Advanced search Help
Searching for terms: ALL (Energy AND Security) in: title or summary
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).
-
President Tours Hydrogen Fueling Station, Discusses Research [May 25, 2005]
President Bush tours a Shell Hydrogen Fueling Station and talks about his energy bill and its relation to national security.
United States. Office of the White House Press Secretary
Bush, George W. (George Walker), 1946-
2005-05-25
-
U.S. - Nordic Relations [May 10, 2016]
This report published on May 10, 2016 discusses past and present U.S. - Nordic relations in light of the upcoming U.S. - Nordic Summit. The report states that "On May 13, 2016, President Obama will host the five Nordic countries-Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden-for a U.S.-Nordic Leaders Summit in Washington, DC. The Nordics have long been U.S. strategic and economic partners. U.S. interest in enhancing cooperation has increased in light of Russia's resurgence and changes in the Arctic. The formal agenda is expected to focus on several key issues, including countering terrorism and violent extremism; the migration and refugee crisis; climate change and the environment; the Arctic; nuclear and energy security; sustainable development; and transatlantic trade. According to the Nordic ambassadors to the United States, 'these are all global themes where Nordic and American views, policies, and actions often coincide.'"
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Archick, Kristin
2016-05-10
-
Fact Sheet: Preserving Agricultural Trade, Access to Communication, and Other Support to Those Impacted by Russia's War Against Ukraine
From the Document: "In response to Russia's unprovoked and brutal war against Ukraine, the United States, international partners, and allies have imposed unprecedented economic costs on the Government of the Russian Federation and its supporters. The U.S. Department of the Treasury's (Treasury) Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is issuing this Fact Sheet to make clear that U.S. sanctions issued in response to Russia's further invasion of Ukraine do not stand in the way of, agricultural and medical exports, nongovernmental organization (NGO) activities, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) relief, the free flow of information, humanitarian assistance, and other support to people impacted by Russia's war. Beyond its toll on human life, Russia's war against Ukraine is causing significant harm in the region and the rest of the world. Russian President Vladimir Putin's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine is driving food and energy costs higher for people around the world. His actions have disrupted supply chains of agricultural commodities, destroyed agricultural and transportation infrastructure in Ukraine, and put millions at increased risk of food insecurity. Treasury is deeply concerned about the risks to global food supplies and food prices at a time when many emerging market and developing countries are still struggling to recover from the COVID-19 pandemic. Treasury is working to address food security risks, including bolstering social safety nets for the most vulnerable people; unlocking trade finance to smooth disrupted supply chains for food and critical supplies; strengthening countries' domestic food production; and addressing the macroeconomic impacts of the crisis on the most affected countries."
United States. Department of the Treasury
2022-04-19
-
National Security Decision Memorandum 121: Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorization for FY 1972
National Security Decision Memorandum 121 is directed to the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, and Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission. From the Document: "The President has approved the Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorization Plan for FY 1972 contained in the Department of Defense memorandum dated May 24, 1971, subject to the changes indicated herein concerning deployments. The President agrees that the number of weapons shown reflect year-end authorizations with specific conditional deployments treated on a separate basis and that actual deployments against these authorizations will be controlled by the Secretary of Defense. The President authorizes the Secretary of Defense in FY 1972 to: deploy nuclear weapons in the United States without limitation, deploy nuclear weapons to areas outside the United States up to the limits indicated, support non-U.S. forces in accordance with the unites and numbers of weapons indicated."
United States. White House Office
1971-07-21
-
NIST Framework and Roadmap for Smart Grid Interoperability Standards, Release 2.0
From the Document: "Under the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA), the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) was assigned 'primary responsibility to coordinate development of a framework that includes protocols and model standards for information management to achieve interoperability of Smart Grid devices and systems…' [EISA Section 1305] There is an urgent need to establish Smart Grid standards and protocols. Some Smart Grid devices, such as smart meters, are being widely deployed. Installation of synchrophasors, sensors that provide real-time assessments of power system health to provide system operators with better information for averting disastrous outages, has accelerated rapidly. By 2013, it is expected that approximately 1,000 of these devices will monitor conditions on the power grid, a dramatic increase since January 2009. In late October 2009, President Obama announced 100 Smart Grid Investment Grant Program awards totaling $3.4 billion. This federal investment leveraged an additional $4.7 billion in commitments from private companies, utilities, cities, and other partners that are forging ahead with plans to install Smart Grid technologies and enable an array of efficiency-maximizing and performance-optimizing applications. At the end of 2009, the number of Smart Grid projects in the United States exceeded 130 projects spread across 44 states and two territories."
National Institute of Standards and Technology (U.S.)
2012-02
-
Secretary Michael Chertoff, U.S. Department of Homeland Security 'Addressing 21st Century Threats: The U.S. Prevention Strategy'
From the statement of Michael Chertoff: "The major focuses and activities of the Department of Homeland Security are, in my judgment, basically five in number. One is to work to prevent dangerous people from coming into the United States and causing us harm. One is to keep dangerous things and dangerous cargo, dangerous weapons out of the country. The third is to protect our infrastructure should somebody try to attack. That includes not only our transportation, but it includes things like our energy infrastructure, which, of course, is of greater interest to those living in this area. A fourth is mitigating the effect of either a manmade disaster or a natural disaster by having an effective and swift response. And finally, there's the task of any large organization institutionalizing the processes and procedures that allow this to work efficiently and allow us to integrate the activities in the Department which began its life in 22 separate components and now has over 280,000 employees. In each of these five areas I'm pleased to say that as I look back over the 3 1/2 years of my tenure, we've made a considerable degree of progress in developing capabilities that did not exist before September 11, 2001."
United States. Department of Homeland Security
2008-06-05
-
Science & Tech Spotlight: Nuclear Microreactors
From the Document: "The U.S. nuclear energy sector faces an uncertain future. Nuclear microreactors offer the potential of faster deployment compared to conventional large reactors, but they face challenges such as limited fuel availability and greater security risks. Given long design and certification cycles, examining microreactors now is key for future industry planning."
United States. Government Accountability Office
2020-02
-
Working Smarter: Considerations for the Army Installations of the Future
From the Summary: "The vision of the Installation of the Future (IotF) initiative is: Installations - the Army's initial maneuver platforms - will build readiness, enhance resilience, protect and project forces, through innovation, technology, and partnerships as part of a complex, multi-domain battlespace. The IotF initiative applies the emerging threats, the expansion of and access to technologies, and the Army's emerging concept of Multi-Domain Operations to set the foundation for the need to prepare installations to meet the need of the future force. This initiative is comprised of three Lines of Effort that addresses the installation's role in preparing the force to conduct combat operations, support the conduct of combat operations, and delivering services and support to the installation, soldiers and their families. This framework provided the students of the Academic Year 2019 Futures Seminar the opportunity to assist the ASA IEE [Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations, Energy, and Environment] in thinking about ideas, capabilities, and approaches to help achieve the ASA IEE vision. This research focused on four areas: Infrastructure, Services, Security, and Enabling Capabilities."
Army War College (U.S.)
White, Samuel R., Jr.; Whalen, Peter J.
2020-03-16?
-
H. Doc. 117-113: Declaration of National Emergency and Invocation of Emergency Authority Relating to the Regulation of the Anchorage and Movement of Russian-Affiliated Vessels to United States Ports, April 25, 2022
From the Document: "Pursuant to the National Emergencies Act [..] and section 1 of title II of Public Law 65-24, ch. 30, June 15, 1917, as amended [...], I hereby report that I have issued a proclamation with respect to the policies and actions of the Government of the Russian Federation to continue the premeditated, unjustified, unprovoked, and brutal war against Ukraine, which constitute a national emergency by reason of a disturbance or threatened disturbance of international relations of the United States. The proclamation prohibits Russian-affiliated vessels from entering into United States ports with limited exceptions for Russian-affiliated vessels used in the transport of source material, special nuclear material, and nuclear byproduct material for which, and for such time as, the Secretary of Energy, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Commerce, determines that no viable source of supply is available that would not require transport by Russian-affiliated vessels; and for Russian-affiliated vessels requesting only to enter United States ports due to force majeure, solely to allow seafarers of any nationality to disembark or embark for purposes of conducting crew changes, emergency medical care, or for other humanitarian need. The proclamation also authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security to make and issue such rules and regulations as the Secretary may find appropriate to regulate the anchorage and movement of Russian-affiliated vessels, and delegates to the Secretary my authority to approve such rules and regulations, as authorized by the Magnuson Act. I am enclosing a copy of the proclamation I have issued."
United States. Government Publishing Office
2022-04-25
-
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate: S. 1378, Repeal Insurance Plans of the Multi-State Program Act
"S. 1378 would repeal the multi-state plan program established by Section 1334 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Section 1334 requires the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to contract with health insurers to offer multi-state plan (MSP) insurance options on each exchange in each state. Under current law, the plans generally must meet the various insurance requirements under the ACA and are available to eligible individuals and small business. The repeal would be effective January 1, 2020. Within 60 days of enactment, the bill also would require OPM to brief the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs; the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions; the House Committee on Oversight and Reform; and the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on OPM's efforts to wind-down the program."
United States. Congressional Budget Office
2019-05-23
-
Op-ed by Vice President Biden in the International Herald Tribune: The Next Steps in the U.S.-Russia Reset [March 14, 2011]
In this March 14, 2011 op-ed, Vice President Biden discusses the next steps in U.S.-Russia relations. Biden points out important accomplishments and goals in the countries' security and economic relationship, including "the new START [Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty] that further limits strategic nuclear weapons, cooperation on the peaceful use of nuclear energy, collaboration on Afghanistan that facilitates the flow of soldiers and supplies, and the most stringent sanctions ever on Iran and North Korea for their pursuit of nuclear weapons," and Russia's effort to join the World Trade Organization.
United States. Office of the White House Press Secretary
Biden, Joseph R., Jr.
2011-03-14
-
Roundtable Interview of the President by the Press Pool [February 21, 2006]
President Bush meets with the press to discuss port security, the DP [Dubai Ports] World deal and his new energy initiative.
United States. Office of the White House Press Secretary
2006-02-21
-
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate: H.R. 6771, Domestic Offshore Energy Reinvestment Act of 2018
"H.R. 6771 would change the disposition of the proceeds from federal oil and gas leases in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) and other federal lands. Under the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006, half of the proceeds from OCS leases issued after 2006 are deposited in the Treasury and the remainder is available for spending without further appropriation, subject to annual caps on spending that expire after 2055. This bill would repeal the annual spending limits and would increase the portion of OCS receipts available for spending to 62.5 percent. In addition, the bill would increase the share of proceeds paid to states from onshore mineral leases from 49 percent to 50 percent. CBO [Congressional Budget Office] estimates that enacting H.R. 6771 would increase direct spending by $2.5 billion over the 2019-2028 period, largely as a result of provisions increasing the portion of OCS receipts that could be spent without further appropriation. Because enacting H.R. 6771 would affect direct spending, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. The bill would not affect revenues."
United States. Congressional Budget Office
2018-12-17
-
Speculation, Fundamentals, and Oil Prices [September 2, 2011]
"High oil prices affect nearly every household and business in the United States. During the course of 2008, oil prices doubled to more than $145 per barrel and then fell by 80%. In early 2011, there was a run-up of about 20%, sending gasoline prices to near 2008 highs. Few would rule out the possibility of similar price swings in the months to come. What explains oil price volatility? Some consider price movements such as those of 2008 and early 2011 to be more extreme than warranted by the fundamentals of supply and demand. […] The role of speculators in oil and other commodity markets has attracted congressional interest. Staff reports by the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs found that excessive speculation has had 'undue' influence on wheat price movements and in the natural gas market. A 2011 report by the minority staff of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform argues that 'addressing excessive speculation offers the single most significant opportunity to reduce the price of gas for American consumers.' Legislation before the 112th Congress (S. 1200 and H.R. 2328) would authorize and direct the CFTC [Commodity Futures Trading Commission] to take certain actions to reduce the volume of speculation in oil and related energy commodities. Another bill, H.R. 2003, would impose a tax on oil futures, swaps, and options that were not used for hedging commercial risk. This report provides background on financial speculation in oil, the workings of oil derivatives markets, and the different types of firms that trade in those markets. It reviews the concepts of manipulation and excessive speculation, and it briefly describes the fundamental factors that affect oil prices. This report will be updated as events warrant."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Jickling, Mark; Miller, Rena S.; Nerurkar, Neelesh
2011-09-02
-
Middle East Studies at the Marine Corps University: MES Insights, Volume 10 Issue 3, June 2019
This edition of the MES Insights published by the Middle East Studies (MES) program of the Marine Corps University contains the following article: "The Eastern Mediterranean Gas Forum (EMGF): Shifting the Regional Balance of Power from Land to Sea" by Michael Wihbey. From the Document: "The recent creation of the Eastern Mediterranean Gas Forum, EMGF (HQ: Cairo) marks the need for a new set of US national security assumptions and calculations, away from longstanding air and ground contingencies in the Persian Gulf to another energy-rich, tension-laden region, namely the Eastern Mediterranean. Stretching from the Aegean Sea to the Suez Canal, this potential conflict zone is characterized by various maritime and naval configurations and burgeoning oil and gas assets."
Marine Corps University (U.S.). Middle East Studies
2019-06
-
S. Hrg. 106-506: Rising Oil Prices, Executive Branch Policy, and U.S. Security Implications: Hearing before the Committee on Governmental Affairs, United States Senate, One Hundred Sixth Congress, Second Session, March 24, 2000
From the opening statement of Fred Thompson: "As we all know, oil is an essential component of our economic vitality and lifestyle. Petroleum products fuel 97 percent of our transportation needs, for example. The United States is becoming increasingly reliant on foreign oil. This is cause for alarm, given that some of the world's leading oil producers are politically unstable, face difficult internal issues, or live in tough neighborhoods. This hearing looks at security implications for the United States in the wake of rising oil prices." Statements, letters, and material submitted for the record include those of the following: Fred Thompson, Joseph I. Lieberman, George V. Voinovich, Daniel K. Akaka, Max Cleland, Pete V. Domenici, Red Cavaney, Robert E. Ebel, William M. Flynn, David L. Goldwyn, Richard N. Haass, Jay E. Hakes, John P. Holdren, Adam E. Sieminski, Six-page synthesis of PCAST Report, Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPPA), prepared statement, and Nuclear Energy Institute, prepared statement.
United States. Government Printing Office
2000
-
Serial No. 106-126: North Korea: Leveraging Uncertainty? Hearing before the Committee on International Relations, House of Representatives, One Hundred Sixth Congress, Second Session, March 16, 2000
Serial No. 106-126: This hearing will focus on the status and the prospects for U.S. policy toward North Korea in the aftermath of Dr. Bill Perry's report to the Congress last October. "The CIA reported in Congressional testimony that North Korea is continuing to develop the Taepo Dong II--an intercontinental ballistic missile--despite a test moratorium, and could launch that missile this year should it decide to do so. The intelligence community, CIA, further states that a three stage Taepo Dong II would be capable of delivering a several-hundred kilogram payload anywhere in the United States. The CIA has also concluded that the DPRK is the world's major supplier of ballistic missiles and technology, primarily to South Asia and to the Middle East. Their transfers to Pakistan, Iran, Syria, and Libya pose a significant threat to our national interest, to our American forces, and to our allies. It has also been alleged that North Korea may be pursuing a uranium-based nuclear weapons program while the cost of heavy fuel for the 1994 Agreed Framework is likely to top $100 million this year. There is a continuing concern about being able to get the IAEA into North Korea to conduct its assessment of their nuclear program, as well as finding willing underwriters for the nuclear reactor project. In recent testimony, the Commander of U.S. Forces of Korea called North Korea the major threat to stability and security in Northeast Asia, and the country most likely to involve our Nation in a large-scale war." Statements, letters, and material submitted for the record include those of the following: Wendy R. Sherman, Douglas Paal, Mitchell B. Reiss, Scott Snyder, and Benjamin A. Gilman.
United States. Government Printing Office
2000
-
'Quad': Security Cooperation Among the United States, Japan, India, and Australia [Updated May 16, 2022]
From the Document: "The Biden Administration has boosted the profile of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, aka 'the Quad,' as a centerpiece of its Indo-Pacific strategy aimed at strengthening the United States' position in and commitment to the region. The four-country coalition, comprised of the United States, Japan, India, and Australia, claims a common platform of protecting freedom of navigation and promoting democratic values in the region. The first leader-level summit, held virtually in March 2021, produced the first-ever joint leaders' statement. In September 2021, the four leaders met in person and released an expanded statement that outlined four broad areas of cooperation: vaccine production and distribution; climate change mitigation efforts and clean energy development; the promotion of transparency and high-standard governance in the field of critical and emerging technologies; and the development of a regional infrastructure partnership. Working groups in these areas are pushing forward with efforts to flesh out these priorities."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Chanlett-Avery, Emma; Kronstadt, K. Alan; Vaughn, Bruce, 1963-
2022-05-16
-
Federal Counter-Terrorism Training: Issues for Congressional Oversight [Updated April 24, 2006]
From the Summary: "Federal counter-terrorism training programs are varied and are provided by numerous federal agencies and departments. Some of these departments and agencies include the Departments of Defense (DOD), Energy (DOE), Homeland Security (DHS), Health and Human Services (HHS), Justice (DOJ), Transportation (DOT), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Each department and agency provides specific counter-terrorism training targeted to given categories of recipients. Training recipients include federal, state, and local government personnel, emergency responders, and private and public critical infrastructure personnel. The programs train individuals to prepare for, respond to, and recover from terrorist attacks. Most of these federal departments and agencies provide training in conjunction with private and public educational institutions, federal laboratories, and federal research and development centers. [...] This report is an overview of the major training activities and facilities of the federal departments and agencies that provide counter-terrorism training."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Reese, Shawn
2006-04-24
-
Federal Counter-Terrorism Training: Issues for Congressional Oversight [May 16, 2005]
From the Summary: "Federal counter-terrorism training programs are varied and are provided by numerous federal agencies and departments. Some of these departments and agencies include the Departments of Defense (DOD), Energy (DOE), Homeland Security (DHS), Health and Human Services (HHS), Justice (DOJ), and Transportation (DOT), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Each department and agency provides specific counter-terrorism training targeted to given categories of recipients. Training recipients include federal, state, and local government personnel, emergency responders, and private and public critical infrastructure personnel. The programs train individuals to prepare for, respond to, and recover from terrorist attacks. Most of these federal departments and agencies provide training in conjunction with private and public educational institutions, federal laboratories, and federal research and development centers. [...] This report is an overview of the major training activities and facilities of the federal departments and agencies that provide counter-terrorism training. It identifies some of the issues associated with the training."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Reese, Shawn
2005-05-16
-
Federal Counter-Terrorism Training: Issues for Congressional Oversight [Updated August 31, 2006]
From the Summary: "Federal counter-terrorism training programs are varied and are provided by numerous federal agencies and departments. Some of these departments and agencies include the Departments of Defense (DOD), Energy (DOE), Homeland Security (DHS), Health and Human Services (HHS), Justice (DOJ), Transportation (DOT), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Each department and agency provides specific counter-terrorism training targeted to given categories of recipients. Training recipients include federal, state, and local government personnel, emergency responders, and private and public critical infrastructure personnel. The programs train individuals to prepare for, respond to, and recover from terrorist attacks. Most of these federal departments and agencies provide training in conjunction with private and public educational institutions, federal laboratories, and federal research and development centers. [...] This report is an overview of the major training activities and facilities of the federal departments and agencies that provide counter-terrorism training."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Reese, Shawn
2006-08-31
-
China's Rapid Political and Economic Advances in Central Asia and Russia, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives, One Hundred Thirteenth Congress, First Session, April 16, 2013
This document is a record of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs hearing titled "China's Rapid Political and Economic Advances in Central Asia and Russia," held on April 16, 2013. From the opening statement of Joe Wilson: "Beijing's economic, political and demographic integration with foreign lands follows a specific pattern. First, Chinese workers as well as managers, technicians and merchants accompany Chinese capital. Second, investments expand to control the entire supply chain for both exports and imports. Control of agricultural lands, raw materials, energy resources, local manufacturing, and retail business freeze out local firms and workers. Third, the areas of investment are directed by the Beijing regime through state-owned banks, sovereign wealth funds and state enterprises. They become an extension of the Communist Party and China itself. And finally, control of large, strategic segments of overseas economies gives Beijing dominate political influence over local governments. Corruption makes sovereignty a paper illusion, and if demographic shifts like those which could take place along China's border follow, the borders themselves can change. While this Chinese model has been most evident and successful in Africa, where local governments are weak, it can be seen elsewhere as well. The advantages it confers on Beijing make it the preferred way of doing business. It is not in the national security interests of the United States for this to happen. For China to gain direct control of the resources of Russian Far East would tip the balance of power not only in Asia but worldwide. America and its allies need to strengthen their economic relationship with Russia and provide a viable alternative to China for the development of the Far East." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Dana Rohrbacher, William Keating, Rensselaer Lee, John Tkacik, Jr., Dmitry Shlapentokh, Stephen J. Blank, and Tom Marino.
United States. Government Printing Office
2013
-
EMP Threat: The State Preparedness Against the Threat of an Electro-Magnetic Pulse (EMP) Event: Joint Hearing Before the Subcommittee on National Security and the Subcommittee on the Interior of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, House of Representatives, One Hundred Fourteenth Congress, First Session, May 13, 2015
This is the May 13, 2015 hearing entitled "The EMP Threat: The State Preparedness Against the Threat of an Electro-Magnetic Pulse (EMP) Event," held before the Subcommittee on National Security and the Subcommittee on the Interior of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. From the opening statement of Ron Desantis: "The state of preparedness against the threat of an electromagnetic pulse is the subject of today's hearing. An electromagnetic pulse could be created through an attack from a missile, nuclear weapon, radio frequency weapon, or geomagnetic storm caused by the sun. Fallout from an EMP event, either man-made or natural, could be extremely significant ranging from the loss of electrical power for months, which would deplete energy sources of power such as emergency batteries and backup generators have cascading consequences for supplying basic necessities such as food and water, and result in loss of life. The electrical grid is necessary to support critical infrastructure, supply and distribution of food, water, and fuel, communications, transportation, financial transactions and emergency and government services. Significant damage to the electrical grid during an EMP event would quickly and significantly degrade the supply of these basic necessities." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: George Baker, Peter Vincent Pry, and Mike Caruso.
United States. Government Publishing Office
2015
-
Last Line of Defense: The Federal Air Marshal Service 10 Years After 9/11, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Transportation Security of the Committee on Homeland Security, House of Representatives, One Hundred Twelfth Congress, Second Session, February 16, 2012
From the opening statement of Mike Rogers: "As a senior Member of this committee since its creation, and in leadership of three unique subcommittees, I have focused my energy on ensuring that we do not just address the past, but that we are adequately equipped to respond to the threats of today and tomorrow. We all know that the outcome of one of the darkest days in our Nation's history could have been very different if we had Federal Air Marshals on those planes. But the reality is the terrorists have adapted to our security measures and changed their tactics. We saw this on Christmas day in 2009 and in other attempted attacks since 9/11. The threat of an IED [improvised explosive device] being detonated aboard an aircraft is very real. With an annual budget approaching $1 billion, we need to ask the question of whether today's Federal Air Marshall Service is capable of preventing current and future terrorist threats? What new efficiencies can be gained to reduce the cost of the program?" Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Mike Rogers, Sheila Jackson Lee, Bennie G. Thompson, Robert S. Bray, Michael Novak, Roderick J. Allison, and Charles K. Edwards.
United States. Government Printing Office
2012
-
U.S. Government Response to the Nuclear Power Plant Incident in Japan, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, One Hundred Twelfth Congress, First Session, April 6, 2011
From the opening statement of Cliff Stearns: "Today, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations will examine the United States government's response to the ongoing incident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in Japan. We will look in particular at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's response to the events in Japan and the safety and preparedness of U.S. commercial nuclear power plants. Congress, in large part led by this committee, the Energy and Commerce Committee and the Oversight Subcommittee, should conduct vigorous oversight of nuclear power plant safety and security. And we should confront any lessons from the incident in Japan and assess carefully whether they apply to the United States. Today represents the beginning of that work for this committee." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Martin J. Virgilio, William Levis, Edwin Lyman, Michael Corradini, and Cliff Stearns.
United States. Government Printing Office
2011
-
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate: H.R. 3408, PIONEERS Act
From the Summary: "H.R. 3408 [PIONEERS Act or Protecting Investment in Oil Shale the Next Generation of Environmental, Energy, and Resource Security Act] would direct the Secretary of the Interior to implement a commercial leasing program for oil shale on certain federal lands by 2016. Oil shale is rock that can be heated to extract an organic compound used to produce synthetic crude oil. The bill also would require the Secretary to offer 10 leases on federal lands in 2013 for the purpose of conducting research and demonstration projects for oil shale development. Based on information provided by the Department of the Interior (DOI) and individuals working in the oil shale industry, CBO [Congressional Budget Office] estimates that enacting H.R. 3408 would affect direct spending; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. However, CBO estimates that the net effects would not be significant over the 2012-2022 period. Enacting the legislation would not affect revenues. CBO estimates that additional administrative costs to implement the leasing program under the bill would be small and subject to the availability of appropriated funds. H.R. 3408 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments."
United States. Congressional Budget Office
2012-02-07
-
Protecting America from a Bad Deal: Ending U.S. Participation in the Nuclear Agreement with Iran, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on National Security of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, House of Representatives, One Hundred Fifteenth Congress, Second Session, June 6, 2018
This is the June 6, 2018 hearing on "Protecting America from a Bad Deal: Ending U.S. Participation in the Nuclear Agreement with Iran," held before the House of Representatives before the Subcommittee on National Security of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. From the opening statement of Ron DeSantis: "The Iran deal has empowered the Iranian regime and has fueled Iran's ambitions for regional dominance. It's not hard to see why. The deal provided Iran with billions upon billions of dollars in up-front sanctions relief, including airlifting $1.7 billion in cash, effectively to the Iran Revolutionary Guard Corps. To obtain this financial windfall, Iran agreed to a temporary set of restrictions on its nuclear program that sunset after 10 and, in some cases, 15 years. But by allowing Iran a vast nuclear infra-structure and allowing Iran to reduce its breakout time to almost zero, the deal paved the way for Iran to have a bomb. And the deal's fundamentally flawed inspection regime allows Iran to block inspectors from accessing military sites, leaving the IAEA incapable of verifying if Iran is even complying with the deal." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Richard Goldberg, David Albright, Michael Pregent, Jim Walsh, and Michael Rubin.
United States. Government Publishing Office
2018
-
Self-Driving Cars: Road to Deployment, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, U.S. House of Representatives, One Hundred Fifteenth Congress, First Session, February 14, 2017
This testimony compilation is from the February 14, 2017 hearing, "Self-Driving Cars: Road to Deployment" before the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. From the opening statement of Committee Chairman Greg Walden: "Without question, one of the most exciting developments in 21st century commerce is self-driving cars. As traffic accidents are on the rise, automated driving systems have the potential to transform our transportation system into one that is safer and more secure for everyone on the roadways. The promise of self-driving cars to save thousands of lives in the United States and around the world cannot be understated. [...] As with any new innovation and developing technology, proper oversight is key. Rather, this is a call to create a framework that allows this technology to safely develop and a call for innovation to flourish without the heavy hand of government. [...] This hearing today will help us better understand how to achieve that goal. It will inform us of manufacturers and developers' testing efforts and how to support plans for the deployment of self-driving cars. Our witnesses will also help us to understand the challenges of testing and deployment and how to address those challenges in a way that fosters innovation and protects American consumers. Safety is critical here. Manufacturers and other entities developing self-driving cars have every incentive to get this right. There are tremendous economic and societal opportunities ahead for consumers if we lay the proper foundation for the success and advancement of this technology". Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Mike Ableson, Nidhi Kalra, Anders Karrberg, Joseph Okpaku, and Gill Pratt.
United States. Congress. House. Committee on Energy and Commerce
2017-02-14
-
Iran: U.S. Concerns and Policy Responses [March 7, 2008]
"According to the Administration, Iran is a major national security challenge for the United States. The Administration perception is generated primarily by Iran's nuclear program but is compounded by Iran's military assistance to armed groups in Iraq and Afghanistan and to the Palestinian group Hamas and Lebanese Hezbollah. However, the threat assessment of some other governments was lessened by the December 3, 2007 key judgements of a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that indicates that Iran is likely not on a drive to develop an actual nuclear weapon. […] To strengthen its diplomacy, the Administration has maintained a substantial naval presence in the Persian Gulf. The Administration has strongly denied widespread speculation that it plans military action against Iran, but has refused to rule it out if no other efforts to curb Iran's uranium enrichment program succeed. Some legislation passed by the House in the 110th Congress, including H.R. 1400 and H.R. 957, would increase U.S. sanctions on Iran -- both the U.S. trade ban and the Iran Sanctions Act that seeks to prevent foreign investment in Iran's energy sector. Other legislation, such as H.R. 1357, H.R. 2347 (passed by the House), and S.1430, promote divestment of companies that do business with Iran. Some in the Administration believe that only a change of Iran's regime would end the threat posed by Iran. On October 21, 2007, the Administration named several Revolutionary Guard entities and personalities as proliferators and supporters of terrorism, and the Guard's 'Qods Force' as a terrorism supporter (but not as a foreign terrorist organization, FTO). For further information, see CRS [Congressional Research Service] Report RS20871, 'The Iran Sanctions Act (ISA)', and CRS Report RS22323, 'Iran's Activities and Influence in Iraq', both by Kenneth Katzman, and CRS Report RS21592, 'Iran's Nuclear Program: Recent Developments'. This report is updated regularly."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Katzman, Kenneth
2008-03-07
-
Iran: U.S. Concerns and Policy Responses [March 2, 2012]
"The Obama Administration identifies Iran as a major threat to U.S. national security interests. This perception is generated by suspicions of Iran's intentions for its nuclear program-- heightened by a November 8, 2011, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report--as well as by Iran's support for militant groups in the Middle East and in Iraq and Afghanistan. U.S. officials also accuse Iran of helping Syria's leadership try to defeat a growing popular opposition movement and of taking advantage of Shiite majority unrest against the Sunni-led, pro-U.S. government of Bahrain. Tensions have been particularly elevated since Iran's late-December 2011 threat to try to choke off much of the world's oil supplies by attempting to close the Strait of Hormuz--a reaction to the imposition of significant sanctions against Iran's vital exports of oil. The sense of imminent crisis with Iran--much of which has been brought on by Israeli threats to buck U.S. advice by acting militarily against Iran's nuclear program--follows three years in which the Obama Administration has assembled a broad international coalition to pressure Iran through economic sanctions while also offering sustained engagement with Iran. None of the pressure has, to date, altered Iran's pursuit of its nuclear program: Iran attended December 2010 and January 2011 talks with the six powers negotiating with Iran, but no progress was reported at any of these meetings. However, since the beginning of 2012, as significant multilateral sanctions have been added on Iran's oil exports--including an oil purchase embargo by the European Union to go into full effect by July 1, 2012--there are growing indications that the regime feels economic pressure. Iran's leaders have responded not only with threats to commerce in the Strait of Hormuz, but also stated a willingness to enter into new nuclear talks without preconditions. At the same time, it has begun uranium enrichment at a deep underground facility near Qom. The Administration uses indicators such as Iran's economic deterioration and its willingness to engage in new talks as evidence that policy is starting to work and should be given more time before any consideration of U.S. or other country military options."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Katzman, Kenneth
2012-03-02
