces. While the protective forces fully supported the need for the increased security, it quickly became apparent that the new requirement would be progressively difficult for older guard personnel to meet." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: E. Benjamin Nelson, Eugene E. Aloise, Glenn S. Podonsky, and Mike Stumbo.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2011
• Iran Sanctions: Ensuring Robust Enforcement and Assessing Next Steps, Hearing Before the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, United States Senate, One Hundred Thirteenth Congress, First Session on Examining the Current State of Implementation and Enforcement of U.S. And Multilateral Sanctions Programs, June 4, 2013

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

  This is the June 4, 2013 hearing on "Iran Sanctions: Ensuring Robust Enforcement and Assessing Next Steps," held before the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. From the opening statement of Tim Johnson: "Today's hearing is part of our oversight efforts to ensure effective enforcement of the Iran sanctions regime overseen by this Committee. We will assess what additional tools might enable the President to intensify the economic pressure on Iran's leaders to make clear that they must reverse course and satisfy the unified demands of the international community to abandon their illicit nuclear activities and support for terrorism. Two weeks ago, the Senate again made clear where we stood, voting 99-0 for a resolution expressing support for aggressive sanctions enforcement and for Israel's right to defend itself against threats from Iran. In addition to sanctions on Iran in place prior to 2010, in the last 3 years Congress adopted and the President signed into law an unprecedented four new sanctions measures. These measures, coupled with those imposed by the Administration, the European Union, and the U.N. Security Council, have had profound effects. They have slowed Iran's nuclear and missile program by restricting its access to key technologies. They have crippled Iran's economy, causing its currency to plummet and inflation to skyrocket. In the last year, its oil sales were cut roughly in half, and Government revenues available for its enrichment programs were sharply reduced. Yet despite this progress, the core strategic objective of our sanctions has not yet been realized: Iran's leaders still refuse to abandon their illicit nuclear program and verifiably limit their nuclear activities to peaceful purposes." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Tim Johnson, Wendy Sherman, David S. Cohen, and Eric L. Hirschhorn.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2013
• Examining the Proper Size of the Nuclear Weapons Stockpile to Maintain a Credible U.S. Deterrent, Hearing Before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, United States Senate, One Hundred Twelfth Congress, Second Session, Special Hearing, July 25, 2012

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

  This is the July 25, 2012 hearing on "Nuclear Weapons Stockpile" held before a Senate Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations. From the opening statement of Dianne Feinstein: "Ladies and gentlemen, we're an appropriations subcommittee. Where we come into this is the money that's spent, because this is a mandatory security part of our portfolio and the mandatory security part of the portfolio keeps growing, which pushes out other parts of the portfolio, such as energy, water, various other programs run by the Army Corps of Engineers, that kind of thing, which makes a fair distribution of assets increasingly difficult. One of the best things about Washington is that you really have access to great minds, people who are good thinkers, people who have developed skills over the years. It's important to listen as we form our decisions. So that's really the purpose of this morning's hearing, to listen to three very prominent people, very skilled, very good thinkers, who we will introduce very shortly. But let me just put forward a few points on the current plan for nuclear weapons modernization. It calls for $215 billion on nuclear weapons and delivery systems in the next 10 years. According to a recent Stimson Center report, the United States already spends about $31 billion a year to maintain nuclear weapons capabilities." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Dianne Feinstein, Lamar Alexander, James E. Cartwright, Thomas R. Pickering, Keith B. Payne, and Susan Collins.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2013
• Future Nuclear Posture of the United States, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate, One Hundred Fourteenth Congress, Second Session, January 27, 2016

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

  This is the January 27, 2016 hearing on "The Future Nuclear Posture of the United States" before the U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services. The purpose of this hearing was to establish a clear guideline for the nuclear posture of the United States going forward with experts from across the country coming in to discuss the issue. Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: John R. Harvey, Kieth B. Payne, Brad H. Roberts, Franklin C. Miller.

  United States. Government Publishing Office

  2017
• Salt II Treaty, Part 5, Hearings Before the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, Ninety -Sixth Congress, First Session on Ex. Y, 96-1, the Treaty Between The United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms and The Protocol Thereto, Together Referred to as the Salt II Treaty, Both Signed at Vienna, Austria, on June 18, 1979, and Related Documents, September 18, 19, 21, and 24, 1979

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

  This is the September 18, 19, 21, and 24, 1979 hearings titled "The Salt II Treaty, Part 5" held before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. From the opening statement of Frank Church: "This morning the Senate Foreign Relations Committee continues its examination of the SALT [Strategic Arms Limitation] II Treaty by receiving testimony from Senators and Members of the House of Representatives." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Jonathan B. Bingham, Harold Brown, Thomas J. Downey, Richard Falk, Hamilton Fish Sr., Jake Garn, Gary Hart, Mark O. Hatfield, Fred Ikle, William Kincade, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Donald J. Pease, Avery Post, John F. Seiberling, and Paul Simon.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  1979
• Air Force Nuclear Security, Hearing Before the Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate, One Hundred Tenth Congress, Second Session, February 12, 2008

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

  From Carl Levin's opening statement: "The issue this morning is very, very serious. Over a 2-day period last August, the Air Force lost control and knowledge of six nuclear warheads during what had become a routine effort to realign nuclear cruise missiles without warheads between Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota and Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana. Through an extraordinary series of consecutive failures of process, procedure, training, and discipline, the nuclear warheads flew on the wings of a B--52 bomber from Minot to Barksdale inside of cruise missiles. No one knew where they were or even missed them for over 36 hours. The warheads were not discovered until the missiles on which the warheads were loaded were being prepared to be moved to the weapons storage area after having been unloaded from the B--52 at Barksdale after a flight of over 1,400 miles." Statements, letters, and documents submitted for the record include those of the following: Carl Levin, Daniel J. Darnell, James M. Inhofe, Bill Nelson, and Larry D. Welch.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2008
• U.S.-IAEA Treaty, Hearing Before the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, Ninety-Sixth Congress, First Session on Ex. B.. 95-2, Agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency for the Application of Safeguards in the United States, December 11, 1979

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

  This is the December 11, 1979 hearing titled 'U.S.-IAEA Treaty" held before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. From the opening statement of Claiborne Pell: 'Today, we welcome Senator McClure, who is testifying on the U.S.-IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] Treaty, the so-called 'voluntary offer,' by which the United States would voluntarily agree to permit IAEA inspection of its nuclear facilities which do not have a national security significance, and also to hear the nomination which will follow." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: James A. McClure.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  1980
• COVID-19 Intellectual Property Waiver: Threats to U.S. Innovation, Economic Growth, and National Security

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

  From the Document: "The COVID-19 [coronavirus disease 2019] pandemic, as well as growing economic and strategic competition from China and other traditional competitors such as Russia, have made innovation, economic growth, and national security top policy concerns. All three are threatened by the Biden Administration's support for the proposed intellectual property (IP) waiver at the World Trade Organization (WTO). The Biden Administration should retract its support for the continuing negotiations of the IP waiver, and, if it fails to do so, then Congress should refuse to enact any implementing legislation of this waiver of the international commitment to honor the protection of IP rights. Commentary about the proposed IP waiver at the WTO originally focused on its theft of patents for vaccines and other medical treatments for the COVID-19 virus. As Heritage Foundation Research Fellow James Roberts explained recently, the IP waiver would facilitate the global theft of the patents that made possible the private investments necessary in creating new technologies like the mRNA [messenger ribonucleic acid] vaccines that were invented and mass produced in unprecedented time. The IP waiver would obliterate international protection for patent rights while leaving unaddressed the real problems that are impeding global distribution of vaccines to those who still need these vital medicines--problems such as eliminating the trade restrictions prohibiting international distribution of vaccines and creating distribution and transportation infrastructures in the developing world necessary to distribute the vaccines in those countries."

  Heritage Foundation (Washington, D.C.)

  Mossoff, Adam

  2021-09-17
• Update on the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Terrorism, Counter-Terrorism and Countering Violent Extremism

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

  From the Introduction: "The Counter-Terrorism Committee Executive Directorate (CTED) has been at the forefront of efforts to monitor and evaluate the impacts of the pandemic on terrorism, counter-terrorism and countering violent extremism (CVE), including through its two previous analytical reports, published in June and December 2020, respectively. More than a year after COVID-19 [coronavirus disease 2019] was declared a global pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO), it continues to have a significant impact on the geopolitical landscape and in most domestic and foreign policy areas. Although some Member States have made progress in limiting the effects of the pandemic -- aided by vaccination programmes and other containment measures -- COVID-19 and its impacts continues to be widespread in many parts of the world. CTED has continued to analyse key trends, informed by its ongoing dialogue with Member States (including within the framework of the hybrid assessment visits currently being conducted on behalf of the Counter-Terrorism Committee) and with international and regional organizations. The present report combines this information with data collected by CTED through a survey of its partners aimed at gathering their views on the potential long-term impacts of the pandemic."

  United Nations. Security Council. Counter-Terrorism Committee

  United Nations. Security Council. Counter-Terrorism Committee Executive Directorate

  2021-06
• Long COVID: Lessons Learned [presentation]

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

  This presentation provides information regarding the symptoms of "Long COVID [coronavirus disease]," including clinical experiences and the evaluation of possible treatments.

  Penn Medicine

  Abramoff, Benjamin
• Knowledge Visualizations: A Tool to Achieve Optimized Operational Decision Making and Data Integration

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

  From the thesis Abstract: "The overabundance of data created by modern information systems (IS) has led to a breakdown in cognitive decision-making. Without authoritative source data, commanders' decision-making processes are hindered as they attempt to paint an accurate shared operational picture (SOP). Further impeding the decision-making process is the lack of proper interface interaction to provide a visualization that aids in the extraction of the most relevant and accurate data. Utilizing the DSS to present visualizations based on OLAP cube integrated data allow decision-makers to rapidly glean information and build their situation awareness (SA). This yields a competitive advantage to the organization while in garrison or in combat. Additionally, OLAP cube data integration enables analysis to be performed on an organization's data-flows. This analysis is used to identify the critical path of data throughout the organization. Linking a decision-maker to the authoritative data along this critical path eliminates the many decision layers in a hierarchal command structure that can introduce latency or error into the decision-making process. Furthermore, the organization has an integrated SOP from which to rapidly build SA, and make effective and efficient decisions."

  Naval Postgraduate School (U.S.)

  Hudson, Paul C.; Rzasa, Jeffrey A.

  2015-06
• LSU NCBRT Preparedness Podcast 32 - Environmental Health: Challenges of the Profession and COVID Response [audio]

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

  Louisiana State University's National Center for Biomedical Research and Training (LSU NCBRT) releases a weekly podcast covering different aspects of COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) relating to public health and public safety. From the Podcast Description: "Today's podcast is the second and final episode in a two-part series on environmental health. Guests include Dr. David Dyjack, Executive Director at the National Environmental Health Association (NEHA); Jesse Bliss - Director of Programs and Partnerships at NEHA; and Tim Hatch, Assistant Administrator at the Alabama Department of Public Health (East Central District). In this episode, they discuss the challenges that accompany the environmental health field, such the public's understanding of what environmental health contains, the importance of proper education and certification for environmental health personnel, and the many different roles environmental health plays in a community. They also talk about the impact that the pandemic has had on different aspects of environmental health." The duration of this audio is 50 minutes and 57 seconds.

  Louisiana State University (Baton Rouge, La.). National Center for Biomedical Research and Training

  Markle, Ashley; Dyjack, David; Bliss, Jesse . . .

  2021-03-08
• Comprehensive Immigration Reform in 2009: Can We Do It and How? Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, One Hundred Eleventh Congress, First Session, April 30, 2009

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

  From Charles E. Schumer's opening statement: "I am sure I speak for my colleagues on both sides of the aisle when I say that no Senator has worked harder or contributed more to the immigration conversation than Senator Kennedy, and we all sincerely thank him for his leadership. Now, since I became Chairman of this Subcommittee in February, I am often asked the question that we hope to answer today: 'Can we achieve significant immigration reform in this session and, if so, what would this reform look like?'" Statements, letters, and documents submitted for the record include those of the following: John Cornyn, Dianne, Feinstein, Edward M. Kennedy, John Kyl, Patrick J. Leahy, Charles E. Schumer, Alan Greenspan, Wade Henderson, Joel C. Hunter, Kris W. Kobach, J. Thomas Manger, Eliseo Medina, Doris Meissner, Jeff Moseley, Gregory K. Allen, Ross Eisenbrey, EunSook Lee, Karen K. Narasaki, Chung-Wha Hong, Vanessa Sandoval, Toussaint E. Summers, John J. Sweeney, and Kathryn Wylde.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2010
• Immigration Reform and the Reorganization Of Homeland Defense, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Immigration of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, One Hundred Seventh Congress, Second Session, June 26, 2002

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

  From the opening statement of Edward M. Kennedy: "Today, our Subcommittee considers the many immigration issues relating to homeland security reform. Immigration is a central part of our heritage and history, and essential to who we are as Americans. In defending the Nation, we cannot lose sight of our tradition as a Nation of immigrants and a safe haven for the oppressed. The administration's proposal to include the Immigration and Naturalization Service in the new Department of Homeland Security raises serious questions about the consequences for immigration law and policy, and the adjudication of immigration services and benefits. Reorganization may help in some instances to improve the lines of command, but it is not a panacea. A reshuffling of agencies that fails to address such fundamental problems as poor informationsharing, inefficient management structures, and insufficient resources will do little to improve security for the American people." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Sam Brownback, Maria Cantwell, Richard J. Durbin, Dianne Feinstein, Charles E. Grassley, Orrin G. Hatch, Edward M. Kennedy, Bill Ong Hing, Dana Marks Keener, David A. Martin, Kathleen Campbell Walker, Timothy H. Edgar, Susan F. Martin, Andrew Schoenholtz and Bill McCollum.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2003
• Reviewing America's Commitment to the Refugee Convention: The Refugee Protection Act of 2010, Hearing Before the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, One Hundred Eleventh Congress, Second Session, May 19, 2010

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

  From the opening statement of Jeff Sessions: "I note that for 2010, the number of people who could be allowed into the country as refugees is 80,000, as refugees. This speaks to the generous nature of our immigration system. Probably 10 percent of the people who enter our country, at least, are asylees or refugees, and I believe this policy will help change the lives for a lot of those people in a dramatic way. Over 5,000 refugees, for example, have been resettled by the Catholic Social Services Refugee Resettlement Program in Alabama in recent years. The goal of this program is to assist refugees in becoming independent, self-sufficient, self-supporting members of the community, and I am proud of the work that they have done. I also think that we have some particular responsibility to those who suffer for battling for freedom in their countries, particularly those who have been in some way allied with the United States and whose lives are at risk for those very qualities. So we can be proud of our history, but we need to be diligent in our analysis of any proposal that seeks to change the law by which people are admitted into the United States. The legislation recently introduced by our Chairman seeks to amend many aspects of the current program. That piece of legislation is the basis for this hearing, and I am grateful that we have the opportunity to hear what this panel has to say. I do have concerns about some of the provisions in the legislation and I hope we can gain insight today." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Russell D. Feingold, Patrick J. Leahy, Jeff Sessions, Patrick Giantonio, Dan Glickman, Igor V. Timofeyev, Laura Murphy, Joanne Lin, Richard T. Foltin, Erol Kekic, Bill Frelick, Melanie Nezer, Mary Meg McCarthy, Pary Karadaghi, Carolyn B. Lamm, Layli Miller-Muro, and Dana Leigh Marks,

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2010
• Comprehensive Immigration Reform: Hearing Before the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, One Hundred Thirteenth Congress, First Session, February 13, 2013

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

  This is the February 13, 2013 hearing on "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" held before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. From the testimony of Janet Napolitano, Secretary U.S. Department of Homeland Security: "I am pleased to join you today to discuss the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS's) efforts on immigration and why I believe the time has come for Congress to pass commonsense immigration reform so that everyone plays by the same rules. The United States is a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws. Our very founding is rooted in immigration. And at every great and momentous occasion throughout our proud history, the immigrant, and the immigrant experience, has contributed to the richness of our culture, the strength of our moral character, and the advancement of our society. As this Committee knows, DHS plays a significant role in the administration and enforcement of our immigration laws. We secure our Nation's borders to prevent the illegal entry of people, drugs, weapons, and contraband, while fostering legal trade and travel. We enforce immigration laws to protect public safety, promote economic fairness and competition, and maintain the integrity of our immigration system. We administer legal immigration benefits and services to millions of new and aspiring Americans, including members of our Armed Forces. And we work with a range of Federal, state, tribal, local, territorial, and international partners to advance all of these efforts, while ensuring that the civil rights of affected communities are respected." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Janet Napolitano, Jose Antonio Vargas, Jessica Vaughan, Steve Case, Chris Crane and Janet Murguía.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2013
• Midyear Consultation on U.S. Refugee Programs for Fiscal Year 1986: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Immigration and Refugee Policy of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Ninety-Ninth Congress, Second Session, June 20, 1986

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

  From the opening statement of the Hon. Alan K. Simpson, a U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming, Chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration and Refugee Policy: "The Refugee Act of 1980 provides for "appropriate consultations" between representatives of the President and Members of the Congress to review the refugee situation. To my knowledge, this is the first midyear consultation which the Senate Judiciary Committee has held with the administration. I requested the consultation because of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings legislation and the effect it will necessarily have on the Refugee Program. In addition, a little over 1 year ago, I spent 2 weeks in Southeast Asia, and filed a rather extensive report with a broad range of observations, conclusions, and recommendations. The subcommittee and the committee are interested in knowing exactly how the various Gramm-Rudman-Hollings cuts will affect refugee admissions and the resettlement program here in the United States. I am also curious regarding the implementation of the recommendations contained in that report of last April. We are also interested in knowing the nature of the current refugee situation in Southeast Asia, which seems to be almost a never-ending story." Materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Phillip N. Hawkes, Edward M. Kennedy, Alan C. Nelson, and James N. Purcell, Jr.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  1986
• Refugees: Seeking Solutions to a Global Concern: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, One Hundred Eighth Congress, Second Session, September 21, 2004

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

  From the opening statement of Hon. Saxby Chambliss: "I thank our witnesses for being here today to talk about a very important issue, and that is the number of refugees around the world and what the United States is doing to resettle them here or to seek other viable solutions to their displacement. According to the United States High Commissioner for Refugees, there were about 9.7 million refugees worldwide at the end of 2003, down from 10.5 million at the end of 2002. The U.S. Committee for Refugees' World Refugee Survey estimates that of the world's refugee population, more than 7 million refugees have been restricted to camps for 10 years or more. While the overall decrease in the world's refugee population is promising, the numbers remain staggering. The United States has long been a world leader in providing permanent resettlement to refugees around the world. In fact, it is U.S. policy to admit half the refugees identified by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees each year. Despite all the work the U.S. has done to offer resettlement to some, the worldwide refugee population remains a vast concern. I hope today's hearing can shed light on what the United States is doing bilaterally or multilaterally to encourage other nations to increase their efforts to resettle refugees." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include the following: Saxby Chambliss, Russell D. Feingold, Edward M. Kennedy, Alan Adler, Eduardo Aguirre, Jr., Kenneth J. Bacon, Arthur E. Dewey, Mark Franken, Charles H. Kuck, Lavinia Limon, and Daniel A. Stein.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2004
• Annual Refugee Consultation: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Immigration and Refugee Policy of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Ninety-Eighth Congress, First Session on Oversight Hearing to Review the Process of This Year's Refugee Resettlement Program, Focusing on the Consultation Process in Providing Asylum to Persons Fleeing Political Persecution, September 26, 1983

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

  From the opening statement of the Hon. Alan K. Simpson, a U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming, Chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration and Refugee Policy: "We have our refugee consultation here. Certainly in a very real sense, the United States demonstrates its commitment to freedom and the inherent dignity of the individual through a most generous refugee program providing a haven to those people who are singled out for persecution by their own governments. The traditional generosity of the American people, I think, is richly illustrated by the leadership role this Nation has assumed, both in the resettlement in the United States of victims of persecution, and certainly by providing humanitarian assistance for refugees throughout the world. As chairman of this Subcommittee on Immigration and Refugee Policy, I want to reaffirm that commitment to assist those refugees who are of special humanitarian concern to the United States. But obviously, we cannot accept for permanent resettlement all of those persons fleeing from governments whose standards of freedom do not match our own. But we can and should continue to do our fair share in addressing the plight of the world's refugees. And I think we can most effectively render assistance by providing care and maintenance funds, and services to countries of first asylum until the refugees can return to their homes, and by directing our foreign policy initiatives to both address and avoid the root causes of refugee situations." Materials for the record include those of the following: Edward J. Derwinski, H. Eugene Douglas, Mark Hatfield, Phillip N. Hawkes, Alan Nelson, James Purcell, and William French Smith.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  1984
• Immigration and Naturalization Service Oversight: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Immigration of the Committtee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, One Hundred Fourth Congress, Second Session on Reviewing the Status of Operations at the Immigration and Naturalization Service, October 2, 1996

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

  From the opening statement of Hon. Alan K. Simpson: "the business this morning is to conduct congressional oversight of the operations of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service. The Service has seen its budget increase dramatically in recent years at a time when other government agencies were taking their cuts. That is not a baseball term. Congress has clearly recognized the need for more effective enforcement of our Nation's immigration laws. The purpose today is to review INS policies and practices, to see if the public's interest in these matters is being well-served by the Service. With us this morning is INS Commissioner Doris Meissner, who certainly is a long time laborer in these vineyards and is someone who I have known and worked with and very much enjoyed since my own earliest involvement in this subject. But we have these serious questions to be asked. This will be the first of two or perhaps three hearings that will focus on the INS. The next hearing will be on the morning of October 9, in this chamber and will focus on the naturalization policy and procedures in the INS controversial program Citizenship USA. A subsequent hearing later in October may focus on other citizenship issues." Additional materials submitted for the record include that of Doris Meissner.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  1997
• Examining the Constitutionality and Prudence of State and Local Governments Enforcing Immigration Law, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, One Hundred Twelfth Congress, Second Session, April 24, 2012

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

  This is from the April 24, 2012 hearing, "Examining the Constitutionality and Prudence of State and Local Governments Enforcing Immigration Law," before the United States Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security. From the statement of Chuck Grassley: "Despite the title of today's hearing, the witnesses called by the Majority will focus on the immigration law passed by Arizona. Arizona took responsibility when they saw first-hand the results of ineffective leadership from Washington. The federal government hadn't done its part to protect the border or to enforce the immigration laws on the books. In response, elected leaders in Arizona took action to protect their state and their citizens. Other states like Arizona have taken on the burden of protecting their citizens in large part because this administration has failed to do so. This administration has sent a message through its policies that the rule of law is just a phrase to be kicked around and not to be taken seriously. Its policies have led the American people to believe that the laws on the books mean very little. Unfortunately, there are people suffering because of this administration's inaction and amnesty-minded policies." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Chuck Grassley, Dick Durbin, Steve Gallardo, Russell Pearce, Dennis W. DeConcini, and Todd Landfried.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2012
• Refugee Consultation: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Immigration and Refugee Policy of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Ninety-Seventh Congress, Second Session on Consultation Between Congress and Cabinet-Level Representatives of the President, on the Proposed Refugee Admissions for Fiscal Year 1983, in Accordance with the Provisions of the Refugee Act of 1980, September 29, 1982

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

  From the opening statement of the Hon. Alan K. Simpson, a U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming, Chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration and Refugee Policy: "I very much appreciate your help and assistance throughout this entire issue of immigration and refugee matters. You have been of immeasurable assistance. So today we are gathered in accordance with the provisions of the Refugee Act of 1980, which calls for a 'consultation between the Congress and Cabinet-level representatives' of the President in setting an annual refugee admission level and we meet today to consult on the proposed admissions for fiscal year 1983. We are committed to providing our assistance to the homeless and persecuted throughout this planet. I think we are very proud of our leadership in that area and Americans have a very fair sense of our love of freedom and our willingness to promote and share that with people throughout the world. But I do not think we can be expected to contribute more to refugee assistance than the rest of the entire world combined. And of the major recent refugee groups seeking permanent resettlement, the United States has accepted the vast majority. We have taken in 70 percent of the Indochinese, over 600,000 since 1973; we have accepted 850,000 of the 1 million Cubans who have fled the Castro regime since the early 1960's; we accept about 75 percent of the Soviet Jews who manage to obtain exit permits from Russia, and we have admitted substantial percentages of the Nicaraguans, the Poles, the Lebanese, the Ethiopians, Iranians, and other nationalities seeking a permanent haven from persecution and that is the American way." Materials submitted for the record include those of the following: "Kenneth W. Dam, H. Eugene Douglas, Alan C. Nelson, William French Smith, and David B. Swoap.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  1983
• Final Exercise Report: Byron Nuclear Generating Station [August 25, 1999]

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

  From the Executive Summary: "On August 25, 1999, an exercise was conducted in the plume exposure pathway emergency planning zone (EPZ) around the Byron Nuclear Generating Station by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Region V. The purpose of the exercise was to assess the level of State and local preparedness in responding to a radiological emergency. [...] This report contains the final evaluation of the biennial exercise."

  United States. Federal Emergency Management Agency

  1999-10-21
• After Action Report/ Improvement Plan: Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant [December 03, 2009]

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

  From the Executive Summary: "On December 3, 2009, an out-of-sequence medical drill was conducted for the Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant (CPNPP), located near Glen Rose, Texas. Personnel from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security/Federal Emergency Management Agency (DHS/FEMA) Region VI Office evaluated all activities. The purpose of the drill was to assess the level of preparedness of responders to react to a simulated medical emergency with a radiologically contaminated patient. [...] This report contains the final evaluation of this out-of-sequence drill."

  United States. Federal Emergency Management Agency
• Exercise Report: Millstone Power Station [November 10, 2004]

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

  From the Executive Summary: "On November 10 2004, a Medical Services (MS) drill was conducted at the Middlesex Hospital, Middletown, Connecticut [CT] by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Region I. The purpose of the drill was to assess the capability of the Middlesex Hospital, Middletown, CT and the Waterford Fire Department, Goshen Station, Ambulance Service, Waterford, Connecticut in responding to a radiological emergency at the Millstone Power Plant (PP). This drill was held in accordance with FEMA's policies and guidance concerning the exercise of State and local radiological emergency response plans (RERP) and procedures. [...] This report contains the final evaluation of the MS-1 Drill. The hospital and the fire department ambulance service demonstrated knowledge of their emergency response plans and procedures and adequately implemented them. There were no deficiencies and no Areas Requiring Corrective Action (ARCA) identified as a result of this drill."

  United States. Federal Emergency Management Agency

  2005-02-07
• Crisis Standards of Care and COVID-19: What's Working and What Isn't [presentation]

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

  This presentation titled, "Crisis Standards of Care and COVID-19 [coronavirus disease 2019]: What's Working and What Isn't" was used during a webinar of the same name. The original webinar was moderated by Meghan Treber of ASPR [US Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response] TRACIE [Technical Resources, Assistance Center and Information Exchange]. The presentation includes links to resources regarding COVID-19. The following presenters also included slides in the presentation: Eric Toner from the Center for Health Security, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health; John Hick of Hennepin Health in Minnesota; and Dan Hanfling from In-Q-Tel and George Washington University.

  United States. Department of Health and Human Services. Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response; United States. Technical Resources, Assistance Center and Information Exchange

  Treber, Meghan; Toner, Eric (Eric S.); Hick, John L. . . .

  2020-12-03