Committee Reports for the Texas Society, Sons of the American Revolution October 13 - 15, 2017 Board of Managers meeting.

None

The purpose of this report is to provide information needed by the DOE to assess WIPP's environmental performance and to make WIPP environmental information available to stakeholders and members of the public. This report has been prepared in accordance with DOE Order 231.1A and DOE guidance. This report documents WIPP's environmental monitoring programs and their results for 2004. The WIPP Project is authorized by the DOE National Security and Military Applications of Nuclear Energy Authorization Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-164). After more than 20 years of scientific study and public input, WIPP received its first shipment of waste on March 26, 1999. Located in southeastern New Mexico, WIPP is the nation's first underground repository permitted to safely and permanently dispose of TRU radioactive and mixed waste (as defined in the WIPP LWA) generated through defense activities and programs. TRU waste is defined, in the WIPP LWA, as radioactive waste containing more than 100 nanocuries (3,700 becquerels [Bq]) of alpha-emitting TRU isotopes per gram of waste, with half-lives greater than 20 years except for high-level waste, waste that has been determined not to require the degree of isolation required by the disposal regulations, and waste the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission …

This report has three major sections. The first section answers some basic questions about Bitcoin and the operation of the Bitcoin network and its interaction with the current dollar-based monetary system. The second section summarizes likely reasons for and against widespread Bitcoin adoption. The third section discusses legal and regulatory matters that have been raised by Bitcoin and other digital currencies.

This report discusses recent development and background issues, superfund issues, revenue issues, comprehensive reauthorization, and legislation regarding superfund program.

A letter report issued by the Government Accountability Office with an abstract that begins "Every year, food stamp recipients exchange hundreds of millions of dollars in benefits for cash instead of food with retailers across the country, a practice known as trafficking. From 2000 to 2005, the Food Stamp Program has grown from $15 billion to $29 billion in benefits. During this period of time, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) replaced paper food stamp coupons with electronic benefit transfer (EBT) cards that work much like a debit card at the grocery checkout counter. Given these program changes and continuing retailer fraud, GAO was asked to provide information on (1) what is known about the extent and nature of retailer food stamp trafficking, (2) the efforts of federal agencies to combat such trafficking, and (3) program vulnerabilities. To do this, GAO interviewed agency officials, visited 10 field offices, conducted case file reviews, and analyzed data from the FNS retailer database."

This report examines debates over what constitutes an unfunded federal mandate and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act's (UMRA's) implementation. It focuses on UMRA's requirement that CBO issue written cost estimate statements for federal mandates in legislation, its procedures for raising points of order in the House and Senate concerning unfunded federal mandates in legislation, and its requirement that federal agencies prepare written cost estimate statements for federal mandates in rules. It also assesses UMRA's impact on federal mandates and arguments concerning UMRA's future, focusing on UMRA's definitions, exclusions, and exceptions that currently exempt many federal actions with potentially significant financial impacts on nonfederal entities. An examination of the rise of unfunded federal mandates as a national issue and a summary of UMRA's legislative history are provided in Appendix A. Citations to UMRA points of order raised in the House and Senate are provided in Appendix B.

This report focuses on the United States' relationship with Iran and how the Obama Administration is handling prior administration's economic sanctions against Iran. The Obama Administration's policy approach toward Iran has contrasted with the Bush Administration's by attempting to couple the imposition of sanctions to an active and direct U.S. effort to negotiate with Iran on the nuclear issue. That approach was not initially altered because of the Iranian dispute over its June 12, 2009, elections. However, with subsequent negotiations yielding no firm Iranian agreement to compromise, since early 2010 the Administration has focused on achieving the imposition of additional U.N., U.S., and allied country sanctions whose cumulative effect would be to compel it to accept a nuclear bargain.