DOCSLIB.ORG

Union Calendar No. 443

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Union Calendar No. 443 1 Union Calendar No. 443 109TH CONGRESS " ! REPORT 2d Session HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 109–741 REPORT ON LEGISLATIVE AND OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES of the HOUSE COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY together with ADDITIONAL VIEWS ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION 2006 (Pursuant to House Rule XI, 1(d)) JANUARY 2, 2007.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed. U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 59–006 WASHINGTON : 2007 VerDate Aug 31 2005 22:19 Jan 10, 2007 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4012 Sfmt 4012 E:\HR\OC\HR741.XXX HR741 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING E:\Seals\Congress.#13 VerDate Aug 31 2005 22:19 Jan 10, 2007 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4012 Sfmt 4012 E:\HR\OC\HR741.XXX HR741 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY, Washington, DC, January 2, 2007. Hon. KAREN HAAS, Clerk of the House of Representatives, The Capitol, Washington, DC. DEAR MS. HAAS: Pursuant to clause 1(d)(1) of Rule XI and Rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, here is a report of the legislative and oversight activities of the Committee on Home- land Security during the 109th Congress. Sincerely, PETER T. KING, Chairman. (III) VerDate Aug 31 2005 22:19 Jan 10, 2007 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 7633 Sfmt 7633 E:\HR\OC\HR741.XXX HR741 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING VerDate Aug 31 2005 22:19 Jan 10, 2007 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 7633 Sfmt 7633 E:\HR\OC\HR741.XXX HR741 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING Union Calendar No. 443 109TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! 2d Session HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 109–741 LEGISLATIVE AND OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 109TH CONGRESS JANUARY 2, 2007.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed Mr. KING, from the Committee on Homeland Security, submitted the following R E P O R T together with ADDITIONAL VIEWS OVERVIEW The Committee on Homeland Security met on February 9, 2005, for an organizational meeting for the 109th Congress under the di- rection of Chairman Christopher Cox of California. The Committee Membership, was set at 34 Members with 19 Republicans and 15 Democrats. The Committee established five Subcommittees: the Sub- committee on Prevention of Nuclear and Biological Attack; the Sub- committee on Intelligence, Information Sharing, and Terrorism Risk Assessment; the Subcommittee on Economic Security, Infra- structure Protection, and Cybersecurity; the Subcommittee on Man- agement, Integration, and Oversight; and the Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Science, and Technology. On August 2, 2005, Mr. Christopher Cox of California, Chairman of the Committee, resigned as a Member of the House of Represent- atives after the Senate confirmed his nomination to be a Member of the Securities and Exchange Commission for the term expiring June 5, 2009, on July 29, 2005. Subsequently, on September 15, 2005, Mr. Peter T. King of New York was appointed Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security. VerDate Aug 31 2005 22:19 Jan 10, 2007 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR741.XXX HR741 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING 2 On October 7, 2005, the Committee on Homeland Security re- vised the Rules of the Committee creating a sixth Subcommittee, the Subcommittee on Investigations. CONTENTS Page Membership and Organization ............................................................................... 9 History of the Committee on Homeland Security ................................................. 13 Full Committee ........................................................................................................ 15 Legislative Activities ........................................................................................ 16 Oversight Activities .......................................................................................... 68 Subcommittee on Prevention of Nuclear and Biological Attack .......................... 87 Legislative Activities ........................................................................................ 88 Oversight Activities .......................................................................................... 90 Subcommittee on Economic Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Cybersecurity ........................................................................................................ 105 Legislative Activities ........................................................................................ 105 Oversight Activities .......................................................................................... 116 Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing, and Terrorism Risk As- sessment ................................................................................................................ 143 Legislative Activities ........................................................................................ 143 Oversight Activities .......................................................................................... 145 Subcommittee on Management, Integration, and Oversight ............................... 165 Legislative Activities ........................................................................................ 165 Oversight Activities .......................................................................................... 167 Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Science, and Technology ............... 183 Legislative Activities ........................................................................................ 184 Oversight Activities .......................................................................................... 188 Subcommittee on Investigations ............................................................................. 205 Oversight Activities .......................................................................................... 205 Committee Oversight Plan .............................................................................. 211 Part A, Oversight Plan As Agreed to .............................................................. 211 Part B, Implementation of the Oversight Plan .............................................. 227 Appendices Appendix I—Committee Rules ........................................................................ 249 Appendix II—Membership Changes to the Committee ................................. 261 Appendix III—List of Public Laws .................................................................. 266 Appendix IV—Status of Legislation ................................................................ 267 Appendix V—Committee Legislative Reports ................................................ 274 Appendix VI—Executive Communications, Memorials, Petitions, and Presidential Messages .................................................................................. 276 Appendix VII—Committee Staff ...................................................................... 283 Appendix VIII—Witnesses ............................................................................... 286 Appendix IX—Printed Hearings ...................................................................... 335 Appendix X—Committee Prints ...................................................................... 340 Appendix XI—Summary of Committee Activities .......................................... 341 Additional Views ...................................................................................................... 342 JURISDICTION AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY The establishment of a Committee on Homeland Security was in- cluded H. Res. 5, the Rules of the House of Representatives for the 109th Congress, agreed to on January 4, 2005. The jurisdiction of the Committee is as follows: HOUSE RULE X ORGANIZATION OF COMMITTEES Committees and their legislative jurisdictions 1. There shall be in the House the following standing commit- tees, each of which shall have the jurisdiction and related functions assigned by this clause and clauses 2, 3, and 4. All bills, resolu- tions, and other matters relating to subjects within the jurisdiction VerDate Aug 31 2005 22:19 Jan 10, 2007 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR741.XXX HR741 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING 3 of the standing committees listed in this clause shall be referred to those committees, in accordance with clause 2 of rule XII, as fol- lows: (I) Committee on Homeland Security (1) Overall homeland security policy. (2) Organization and administration of the Department of Homeland Security. (3) Functions of the Department of Homeland Security relat- ing to the following: (A) Border and port security (except immigration policy and non-border enforcement). (B) Customs (except customs revenue). (C) Integration, analysis, and dissemination of homeland security information. (D) Domestic preparedness for and collective response to terrorism. (E) Research and development. (F) Transportation security. General oversight responsibilities 2. (a) The various standing committees shall have general over- sight responsibilities as provided in paragraph (b) in order to assist the House in (1) its analysis, appraisal, and evaluation of— (A) the application, administration, execution, and effec- tiveness of Federal laws; and (B) conditions and circumstances that may indicate the necessity or Desirability of enacting new or additional leg- islation; and (2) its formulation, consideration, and enactment
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Metaphor and Metonymy of Migrant Children and Border Officials in the U.S
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Faculty Publications: Department of Teaching, Department of Teaching, Learning and Teacher Learning and Teacher Education Education 2019 “Taking the Shackles off”: Metaphor and Metonymy of Migrant Children and Border Officials in the U.S. Theresa Catalano Andreas Musolff Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/teachlearnfacpub Part of the Curriculum and Instruction Commons, and the Teacher Education and Professional Development Commons This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Teaching, Learning and Teacher Education at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications: Department of Teaching, Learning and Teacher Education by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. “Taking the Shackles off”: Metaphor and Metonymy of Migrant Children and Border Officials in the U.S. Theresa Catalano, University of Nebraska-Lincoln ([email protected]) Andreas Musolff, University of East Anglia ([email protected]) Abstract The present paper utilizes (multimodal) critical discourse studies and cognitive linguistics to analyze the verbal and visual metonymies/metaphors found in online news sources that report on unaccompanied youths from Central America and Border Patrol/immigration officials in the U.S. Findings reveal verbal and visual metonymies that dehumanize and criminalize child migrants, while Border Patrol/immigration enforcement discourse creates WAR/WILD WEST metaphors that justify the militarization of the border. The significance of the study lies in showing how underlying conceptualizations of migrants by immigration and border control agencies help us understand the social imaginary which allows the government to garner public support for unjust policies and treatment of migrants.
    [Show full text]
  • Order Granting Preliminary Injunction
    IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION CENTRAL ALABAMA FAIR ) HOUSING CENTER, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. v. ) 2:11cv982-MHT ) (WO) JULIE MAGEE, in her ) official capacity as ) Alabama Revenue ) Commissioner, and ) JIMMY STUBBS, in his ) official capacity as ) Elmore County Probate ) Judge, ) ) Defendants. ) OPINION This lawsuit is a challenge to the application of § 30 of the Beason-Hammon Alabama Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act (commonly referred to as “HB 56”), 2011 Ala. Laws 535, which, when combined with another Alabama statute, essentially prohibits individuals who cannot prove their citizenship status from staying in their manufactured homes. The plaintiffs are the Central Alabama Fair Housing Center, the Fair Housing Center of Northern Alabama, the Center for Fair Housing, Inc., and two individuals proceeding under pseudonym as John Doe #1 and John Doe #2. The defendants are Julie Magee, in her official capacity as Alabama Revenue Commissioner, and Jimmy Stubbs, in his official capacity as Elmore County Probate Judge. The plaintiffs claim, among other things, that this application of HB 56 violates the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (as enforced through 42 U.S.C. § 1983) and the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”), 42 U.S.C. § 3604. The jurisdiction of the court has been invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. This as-applied challenge to HB 56 is now before the court on the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. As explained below, the motion will be granted. 2 I. BACKGROUND A. Passage of HB 56 In June 2011, the Alabama legislature passed a comprehensive and far-reaching state immigration law: HB 56.
    [Show full text]
  • Driver's Licenses, State ID, and Michigan Immigrants
    Driver’s Licenses, State ID, and Michigan Immigrants DRAFT Introduction Since 2008, Michigan has required applicants for driver’s licenses and state identification to provide proof of U.S. citizenship or immigration status. This change was part of a series of post-9/11 changes, and has had significant consequences for all Michiganders who use the roads. Ten states, plus the District of Columbia, have already changed their laws to permit some form of legal driving without proof of immigration status.1 States have chosen to restore access to driver’s licenses irrespective of immigration status to address significant economic and public safety-related challenges posed by greatly-increased numbers of unlicensed drivers, including reductions the agricultural workforce, exclusion from the insurance market, This report highlights the economic and safety benefits to all Michigan residents of expanding access to driver’s licenses for all otherwise-eligible Michigan drivers. Section One describes the legal background, the federal REAL ID Act and states’ relationship to it; Section Two explores potential benefits to the State of Michigan by allowing more individuals to be eligible for state driver’s licenses and identification cards; and Section Three states specific recommended changes to Michigan law. Section 1: Background A. Background of Michigan Driver’s Licenses & REAL ID Act Compliance Prior to 2008, Michigan law contained no requirement that an applicant for a driver’s license or state ID card needed a specific immigration or citizenship status in order to be eligible. Applicants did have to submit documents that were sufficient to prove identity and establish state residency.
    [Show full text]
  • Fixing Alabama's Public School Enrollment Requirements in H.B. 56: Eliminating Obstacles to an Education for Unauthorized Immigrant Children
    Brigham Young University Education and Law Journal Volume 2014 Number 2 Article 4 Summer 6-1-2014 Fixing Alabama's Public School Enrollment Requirements in H.B. 56: Eliminating Obstacles to an Education for Unauthorized Immigrant Children Sean Mussey Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/elj Part of the Education Commons, Education Law Commons, and the Immigration Law Commons Recommended Citation Sean Mussey, Fixing Alabama's Public School Enrollment Requirements in H.B. 56: Eliminating Obstacles to an Education for Unauthorized Immigrant Children, 2014 BYU Educ. & L.J. 233 (2014). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/elj/vol2014/iss2/4 . This Article is brought to you for free and open access by BYU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Brigham Young University Education and Law Journal by an authorized editor of BYU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Mussey Macro.docx (Do Not Delete) 5/28/14 3:45 PM FIXING ALABAMA’S PUBLIC SCHOOL ENROLLMENT REQUIREMENTS IN H.B. 56: ELIMINATING OBSTACLES TO AN EDUCATION FOR UNAUTHORIZED IMMIGRANT CHILDREN Sean Mussey∗ I. INTRODUCTION In 2011, Alabama enacted a comprehensive immigration law primarily aimed at addressing unauthorized immigration in the state.1 The Beason-Hammon Alabama Taxpayer Citizen and Protection Act (H.B. 56) impacts many areas of an unauthorized immigrant’s life, including law enforcement, transportation, housing, employment, and children’s participation in public schools.2
    [Show full text]
  • 42Genno44.Pdf
    U.S. Customs and Border Protection CBP Decisions [USCBP 2007–0061; CBP Dec. No. 08–26] RIN 1651–AA69 8 CFR Parts 212 and 235 DEPARTMENT OF STATE 22 CFR Parts 41 and 53 Documents Required for Travelers Departing From or Arriving in the United States at Sea and Land Ports-of-Entry From Within the Western Hemisphere AGENCIES: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security; Bureau of Consular Affairs, Department of State. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This rule finalizes the second phase of a joint Depart- ment of Homeland Security and Department of State plan, known as the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, to implement new docu- mentation requirements for U.S. citizens and certain nonimmigrant aliens entering the United States. This final rule details the docu- ments U.S. citizens1 and nonimmigrant citizens of Canada, Ber- muda, and Mexico will be required to present when entering the United States from within the Western Hemisphere at sea and land ports-of-entry. DATES: This final rule is effective on June 1, 2009. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Department of Homeland Security: Colleen Manaher, WHTI, Office of Field Operations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 1 ‘‘U.S. citizens’’ as used in this rule refers to both U.S. citizens and U.S. non-citizen na- tionals. 1 2 CUSTOMS BULLETIN AND DECISIONS, VOL. 42, NO. 44, OCTOBER 23, 2008 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room 5.4–D, Washington, DC 20229, telephone number (202) 344–1220. Department of State: Consuelo Pachon, Office of Passport Policy, Planning and Advisory Services, Bureau of Consular Affairs, tele- phone number (202) 663–2662.
    [Show full text]
  • REAL ID Act REAL ID Act and REAL ID
    REAL ID Act REAL ID Act and REAL ID Federal law . Enacted in 2005 . Establishes state-issued driver’s license and identification card standards . Regulated by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security . States will continue to issue their own unique licenses and maintain its own records. Current Minnesota Law CHAPTER 92–H.F. No. 988 (2009) An act relating to drivers' licenses; prohibiting commissioner of public safety from complying with Real ID Act. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA: Section 1. NONCOMPLIANCE WITH REAL ID ACT. The commissioner of public safety is prohibited from taking any action to implement or to plan for the implementation by this state of those sections of Public Law 109-13 known as the Real ID Act. EFFECTIVE DATE. This section is effective the day following final enactment. A REAL ID is now required for…. From the Dept. of Homeland Security: . “Starting October 10, visitors seeking access to military bases and almost all Federal facilities using their state- issued driver’s licenses or identification cards must present proper identification issued by REAL ID compliant states or a state that has received an extension.” . “When planning a visit to a Federal facility or military base, visitors should contact the facility to determine what identification will be accepted.” DHS Provides Updates on REAL ID Enforcement October 9, 2015 http://www.dhs.gov/news/2015/10/09/dhs-provides- updates-real-id-enforcement A REAL ID will be required for…. No sooner than 2016: . A REAL ID will be required to board a federally regulated commercial aircraft.
    [Show full text]
  • Breaking Down the Thousand Petty Fortresses of State Self-Deportation Laws
    Pace Law Review Volume 34 Issue 2 Spring 2014 Article 7 April 2014 The Right to Travel: Breaking Down the Thousand Petty Fortresses of State Self-Deportation Laws R. Linus Chan University of Minnesota Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/plr Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Immigration Law Commons, and the State and Local Government Law Commons Recommended Citation R. Linus Chan, The Right to Travel: Breaking Down the Thousand Petty Fortresses of State Self- Deportation Laws, 34 Pace L. Rev. 814 (2014) Available at: https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/plr/vol34/iss2/7 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at DigitalCommons@Pace. It has been accepted for inclusion in Pace Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Pace. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Right to Travel: Breaking Down the Thousand Petty Fortresses of State Self- Deportation Laws R. Linus Chan* Introduction The vanishing began Wednesday night, the most frightened families packing up their cars as soon as they heard the news. They left behind mobile homes, sold fully furnished for a thousand dollars or even less. Or they just closed up and, in a gesture of optimism, left the keys with a neighbor. Dogs were fed one last time; if no home could be found, they were simply unleashed. Two, [five], [ten] years of living here, and then gone in a matter of days, to Tennessee, Illinois, Oregon, Florida, Arkansas, Mexico—who knows? Anywhere but Alabama.1 This mass exodus from Albertville, Alabama was not the result of a natural disaster or fears of an invasion by hostile forces.
    [Show full text]
  • Barriers Along the U.S. Borders: Key Authorities and Requirements
    Barriers Along the U.S. Borders: Key Authorities and Requirements Updated January 27, 2017 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R43975 Barriers Along the U.S. Borders: Key Authorities and Requirements Summary Federal law authorizes the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to construct barriers along the U.S. borders to deter illegal crossings. DHS is also required to construct reinforced fencing along at least 700 miles of the land border with Mexico (a border that stretches 1,933 miles). Congress has not provided a deadline for DHS to meet this 700-mile requirement, and as of the date of this report, fencing would need to be deployed along nearly 50 additional miles to satisfy the 700-mile requirement. Nor has Congress provided guidelines regarding the specific characteristics of fencing or other physical barriers (e.g., their height or material composition) deployed along the border, beyond specifying that required fencing must be reinforced. The primary statute authorizing the deployment of fencing and other barriers along the international borders is Section 102 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA; P.L. 104-208, div. C). Congress made significant amendments to IIRIRA Section 102 through three enactments—the REAL ID Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-13, div. B), the Secure Fence Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-367), and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161, div. E). These amendments required DHS to construct hundreds of miles of new fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border, and they also gave the Secretary of DHS broad authority to waive “all legal requirements” that may impede construction of barriers and roads under IIRIRA Section 102.
    [Show full text]
  • The Anti-Immigrant Game
    Op-Ed The anti-immigrant game Laws such as Arizona's SB 1070 are not natural responses to undue hardship but are products of partisan politics. Opponents of SB 1070 raise their fists after unfurling an enormous banner from the beam of a 30-story high construction crane in downtown Phoenix, Arizona in 2010. If upheld, Arizona's SB 1070 would require local police in most circumstances to determine the immigration status of anyone they stop based only on a reasonable suspicion that the person is unlawfully in this country. (Los Angeles Times / April 23, 2012) By Pratheepan Gulasekaram and Karthick Ramakrishnan April 24, 2012 The Supreme Court hears oral arguments Wednesday on the constitutionality of Arizona's 2010 immigration enforcement law. If upheld, SB 1070 would require local police in most circumstances to determine the immigration status of anyone they stop based only on a reasonable suspicion that the person is unlawfully in this country. It would also compel residents to carry their immigration papers at all times and create state immigration crimes distinct from what is covered by federal law. A few other states, such as Alabama and Georgia, and some cities have passed similar laws, and many more may consider such laws if the Supreme Court finds Arizona's law to be constitutional. The primary legal debate in U.S. vs. Arizona will focus on the issue of whether a state government can engage in immigration enforcement without the explicit consent of the federal government. The state of Arizona will argue that its measure simply complements federal enforcement, while the federal government will argue that Arizona's law undermines national authority and that immigration enforcement is an exclusively federal responsibility.
    [Show full text]
  • State Versus Federal Government in the Regulation of Immigration: Examining the Constitutionality of Arizona and Alabama’S Immigration Laws
    San Jose State University SJSU ScholarWorks Master's Projects Master's Theses and Graduate Research Spring 2012 State Versus Federal Government in the Regulation of Immigration: Examining the Constitutionality of Arizona and Alabama’s Immigration Laws Sadaf Siddiq San Jose State University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/etd_projects Part of the Public Administration Commons Recommended Citation Siddiq, Sadaf, "State Versus Federal Government in the Regulation of Immigration: Examining the Constitutionality of Arizona and Alabama’s Immigration Laws" (2012). Master's Projects. 220. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31979/etd.dkd2-qf4w https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/etd_projects/220 This Master's Project is brought to you for free and open access by the Master's Theses and Graduate Research at SJSU ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Projects by an authorized administrator of SJSU ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Siddiq 1 State Versus Federal Government in the Regulation of Immigration: Examining the Constitutionality of Arizona and Alabama’s Immigration Laws San Jose State University Master’s of Public Administration Program By: Sadaf Siddiq Advisor: Professor Kenneth Nuger Siddiq 2 Introduction Immigration issues have caused great debate amongst community members. In particular lawmakers, politicians, interest groups, and civil rights activists have been vocal in voicing their concerns. It is estimated that there are currently ten to eleven million undocumented immigrants in the United States (Immigration Policy Center, 2010). Immigration issues arise from concerns regarding the insufficient number of visas that are available to bring both high and less skilled workers into the country legally to meet the changing needs of the country’s economy and labor market, separation of family members, wage and workplace violations, and lack of an efficient government infrastructure that delays the integration of immigrants who seek to become citizens (Immigration Policy Center, 2010).
    [Show full text]
  • REAL ID Act List of Acceptable Forms of Identification
    REAL ID Act List of Acceptable Forms of Identification The following information is extracted from REAL ID Act of 2005 Implementation: An Interagency Security Committee Guide. It is intended to provide options for consideration regarding acceptable forms of identification. For access to Sandia-controlled premises, DOE is the authority for determining which identification documents are acceptable, and not all of the documents below may necessarily be approved by DOE. This list is neither authoritative nor exhaustive and is subject to change at any time in accordance with DOE direction. 1) Federally-issued Identification a. U.S. Passport b. U.S. Passport Card c. PIV or Federally-issued Personal Identification Verification – Interoperable (PIV-I) Cards d. Driver’s License issued by the U.S. Department of State e. Border Crossing Card (Form DSP-150) f. DHS “Trusted Traveler” Cards (Global Entry, NEXUS, SENTRI, FAST) g. U.S. Military ID (all members of the U.S. Armed Forces [including retirees and dependent ID card holders]) and veterans. h. Veterans Health Identification Card issued by the U. S. Department of Veterans Affairs i. U.S. Permanent Resident Card (Form I-551) j. U.S. Certificate of Naturalization or Certificate of Citizenship (Form N-550) k. Employment Authorization Document issued by DHS (Form I-766) l. U.S. Refugee Travel Document or other travel document or evidence of immigration status issued by DHS containing a photograph (Permit to Re-enter Form I-327 and Refugee Travel Document Form I-571) m. Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) n. Merchant Mariner Card issued by DHS/United States Coast Guard (USCG) 2) State-issued Identification o.
    [Show full text]
  • Integration of the Sudanese Lost Boys in Kansas City Area
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by K-State Research Exchange LOST AND FOUND: DIFFERENT INTEGRATION PATTERNS OF THE SUDANESE LOST BOYS LIVING IN KANSAS CITY AREA AFTER RESETTLEMENT. by DANVAS OGETO MABEYA B.A., United States International University-Africa, 1997 M.A., United States International University-Africa, 2001 M.A., Kansas State University, 2004 AN ABSTRACT OF A DISSERTATION submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Sociology, Anthropology and Social Work College of Arts and Sciences KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY Manhattan, Kansas 2011 Abstract The United States has resettled unaccompanied minors before. In the 1960s and 1970s, minors from Indochina were resettled in the United States. In the 1970s, the U.S accepted 14,000 unaccompanied minors from Cuba through Operation Peter Pan. Many of these Cuban minors, aged five to eighteen, were sent to the United States by parents fearing their children would be indoctrinated in communist schools. In the case of these minors, they arrived in the United States with the consent of their still-living family members. In contrast, about 3,500 Sudanese Lost Boys were resettled in the United States in 2000, and more recently in 2010, 53 “lost children” from Haiti were brought to the United States following a devastating earthquake. This study investigated the integration and assimilation patterns of the Sudanese Lost Boys in the Kansas City area with the purpose of understanding the sociological impact on these Boys from their own perspective. As opposed to previous studies done on these Boys in Kansas and other areas in the United States, the present study used interview-based research and analyzed data using both qualitative and quantitative research methodologies.
    [Show full text]