Homeland Security Digital Library

SEARCH THE HSDL

Results 136441 - 136470 (of 141,870) sorted by relevance sort by date

Only 2/3! You are seeing results from the Public Collection, not the complete Full Collection. Sign in to search everything (see eligibility).

After Action Report/ Improvement Plan: Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant [August 03, 2011]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
From the Executive Summary: "On August 3, 2011 a Radiological Emergency Preparedness (REP) exercise was conducted at Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant (CPNPP) located near Glen Rose, Texas. The previous exercise at this site was conducted on April 7 - 8, 2009. The purpose of the exercise was to assess the level of preparedness of state and local responders to a simulated emergency at CPNPP. [...] This report contains the final written evaluation of the biennial exercise."

United States. Federal Emergency Management Agency

2011-10-28
After Action Report/ Improvement Plan: Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant [November 15, 2011]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
From the Executive Summary: "On November 15, 2011, an Emergency Worker Monitoring and Decontamination 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, evaluated all activities. The purpose of the drill was to assess the level of preparedness of local responders to react to a simulated radiological emergency at the CPNPP. [...] This report contains the final evaluation of the out-of-sequence drill."

United States. Federal Emergency Management Agency

2011-12-15
Post-Plume Phase Final Exercise and Drill Reports: Columbia Generating Station [June 16-19, 2004 and August 31, 2004]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
From the Executive Summary: "On August 31, 2004, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Region X conducted a plume-phase exercise in the plume exposure pathway emergency planning zones (EPZs) around the Columbia Generating Station. 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 Energy Northwest's Columbia Generating Station (CGS) post-plume exercise[.]"

United States. Federal Emergency Management Agency

2004-11-23
After Action Report/ Improvement Plan: Comanche Peak Nuclear Plant [September 14, 2010]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
From the Executive Summary: "On September 14, 2010, an out-of-sequence medical drill was conducted for the Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant (CPNPP), located near Glen Rose, Texas. [...] The purpose of the drill was to assess the level of preparedness of local responders to react to a simulated radiological emergency at the CPNPP. [...] This report contains the final evaluation of the out-of-sequence drill."

United States. Federal Emergency Management Agency

2010-10-13
Final Report: Camp Roberts Reception and Care Center Drill and El Chorro Emergency Worker Monitoring and Decontamination Center Drill, Diablo Canyon Power Plant [April 30 & June 4, 2003]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
From the Executive Summary: "On April 30, 2003, and June 4, 2003, respectively, the Camp Roberts Reception and Care Center and the El Chorro Emergency Worker Monitoring and Decontamination Center Drills were conducted in the emergency planning zone (EPZ) around the Diablo Canyon Power Plant. The purpose of the drills was to assess the level of local and State preparedness in responding to a radiological emergency. The drills were held in accordance with FEMA's policies and guidance concerning the exercise of local and State radiological emergency response plans and procedures. [...] The State and local organizations, except where noted in this report, demonstrated knowledge of their emergency response plans and procedures and adequately implemented them. There was one Area Requiring Corrective Action (ARCA) identified as a result of the Camp Roberts Reception and Care Center drill; the ARCA was corrected during the El Chorro Emergency Worker Monitoring and Decontamination Center drill. One ARCA from the 1999 Camp Roberts Reception and Care Center remains uncorrected, and five ARCAs from 1999 drills were corrected."

United States. Federal Emergency Management Agency

2004-02-19
Final Exercise Report: Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant [October 21 and 26, 1999]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
From the Executive Summary: "On October 26, 1999, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Region III, conducted an unannounced exercise in the plume exposure pathway emergency planning zone (EPZ) around the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant (CCNPP). 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 held on October 26, 1999, and the out-of-sequence school drills conducted on October 21, 1999, including the capabilities of risk jurisdictions to coordinate and provide reception and radiological monitoring and decontamination for both evacuees and emergency workers."

United States. Federal Emergency Management Agency

2000-03-14
Final Exercise Report: Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Plant [November 4, 2009]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
From the Executive Summary: "On November 4, 2009, exercise was conducted for the plume exposure emergency planning zone (EPZ) around the Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Plant (BFNPP) by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Region IV. 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 evaluation of the biennial exercise and supporting out-of-sequence activities conducted during the week of September 21, 2009."

United States. Federal Emergency Management Agency

2010-02-23
Economic Imperative for Enacting Immigration Reform: Hearing Before the Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security, United States Senate, One Hundred Twelfth Congress, First Session, July 26, 2011

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
This is the July 26, 2011 hearing, "Economic Imperative for Enacting Immigration Reform," before the U.S. Senate Committee of the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security. From the statement of Senator Patrick Leahy: "The United States loses too many talented foreign-born students who graduate from professional and other higher-education institutions in the United States. We must ensure that American companies have access to the well-trained and highly skilled individuals they need to stay at the leading edge of innovation and productivity. […] In testimony before Congress in 2005, Dr. William A. Wulf, President of the National Academy of Engineering, stated that one-third of all Ph.D.'s granted in the United States in the fields of science and engineering are awarded to foreign-born graduate students. […] In addition to creating a more sensible system for foreign workers who seek employment in the United States and those who seek their assistance, other reforms to our current system will pay dividends to our overall economy." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: John Cornyn, Patrick J. Leahy, Chuck Grassley, Chuck Schumer, Robert Greifeld, David J. Skorton, Brad Smith, Puneet S. Arora, Ronil Hira, Laurent F. Gilbert, David Roefaro, Brad Smith, Paul Bridges, Franklin L. Davis, Richard F. Tax, Edward Beck, Jacqueline Bruey, Donna Conroy, Steven Fink, Lynn Foster, Steven Freise, Robert Gittelson, Robert Heath, David Huber, Peter D. Joseph, Peter M. Cleveland, Brendan Kavanaugh, Steven Kritzer, Ray L. Marr, James McDonald, Christine L. Miller, Leonard Moustakas, Gene A. Nelson, Larry Ochs, John G. Otto, Jack B. Palmer, Harrison Picot, John Popescu, Damon Scott, David Skorton, Dan Stein, and Brian Valek.

United States. Government Printing Office

2011
Comprehensive Immigration Reform: Hearing Before the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, One Hundred Tenth Congress, First Session, February 28, 2007

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
From the opening statement of Patrick Leahy: "We reported a comprehensive immigration reform bill. Senator Specter kept us practically around the clock until we did. But then we saw what happened. The Republican leadership decided that there would not be a House-Senate conference. Instead, they forced through a bill calling for billions to be wasted constructing a 700- mile fence along our 2,000-mile Southern border, sort of a Potemkin fence. And this year we have a renewed opportunity to do the right thing, and we should. By their votes in the most recent elections, the American people have reaffirmed America's traditional place as a Nation of immigrants. We all are either immigrants, came here as immigrants, or have immigrant parents or grandparents. We are not anti-immigrant. We are not racist. We understand people seeking a better life for their children and grandchildren as naturally as we do. Americans understand that comprehensive immigration reform does not mean criminalizing the hard work of law-abiding people, deporting millions of families who have lived here for years, or seeking to wall ourselves off from our neighbors and the world around us. Thankfully, the politics of fear did not succeed. Americans rejected the poisonous rhetoric of intolerance in favor of a more confident, realistic, and humane approach that finds strength in diversity and human dignity. If we are going to reclaim America's promise, we need to keep our eyes on the core principles of comprehensive reform. To his credit--and I praise the President for this- -he has called for comprehensive legislation and 'an immigration system worthy of America.' We should all, Republicans and Democratic members alike, listen to the President's words on that. But he also has to demonstrate his commitment to those principles and lead Republicans toward achieving that goal, so that not as members of a political party, but as Americans, we can honor our history as a Nation of immigrants and strengthen our future and leadership in the world." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Michael Chertoff, Carlos M. Gutierrez, Charles E. Grassley, Patrick J. Leahy and Specter Arlen.

United States. Government Printing Office

2007
To Amend the Nationality Act of 1940: Hearings before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Immigration, United States Senate, Seventy-Seventh Congress, Second Session on H.R. 6250, An Act to Amend the Nationality Act of 1940, February 17, 18, and 19, 1942

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
From the opening statement of Senator Francis Maloney: "This is a meeting of the subcommittee appointed by Chairman Richard Russell of the Committee on Immigration to hear those who want to be heard on H. R. 6250. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United Slates of America in Congress assembled, That section 307 (a) of the Nationality Act of 1940, approved October 14, 1940 (54 Stat. 1142), be, and it hereby is, amended by adding the following: 'Provided, That the requirement that a person shall have resided for a period of six months within the State in which the petition is filed shall not apply to members of the military and naval forces of the United States: And provided further, That any member of the military or naval forces of the United States may file his petition for naturalization in any naturalization court, regardless of his place of residence, and such petition may be heard immediately by the naturalization court if the petitioner and his witnesses shall have appeared before, and been examined by, a representative of the Immigration and Naturalization Service.'"

United States. Government Printing Office

1942
Comprehensive Immigration Reform, Hearing Before the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, One Hundred Ninth Congress, First Session, July 26, 2005

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
From the Opening statement of Arlen Spector, "The issue of immigration is one of the major problems facing the United States today, as it is well known. It was addressed by the President in a major speech on January 7th of 2004, and it has continued to be a matter of enormous importance. [...]. The foreign-born population of the United States is currently estimated to be in excess of 33 million people, equal to more than 11 percent of the United States population. The United States Census Bureau now estimates that there are some 20 million foreign-born workers in the labor force, which accounts for some 14 percent of the more than 144 million workers in America. [...]. There is a concern that there will be a shortage of workers, both skilled and unskilled. [...]. There have been repeated efforts to modify the entry requirements for highly skilled immigrants. There is a general consensus that amnesty is the wrong answer and that we ought not to reward people who are here illegally and put them ahead in any way of those who have gone through the normal processes of legal entry and the complex applications for citizenship." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Sam Brownback, John Cornyn, Russel D. Feingold, Charles E. Grassley, Edward M. Kennedy, Jon Kyl, Arlen Spector, Hal Daub, Gary Endelman, Tamar Jacoby, and John McCain.

United States. Government Printing Office

2009
Uniting American Families Act: Addressing Inequality in Federal Immigration Law Hearing Before the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, One Hundred Eleventh Congress, First Session, June 3, 2009

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
From the opening statement of Patrick J. Leahy: "You know, for too long, gay and lesbian American citizens whose partners are foreign nationals have been denied the ability to sponsor their loved ones for lawful permanent residency. Under current immigration law, many citizens have been forced to choose between their country and their loved ones. No American should face that kind of a choice. The preservation of family unity is at the core of our immigration legal system, and this American value has to apply to all families. During the past several years, Americans have increasingly come to reject the notion that their fellow Americans who are gay or lesbian should not have loving relationships. My own State of Vermont has been at the forefront of this. Federal policy should encourage-- let me emphasize that--Federal policy should encourage rather than restrict our opportunity as Americans to sustain the relationships that fulfill our lives. Today, we will hear testimony on the Uniting American Families Act, a bill I introduced last Congress. Our bill will allow the committed partners of Americans the opportunity to immigrate. What we consider today with this legislation is an issue of fairness under Federal law." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Russell D. Feingold, Patrick J. Leahy, Charles E. Schumer, Jeff Sessions, Roy Back, Julian Bond, Jerrold, Neadler, Christopher Nugent, Jackie Speier, Gordon Stewart, Jessica M. Vaughan, Charles H. Kuck, Eden Prairie, Joanne Line, Rebecca K. Peters, Rober Bragar, Angela Calvillo, Rea Carey, Robert Checkoway, Wendy Wright, John N. Sampson, Mark Bromley, Julie Dorf, Jennifer Chrisler, Phyllis Schlafly, Tom Minnery, Jeffrey B. Kindler, Robert Checkoway, Lin McDevitt-Pugh, Michael J. Maxwell, Kate Kendell, Mary Meg McCathy, Tony Perkins, Marge Baker, Christine C. Quinn, Yisroel Schulman, Joe Solmonse, Shawn Amsler, Shirley Tan, Rachel B. Tiven, and Adam G. Gerhardstein,

United States. Government Printing Office

2010
Verification of Applicant Identity for Purposes of Employment and Public Assistance: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Immigration of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, One Hundred Fourth Congress, First Session on Vertification of Applicant Identity for Purposes of Employment and Public Assistance, Focusing on Certain Measures to Reduce Illegal Immigration, May 10, 1995

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
From the opening statement of the Hon. Alan K. Simpson: "I welcome you to this hearing and the vitally important issues of the verification of applicant identity for purposes of employment and public assistance. A big title. Boiled down it means: Are you the guy you say you are? In S. 269, the Immigrant Control and Financial Responsibility Act, we provide for a new verification system, following closely the recommendations of the Jordan Commission on Immigration Reform. This system will enable an employer or welfare provider to verify an applicant's authority to work and eligibility to receive public assistance in the United States, probably through verifying the Social Security number. The name and Social Security number of an applicant would be entered into a system using the data bases of the Social Security Administration and the Immigration and Naturalization Service. However, that alone is not enough. A system must also be able to verify that the person presenting the name and Social Security number to the prospective employer or welfare provider is not an imposter." Additional materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Gilbert C. Fisher, Stephen Horn, Richard E. Jackson, Jr., Edward M. Kennedy, Steven L. Pomerantz, James A. Puleo, Robert H. Rasor, Frank Ricchiazzi, W. Marshall Rickert, Mary A. Ryan, Jack Scheidegger, and Alan K. Simpson. Additionally, the prepared statement of Mexican Legal Defense and Educational Fund, National Council of Agricultural Employers and American Farm Bureau Federation, and Richard W. Velde.

United States. Government Printing Office

1996
Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Immigration of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, One Hundred Seventh Congress, Second Session, February 28, 2002

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
From the opening statement of Hon. Edward M. Kennedy: "For the past few years, increasing numbers of foreign-born children have come to the United States unaccompanied by their parents or legal guardians. Last year, more than 4,600 arrived, and their number continues to rise this year. Some flee human rights abuses. Others have been abused or abandoned by their parents or flee armed conflict or dangerous conditions in their home countries. These children generally enter this country after traumatic experiences, often speak little or no English, and are rarely aware of their rights under U.S. law. Although they might be good candidates for asylum, they are not appointed counsel and are left to represent themselves in immigration court against experienced INS lawyers. Their situation is exacerbated by the fact that when they arrive they are frequently detained. Many of these children languish for long periods of time in shelters that are designed for short-term use without adequate access to translators, telephones, medical care, or other vital services. But these are the fortunate ones. While INS has made an effort to increase the number of beds in foster homes and juvenile centers, more than 30 percent of unaccompanied children detained last year were held in juvenile jails, often with dangerous criminals, subject to shackling and strip searches. The Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act will address many of the problems facing unaccompanied minors and will help bring U.S. treatment of unaccompanied alien children into line with international standards. Senator Feinstein will outline the details of the proposal." Materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Heather M. Bendit, Holly S. Cooper, Bob Glaves, and Hussein Sadruddin.

United States. Government Printing Office

2003
Improving Food and Nutrition Security During COVID-19, the Economic Recovery, and Beyond

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
From the Executive Summary: "The COVID-19 [coronavirus disease 2019] pandemic has had a significantly adverse impact on food and nutrition security, though this was mitigated by increased support for federal food and nutrition programs. Poverty increased as businesses closed and families experienced job losses. Access, availability, and affordability of nutritious foods has been challenging given consumer financial constraints and supply chain disruptions. [...] This brief is the first in a series of three by the Bipartisan Policy Center's Food and Nutrition Security Task Force and provides recommendations for bipartisan, consensus-based recommendations for improving food and nutrition security during COVID-19 and the economic recovery. Implementation of the policy recommendations in this brief can also support food and nutrition security during future public health emergencies, economic downturns, and recessions. [...] The Bipartisan Policy Center's Food and Nutrition Security Task Force makes [...] nine high-level policy recommendations to improve food and nutrition security in response to COVID-19 and the economic recovery[.]"

Bipartisan Policy Center

Bipartisan Policy Center. Food and Nutrition Security Task Force

2021-09
Challenges Facing the Department of Defense, Hearing Before the Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate, One Hundred Eleventh Congress, First Session, January 27, 2009

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
From the opening statement of Carl Levin: "The challenges facing the Department at home and abroad are extraordinary. Foremost will be shifting the emphasis and the balance between two ongoing wars, drawing down in Iraq as we build up in Afghanistan. Secretary Gates, you have called for deploying additional combat brigades and support units to Afghanistan, potentially doubling the current 31,000 U.S. troops deployed there. But making these additional forces available as currently scheduled is slow, slower than the commanding general of the NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization] International Security Assistance Force, U.S. General David McKiernan, said last October was needed." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Carl Levin, Robert Michael Gates, and John McCain.

United States. Government Printing Office

2009
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
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

4544 4545 4546 4547 4548 4549 4550 4551 4552 4553 4554